It’s an ongoing and active area of discussion and there’s no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but I find the polarisation of views and the apparent reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue somewhat disconcerting, I must admit. Martin Neil, Jessica Hockett, Jonathan Engler and Norman Fenton have co-authored an article published on the excellent Where Are The Numbers? Substack. Martin Neil is the main author of the analysis.
In 2019, my boss (68 years old, many co-morbidities) had a cough for a couple of weeks and I repeatedly urged him to go a doctor to make sure it wasn't pneumonia, which he eventually did, and it was indeed pneumonia. He had had it in years past as well.
In 2020 when he contracted covid, I can still see and hear him telling me, 'I have never felt anything like this before'. There is no doubt in my mind covid is not simply misdiagnosed pneumonia.
Over my seven+ decades I have quite a number of respiratory illness of various severity, the covid was the only one that destroyed my sense of smell and my balance.
I should add that your posts are always welcome on WATN whether you agree or disagree. WATN isn't part of any movement and is simply seeking to pose interesting hypotheses and seeking answers to scientific and statistical questions.
Personally when I like a post I do so because I appreciate the input; it isn't a sign of endorsement. Other authors may have different criteria but I don't think they are using them as a way to signal approval or disapproval. People should make their own minds up, as you do, and that is most welcome.
It's a plausible argument. The 1918 epidemic was definitely pneumococcal pneumonia. Viruses were not well understood at the time but bacteria were, and pathologists were seeing plenty of bacteria in the cases they examined.
It is entirely plausible that many 'Covid deaths' were in fact misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia, especially those patients put on mechanical ventilators. What I was suggesting is that even so, Covid-19/ARDS is clinically distinct from typical ARDS and is real. But Allen appears to be a SARS-CoV-2 virus denying absolutist who objected to that suggestion.
One of the pieces of evidence which - for me - suggests that the "uniquness" of a disease caused by a virus called SARS-CoV-2 may be questionable is that fact that - despite plenty of evidence of significant global spread prior to the declaration that a novel disease was afoot - nothing was written AT THE TIME, anywhere, about unusual disease entities popping up (except for in the few places which drove the narrative), nor were there any excess deaths recorded.
The excess deaths and "unusualness" of the illness only commence where and when the hysteria and panic kicks in.
This propensity for observer / confirmation bias to distort the purported features of a "novel" virus - only to be corrected years later by more sober analysis - is not unique to SARS-CoV-2.
It happened with H1N1. The covid event is uncannily similar to the H1N1 epidemic narrative, but with the most important plot hole (lack of deaths) "fixed".
I can't explain why a novel clinical pathology was not identified prior to November/December 2019 when there is evidence that the SARs-CoV-2 virus was around in autumn 2019 and causing 'odd' symptomatic (but mild) infections. I can hazard a guess that severe Covid-19 was so rare that it was probably misdiagnosed as 'flu or pneumonia and that it continued to be rare even after the official declaration of the pandemic, causing very few actual deaths. I agree that excess deaths in most or even all countries were caused by the outrageous, irresponsible, unethical, immoral and unscientific response to Covid, not Covid itself. Even severe Covid was treatable with the right drugs (which were banned). It is plausible therefore to suppose that Covid-19 pneumonia is real and distinct from bacterial pneumonia, but that so few people are susceptible (prior to 'vaccination' at least) to this novel disease that it does not cause excess deaths. The fact that the average age of Covid mortality was greater than the average life span in many countries lends support to this supposition.
Maybe they were talking about NYC cases? Which all appear to be a result of medical malpractice? not about Covid....i dont know I would have to read it, but Hockett is soley focused on the NYC "bomb".
Not exclusively. The widespread use of ventilators in NYC is put forward as an example, but so also is Bergamo in Italy, contrasted with their limited use in Germany. I've no doubt at all that the use of ventilators caused many deaths which were attributed to 'Covid' and probably that a the primary cause of a significant proportion of these deaths was bacterial pneumonia. But still, that does not preclude the possibility that Covid-19 pneumonia was/is a rare, unique disease, with a unique clinical pathology, in certain vulnerable individuals.
Those that were fooled and afraid NEED the “Covid” pneumonia to be unique and “new”. Otherwise many people were killed by not treating the pneumonia with centuries of proven techniques like getting the patient up, moving, sunshine, fresh air and potentially antibiotics in extreme cases.
How many unnecessary deaths because of the lies? Remember a dry cough became a way to “assume/diagnose Covid” in the absence of a test result.
I'm sure there are some people who take comfort in believing that Covid-19 was a unique respiratory disease. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean it wasn't.
Since I can’t prove or disprove your reply, I must default to my personal experience over “reporting on the web “. In my city and surrounding neighborhoods and towns, no unique disease was evident.
I would guess that could be extrapolated to other areas where people don’t get their information online.
It seems to me that this is a debate that cannot be resolved with just the evidence and knowledge that are currently available. It is a scientific debate but the complexity of the problem means that no one can have anything like a definitive picture of what's going on. So opinions proliferate and positions are taken. This is not new in scientific debates!
For myself, I'm happy to see people debating the issues and arguments rather than relying on 'authority'. Allen seems like an abrasive character so don't take it personally. The use of ad hominem insults is unfortunate and that deserves an apology.
BTW your reply to 'Allen the Assertive' is blank on my browser.
Can't explain why you're not seeing the screenshot on your browser Jim. Try a different browser maybe?
I don't take Allen's response personally; I'm really used to such responses now after years of debating issues online. Water off a duck's back. But what I find disconcerting is that his OTT response was liked and endorsed by the authors of that Substack.
In 2019, my boss (68 years old, many co-morbidities) had a cough for a couple of weeks and I repeatedly urged him to go a doctor to make sure it wasn't pneumonia, which he eventually did, and it was indeed pneumonia. He had had it in years past as well.
In 2020 when he contracted covid, I can still see and hear him telling me, 'I have never felt anything like this before'. There is no doubt in my mind covid is not simply misdiagnosed pneumonia.
Absolutely agree.
Over my seven+ decades I have quite a number of respiratory illness of various severity, the covid was the only one that destroyed my sense of smell and my balance.
Neither has totally recovered.
Covid was entirely different to any of them.
Brilliant - many thanks!
I should add that your posts are always welcome on WATN whether you agree or disagree. WATN isn't part of any movement and is simply seeking to pose interesting hypotheses and seeking answers to scientific and statistical questions.
Personally when I like a post I do so because I appreciate the input; it isn't a sign of endorsement. Other authors may have different criteria but I don't think they are using them as a way to signal approval or disapproval. People should make their own minds up, as you do, and that is most welcome.
Thanks for the clarification.
Hi. I am actually the main author. Would you mind changing the attribution to reflect the fact that there are four authors and WATN isn't hosting?
Many thanks
Hello Martin,
I'll do that right now.
It's a plausible argument. The 1918 epidemic was definitely pneumococcal pneumonia. Viruses were not well understood at the time but bacteria were, and pathologists were seeing plenty of bacteria in the cases they examined.
It is entirely plausible that many 'Covid deaths' were in fact misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia, especially those patients put on mechanical ventilators. What I was suggesting is that even so, Covid-19/ARDS is clinically distinct from typical ARDS and is real. But Allen appears to be a SARS-CoV-2 virus denying absolutist who objected to that suggestion.
One of the pieces of evidence which - for me - suggests that the "uniquness" of a disease caused by a virus called SARS-CoV-2 may be questionable is that fact that - despite plenty of evidence of significant global spread prior to the declaration that a novel disease was afoot - nothing was written AT THE TIME, anywhere, about unusual disease entities popping up (except for in the few places which drove the narrative), nor were there any excess deaths recorded.
The excess deaths and "unusualness" of the illness only commence where and when the hysteria and panic kicks in.
This propensity for observer / confirmation bias to distort the purported features of a "novel" virus - only to be corrected years later by more sober analysis - is not unique to SARS-CoV-2.
It happened with H1N1. The covid event is uncannily similar to the H1N1 epidemic narrative, but with the most important plot hole (lack of deaths) "fixed".
Hi Jonathan,
I can't explain why a novel clinical pathology was not identified prior to November/December 2019 when there is evidence that the SARs-CoV-2 virus was around in autumn 2019 and causing 'odd' symptomatic (but mild) infections. I can hazard a guess that severe Covid-19 was so rare that it was probably misdiagnosed as 'flu or pneumonia and that it continued to be rare even after the official declaration of the pandemic, causing very few actual deaths. I agree that excess deaths in most or even all countries were caused by the outrageous, irresponsible, unethical, immoral and unscientific response to Covid, not Covid itself. Even severe Covid was treatable with the right drugs (which were banned). It is plausible therefore to suppose that Covid-19 pneumonia is real and distinct from bacterial pneumonia, but that so few people are susceptible (prior to 'vaccination' at least) to this novel disease that it does not cause excess deaths. The fact that the average age of Covid mortality was greater than the average life span in many countries lends support to this supposition.
Maybe they were talking about NYC cases? Which all appear to be a result of medical malpractice? not about Covid....i dont know I would have to read it, but Hockett is soley focused on the NYC "bomb".
Not malpractice - Intentional
Not exclusively. The widespread use of ventilators in NYC is put forward as an example, but so also is Bergamo in Italy, contrasted with their limited use in Germany. I've no doubt at all that the use of ventilators caused many deaths which were attributed to 'Covid' and probably that a the primary cause of a significant proportion of these deaths was bacterial pneumonia. But still, that does not preclude the possibility that Covid-19 pneumonia was/is a rare, unique disease, with a unique clinical pathology, in certain vulnerable individuals.
Those that were fooled and afraid NEED the “Covid” pneumonia to be unique and “new”. Otherwise many people were killed by not treating the pneumonia with centuries of proven techniques like getting the patient up, moving, sunshine, fresh air and potentially antibiotics in extreme cases.
How many unnecessary deaths because of the lies? Remember a dry cough became a way to “assume/diagnose Covid” in the absence of a test result.
I'm sure there are some people who take comfort in believing that Covid-19 was a unique respiratory disease. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean it wasn't.
Since I can’t prove or disprove your reply, I must default to my personal experience over “reporting on the web “. In my city and surrounding neighborhoods and towns, no unique disease was evident.
I would guess that could be extrapolated to other areas where people don’t get their information online.
It seems to me that this is a debate that cannot be resolved with just the evidence and knowledge that are currently available. It is a scientific debate but the complexity of the problem means that no one can have anything like a definitive picture of what's going on. So opinions proliferate and positions are taken. This is not new in scientific debates!
For myself, I'm happy to see people debating the issues and arguments rather than relying on 'authority'. Allen seems like an abrasive character so don't take it personally. The use of ad hominem insults is unfortunate and that deserves an apology.
BTW your reply to 'Allen the Assertive' is blank on my browser.
Can't explain why you're not seeing the screenshot on your browser Jim. Try a different browser maybe?
I don't take Allen's response personally; I'm really used to such responses now after years of debating issues online. Water off a duck's back. But what I find disconcerting is that his OTT response was liked and endorsed by the authors of that Substack.