STILL Missing the Point

 Not sure if I should be gratified, surprised or disappointed, but it is interesting to see how my one letter to the editor of The Valley Voice back in February seems to STILL have legs and how yet one more response STILL misses the point.

My original letter appeared in  The Valley Voice on February 23.  I wrote two posts about it, here, and here, the latter after being attacked by Mr Joyce.  In the intervening time, there have been one or two letters nearly every two weeks about this whole kerfuffle, on both sides of the aisle.

Once again, in the April 20th edition of The Valley Voice, yet another missive, this one from a Kris Wheeler (read it on page 5).

First, he claims that Mr Joyce's original article was merely a call for more study and better information about the adverse effects of vaccines on some people.  Mr Joyce's article did nothing of the kind.  It attempted to push, once again, illegitimate claims of serious harm caused by vaccines.  What Mr Wheeler seems not to know is that ANY adverse reactions to vaccines ARE recorded and examined, carefully, to determine if there is anything that might raise alarms.  Mr Wheeler uses wiggly words in phrases like "...the possibly vastly under-reported cases of negative vaccine reactions." and "If what Mr Joyce says is true...".  Exactly.  If anything that Mr Joyce said were true, then possibly there would be cause for alarm.  Unfortunately for Mr Joyce and Mr Wheeler, neither of their contentions are true and the facts prove it. 

Then, Mr Wheeler goes on to claim that the unvaxxed are NOT anti-vaccine.  Huh.  Prove it.  And, just for the record, the COVID vaccines were NOT mandatory.  It is true that some people needed to be vaccinated to occupy certain jobs, but many jobs have requirements and if one chooses not to meet those requirements, then it's pretty clear that one needs to look for a different job.  I'm particularly thinking of healthcare workers here, people who work closely with medically compromised patients.  Yes, they should be vaccinated and they should have a certain level of training.  Why should they not?  And if Mr Wheeler is possibly thinking of truckers who weren't allowed into Canada if they were unvaccinated, he should know that the US (and most other countries) had similar requirements.  Perhaps he should take his complaint to the United Nations.

Finally, Mr Wheeler moves on to what he sees as my outrage and my insistence that in order for him to know "the truth" he must consult a website (ie: my blog).  I'm not certain where he got the impression that I was outraged, but the antics of the anti-vaxx cult are certainly puzzling, disappointing and frustrating.  And if Mr Wheeler feels demeaned by an invitation to read further (ie: my blog or a whole host of reputable sites), then  it might explain why he knows so little about vaccines, the virus and public health.  Perhaps if he read "websites" a bit more, especially ones that present accurate information, he might learn something.

My point was that The Valley Voice has, over the past 3 years, given a disproportionate amount of space to articles with an anti-vaccine leaning.  In fact, I'm not aware of a single article in all that time that laid out the benefits of getting vaccinated.  Perhaps there was a small one that I missed?  As well, in the Voices from the Valley section, where contributors are cautioned to keep their articles short, I've noticed that some of the most long-winded and inaccurate that get space every edition are all against vaccines, public health directives and masks and go to great lengths to try and claim that the pandemic was a hoax and that all those people didn't actually die from the virus.  If my article had attempted to include a decent amount of information in rebuttal to Mr Joyce's article, it would have been refused because of length.  THAT's what I was referring to when I claimed that vaccines and their supporters can't get a "decent hearing" in The Valley Voice.  I stick to that claim.  Prove me wrong.

STILL Going on About Masks

 

Talk about not being able to let go.  

In the most recent edition of The Valley Voice, March 9th. 2023, page 5, is yet ANOTHER letter to the editor complaining about masks.  You know, the masks we were encouraged to wear for a time during the pandemic?  The masks some still wear when inside where there are many other people?

The mandates are over, although if you visit a hospital or a medical clinic, you will have to wear one, so I wonder why these people can't just let it go.  The masks had a purpose, they helped a certain amount in limiting the spread of a number of viruses and they weren't invasive at all.

What made me take notice were two seemingly contradictory claims made in the letter, separated only by a couple of paragraphs.  So, some numbers.  Bear with me.

The Numbers:

First, the writer claims that masks trap "hazardously high levels of CO2, thereby restricting available oxygen....  It is very hazardous to re-inhale your exhaled carbon dioxide."  The writer claims levels of 40,000 ppm within minutes accompanied by a drop in measured oxygen levels.

This notion has been refuted by any number of studies.  Here is a small selection:

Inhaled CO2 concentration while wearing face masks....

Does wearing a face mask reduce oxygen.. ..

Do face masks make you retain carbon dioxide?

Most of the articles that I looked at didn't show there was much of a problem, but it's been a topic that's received quite a bit of attention over the past couple of years.

Later in the same letter, the writer claims that masks are ineffective because the coronaviruses are too small.  He notes that the virus is around 0.2 microns (micrometers) in size, whereas the mask openings are between 2-10 microns.  He wavers between calling them surgical and cloth masks, so it's not quite clear which one he really dislikes, but it's probably safe to say he dismisses both as a means of controlling virus transmission.

So, there we are.  Masks, according to the writer and his expert, trap CO2 molecules.  Carbon dioxide molecules are 0.33 nm (nanometers) in diameter, according to my quick Google search.  (Remember that there are 1000 nm in a micrometer, also known as a micron).  So CO2 molecules are 0.33 nm in diameter, which is 0.00033 micrometers.

The viruses are around 0.2 micrometers (which is 200 nanometers) and the mask openings are between 2-10 micrometers (between 2000 and 10,000 nanometers) and the CO2 molecules are 0.33 nanometers in diameter.  

It's worth noting that the water droplets we exhale (on which the viruses actually float around), are between 20 and 2000 micrometers in size (20,000 nanometers to 2,000,000 nanometers).

The Contradiction:

There's something strange going on here, so let's put everything in a list so they can be compared more easily.  My list will go from smallest to largest, giving the size first in nm and then the equivalent in micrometers.  I've highlighted the commonly used measurement for each item because it's easy to get confused because of the very different scale in sizes involved.

• CO2 Molecules - 0.33 nanometers (0.00033 micrometers)
• SARS Viruses - 200 nanometers (0.2 micrometers)
• Mask openings - 2000 to 10,000 nanometers (2 to 10 micrometers)
• many bacteria - 5000 to 10,000 nanometers (5-10 micrometers) in length.
• Exhaled H2O droplets - 20,000 to 2,000,000 nanometers (20 to 2000 micrometers)

Remember, once again, the viruses don't generally float around on their own.  They're carried on water droplets that we exhale as we breathe or talk or sneeze.

The contradiction that struck me is the claim that masks would trap CO2 but won't trap virus particles, with the writer forgetting that it's the water droplets on which the viruses are carried that we're trying to capture.

The foolishness of such a claim is astounding.

At a very, very rough calculation, exhaled water droplets with their little viruses are around 1.5 MILLION times larger than CO2 molecules, give or take quite a bit, given the range in sizes.  And yet the writer is claiming the mask will trap CO2 but won't trap the viruses (which are carried on water droplets).   Let that sink in a bit.

And There's More:

I don't know if the writer of the letter is aware of things like Artificial Respiration (or Mouth-to-Mouth, if you prefer).  This is where you literally blow into another person's mouth to get them breathing again.  The writer claims that "...it's very hazardous to re-inhale your exhaled carbon dioxide."  So why do they bother teaching AR if it's so hazardous?

I also wonder if the writer is aware that many medical personnel wear masks for quite long periods of time, often while performing complex surgeries and other procedures.  Honestly, if I had realized that my surgeon was going to be anoxic within 2 minutes, I would certainly think twice about ever submitting to surgery.

He also goes on to worry about the perfect environment for bacterial growth inside a mask, where it is warm and moist.  Now there ARE some mild areas for concern here.  Masks DO trap bacteria, both exhaled AND from the surrounding air.  This study from a hospital in Bangkok found microbial contamination on both sides of used masks, with the outsides being several times greater than on the inside.  I would say that the take home messages here would be to discard the masks occasionally, don't take used masks and chew on them, don't rub used masks in your eyes, but discard of them as you would any hazardous waste.  OR, you could just wash them in a solution of warm water and soap and hang them up to dry.

I'd also suggest that this last study indicates pretty clearly that you have more to worry about from the bacteria OUTSIDE in the air outside your body than the bacteria INSIDE you.  After all, your body probably has come to a temporary truce with the bacteria inside your body, but it  might not be able to handle those from someone else quite as well.  It also shows that masks work in preventing bacterial transmission.  So there is that.  Just for reference, most bacteria are 1-2 micrometers in diameter and 5-10 micrometers long., so they're roughly in the same size range as the openings in the masks.

So where and how did the writer come to these conclusions?  From the current narrative of the anti-mask adherents and the pages of a publication called Common Ground.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

It's (Not) All About Us

 

I've seen this meme before.  Just saw it again the other day.

I have some concerns.

First, there certainly is a problem in Canada with ALL of the things mentioned.  Homelessness, poverty, child poverty, hunger, mental health problems, services for veterans, and so on.

My observation is simply this: We don't fund those things nearly well enough because there isn't the political will to do so.  And the reason there isn't the political will is because Canadians don't elect politicians who say they will DO something about those problems.  Why not?  Because those are problems experienced by "other people".  Not us.  Them.

People are poor, we are told, because they are lazy.  People have mental health issues because they are weak.  And we certainly don't want to address any issues that make us uncomfortable.  And on it goes.

So those "billions" we donate to other countries......

Canada donates approximately 0.31% of Gross National Income to Foreign Aid.  That's not very impressive when compared to many other wealthy countries.  In fact, of about 12 relatively high-income countries (some much smaller than us), only Italy and the US contribute less.

You can read more about Foreign Aid here:

So why should we donate to countries that are so less fortunate than we are?  Because it's the right thing to do?  Yes, but also because it's in our self-interest to do so.  The reality is that when people are impoverished, angry, resentful, potentially violent or crazy and you don't offer them any other options, quite often those are the choices they make.

And many of those other countries?  The reason why so many of them are poor is clearly because of us (the wealthy west) - we exploited their resources when we found it convenient.  We exploited their cheap labour so we could have cheap consumer goods.  We've meddled in their governments.  And when they try to leave the hell-holes they're living in, we build walls to keep them out and whine about immigrants.  Immigrants who know how to work and would contribute to Canada IF they were given half a chance.

You can read more about Immigration here.

Canada.  We can do better.

Doubling Down on a Dangerous Narrative

 

I seem to have struck a nerve.

A couple of weeks ago, an article (a REAL article, not just a Letter to the Editor) written by Art Joyce, appeared in a local paper, The Valley Voice.  That article can be read in its entirety here, on page 16.

The Valley Voice February 9th 2023

I responded with a brief letter, pointing out how inaccurate and misleading his article was

My letter can be seen here, on page 4  The Valley Voice, February 23, 2023  and a more lengthy response was posted on my blog.   That article can be seen here: A Falsely Dangerous Narrative.  Some explanations cannot be made in 2 paragraph snippets, especially when The Valley Voice makes a disproportionate amount of space available to anything coming from the anti-vaccine and anti-science community.

 The following week, Mr Joyce responds.  His response can be seen here:  The Valley Voice, March 9, 2023, page 5

Mr Joyce makes several claims.  One is that I "... didn't address even one of the points ..." in his article.  In fact, I addressed ALL of them.  Apparently Mr Joyce didn't actually READ my comments.  He then goes on to appeal to authority - he's written X number of books and articles over 30 years as a journalist - and then appeals to science - what could be more scientific than references to VAERS, a bunch of footnotes and some random names with Dr in front of them?  I have no comment about Mr Joyce's other works.  They could be great.  I'm just saying that this particular article is nonsense.

Here's the thing, Mr Joyce.  I addressed every single one of your points.  Every. Single. One.  Did you address mine?  No.  And just because you include references to a database in a pretense of using "science" doesn't mean you've been able to draw any useful conclusions from it.  This is like owning an electron microscope and having no idea how to use it.  Owning the microscope doesn't make you an expert in electron microscopy. You might impress some people because you own such a device, but if you don't know how to use it...., well, you're just another schmuck with your own personal dust collector.

Mr Joyce then goes on to dig in a bit deeper by mentioning, once again, the people he called on in his original article to support his stand.  It bears mentioning that just repeating something that was unhelpful or misleading to begin with does nothing to make it more helpful, or truthful.  The fact is, ALL the people he mentions are generally well-known for their stand against vaccines and the kind of public health actions that we saw over the past 3 years.  I'm sure they have their reasons for believing what they do, just as children have reasons to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.  Eventually, one just has to learn how to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Mr Joyce goes on to mention, once again, someone who seems to be one his pet sources, a certain Dr Naomi Wolf.  I will have to admit not knowing much about Ms Wolf.  She was one of the earlier pioneers in the Feminist movement, along with people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan.  So far, so good.  In more recent years, however, Ms Wolf seems to have had an epiphany, and not a good kind.  Increasingly, she's been viewed this way: (from Naomi Wolf - Wikipedia)

Since around 2014, Wolf has been described, by journalists and media outlets, as a conspiracy theorist.^[a] She has received criticism for promoting misinformation on topics such as beheadings carried out by ISIS, the Western African Ebola virus epidemic and Edward Snowden.^[7][8][9]

She has objected to COVID-19 lockdowns and has criticized COVID-19 vaccines.^[10][11] In June 2021, her Twitter account was suspended for posting anti-vaccine misinformation.^[12]

As I mentioned before, Ms Wolf has a PhD in Philosophy.  This doesn't qualify her in any field related to medicine, virology, pharmacology, immunology or really anything related to the pandemic.  Even in her later writings, she's come under increasing criticism, with comments like "... a "silly book" containing "much dubious neuroscience and much foolishness."

Ms Wolf could very well have "a team" or "researchers", but we can see pretty clearly what her team is looking for.  I wouldn't give it much credence.

In a final (one hopes) parting shot, Mr Joyce tosses in the name of one girl who was supposedly "injured" by the Pfizer vaccine.  It's difficult to find much credible information on this incident.  I'm discounting YouTube videos and anything from known anti-vaxx cultists, but I was able to find ONE article that described the situation.  That article, from November 2021, mentions that:

The mother of the girl and the group behind the ad have not provided any evidence that the girl was diagnosed as harmed by a Covid-19 vaccine.

We all should know by now that people CAN react adversely to vaccines, just as they can from any medical procedure.  Many people can also react adversely to viruses, and many die.  The question is what is the risk vs reward ratio?  The anti-vaccine industry is going to great lengths to claim that "thousands" (or is it millions?) have died, had heart attacks, strokes, Bell's Palsy and all manner of other outcomes from being vaccinated with what they call "experimental mRNA vaccines".  

These are the vaccines that have been administered to billions of people around the world.  They've been studied and under development for close to 20 years.  They're new, certainly.  Their approach is revolutionary.  Expect to see them being used to treat other conditions.  Calling them "experimental" at this state is a bit of a stretch.

Despite all this, I'm grateful to Mr Joyce for bringing, once again, his opinions into view again.  It makes it quite clear where he has decided to hang his hat.

The Origins of COVID-19

 

I'm still trying to understand why this matters to so many people, but the issue of where the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from has galvanized discussion among scientists, intelligence agencies and, of course, the anti-vaxx community for approximately 3 years.

There are two main theories out there, as likely everyone knows by now.  I use the word theories but I'm not even certain that's the right word.  In science, the word theory has a special meaning, specifically a  possible explanation based on supporting evidence.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide which explanation (s) meet that definition.

The Field Museum presents a clear definition of what theory means in science:

A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

 As I said, there are two possible explanations out there:

1) The virus jumped from wild animals to humans at a so-called "wet market" in Wuhan, China.

2) The virus leaked from a lab, also in Wuhan, China.

In recent days, the whole debate has been ignited again with comments from the FBI and other American intelligence agencies.  It seems likely that many people have latched onto these recent reports because they have always been convinced that the virus emerged as the result of a lab accident.  

This article from NPR covers the main discussion points quite well:

What does the science say about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Virologist Angela Rasmussen, who contributed to one of the Science papers, says the DOE's "low confident" conclusion doesn't "negate the affirmative evidence for zoonotic [or animal] origin nor do they add any new information in support of lab origin."

"Many other [news] outlets are presenting this as new conclusive proof that the lab origin hypothesis is equally as plausible as the zoonotic origin hypothesis," Rasmussen wrote in an email to NPR, "and that is a misrepresentation of the evidence for either."

One of the actual scientific publications referred to in that article can be seen here.

Their "One-Sentence Summary" says (and I paraphrase): Geographical clustering of the earliest known cases and the proximity of positive environmental samples to live animal vendors suggest that the Wuhan Market was the site of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One

sentence

summary:

Geographical

clustering

of

the

earliest

known

COVID-19

cases

and

the

proximity

of

positive

environmental

samples

to

live-animal

vendors

suggest

that

the

Huanan

Seafood

Wholesale

Market

in

Wuhan

was

the

site

of origin of the COVID-19 pandemic

One

sentence

summary:

Geographical

clustering

of

the

earliest

known

COVID-19

cases

and

the

proximity

of

positive

environmental

samples

to

live-animal

vendors

suggest

that

the

Huanan

Seafood

Wholesale

Market

in

Wuhan

was

the

site

of origin of the COVID-19 pandemic

This article from the Rand Corporation is a bit dated (from June 2021), but briefly mentions the main possibilities.

It seems the debate will continue and might never be conclusively resolved.  But some adherents on both sides of the issue seem to have a point to make, so I'm sure the matter won't go away any time soon.

The Laws of Natural Selection are Still in Efect

 

I almost hate to bring this up at a time when around 400 Americans (and about 25 Canadians) are still dying from this virus EACH DAY.  That's an annualized rate of around 150,000 in the USA and about 9500 in Canada.  As an interesting aside, note that Canada's rate is approximately half the rate in the USA, taking into account the sizes of our respective populations.  Note also that, in a normal flu season, approximately 3500 Canadians will die from the effects of that virus.

However, a quick look at a very simple graph comes courtesy of Our World in Data.  If you follow the link and pass your cursor over the lines, you can clearly see that unvaccinated people are dying from this virus at a rate that is approximately 5 to 7 times greater than ANY vaccinated people, whether they've had a bivalent booster or not.  I'm really not sure how that data could be interpreted in any other way.

Natural Selection is still at work, weeding out the weak, the less agile, the less intelligent, the less careful, one at a time.  Ignore Biology at your peril.

The Pfizer Papers (?)

 

Continuing their long-standing practice of jumping on ANYTHING that they think might sow fear, the anti-vaxxers have recently jumped on a number of documents that were released related to the clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine.

The Claims:

There are a multitude of claims made by the anti-vaxx "community".  Here are some:

• Pfizer was trying to hide 80,000 pages of clinical trial data.
• Pfizer wanted to seal those documents for 75 years.
• Those documents show only a 12% efficacy rate
• The vaccine harms fetuses and trials weren't done on pregnant women.
• and so on....

What do we know?

Pfizer did not attempt to seal "those documents" for 75 years.  In fact, the documents weren't even in the hands of Pfizer.  Following the clinical trials, the documents were turned over to the FDA for evaluation.

The delay in releasing those "documents" had to do with all the personal data contained therein.  The FDA was claiming that redacting all that personal data was going to take time (likely in the range of 5 years, realistically), but the anti-vaxxers immediately started talking about 50 years, or 75 years, or whatever.  Neither the courts not the FDA mentioned 75 years.  That only came from groups trying to create an issue when there wasn't one to begin with.

This article explains a number of salient points:

Did Pfizer Try To Hide 158K Vax Adverse Events for 75 Years?

The differences in efficacy numbers seems to come from this:

Fact-Check - Pfizer Documents do not show that COVID-19 vaccine has 12% efficacy

It seems to be a difference between "confirmed" COVID cases or "suspected".  Clearly, it makes better sense to use confirmed cases, partly because COVID does share a number of symptoms with other diseases, like the flu, colds, and so on.  

As for pregnant women, it is true that the initial clinical trials did not include them.  There was, however, substantial information that pregnancy put women at a higher risk of serious outcomes from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  Any pregnant women with other conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension or obesity, were at an even higher risk.  So initially, it was believed that pregnant women would benefit from being vaccinated, as was the case with pretty much everyone else.

This article from the New England Journal of Medicine addresses mRNA vaccines and pregnancies.

Note that the article dates from June 2021.  Much more information is available now than was available then.  This article from Johns Hopkins in February 2022 takes another look.

In fact, if anyone is really interested in studies on COVID and COVID vaccines related to pregnant women, this study from Trends in Molecular Medicine in May 2022 is useful.  It's somewhat technical, but there are clear language statements here and there that convey the important take-home message.  The introduction is as follows:

COVID-19 during pregnancy is associated with a higher risk of stillbirth and preterm birth.

The current COVID-19 vaccines were not tested in pregnant women in the initial clinical trials, but information on their safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness has been generated from observational studies.

No major safety concerns on the use of mainly the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women have been identified.

Pregnant women mount immune responses to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines comparable to non-pregnant counterparts.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are detected in cord blood following maternal vaccination at concentrations that strongly correlated with both maternal antibody levels and the time elapsed since vaccination.

Vaccination of pregnant women with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to be effective in protecting the women against disease.

More detailed explanations appear in the body of the article.

Notwithstanding all the good information available, I have zero hope that the anti-vaxx community will look for anything that might run counter to their beliefs.