Clarifying COVID-19 (aka yes, cuz all these sites want to hurt people 🙄)

Measles once killed millions every year. Vaccines changed this, preventing disease, long-term immune damage, and deadly outbreaks.

Coronavirus has unleashed two parallel pandemics which reinforce each other.  One is biological: the virus itself – and the other is social: misinformation. Misinformed people put themselves and others at risk by taking dangerous quack cures, […]

Misinformation is making it hard for Canada to reach the vaccination levels needed to prevent the spread of measles, experts say as the country deals with the largest outbreak of the disease in almost three decades.

Unfounded claims about SARS-CoV-2’s origin continue to circulate, further complicating efforts to maintain a constructive, evidence-based public discourse.

In St. Thomas, Ontario, Asmaa Hussain is on the frontlines treating unvaccinated patients. As vaccine refusal grows in Canada, she wonders if other preventable diseases are next.

If the health content you see on social media sounds too good to be true, it’s very likely false – but there are ways to check it out before sharing.

Purpose Although COVID-19 typically presents with respiratory symptoms, it can also lead to severe neurological manifestations in children. While case reports of COVID-19–associated encephalopathy (including acute necrotizing encephalopathy) have increasingly appeared, gaps remain regarding optimal management strategies and outcome predictors for children with rapid-onset neurological decline. This report aims to underscore the critical need for standardized clinical approaches to severe pediatric COVID-19–related encephalopathy. Methods In this case report, We detail the case of an 8-year-old girl who presented with fever, rash, headache, and recurrent seizures. Her diagnostic workup included polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 and a range of neurological assessments: contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) to evaluate structural changes, transcranial Doppler ultrasound to assess intracranial hemodynamics, and electroencephalography (EEG) to monitor electrical activity. Intensive therapeutic measures—encompassing mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic support, antimicrobial agents, and corticosteroids—were initiated. In addition, a targeted narrative literature review of pediatric COVID-19–associated neurological complications was conducted to contextualize this presentation. Results The patient tested positive for COVID-19;imaging revealed brain edem, and EEG suggested brain death. Despite aggressive critical care interventions, her condition did not improve, ultimately resulting in brain death. Our review of current literature revealed several reported instances of acute necrotizing encephalopathy in pediatric COVID-19, highlighting a growing body of evidence on the potential for severe central nervous system sequelae. Conclusion This case highlights the importance of early recognition and close neurological surveillance in pediatric patients with COVID-19. Although accumulating evidence describes COVID-19–related neurological complications such as acute necrotizing encephalopathy, uncertainties persist regarding definitive treatment protocols and long-term outcomes. Greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms and standardized management pathways is imperative to improve prognosis in this vulnerable population. Clinical trial Not applicable.

Expert reveals the symptoms of Covid in 2025 - and how long infection now lasts - Experts warn that the virus that sparked the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, is still circulating

Folklorist Timothy Tangherlini explains how certain basic human drives, coupled with social media, fuel the spread of conspiracies.

The partisan pandemic, explained in 15 charts.Subscribe and turn on notifications 🔔 so you don't miss any videos: http://goo.gl/0bsAjO President Donald Trum...

Have you ever seen Black Hawk helicopters fly above the McGill campus? Me neither. Yet, there is a persistent conspiracy theory that might as well invoke their presence. Because our Office regularly portrays vaccines as effective and safe—not 100% safe, because nothing is—those who deny their worth need to explain why we’re so “wrong.” It turns out that one professor on campus once received a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates funds vaccine research and distribution: ergo, our Office is in the pocket of Bill Gates. How is this enforced? I imagine that Black Hawk helicopters must have circled campus the day the grant was approved, with military personnel rappelling down, knocking on doors, and handing thousands of staff members and professors our new vaccine talking points. Without understanding how research is financed, this theory is actually appealing to a lot of people, and it may make these same people crack a smile when they see the Trump regime hacking and slashing at science funding in the United States. But receiving research financing is far from lazily applying for government handouts; it’s a core activity of a scientist’s life, and the success rates are low. What a grant proposal looks like Science costs money, and it’s not just because silly human beings need salaries. Each time an experiment in, let’s say, molecular biology is performed, reagents get consumed, meaning enzymes, buffers, stains, molecular building blocks, and more. And these reagents don’t float in the air; they require consumables like plastic tubes and pipet tips, and scientists need disposable gloves to avoid contaminating their solutions or inadvertently transferring enzymes from their skin into tubes where they will destroy the RNA they’re trying to isolate. (I will be focusing on the biomedical sciences, as this is what I’m most familiar with.) Sometimes, new equipment needs to be purchased as well: centrifuges, vortex mixers, machines that amplify DNA, micropipettes, and even simple things like plastic racks to hold tubes in place. There’s also a line in any research budget for overheads, to which we will return. The basic process for the head of a laboratory—commonly referred to as the principal investigator or P.I., no relation to Tom Selleck—to ask for money is to write a grant proposal. Typical grants last a few years: a recent competition held by Canada’s largest public funder of health research, CIHR, conferred grants of an average duration of four and a half years. And applying for this money is a lengthy, arduous exercise that, for major grants, often takes a year to plan, execute, and submit. The grant proposal can itself be preceded by a letter of intent, where the P.I. submits a summary of what they plan to do and the collaborators they have assembled for the project. If the letter is accepted, the massive document that is the grant proposal begins to be created. Everyone with a major role to play in this proposed research has to list their past publications, degrees, and awards—essentially, they must convince the evaluators that they are the right people for the job. The P.I. will also write a long explanation of what we know about the topic and what has led to the burning research question they want to answer. For a grant proposal on studying how two key proteins interact in people who have a particular type of skin cancer, for example, this introduction would cover important statistics about skin cancer in general and this type of cancer specifically; the underlying biological mechanism that lead to this type of skin cancer; what is known about each one of these key proteins and the systems or signalling cascades they are part of; and how they are tied to skin cancer. And every single claim needs to be adequately referenced. The researchers’ hypothesis has to be spelled out, alongside a detailed description of the specific experiments they want to carry out: the techniques to be used, the samples to be tested, the controls to be included. This needs to be justified as being part of the P.I.’s overarching research program, and a budget has to be included detailing where the money would go in terms of salaries, consumables, reagents, equipment, and overheads. Different granting agencies have specific requirements and templates to be used, so additional documents often have to be filled out. Writing a grant proposal is thus a giant effort in literature research, academic writing, and coordination, articulated over months. The granting agency will then convene a panel of scientists to grade the proposals it has received, since it typically doesn’t have the money to approve them all. Reviewers thus have to pour over these proposals—as unpaid labour, I should point out—and ask themselves important questions. Is the rationale sound? Are the objectives well defined and the methods appropriate? Are the researchers likely to finish the project in time? Have they identified likely challenges and do they propose solutions to them? Is the institution where this will take place well equipped to carry out this project? These evaluations are done by people, and people are flawed. Moreover, two grant proposals may end up in a tie. Which one should get the money? Since the late 1990s, the idea of a lottery system has been put forward, either as a complete replacement for people manually evaluating grant proposals or as an add-on to the process, where proposals that pass evaluation are put into a basket to determine the winners, or where ties are broken by the use of chance. Partial lottery systems are still rare and there is a lack of consensus on whether or not they ultimately benefit scientists (and the public, whose trust is predicated on the system being perceived as fair). So, what are the chances of getting funded? When we look at the numbers coming out of major North American granting agencies, we get a sobering lesson: research is very competitive. From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, success rates for applications to the NIH (the United States’ largest federal fund for health research) hovered around 30%, meaning that a little under one in three applications was funded. Since then, rates have gone down to 20%, meaning one in five. In Canada, the equivalent CIHR has seen a comparable decline in its percentage of funded applications: from 33% in 2000 to less than 20% in recent years. Getting your research financed through public agencies has always been hard. Under Trump’s kakistocratic regime, things are about to worsen. The decimation of the world’s biggest health research funding body A leaked budget for the fiscal year starting this October reveals that the White House wants to chop the NIH’s budget from about 47 billion dollars down to 27. Already, the NIH has cancelled hundreds of active research grants—money it had accepted to disburse to researchers prior to Trump’s re-election and which it is now cutting off. An analysis published by the journal Nature revealed that, as of April 7, 29% of NIH grants related to HIV/AIDS had seen their federal financing revoked. Half of all grants which mentioned LGBT issues had been cancelled, as well as nearly half of grants that alluded to vaccine hesitancy. In the name of right-wing ideology, NIH grants to over 12 American universities in Trump’s crosshairs have allegedly been withheld in a possible attempt to pressure these universities into abandoning diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The sudden cancellation of on-going grants has led a group of scientists to sue the NIH, while many researchers take to the media to remind the public that the NIH is the world’s biggest funder of biomedical research by a wide margin: in 2022, it doled out 33 billion US dollars in grants, followed in second place by the London-based charity Wellcome with 1.2 billion US dollars. Zooming in on HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria—major infectious killers worldwide—the NIH gave out 1.4 billion US dollars for their research in 2023. In second place? The Gates Foundation, with half of a billion dollars. The private sector simply does not measure up. Which is not to say that nonprofits and foundations don’t play a role in funding research. In fact, academics are more and more encouraged to partner with private organizations to help finance their projects. But these organizations—which funded most research in the U.S. prior to the Second World War—tend to be very selective in what they want to put money into, and if a project has no immediate commercialization prospect, its P.I. will likely be told “no.” What’s more, private funders typically do not give money for overheads, and the NIH’s coverage of overheads has also been slashed from 40% of the total budget being submitted to 15%. Also known as indirect costs, overheads acknowledge that a scientist’s laboratory does not exist in a vacuum. Research centres have clerical and administrative staff, as well as fiscal managers and directors. They have computers and printers, and they use up electricity and running water. Like any building, they sometimes have to be renovated and their grounds have to be maintained. Moreover, they offer core services that multiple researchers end up using. As a grad student and later research assistant, I had access to centralized facilities that could sort cells for me, or do mass spectrometry, or do whole-genome sequencing. These instruments cost a fortune and they require trained scientists to run them and diagnose errors. It doesn’t make sense for each lab to have them, so they are typically shared as core facilities. Overheads pay for that, too. Biomedical research is not the only discipline being drawn and quartered. The Department of Energy has likewise capped its allowable overhead coverage for research projects at 15%; the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration sees its proposed budget hampered by 1.6 billion dollars; and the National Science Foundation has termi...

Pediatric long COVID is more common than many thought, and we keep letting kids be reinfected with new variants

State differences indicate that techniques may work better in some populations than others.

John Oliver discusses the budget and staffing cuts being made to public health agencies in the U.S. under RFK Jr.’s new leadership, the many ways those cuts ...

We spend the hour with acclaimed journalist and author Naomi Klein, whose new book Doppelganger out this week explores what she calls "the mirror world," a g...

Scientists who have dedicated their careers to studying autism remain highly skeptical that a definitive answer to what causes autism can be reached within a few short months — if at all.

SUPPORT more videos like this at http://patreon.com/rebeccaSUBSCRIBE at http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=rkwatson+++Links + transcript ava...

Season 8, Episode 10. May 2nd, 2021. John Oliver explains why some people don’t want to get the Covid-19 vaccine and how they might be reassured, even Mike i...

COVID-19 vaccine uptake data reported to and by Indigenous Services Canada now excludes uptake in Inuit and territorial communities as data updates from territorial and regional governments have not been publicly available since mid-2022.

Marcia Anderson, the youngest head of the Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada talks with Dennis Ward about the pandemic.

The BC government has prioritized remote First Nations communities. But a record of health-care racism has left many skeptical.

Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller says the nationwide push to prioritize First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities for the COVID-19 vaccine is starting to bear fruit, and that vaccination rates in those communities are now significantly higher than those reported elsewhere.

When mRNA vaccines emerged as heroes during the COVID-19 pandemic, headlines heralded them as a revolutionary new technology. Many people wondered: How could a new technology be safe enough to give…

Earlier this year, a study published in Cell, a highly esteemed journal, found that the mRNA genetic material and spike protein persist in the lymph nodes of individuals who got the mRNA vaccine for…

John Oliver discusses RFK Jr.’s potential to sway the presidential election, who his views are impacting on and off the campaign trail, and most importantly:...

Public health authorities say the Covid-19 vaccines have saved lives, but a Canadian report shared across platforms estimates the shots have killed 17 million people globally. This is false; government agencies and independent experts worldwide told AFP the findings are flawed and that only a minuscule percentage of deaths among the vaccinated can be attributed to the jabs.

Here's what we know.

VAERS, a database of reports of vaccine side effects, is being abused by people trying to sow fear. It's not the first time.

Here we go again – bad published research tries to convince us that COVID-19 rates are unrelated to the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in several countries

The calculations in the study by researchers at The University of Ottawa were used to promote the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine is unsafe for use.