What do you think?
Rate this book
Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong
In this book, the Swedish doctor Sebastian Rushworth examines some of the most central questions about the Covid-19 How deadly is Covid-19? What is long Covid? How accurate are the Covid tests? Does lockdown prevent Covid deaths? Why did Sweden have more deaths than other Nordic countries? What are the harms of lockdown? Do face masks stop Covid? Are the Covid vaccines safe and effective? Why did the world react so hysterically to Covid? Dr. Sebastian Rushworth is a junior doctor in Stockholm, Sweden. His blog about health and science is widely read across the English speaking world. In his book, Why most of what you know is wrong, Sebastian Rushworth demonstrates that Covid-19 is nowhere near as bad as it is portrayed by the mainstream media. He shows that the mortality rate is below 0.2%, meaning that for most people the risk of dying if infected is less than 1 in 500 (and less than 1 in 3,000 if you’re below 70 years of age). The disease preferentially strikes people who are anyway very close to the end of life, so the amount of lifetime lost when someone dies of the disease is usually tiny. He also shows that 98% of people who get Covid are fully recovered within three months, and that there is no good evidence that Covid results in long term health consequences. He also points out that the measures taken to fight Covid, such as the lockdowns, the huge fear campaigns and the school closures, will result in far more years of life lost than will be lost to the virus directly. The data used in the book is publicly available, and frequently published in some of the most prestigious and respected scientific journals in the world. Advance praise by dr. Malcolm "Covid-19 has triggered a pandemic, and a panic. Many people are bewildered by the avalanche of information, often contradictory. On his blog, Sebastian Rushworth has been a voice of calm reason throughout, trying to help people make sense of what is going on. As a front line doctor in Sweden he has had a front-row seat, and keen understanding of the disease, and our response to it. He takes the reader though some of the science, in order to explain what he is talking about. It is clear, it is reasoned. He believes that the Swedish response, although widely critizised, has been based on good evidence, and may end up being seen as the best way to have handled the pandemic. If you want a guide to what is really going on with Covid-19, then I fully recommend this book. You will end up with a much more complete understanding, which is what we are all looking for, I think."
141 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
May 23, 2021
This is by far the best work on the current state of COVID that I have read. While I'm wasn't convinced that most of what I knew was wrong, I do have to reconsider some of the positions I have taken. I strongly believe that no matter where you stand (or sit) you can gain something from this work.
Rushworth starts with an introduction of himself then dives right into the issue at hand. He covers what really happened in Sweden (his home country) on a policy level and later in the book he examines possible reasons why Sweden's results were different than the rest of Scandinavia.
The real meat in this book is in chapters 3 and 4 where the author explains how to read and understand scientific studies on a layman's level and who statistics are used and applied in these studies. I finally understand what a p-value is.
Once Rushworth establishes his background and how he examines scientific studies he then explores masking, lockdowns, the vaccines and other areas of contention. He shines the light of reason upon ALL of the arguments and on both sides.
Rushworth starts with an introduction of himself then dives right into the issue at hand. He covers what really happened in Sweden (his home country) on a policy level and later in the book he examines possible reasons why Sweden's results were different than the rest of Scandinavia.
The real meat in this book is in chapters 3 and 4 where the author explains how to read and understand scientific studies on a layman's level and who statistics are used and applied in these studies. I finally understand what a p-value is.
Once Rushworth establishes his background and how he examines scientific studies he then explores masking, lockdowns, the vaccines and other areas of contention. He shines the light of reason upon ALL of the arguments and on both sides.
August 15, 2021
Ruotsalainen bloggari-lääkäri ja koronaskeptikko Sebastian Rushworth kirjoittaa oivallisen ja helppolukuisen tietokirjan panepidemiasta (Covid-19, jonka aiheuttaa luultavasti SARS‑CoV‑2-virus) ja antaa ajattelemisen aihetta kriittiselle lukijalle, joka on saanut tarpeekseen valtavirtamediassa myllytetystä valtaisasta hysteriasta. Lukeminen ja sen ymmärtäminen ei siis edellytä epidemologin statusta tai lääketieteellisen terminologian hallintaa.
Kaikkihan lähti liikkeelle Kiinan Wuhanista. Kuten tunnettua kansantasavaltamaisessa diktatuurissa on huiman kehittynyt valtiollinen propagandakoneisto, ja juuri sopivanlaisia kuvia, uutisia, videomateriaaleja ja tutkimuksia levitettiin tunnetuin seurauksin ympäri maailmaa, ja kauhuspektaakkeli oli valmis. Vuonna 2021 sitten ihmetellään, miten Kiinassa tauti saatiin niin nopeasti kuriin ja kuolintilastot ovat ihan minimissä verrattuna vaikkapa Ruotsiin ja muihin länsimaihin.
Rakenteeltaan tämä tiivis tietopaketti on looginen ja onnistunut. Rushworth oikoo monenlaisia harhaluuloja ja liioitteluja, joita tästä aiheesta on levitelty mediassa pitkin poikin. Hän käsittelee esimerkiksi taudin vakavuutta, pitkäkestoista koronaa, testien luotettavuutta, sulkutiloja, kasvomaskeja ja rokotteita. Niin kuin arvata saattaa, lääkäri käyttää monenlaisia tutkimuksia, arvostettuja tietopankkeja ja lähteitä väitteidensä tueksi, ja kirjan lopussa on vielä hyperlinkit niihin.
Niin kuin jokainen mediaa seuraava on huomannut, lehdistö rakastaa asioiden kärjistämistä, paisuttelua ja vastakkainasettelua. Ikään kuin ei olisi kuin vain kaksi strategiaa: laumasuoja tai koronan tukahduttaminen erilaisin sulkutiloin ja vankilamaisin olosuhtein. Myyttisen laumasuojan saavuttamiseksi sitten tarjotaan rokotteita, joiden teho voi olla melko kyseenalainen. Valtavirtamediassa ihmisiä hoputetaan julkkisesimerkkien avulla ryntäämään piikille heti, kun se vain on mahdollista. Syyksi kelpaa nimenomaan, että ruiske otetaan muiden suojaamiseksi, vaikka itse olisi terve kuin pukki eikä kuuluisi mihinkään riskiryhmään.
Rushworth analysoi kolmea roketutkimusta kriittisesti: AstraZenecan, Pfizerin ja Modernan. Ensin mainittu on Adenovirusvektorirokote niin kuin venäläinen Sputnik. Sen on tarkoitus tuottaa proteiineja, joiden avulla halutaan immuunipuolustusjärjestelmän reagoivan. AstraZenecan rokotetutkimuksen yksi suurimmista rahoittajista oli Bill Gates säätiöineen. Tässä tutkimusryhmässä ainoastaan 4% oli 70-vuotiaita ja vain 2% oli diabetesta sairastavia.
Modernan ja Pfizerin rokotteet ovat niin sanottuja RNA-rokotteita, eli nekin tuottavat tiettyjä proteiineja (RNA-nukleotidit), ja siinä on ”ulkokuori”, joka tuottaa lipidinanopartikkeleita. Näin edellä mainitut rokotteet saavat solut tuottamaan koronan piikkiproteiinia.
Sitten Rushworth lähtee kritisoimaan rokotetutkimuksia. Modernan koekaniineina ei ollut lainkaan autoimmuunisairauksista kärsiviä, joten tälle kohderyhmälle rokotteen turvallisuudesta ei ole varmuutta. Lisäksi yli 75-vuotiaita oli vain 5%. Pfizerin seurantatutkimukseenkaan ei ollut asiaa ihmisillä, joilla oli joitain allergioita tai muutoin heikentynyt immuunipuolustus.
Perusongelma näissä jokaisessa seurantatutkimuksessa oli se, että niitä ei testattu riittävästi monisairailla, vanhuksilla ja ylilihavilla, joten tuloksista ei voida päätellä, ovatko ne näille ryhmille riittävän turvallisia tai suojaavatko ne tarpeeksi. Lapsia ei missään näissä tutkimuksissa ollut, ja silti täyttä häkää suunnitellaan eri puolilla maailmaa lasten ja nuorten rokoteohjelmia. Yhdysvalloissa rokoteinto on niin hiipunut, että piikitettäväksi pitää houkutella arpajaisilla ja viinan voimalla (keväällä 2021). Yhteenvetona voisi sanoa, että perusterveillä aikuisilla rokotteet näyttävän olevan tehokkaita estämään koronan vakavampi muoto. Toisaalta ani harva tästä ryhmästä ilman rokotettakaan sellaiseen sairastuisi. Sen sijaan raskaana olevat, allergioista kärsivät, syöpäsairaat ja useita immuunihäiriöitä potevien rokotesuoja on ihan arvailujen varassa, sillä nämä jätettiin ulos näistä kaikista tutkimuksista. Myöskään vakavasti monisairaat ja vanhukset olivat niin heikosti edustettuina, että riittävää näyttöä ei ole, onko rokotteesta enemmän hyötyä kuin haittaa. Rokotetutkimuksissahan tavallinen temppu on valita vain jokin tietty haittavaikutus tai siitä ei seuraa mitään haittoja, vaikkei pitkäaikaisia vaikutuksia ole pystytty todentamaan. Ehkä muutaman vuoden päästä ollaan tässäkin asiassa viisaampia, ja silloin voisin ehkä itsekin harkita hermomyrkyillä terästettyä rokotekoktailia koronaa vastaan.
Lehtien palstoilla on julkisesti ihmetelty, että on se vaan niin kummallista, että kun on saanut koronaviruksen, vaikka on pariin kertaan jo rokotettu sitä vastaan. Mitkään edellä mainituista rokotteista eivät kuitenkaan takaa immuniteettia. Hyvin mahdollista on, että sairastumisen riski vähenee ainakin joksikin aikaa. Tosin vanhuksilla ja monisairailla oma immuunipuolustusjärjestelmä voi olla niin rapautunut, että edes rokotteella ei pystytä sairastumista estämään, eli paljon todennäköisempää on, että terve aikuinen, jolla ei ole mitään perussairauksia, saa rokotteista paremman suojan kuin raihnainen eläkeläinen. Sitten voikin miettiä, tarvitseeko lainkaan rokotetta, jos sellaista aletaan tyrkyttää vuosittain kuin perinteistä influenssashottia.
Kirjoittaja onnistuu hyvin tieteellisten tutkimusten kriittisessä tarkastelussa, sillä tavallista on, että lehdistö poimii niistä joitakin mieleisiä yksityiskohtia kuin rusinoita pullasta ja heittää siitä klikkiotsikoita ja sisältöjä someen jaettavaksi. Päivittäiseen mediakattaukseen kuuluvat myös riipaisevat anekdootit, kuinka joku on kärsinyt koronasta tai menettänyt lähiomaisensa. Nämä tietysti ovat koskettavia, ja niillä aikaansaadaan sekä myötätuntoa ja pelkoa. On hyvä kuitenkin muistaa, että useinkaan yksittäisillä esimerkeillä ei juurikaan ole todistusarvoa tai yleistettävyyttä, jos ajatellaan kausaalisuutta ja jos jätetään huomiotta kaikki muut muuttujat, jotka vaikuttivat sairauteen ja sen etenemiseen. Samaan kategoriaan tekijä niputtaa seurantatutkimukset, jotka eivät pysty vastaamaan syy-seuraus-suhteisiin ja joita tuskin pystytään edes toistamaan vastaavien tulosten varmistamiseksi. Meta-analyysitkään eivät ole sen kummoisempia kuin siihen mukaan otetut tutkimukset, eli roskaahan ne ovat, jos tutkimukset ovat epäkurantteja.
Rushworthilla niin kuin muillakin koronakriitikoilla on kovin erilainen käsitys taudin vakavuudesta ja kuolettavuudesta kuin meille virallisia kanavia pitkin esitellyissä määrissä, jotka ovat jokaisen seurattavissa lehtien palstoilla. Syksyllä 2020 WHO:n pomo Mike Ryan arvioi, että koronaan sairastuneita olisi maailmanlaajuisesti tuolloin jo 750 miljoonaa ja reilu miljoona olisi siihen kuollut. Tällöin sairauteen kuolleiden määrä olisi noin 0,14%. Usein myös viitataan Stanfordin epidemiologian professoriin John Ioannidisiin, ja hänen arvionsa on noin 0,15–0,20%. Täytyy kuitenkin muistaa, että suurin osa kuolonuhreista on monisairaita vanhuksia, joilla elinajanodote on ollut hyvin lyhyt muutoinkin ennen infektoitumistaan, ja alle 70-vuotiailla kuolleisuuslukema jää arviolta 0,03–0,04%:iin. Tästä kun vielä vähennetään vakavasti monisairaat, perusterveillä ei tulisi olla juurikaan huolta koronan vakavammasta muodosta, omasta kuolemasta tai hinkua painua piikille. Yhdysvalloissa on tilastoitu (CDC), että koronakuolemissa on ollut vähintään yksi vakava perussairaus entuudestaan. Edellä mainittujen lukujen luotettava arviointi on mahdotonta, sillä sairastuneiden kokonaismäärä on tuntematon eivätkä vasta-ainetestitkään anna luotettavaa kuvaa taudin sairastaneista: eihän kaikilla edes kehity vasta-aineita koronaan, jos se menee esimerkiksi oireettomana ohitse. Lisäksi kuolinsyytilastot ovat hyvin kyseenalaisia, emmekä voi aina varmuudella tietää, kuoliko potilas koronaan tai sen aiheuttamiin komplikaatioihin vai oliko onnettomuudessa menehtyneellä vuorikiipeilijällä putoamisen syy nimenomaan koronavirus. Useinkin riittää, että kuolleelta virus löydetään, ja sitten se tilastoidaan koronaan liittyväksi kuolemaksi. Monissa maissa lisäksi riittää, että vainajalta oli todettu koronaan viittaavia oireita, vaikka PCR-testillä mitään ei olisi löytynytkään. Oma lukunsa on sitten koronaan liittyvät kuolemat eli sairaudet, jotka jäivät epidemian vuoksi hoitamatta kokonaan?!
Sitten onkin aika käydä niin sanotun pitkittyneen koronan kimppuun, ja sellaista kirjan tekijä ei onnistunut lukuisista yrityksistä huolimatta löytämään pengottuaan aikansa kansainvälisiä tutkimuksia. Koronassa ei vaikuttaisi olevan sen mystisempiä jälkiseurauksia kuin millään muullakaan kausi-influenssalla. Koronavirus aiheuttaa samanlaisia oireita kuin muutkin hengitystie-elininfektiot, ja sellaisia tapaa olla toisinaan tehohoidosta päässeillä, esim. kognitiivisia muutoksia, päänsärkyä ja voimattomuutta. Anekdoottien voimalla panepidemiasta näyttää tulleen ennen kaikkea sosiaalisen median ilmiö, ja kuten tunnettua iso osa perinteisen median jutuista tempaistaan juuri sieltä – kaiken maailman koronapäiväkirjoista ja tavisten videoreportaaseista. Kuitenkin yli 98% prosenttia koronaan sairastuneistakin toipuu siitä ihan ennalleen ihan parissa kuukaudessa.
Keväällä 2021 vaikuttaa siltä, että kaupungeissa niitä koronatestauspaikkoja tuntuu olevan lähes joka nurkan takana, ja marketit ovat alkaneet myydä testejä kotikäyttöönkin. Ylenpalttisella testauksella ja tulosten raportoimisella pystytään luomaan massapaniikkia, vaikkei sairaus vaikuttaisi olevan normaalia kausi-influenssaa vakavampi. Monelta on napattu kurkusta nielunäyte (PCR-testi) toistuvasti, ja syyksi on riittänyt päänsärky tai kurkun kipeytyminen. Helpotus onkin ollut kova, kun sai terveen paperit eikä kukaan enää karsasta työpaikalla kähisevää duunikaveria. Testillä pyritään havaitsemaan koronaviruksen genomin palasia näytteenottopaikasta. Perusidea on yksinkertainen, eli kemiallisen reaktion avulla näyte monistetaan, ja jokaisella kerralla kopioiden määrä kaksinkertaistuu. Lukemani perusteella Suomessakin tavataan monistaa näitä näytteitä jopa 40 kertaa, ja se tarkoittaa, että alkuperäisestä näytteestä on otettu yli tuhat miljardia kopioita. Rushforth pitää luotettavampana, että näitä tuplauksia tehtäisiin vain parikymmentä kertaa, sillä suuremmalla määrällä testin luotettavuus kärsii, koska niitä passiivisia viruksen genomin palasia on voinut tarttua vaikka kuntosalin laitteesta eikä ns. positiivisen tuloksen saajalla ole mitään oireita – infektiosta puhumattakaan. Yksinkertaisesti sanottuna PCR-testillä ei havaita kokonaisia viruksia, saati eläviä viruksia vaan ehkä ainoastaan kuolleita viruksen genomin osia, jotka eivät tartuta ketään.
Kasvomaskien osalta tekijä listaa tutkimuksia ja erittelee niitä, eikä löydetty eroja perheissä, joissa kaikki käyttivät maskeja vertailuryhmiin, joissa niitä ei käytetty. Ei kuitenkaan vaikuttaisi olevan riittävää tieteellistä näyttöä, vähentävätkö kasvomaskit koronan leviämistä väestön keskuudesta erilaisista pakoista ja suosituksista huolimatta. Sen sijaan maskien jatkuva käyttö voi aiheuttaa monenlaista haittaa käyttäjilleen kuten väsymystä, päänsärkyä, ääniongelmia ja tulehduksia.
Toisaalta on välillä aina hyvä pysähtyä tarkastelemaan omia ajatuksia ja sitä, mihin ne perustuvat ja ovatko ne tottakaan tai edes omia. Helpointa on tietysti mennä valtavirran mukana, ja jättää se ajattelu muille ja uskoa poliitikoita ja joitakin asiantuntijoita, Suomessa THL:n ylintä johtoa ja tietysti tv-kameroiden eteen ryhmittyneitä tuimakatseisia ministereitä maskeineen. Toinen juttu sitten onkin, ovatko johtopäätökset palturia, jos premissitkin on tuulesta temmattu.
Kaikkihan lähti liikkeelle Kiinan Wuhanista. Kuten tunnettua kansantasavaltamaisessa diktatuurissa on huiman kehittynyt valtiollinen propagandakoneisto, ja juuri sopivanlaisia kuvia, uutisia, videomateriaaleja ja tutkimuksia levitettiin tunnetuin seurauksin ympäri maailmaa, ja kauhuspektaakkeli oli valmis. Vuonna 2021 sitten ihmetellään, miten Kiinassa tauti saatiin niin nopeasti kuriin ja kuolintilastot ovat ihan minimissä verrattuna vaikkapa Ruotsiin ja muihin länsimaihin.
Rakenteeltaan tämä tiivis tietopaketti on looginen ja onnistunut. Rushworth oikoo monenlaisia harhaluuloja ja liioitteluja, joita tästä aiheesta on levitelty mediassa pitkin poikin. Hän käsittelee esimerkiksi taudin vakavuutta, pitkäkestoista koronaa, testien luotettavuutta, sulkutiloja, kasvomaskeja ja rokotteita. Niin kuin arvata saattaa, lääkäri käyttää monenlaisia tutkimuksia, arvostettuja tietopankkeja ja lähteitä väitteidensä tueksi, ja kirjan lopussa on vielä hyperlinkit niihin.
Niin kuin jokainen mediaa seuraava on huomannut, lehdistö rakastaa asioiden kärjistämistä, paisuttelua ja vastakkainasettelua. Ikään kuin ei olisi kuin vain kaksi strategiaa: laumasuoja tai koronan tukahduttaminen erilaisin sulkutiloin ja vankilamaisin olosuhtein. Myyttisen laumasuojan saavuttamiseksi sitten tarjotaan rokotteita, joiden teho voi olla melko kyseenalainen. Valtavirtamediassa ihmisiä hoputetaan julkkisesimerkkien avulla ryntäämään piikille heti, kun se vain on mahdollista. Syyksi kelpaa nimenomaan, että ruiske otetaan muiden suojaamiseksi, vaikka itse olisi terve kuin pukki eikä kuuluisi mihinkään riskiryhmään.
Rushworth analysoi kolmea roketutkimusta kriittisesti: AstraZenecan, Pfizerin ja Modernan. Ensin mainittu on Adenovirusvektorirokote niin kuin venäläinen Sputnik. Sen on tarkoitus tuottaa proteiineja, joiden avulla halutaan immuunipuolustusjärjestelmän reagoivan. AstraZenecan rokotetutkimuksen yksi suurimmista rahoittajista oli Bill Gates säätiöineen. Tässä tutkimusryhmässä ainoastaan 4% oli 70-vuotiaita ja vain 2% oli diabetesta sairastavia.
Modernan ja Pfizerin rokotteet ovat niin sanottuja RNA-rokotteita, eli nekin tuottavat tiettyjä proteiineja (RNA-nukleotidit), ja siinä on ”ulkokuori”, joka tuottaa lipidinanopartikkeleita. Näin edellä mainitut rokotteet saavat solut tuottamaan koronan piikkiproteiinia.
Sitten Rushworth lähtee kritisoimaan rokotetutkimuksia. Modernan koekaniineina ei ollut lainkaan autoimmuunisairauksista kärsiviä, joten tälle kohderyhmälle rokotteen turvallisuudesta ei ole varmuutta. Lisäksi yli 75-vuotiaita oli vain 5%. Pfizerin seurantatutkimukseenkaan ei ollut asiaa ihmisillä, joilla oli joitain allergioita tai muutoin heikentynyt immuunipuolustus.
Perusongelma näissä jokaisessa seurantatutkimuksessa oli se, että niitä ei testattu riittävästi monisairailla, vanhuksilla ja ylilihavilla, joten tuloksista ei voida päätellä, ovatko ne näille ryhmille riittävän turvallisia tai suojaavatko ne tarpeeksi. Lapsia ei missään näissä tutkimuksissa ollut, ja silti täyttä häkää suunnitellaan eri puolilla maailmaa lasten ja nuorten rokoteohjelmia. Yhdysvalloissa rokoteinto on niin hiipunut, että piikitettäväksi pitää houkutella arpajaisilla ja viinan voimalla (keväällä 2021). Yhteenvetona voisi sanoa, että perusterveillä aikuisilla rokotteet näyttävän olevan tehokkaita estämään koronan vakavampi muoto. Toisaalta ani harva tästä ryhmästä ilman rokotettakaan sellaiseen sairastuisi. Sen sijaan raskaana olevat, allergioista kärsivät, syöpäsairaat ja useita immuunihäiriöitä potevien rokotesuoja on ihan arvailujen varassa, sillä nämä jätettiin ulos näistä kaikista tutkimuksista. Myöskään vakavasti monisairaat ja vanhukset olivat niin heikosti edustettuina, että riittävää näyttöä ei ole, onko rokotteesta enemmän hyötyä kuin haittaa. Rokotetutkimuksissahan tavallinen temppu on valita vain jokin tietty haittavaikutus tai siitä ei seuraa mitään haittoja, vaikkei pitkäaikaisia vaikutuksia ole pystytty todentamaan. Ehkä muutaman vuoden päästä ollaan tässäkin asiassa viisaampia, ja silloin voisin ehkä itsekin harkita hermomyrkyillä terästettyä rokotekoktailia koronaa vastaan.
Lehtien palstoilla on julkisesti ihmetelty, että on se vaan niin kummallista, että kun on saanut koronaviruksen, vaikka on pariin kertaan jo rokotettu sitä vastaan. Mitkään edellä mainituista rokotteista eivät kuitenkaan takaa immuniteettia. Hyvin mahdollista on, että sairastumisen riski vähenee ainakin joksikin aikaa. Tosin vanhuksilla ja monisairailla oma immuunipuolustusjärjestelmä voi olla niin rapautunut, että edes rokotteella ei pystytä sairastumista estämään, eli paljon todennäköisempää on, että terve aikuinen, jolla ei ole mitään perussairauksia, saa rokotteista paremman suojan kuin raihnainen eläkeläinen. Sitten voikin miettiä, tarvitseeko lainkaan rokotetta, jos sellaista aletaan tyrkyttää vuosittain kuin perinteistä influenssashottia.
Kirjoittaja onnistuu hyvin tieteellisten tutkimusten kriittisessä tarkastelussa, sillä tavallista on, että lehdistö poimii niistä joitakin mieleisiä yksityiskohtia kuin rusinoita pullasta ja heittää siitä klikkiotsikoita ja sisältöjä someen jaettavaksi. Päivittäiseen mediakattaukseen kuuluvat myös riipaisevat anekdootit, kuinka joku on kärsinyt koronasta tai menettänyt lähiomaisensa. Nämä tietysti ovat koskettavia, ja niillä aikaansaadaan sekä myötätuntoa ja pelkoa. On hyvä kuitenkin muistaa, että useinkaan yksittäisillä esimerkeillä ei juurikaan ole todistusarvoa tai yleistettävyyttä, jos ajatellaan kausaalisuutta ja jos jätetään huomiotta kaikki muut muuttujat, jotka vaikuttivat sairauteen ja sen etenemiseen. Samaan kategoriaan tekijä niputtaa seurantatutkimukset, jotka eivät pysty vastaamaan syy-seuraus-suhteisiin ja joita tuskin pystytään edes toistamaan vastaavien tulosten varmistamiseksi. Meta-analyysitkään eivät ole sen kummoisempia kuin siihen mukaan otetut tutkimukset, eli roskaahan ne ovat, jos tutkimukset ovat epäkurantteja.
Rushworthilla niin kuin muillakin koronakriitikoilla on kovin erilainen käsitys taudin vakavuudesta ja kuolettavuudesta kuin meille virallisia kanavia pitkin esitellyissä määrissä, jotka ovat jokaisen seurattavissa lehtien palstoilla. Syksyllä 2020 WHO:n pomo Mike Ryan arvioi, että koronaan sairastuneita olisi maailmanlaajuisesti tuolloin jo 750 miljoonaa ja reilu miljoona olisi siihen kuollut. Tällöin sairauteen kuolleiden määrä olisi noin 0,14%. Usein myös viitataan Stanfordin epidemiologian professoriin John Ioannidisiin, ja hänen arvionsa on noin 0,15–0,20%. Täytyy kuitenkin muistaa, että suurin osa kuolonuhreista on monisairaita vanhuksia, joilla elinajanodote on ollut hyvin lyhyt muutoinkin ennen infektoitumistaan, ja alle 70-vuotiailla kuolleisuuslukema jää arviolta 0,03–0,04%:iin. Tästä kun vielä vähennetään vakavasti monisairaat, perusterveillä ei tulisi olla juurikaan huolta koronan vakavammasta muodosta, omasta kuolemasta tai hinkua painua piikille. Yhdysvalloissa on tilastoitu (CDC), että koronakuolemissa on ollut vähintään yksi vakava perussairaus entuudestaan. Edellä mainittujen lukujen luotettava arviointi on mahdotonta, sillä sairastuneiden kokonaismäärä on tuntematon eivätkä vasta-ainetestitkään anna luotettavaa kuvaa taudin sairastaneista: eihän kaikilla edes kehity vasta-aineita koronaan, jos se menee esimerkiksi oireettomana ohitse. Lisäksi kuolinsyytilastot ovat hyvin kyseenalaisia, emmekä voi aina varmuudella tietää, kuoliko potilas koronaan tai sen aiheuttamiin komplikaatioihin vai oliko onnettomuudessa menehtyneellä vuorikiipeilijällä putoamisen syy nimenomaan koronavirus. Useinkin riittää, että kuolleelta virus löydetään, ja sitten se tilastoidaan koronaan liittyväksi kuolemaksi. Monissa maissa lisäksi riittää, että vainajalta oli todettu koronaan viittaavia oireita, vaikka PCR-testillä mitään ei olisi löytynytkään. Oma lukunsa on sitten koronaan liittyvät kuolemat eli sairaudet, jotka jäivät epidemian vuoksi hoitamatta kokonaan?!
Sitten onkin aika käydä niin sanotun pitkittyneen koronan kimppuun, ja sellaista kirjan tekijä ei onnistunut lukuisista yrityksistä huolimatta löytämään pengottuaan aikansa kansainvälisiä tutkimuksia. Koronassa ei vaikuttaisi olevan sen mystisempiä jälkiseurauksia kuin millään muullakaan kausi-influenssalla. Koronavirus aiheuttaa samanlaisia oireita kuin muutkin hengitystie-elininfektiot, ja sellaisia tapaa olla toisinaan tehohoidosta päässeillä, esim. kognitiivisia muutoksia, päänsärkyä ja voimattomuutta. Anekdoottien voimalla panepidemiasta näyttää tulleen ennen kaikkea sosiaalisen median ilmiö, ja kuten tunnettua iso osa perinteisen median jutuista tempaistaan juuri sieltä – kaiken maailman koronapäiväkirjoista ja tavisten videoreportaaseista. Kuitenkin yli 98% prosenttia koronaan sairastuneistakin toipuu siitä ihan ennalleen ihan parissa kuukaudessa.
Keväällä 2021 vaikuttaa siltä, että kaupungeissa niitä koronatestauspaikkoja tuntuu olevan lähes joka nurkan takana, ja marketit ovat alkaneet myydä testejä kotikäyttöönkin. Ylenpalttisella testauksella ja tulosten raportoimisella pystytään luomaan massapaniikkia, vaikkei sairaus vaikuttaisi olevan normaalia kausi-influenssaa vakavampi. Monelta on napattu kurkusta nielunäyte (PCR-testi) toistuvasti, ja syyksi on riittänyt päänsärky tai kurkun kipeytyminen. Helpotus onkin ollut kova, kun sai terveen paperit eikä kukaan enää karsasta työpaikalla kähisevää duunikaveria. Testillä pyritään havaitsemaan koronaviruksen genomin palasia näytteenottopaikasta. Perusidea on yksinkertainen, eli kemiallisen reaktion avulla näyte monistetaan, ja jokaisella kerralla kopioiden määrä kaksinkertaistuu. Lukemani perusteella Suomessakin tavataan monistaa näitä näytteitä jopa 40 kertaa, ja se tarkoittaa, että alkuperäisestä näytteestä on otettu yli tuhat miljardia kopioita. Rushforth pitää luotettavampana, että näitä tuplauksia tehtäisiin vain parikymmentä kertaa, sillä suuremmalla määrällä testin luotettavuus kärsii, koska niitä passiivisia viruksen genomin palasia on voinut tarttua vaikka kuntosalin laitteesta eikä ns. positiivisen tuloksen saajalla ole mitään oireita – infektiosta puhumattakaan. Yksinkertaisesti sanottuna PCR-testillä ei havaita kokonaisia viruksia, saati eläviä viruksia vaan ehkä ainoastaan kuolleita viruksen genomin osia, jotka eivät tartuta ketään.
Kasvomaskien osalta tekijä listaa tutkimuksia ja erittelee niitä, eikä löydetty eroja perheissä, joissa kaikki käyttivät maskeja vertailuryhmiin, joissa niitä ei käytetty. Ei kuitenkaan vaikuttaisi olevan riittävää tieteellistä näyttöä, vähentävätkö kasvomaskit koronan leviämistä väestön keskuudesta erilaisista pakoista ja suosituksista huolimatta. Sen sijaan maskien jatkuva käyttö voi aiheuttaa monenlaista haittaa käyttäjilleen kuten väsymystä, päänsärkyä, ääniongelmia ja tulehduksia.
Toisaalta on välillä aina hyvä pysähtyä tarkastelemaan omia ajatuksia ja sitä, mihin ne perustuvat ja ovatko ne tottakaan tai edes omia. Helpointa on tietysti mennä valtavirran mukana, ja jättää se ajattelu muille ja uskoa poliitikoita ja joitakin asiantuntijoita, Suomessa THL:n ylintä johtoa ja tietysti tv-kameroiden eteen ryhmittyneitä tuimakatseisia ministereitä maskeineen. Toinen juttu sitten onkin, ovatko johtopäätökset palturia, jos premissitkin on tuulesta temmattu.
September 18, 2021
I wish Sebastian Rushworth was my physician. I would feel very safe in his presence.
July 4, 2021
Very factual and easy to understand. Highly recommend it! It goes against what the mainstream media wants us to believe.
June 25, 2021
This is a very clearly written introduction to the topic of medical research in general and then to the available peer-reviewed evidence regarding the COVID pandemic. As such, it is totally different in tone from what the sensational title might lead you to expect (if it was only for the title, I probably would not have bought it).
I very much enjoyed the author's sober discussion of the evidence regarding masks, and his detailed exposition of the published studies underlying the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The whole chapter on PCR tests is also very valuable and should be required reading for any discussion of the pandemic (side note on tests: even though the author correctly begins by explaining that the test is only responsive to viral material and so not necessarily to an active virus, he then oddly starts referring to positives as positive Covid (i.e. disease) cases - a minor and usual slip, but which I think is worth reporting, even if I would certainly not be able to write as clearly and scientifically as the author manages to do throughout the book).
On the other hand, from what is reported in the book, I'm not so sure as the author seems to be about the evidence regarding the ineffectiveness lockdowns; and, on a more philosophical level, I must admit the author's deification of randomized controlled trials tends to annoy me, even though I'm still not quite prepared to debate this topic (still gotta finish Breaking the Law of Averages: Real-Life Probability and Statistics in Plain English). Most readers, though, will - fairly enough - find his explanation of methodology quite sensible and straightforward.
As a last note, I wish the author also had included something about the whole topic of herd immunity, which seems totally messed up in public opinion.
All in all, even though the tone of the title is exaggerated, this is a valuable and recommendable book, certainly welcomed in these crazy times.
Most of the contents and some more recent analysis can be found on the author's excellent blog:
https://sebastianrushworth.com/
I very much enjoyed the author's sober discussion of the evidence regarding masks, and his detailed exposition of the published studies underlying the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The whole chapter on PCR tests is also very valuable and should be required reading for any discussion of the pandemic (side note on tests: even though the author correctly begins by explaining that the test is only responsive to viral material and so not necessarily to an active virus, he then oddly starts referring to positives as positive Covid (i.e. disease) cases - a minor and usual slip, but which I think is worth reporting, even if I would certainly not be able to write as clearly and scientifically as the author manages to do throughout the book).
On the other hand, from what is reported in the book, I'm not so sure as the author seems to be about the evidence regarding the ineffectiveness lockdowns; and, on a more philosophical level, I must admit the author's deification of randomized controlled trials tends to annoy me, even though I'm still not quite prepared to debate this topic (still gotta finish Breaking the Law of Averages: Real-Life Probability and Statistics in Plain English). Most readers, though, will - fairly enough - find his explanation of methodology quite sensible and straightforward.
As a last note, I wish the author also had included something about the whole topic of herd immunity, which seems totally messed up in public opinion.
All in all, even though the tone of the title is exaggerated, this is a valuable and recommendable book, certainly welcomed in these crazy times.
Most of the contents and some more recent analysis can be found on the author's excellent blog:
https://sebastianrushworth.com/
March 13, 2021
Brilliant COVID overview SCIENCE based
I am a big fan of Sebastian Rushworths diligent trawling of the scientific papers, and his regular blogs.
I just wish our political leaders had his advice, and not the model-based, inaccurate testing and poor hysterical reactionary politics that is ruining the country, and making everyone’s life a misery.
I am a big fan of Sebastian Rushworths diligent trawling of the scientific papers, and his regular blogs.
I just wish our political leaders had his advice, and not the model-based, inaccurate testing and poor hysterical reactionary politics that is ruining the country, and making everyone’s life a misery.
June 4, 2021
Necessary and clear analysis
Does it feel like a madhouse sometimes? The virus has caused huge damage. But not through illness, rather through our extraordinary response to it. This book explains why step by step, always staying close to the science, and backed by an analysis of powerful medical studies.
You may be angry when you complete reading it (you can do so in a couple of evenings). You would be right to be so. Lives have been wrecked on the egos of certain politicians, scientists and media influencers.
When generation Z (15 -23 year olds) cotton on they may not be too forgiving to their parents who have not bothered to properly inform themselves and have acquiesced to deeply damaging their lives.
Why?
For most (all below 70) the risk of death from the virus is 1 in 3000 IF you catch it (lower, I suspect if your vitamin D levels are optimal).
Yet the actions of the governments of the world have been to stoke fear that in itself can prove fatal in far higher numbers.
Does it feel like a madhouse sometimes? The virus has caused huge damage. But not through illness, rather through our extraordinary response to it. This book explains why step by step, always staying close to the science, and backed by an analysis of powerful medical studies.
You may be angry when you complete reading it (you can do so in a couple of evenings). You would be right to be so. Lives have been wrecked on the egos of certain politicians, scientists and media influencers.
When generation Z (15 -23 year olds) cotton on they may not be too forgiving to their parents who have not bothered to properly inform themselves and have acquiesced to deeply damaging their lives.
Why?
For most (all below 70) the risk of death from the virus is 1 in 3000 IF you catch it (lower, I suspect if your vitamin D levels are optimal).
Yet the actions of the governments of the world have been to stoke fear that in itself can prove fatal in far higher numbers.
December 6, 2021
A very easy to read book from a Swedish doctor with a lot of references to reputable medical journals. There has been so much fear spread about COVID that even with vaccines, there doesn't appear to be an end in sight. He looks at the facts and demonstrates that COVID is not nearly as deadly as has been portrayed by the media. He also discusses the vaccine trials, and how the trials didn't really give us the answers we were looking for.
Definitely worth a read.
Definitely worth a read.
October 6, 2021
4.5. Very easy to read and makes a lot of sense.
May 13, 2021
Good summary of what went wrong
Dr Rushworth is a proponent of evidence based medicine. He writes concisely and persuasively. From my recent study, I believe his claim on asymptomatic transmission is incorrect. There may be new studied I'm unaware of, of course. A solid read by a young doctor who isn't afraid to tell it like it is
Dr Rushworth is a proponent of evidence based medicine. He writes concisely and persuasively. From my recent study, I believe his claim on asymptomatic transmission is incorrect. There may be new studied I'm unaware of, of course. A solid read by a young doctor who isn't afraid to tell it like it is
March 7, 2022
Lots of facts and figures. Some interesting points are raised, but I wasn’t totally convinced that everything I believe about Covid is necessarily wrong.
April 10, 2021
This may be the best book I've read on Covid-19.
The author is a Swedish doctor who has worked throughout the 'pandemic' in Sweden. I have from time to time met Dutch and Swedish people and have often been very impressed by their fluency in English. I am not sure if the author wrote in English or if this is a translation, but the clarity is excellent.
The book starts by describing how events unfolded in Sweden and how the political and constitutional framework in Sweden led to Sweden taking a different course to other countries.
The following chapters are:
# How to understand Scientific Studies
# A quick primer on statistics
# How deadly is Covid-19?
# What is long Covid?
# How accurate are the Covid tests?
# Does lockdown prevent Covid deaths?
# Why did Sweden have more deaths than other Nordic countries?
# What are the harms of lockdowns?
# Do face masks stop Covid?
# Are the Covid vaccines safe and effective?
# Why did the world react so hysterically to Covid?
Its a short book, only 137 pages. I think he is too trusting with the 'vaccines' but other than that it is very well written an easy to understand.
The author is a Swedish doctor who has worked throughout the 'pandemic' in Sweden. I have from time to time met Dutch and Swedish people and have often been very impressed by their fluency in English. I am not sure if the author wrote in English or if this is a translation, but the clarity is excellent.
The book starts by describing how events unfolded in Sweden and how the political and constitutional framework in Sweden led to Sweden taking a different course to other countries.
The following chapters are:
# How to understand Scientific Studies
# A quick primer on statistics
# How deadly is Covid-19?
# What is long Covid?
# How accurate are the Covid tests?
# Does lockdown prevent Covid deaths?
# Why did Sweden have more deaths than other Nordic countries?
# What are the harms of lockdowns?
# Do face masks stop Covid?
# Are the Covid vaccines safe and effective?
# Why did the world react so hysterically to Covid?
Its a short book, only 137 pages. I think he is too trusting with the 'vaccines' but other than that it is very well written an easy to understand.
June 22, 2021
The author immediately put me in an uninspired mood for the topic when he stated (accurately) there was a huge hunger for an alternative view of the pandemic to that presented by the MSM. He preceded this by noting he graduated medical school in 2020. So I was going to get such an alternative view...from someone with hardly any experience in the field. Heck, it’s 2021...of course I am. At least he’s an actual doctor.
I knew it would be interesting because he’s a doctor from Sweden, not exactly a country with international renown for their Covid responses. Rushworth asks why Sweden did things so differently and initially coughs up a very American-sounding pile of rubbish in that their rock solid constitution so guaranteed freedom the people there couldn’t have had their movements restricted even if the leaders tried.
At this point, I considered not reading on. But I am glad I did. After this, Rushworth provides an excellent chapter on scientific research, things to look out for, and ways many studies are manipulated.
Oddly, he proceeds to later make many giant leaps based on extremely weak studies in scientific terms. Even more oddly, Rushworth often acknowledges their weakness, but makes the leaps anyway. For example, he states remdesivir is nearly useless against Covid (studies show otherwise), Covid is seasonal (support on both sides of this one but I can tell you living in the sunniest/hottest place on Earth that hasn’t been the experience here!), lockdowns kill more people than they save, etc. It is remarkable that he never mentions the studies that counter the points he tries to make (surely, he must be aware of them).
The most egregious leap was when he cites a solid study having to do with respiratory diseases other than Covid, but states they are similar enough that applying the conclusions to Covid is acceptable. Um….no.
Rushworth does his share of manipulating data to make his points. He decides to frame the issue of the dangerousness of Covid by focusing on years of life lost. While he is free to do that, we must call it out for what it is. This is a disease that does not impact child mortality like it does adults (and certainly, the elderly). Suddenly, the death of 100 people in their twilight years, each only (wild speculation here) losing a year of life they would have left anyways, is compared with some other situation where a few children dying trumps all those deaths (each child would have like 74 years of life lost)...so Covid isn't really so bad. I'm simplifying...but not much.
His explanation for Sweden’s Covid numbers was intriguing. His claim that Stockholm students early spring break, Swedes travel more (true), the relatively high number of dark skinned people in Sweden compared to Nordic countries (this one raised the eyebrow highest), a high nursing home population, and other reasons all rang from interesting to dubious, all in dire need of a larger context. He notes Sweden was a success because they had an epidemiologist leading their response and not a politician (he fails to note other countries that did this and had much better metrics). I’d classify his points in the “food for thought” category; not so much the “Sweden had it all figured out!” one.
I was then surprised to find his chapter on Covid vaccines to be really good. While I disagreed with him philosophically about reasons one should get a vaccine, I found his analysis of initial studies on the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines insightful and informative. I was persuaded with his distaste for the AstraZeneca study and in agreement with his position not to get it. His criticisms of the Pfizer study is well-founded and his general embrace of the Moderna study also based on sound logic.
So...a bit of a bumpy ride, but some valuable snacks amidst a larger serving of problematic portions.
I knew it would be interesting because he’s a doctor from Sweden, not exactly a country with international renown for their Covid responses. Rushworth asks why Sweden did things so differently and initially coughs up a very American-sounding pile of rubbish in that their rock solid constitution so guaranteed freedom the people there couldn’t have had their movements restricted even if the leaders tried.
At this point, I considered not reading on. But I am glad I did. After this, Rushworth provides an excellent chapter on scientific research, things to look out for, and ways many studies are manipulated.
Oddly, he proceeds to later make many giant leaps based on extremely weak studies in scientific terms. Even more oddly, Rushworth often acknowledges their weakness, but makes the leaps anyway. For example, he states remdesivir is nearly useless against Covid (studies show otherwise), Covid is seasonal (support on both sides of this one but I can tell you living in the sunniest/hottest place on Earth that hasn’t been the experience here!), lockdowns kill more people than they save, etc. It is remarkable that he never mentions the studies that counter the points he tries to make (surely, he must be aware of them).
The most egregious leap was when he cites a solid study having to do with respiratory diseases other than Covid, but states they are similar enough that applying the conclusions to Covid is acceptable. Um….no.
Rushworth does his share of manipulating data to make his points. He decides to frame the issue of the dangerousness of Covid by focusing on years of life lost. While he is free to do that, we must call it out for what it is. This is a disease that does not impact child mortality like it does adults (and certainly, the elderly). Suddenly, the death of 100 people in their twilight years, each only (wild speculation here) losing a year of life they would have left anyways, is compared with some other situation where a few children dying trumps all those deaths (each child would have like 74 years of life lost)...so Covid isn't really so bad. I'm simplifying...but not much.
His explanation for Sweden’s Covid numbers was intriguing. His claim that Stockholm students early spring break, Swedes travel more (true), the relatively high number of dark skinned people in Sweden compared to Nordic countries (this one raised the eyebrow highest), a high nursing home population, and other reasons all rang from interesting to dubious, all in dire need of a larger context. He notes Sweden was a success because they had an epidemiologist leading their response and not a politician (he fails to note other countries that did this and had much better metrics). I’d classify his points in the “food for thought” category; not so much the “Sweden had it all figured out!” one.
I was then surprised to find his chapter on Covid vaccines to be really good. While I disagreed with him philosophically about reasons one should get a vaccine, I found his analysis of initial studies on the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines insightful and informative. I was persuaded with his distaste for the AstraZeneca study and in agreement with his position not to get it. His criticisms of the Pfizer study is well-founded and his general embrace of the Moderna study also based on sound logic.
So...a bit of a bumpy ride, but some valuable snacks amidst a larger serving of problematic portions.
April 26, 2021
Rushworth is a Swedish physician who examines medical issues from a scientific point of view. His conclusions on medical issues are far more enlightening than the politically driven guidance from government sources and the wide-eyed sensationalism from the media.
He describes his investigation of some of the guidelines given to him as his "bible" in the last year of medical school, finding many of them to be "complete nonsense". "Just the word chosen showed clearly that this was not science we were being taught, it was religion.
The author relates the history of COVID in Sweden to the end of 2020 (the book was published March 2021). Spring restrictions on gathering sizes and distancing were removed in August as the number of cases appeared to have peaked, with children returning to school and nursing homes opening up. However, in late 2020 the government instituted even greater restrictions in spite of the severity of cases being less than in the spring. He attributes the change in policy to yielding to pressure or perhaps capitalizing on opinion polls.
Scientific studies range in quality from the lowest anecdotal evidence, through observational studies to Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) that should feature double blind use of a placebo for the control group. Various "tricks" can detract from the quality of studies such as the choice of endpoints and the population included in the studies. “Per-protocol analysis” studies only follow those that participate to the end of the study, thus missing any that drop out due to side effects, while the “intention to treat” studies include everyone.
Rushford provides a quick primer in statistics, discussing p-values which are used to determine whether the test result is statistically valid. Relative risk can often suggest greater benefit than absolute risk. His example is a fictitious drug that decreases ones five year absolute risk of having a heart attack from 0.2% to 0.1% - not a huge overall gain - while the decrease in relative risk is 50%, an apparently more significant number.
The average mortality in Sweden in 2020 was only 5% higher than the average for the preceding five years. The average person who dies from Covid is over 80 years old and has multiple underlying health conditions. The years of life lost are therefore relatively small. Among frail elderly people, rhinovirus (colds) is actually more deadly than regular influenza. One study showed that the 30 day mortality for frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to a rhinovirus infection was 10%, while for frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to influenza, 30 day mortality was 7%. In the reporting, many COVID deaths ware reported for those that died with it, as opposed to those that died with it.
Post-viral syndrome, a condition that has been known about for decades, affects some people after a viral respiratory infection, and that is primarily characterized by intense fatigue. Some studies have found that almost 60% of people treated in intensive care (for any condition, not COVID specifically) still have cognitive impairments twelve months after being discharged. Rushford's assessment is that long COVID is likely some form of Post-viral syndrome, and is not unique to COVID.
The PCR test is commonly used to detect COVID. The number of cycles is critical with the probability of a false positive increasing exponentially after 24 cycles to 40 cycles where it will almost certainly produce false positives. As the number of cycles is not stated, this can result in incorrect assignments of death to COVID. The antibody test which can determine where someone has had COVID in the past. However, it takes the body some time after infection to produce antibodies.
Test accuracy is a matter that most people don't consider. Sensitivity is the probability that a disease will be detected if the person actually has the disease. Specificity is the rate of false positives. Studies have varied by on average shown sensitivity to be 88 percent and specificity of 97 percent but possibly as high as 99 percent.
Using 88 and 97 percent, in a situation where 1 in 10 of the population are infected, the test would pick up 88 of the 100 infected and would give false positives for 27 of the 900 not infected. Worse, if only 1 in 1000 are infected, the test would pick up 9 of the 10 infected, but give false positives for 30 - 77% of positive results will be false positives! A major problem with the reporting of cases is that the number of tests carried out is never specified, so it is impossible to know whether increasing positives are due to increased testing. Similarly, the antibody testing has been largely ignored in spite of the fact that it would show the buildup of immunity in the population.
The author examines a study that sought to understand which factors correlate, on a country level, with Covid related outcomes. On a country wide basis, it showed a statistically significant relation between COVID deaths and obesity, age of the population and income disparity. No correlation was found with lockdowns, border closures or mass testing.
Rushworth looks at why Sweden had a higher death rate than its Nordic neighbours, concluding that it was due to the timing of their spring holiday, a larger ethnic minority population, and a larger nursing home population. Interesting note that most of the doctors in the U.K. who died of COVID were dark skinned. It is known that those who have dark skins and living in the low light climate of the U.K. tend to become vitamin D deficient, possibly making them more susceptible to COVID. "Maybe the fact that important decisions about how to handle the pandemic during the spring of 2020 were made by professional epidemiologists rather than by politicians has also played a part in causing Sweden to move in a different direction from most other countries, with measures in large part being driven by scientific evidence rather than by populism."
Rushworth says "You would think that governments always do a cost benefit analysis before embarking on a certain course of action ..."! However unrealistic this idea might be, he examines some of the costs of lockdowns including an apparent 8% increase in cardiovascular mortality, a doubling of response time to strokes, and the cost to children of taking them out of school. He concludes that "lockdown and the fear-mongering that goes with it almost certainly kills many more people than it saves."
The author reviews the studies that have been done on mask effectiveness, concluding that it’s possible that there is a small reduction in risk, in the region of 10–20% relative risk reduction, but the results are not statistically significant and could well be zero. Surprisingly, if you or someone in your household is sick, you probably don’t need to bother wearing a mask at home as the infection will spread at the same rate within the household regardless.
Rushworth looks at the studies of the safety of vaccines, notable for their lack of attention to the elderly and children. He concludes that the vaccine is not worthwhile for the young and healthy as the risk of getting severe COVID is infinitesimal while side effects may well exist. For children: "no way" - it is only little over a decade since an influenza vaccine (pandemrix) was rushed through and given to children based on limited evidence, causing hundreds in Europe to develop narcolepsy, a debilitating lifelong disease. Moreover it is not possible to recommend the vaccine to pregnant and breastfeeding women, people with autoimmune diseases, people with allergies, people with a depressed immune system, or people with serious underlying conditions.
Rushworth reviews the world reaction to COVID. He believes that the Chinese inaccurately portrayed their COVID epidemic in that they claimed to have controlled it through lockdowns. This caused demands by both the established media and social media for lockdowns to which the politicians responded. He notes that A hundred years from now, historians will not be talking about COVID as a deadly pandemic, but as an example of how easy it is to induce a state of collective mass hysteria.
He describes his investigation of some of the guidelines given to him as his "bible" in the last year of medical school, finding many of them to be "complete nonsense". "Just the word chosen showed clearly that this was not science we were being taught, it was religion.
The author relates the history of COVID in Sweden to the end of 2020 (the book was published March 2021). Spring restrictions on gathering sizes and distancing were removed in August as the number of cases appeared to have peaked, with children returning to school and nursing homes opening up. However, in late 2020 the government instituted even greater restrictions in spite of the severity of cases being less than in the spring. He attributes the change in policy to yielding to pressure or perhaps capitalizing on opinion polls.
Scientific studies range in quality from the lowest anecdotal evidence, through observational studies to Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) that should feature double blind use of a placebo for the control group. Various "tricks" can detract from the quality of studies such as the choice of endpoints and the population included in the studies. “Per-protocol analysis” studies only follow those that participate to the end of the study, thus missing any that drop out due to side effects, while the “intention to treat” studies include everyone.
Rushford provides a quick primer in statistics, discussing p-values which are used to determine whether the test result is statistically valid. Relative risk can often suggest greater benefit than absolute risk. His example is a fictitious drug that decreases ones five year absolute risk of having a heart attack from 0.2% to 0.1% - not a huge overall gain - while the decrease in relative risk is 50%, an apparently more significant number.
The average mortality in Sweden in 2020 was only 5% higher than the average for the preceding five years. The average person who dies from Covid is over 80 years old and has multiple underlying health conditions. The years of life lost are therefore relatively small. Among frail elderly people, rhinovirus (colds) is actually more deadly than regular influenza. One study showed that the 30 day mortality for frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to a rhinovirus infection was 10%, while for frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to influenza, 30 day mortality was 7%. In the reporting, many COVID deaths ware reported for those that died with it, as opposed to those that died with it.
Post-viral syndrome, a condition that has been known about for decades, affects some people after a viral respiratory infection, and that is primarily characterized by intense fatigue. Some studies have found that almost 60% of people treated in intensive care (for any condition, not COVID specifically) still have cognitive impairments twelve months after being discharged. Rushford's assessment is that long COVID is likely some form of Post-viral syndrome, and is not unique to COVID.
The PCR test is commonly used to detect COVID. The number of cycles is critical with the probability of a false positive increasing exponentially after 24 cycles to 40 cycles where it will almost certainly produce false positives. As the number of cycles is not stated, this can result in incorrect assignments of death to COVID. The antibody test which can determine where someone has had COVID in the past. However, it takes the body some time after infection to produce antibodies.
Test accuracy is a matter that most people don't consider. Sensitivity is the probability that a disease will be detected if the person actually has the disease. Specificity is the rate of false positives. Studies have varied by on average shown sensitivity to be 88 percent and specificity of 97 percent but possibly as high as 99 percent.
Using 88 and 97 percent, in a situation where 1 in 10 of the population are infected, the test would pick up 88 of the 100 infected and would give false positives for 27 of the 900 not infected. Worse, if only 1 in 1000 are infected, the test would pick up 9 of the 10 infected, but give false positives for 30 - 77% of positive results will be false positives! A major problem with the reporting of cases is that the number of tests carried out is never specified, so it is impossible to know whether increasing positives are due to increased testing. Similarly, the antibody testing has been largely ignored in spite of the fact that it would show the buildup of immunity in the population.
The author examines a study that sought to understand which factors correlate, on a country level, with Covid related outcomes. On a country wide basis, it showed a statistically significant relation between COVID deaths and obesity, age of the population and income disparity. No correlation was found with lockdowns, border closures or mass testing.
Rushworth looks at why Sweden had a higher death rate than its Nordic neighbours, concluding that it was due to the timing of their spring holiday, a larger ethnic minority population, and a larger nursing home population. Interesting note that most of the doctors in the U.K. who died of COVID were dark skinned. It is known that those who have dark skins and living in the low light climate of the U.K. tend to become vitamin D deficient, possibly making them more susceptible to COVID. "Maybe the fact that important decisions about how to handle the pandemic during the spring of 2020 were made by professional epidemiologists rather than by politicians has also played a part in causing Sweden to move in a different direction from most other countries, with measures in large part being driven by scientific evidence rather than by populism."
Rushworth says "You would think that governments always do a cost benefit analysis before embarking on a certain course of action ..."! However unrealistic this idea might be, he examines some of the costs of lockdowns including an apparent 8% increase in cardiovascular mortality, a doubling of response time to strokes, and the cost to children of taking them out of school. He concludes that "lockdown and the fear-mongering that goes with it almost certainly kills many more people than it saves."
The author reviews the studies that have been done on mask effectiveness, concluding that it’s possible that there is a small reduction in risk, in the region of 10–20% relative risk reduction, but the results are not statistically significant and could well be zero. Surprisingly, if you or someone in your household is sick, you probably don’t need to bother wearing a mask at home as the infection will spread at the same rate within the household regardless.
Rushworth looks at the studies of the safety of vaccines, notable for their lack of attention to the elderly and children. He concludes that the vaccine is not worthwhile for the young and healthy as the risk of getting severe COVID is infinitesimal while side effects may well exist. For children: "no way" - it is only little over a decade since an influenza vaccine (pandemrix) was rushed through and given to children based on limited evidence, causing hundreds in Europe to develop narcolepsy, a debilitating lifelong disease. Moreover it is not possible to recommend the vaccine to pregnant and breastfeeding women, people with autoimmune diseases, people with allergies, people with a depressed immune system, or people with serious underlying conditions.
Rushworth reviews the world reaction to COVID. He believes that the Chinese inaccurately portrayed their COVID epidemic in that they claimed to have controlled it through lockdowns. This caused demands by both the established media and social media for lockdowns to which the politicians responded. He notes that A hundred years from now, historians will not be talking about COVID as a deadly pandemic, but as an example of how easy it is to induce a state of collective mass hysteria.
July 30, 2021
A clearly articulated and well thought out book in an era of hysteria
A clearly articulated and well thought out book in an era of hysteria.
The author reflects the values of a true empirical sceptic. I genuinely wish more people could be open minded enough to read this book and begin the process of deradicalisation after months of indoctrination
A clearly articulated and well thought out book in an era of hysteria.
The author reflects the values of a true empirical sceptic. I genuinely wish more people could be open minded enough to read this book and begin the process of deradicalisation after months of indoctrination
April 4, 2021
Enormt viktig bok för ALLA att läsa.
May 28, 2021
Das Buch vermittelt die absoluten Basics zu Covid in Sachen evidenzbasierte medizinische Sicht. Es ist eine Art Review der medizinischen Aspekte und nur dieser Aspekte. Es gibt eine Einführung, warum die Schweden anders reagiert haben und später dann auch ein wenig hohl drehten, unnötigerweise. Danach gibt es die Basics, wie man medizinische Studien liest. Das ist für Naturwissenschaftler nicht neu, interessant ist, dass man als Mediziner halt vor allem die Teile eine Papers liest, die man in biologischen Papern nur liest, wenn man es nachkochen will, da gibt es schon berechtigte Unterschiede, wie man die Publikationen betrachtet.
Schön das Kapitel über die Grundlagen der Statistik. Ich war ohnehin immer der Meinung, sieht man die Ergebnisse nicht mit bloßem Auge und braucht Statistik, hat man keine Ergebnisse. p=0,05 ist auch nur arbiträr und kein Garant für echte Ergebnisse. Der Autor klärt auch klar darüber auf, die Studien geschönt werden und man schlechte Daten doch noch gut aussehen lässt. Ein Mathematiker meines Vertrauens hat mal Statistiken in medizinischen Papern nachgelesen und war extrem entsetzt, weil die teils einfach nicht wissen, was sie da tun. p=0,05 ist also immer noch kein Garant, wenn man ehrlich ist, wenn die Autoren keine Ahnung von solider Mathematik haben.
Dann geht der Autor darauf ein wie wenig tödlich Covid ist, was jetzt nicht wirklich neu ist und entzaubert Long-Covid, was auch nicht neu ist. Bei Anhängern des Corona Cultes dürften diese Kapitel aber Schaum vor dem Mund erzeugen.
Dann schaut er sich die bekannten Studien zur Infeffektivität und Sinnlosigkeit von Lockdowns an, was nun auch nicht neu ist, hat man alles schon x-Mal gelesen.
Er erklärt auch zum x-ten Mal, warum Schweden nach einem Jahr der Untersterblichkeit halt ohnehin ein Jahr der Übersterblichkeit gehabt hätte, auch hier würden die Mainstreammedien Schaum vor dem Mund bekommen.
Die Schäden des Lockdown Systems werden ebenfalls mit hinlänglich in den freien Medien durchgekauten Studien noch mal grob gegengerechnet und ein kurzer Überblick über die Effizienz oder eben deren nicht Effizienz von Masken gegeben.
Als Abschluss ein kurzes Kapitel über die Impfsoffstudien und seine medizinische Sicht. Daberi lässt er aus, dass Astra mitten in der Studie das Protokoll geändert hat und auch Fehler in der Dosierung gemacht hat, weil sie Probleme in der Produktion hatten. Moderna kommt erstaunlich gut weg. Die EMA Leaks über die schlechte Qualität der Vaccine vermisse ich auch. So wirklich drinnen in der Impfstoffproblematik und der langen Liste an Rote Hand Briefen ist er nicht. Thrombozytopenie ist noch kein Thema für ihn und dass der Moderna Impfstoff den Roten Hand Brief noch vor seiner Zulassung hatte. Ich denke, wenn man die Thrombozytopenien mit in Betracht zieht, würde das Urteil des Arztes sicherlich weniger positiv ausfallen.
Seine Analyse warum die Regierungen bei einem harmlosen Schnupfen so durchgedreht sind ist sehr sachlich und lässt die diversen faschistisch diskriminierenden Aspekte, die sich daraus entwickelt haben, komplett außen vor, die hat er in Schweden wohl auch einfach nicht so mitbekommen.
Fazit: Viel altbekanntes, das man bereits aus dem Multipolarmagazin, von Reitschuster, Nachdenkseiten und Co kannte. Keine der Studien oder Ergebnisse war für mich ansatzweise neu, aber er hat sie schön einfach noch einmal zusammengefasst und für Leien eingeordnet.
Ein sachliches Review ohne viel eigene Denkleistung oder Einordnung in größere Zusammenhänge, teils nicht so wirklich auf den neuesten Stand, besonders bei den Impfstoffen und den sozialen Auswirkungen der Maßnahmen. Ein netter Einstieg in die Thematik und auch nett, wenn man mal Schwedische Daten aus erster Hand von einem praktizierenden schwedischen Arzt will. Mir teils aber einfach zu kurz gegriffen. EIn grober Überblick, der nicht in die Tiefe geht. Findet man letzendlich alles auch so ähnlich auf seinem Blog.
Der wichtigste Satz des Buches ist für mich "Never trust the results of a study that stopped early (S. 38), denn die Phase 3 Studie der Impfstoffe ist auf 2 Jahre angelegt und die Enddaten sind noch gar nicht da. Etwas was der Autor auch nicht zu wissen scheint oder ignoriert.
Schön das Kapitel über die Grundlagen der Statistik. Ich war ohnehin immer der Meinung, sieht man die Ergebnisse nicht mit bloßem Auge und braucht Statistik, hat man keine Ergebnisse. p=0,05 ist auch nur arbiträr und kein Garant für echte Ergebnisse. Der Autor klärt auch klar darüber auf, die Studien geschönt werden und man schlechte Daten doch noch gut aussehen lässt. Ein Mathematiker meines Vertrauens hat mal Statistiken in medizinischen Papern nachgelesen und war extrem entsetzt, weil die teils einfach nicht wissen, was sie da tun. p=0,05 ist also immer noch kein Garant, wenn man ehrlich ist, wenn die Autoren keine Ahnung von solider Mathematik haben.
Dann geht der Autor darauf ein wie wenig tödlich Covid ist, was jetzt nicht wirklich neu ist und entzaubert Long-Covid, was auch nicht neu ist. Bei Anhängern des Corona Cultes dürften diese Kapitel aber Schaum vor dem Mund erzeugen.
Dann schaut er sich die bekannten Studien zur Infeffektivität und Sinnlosigkeit von Lockdowns an, was nun auch nicht neu ist, hat man alles schon x-Mal gelesen.
Er erklärt auch zum x-ten Mal, warum Schweden nach einem Jahr der Untersterblichkeit halt ohnehin ein Jahr der Übersterblichkeit gehabt hätte, auch hier würden die Mainstreammedien Schaum vor dem Mund bekommen.
Die Schäden des Lockdown Systems werden ebenfalls mit hinlänglich in den freien Medien durchgekauten Studien noch mal grob gegengerechnet und ein kurzer Überblick über die Effizienz oder eben deren nicht Effizienz von Masken gegeben.
Als Abschluss ein kurzes Kapitel über die Impfsoffstudien und seine medizinische Sicht. Daberi lässt er aus, dass Astra mitten in der Studie das Protokoll geändert hat und auch Fehler in der Dosierung gemacht hat, weil sie Probleme in der Produktion hatten. Moderna kommt erstaunlich gut weg. Die EMA Leaks über die schlechte Qualität der Vaccine vermisse ich auch. So wirklich drinnen in der Impfstoffproblematik und der langen Liste an Rote Hand Briefen ist er nicht. Thrombozytopenie ist noch kein Thema für ihn und dass der Moderna Impfstoff den Roten Hand Brief noch vor seiner Zulassung hatte. Ich denke, wenn man die Thrombozytopenien mit in Betracht zieht, würde das Urteil des Arztes sicherlich weniger positiv ausfallen.
Seine Analyse warum die Regierungen bei einem harmlosen Schnupfen so durchgedreht sind ist sehr sachlich und lässt die diversen faschistisch diskriminierenden Aspekte, die sich daraus entwickelt haben, komplett außen vor, die hat er in Schweden wohl auch einfach nicht so mitbekommen.
Fazit: Viel altbekanntes, das man bereits aus dem Multipolarmagazin, von Reitschuster, Nachdenkseiten und Co kannte. Keine der Studien oder Ergebnisse war für mich ansatzweise neu, aber er hat sie schön einfach noch einmal zusammengefasst und für Leien eingeordnet.
Ein sachliches Review ohne viel eigene Denkleistung oder Einordnung in größere Zusammenhänge, teils nicht so wirklich auf den neuesten Stand, besonders bei den Impfstoffen und den sozialen Auswirkungen der Maßnahmen. Ein netter Einstieg in die Thematik und auch nett, wenn man mal Schwedische Daten aus erster Hand von einem praktizierenden schwedischen Arzt will. Mir teils aber einfach zu kurz gegriffen. EIn grober Überblick, der nicht in die Tiefe geht. Findet man letzendlich alles auch so ähnlich auf seinem Blog.
Der wichtigste Satz des Buches ist für mich "Never trust the results of a study that stopped early (S. 38), denn die Phase 3 Studie der Impfstoffe ist auf 2 Jahre angelegt und die Enddaten sind noch gar nicht da. Etwas was der Autor auch nicht zu wissen scheint oder ignoriert.
August 15, 2022
COVID Response was due to Mass Hysteria
World Governments response to COVID was an attempt to control mass hysteria to an infectious viral disease which in a healthy person had a mortality rate of less than 2 %. That was less than that caused by the Influenza virus.
Over-reaction of governments and media did more harm than good.
Lockdowns and school closures in particular have caused economic chaos and delayed routine vaccinations as well delayed or postponed routine follow up care for chronic diseases such as hear disease, hypertension and diabetes. These issues will definitely have long term negative consequences in the near and distant future.
Cancelling of “in class” schooling will have long issues for a whole generation of children. These include no getting support and help with learning difficulties but also decreased socialization, which is almost as important as actual learning, in the raising of healthy ( mentally and socially) young men and women.
The author presents good scientific evidence for these statements and feels, as do I, that the response was overblown. He points out that that for governments the only “face saving “ way out is with a magic bullet. This bullet is COVID-19 vaccine.
This allows the anxiety of the disease to be relieved, a “fear mongering state”which the governments sponsored. The actual survival rate in healthy, low risk people who were infected, was 99.5%. The suicides, bankruptcies and addictions are only the surface of the results from the poor science and at times hysterical response. The documented substantial increase in child abuse as well alcohol and drug addiction resulting from these measures, are in my opinion unforgivable.
This book is very much based in scientific fact and not unsubstantiated ideas. There is no political bias that I can see. I would definitely suggest this as a good book to start with, when one feels the need to start one’s life over after the propaganda of the last 2 1/2 years.
I am a retired Family Physician who was Board Certified in both Canada and the USA.
World Governments response to COVID was an attempt to control mass hysteria to an infectious viral disease which in a healthy person had a mortality rate of less than 2 %. That was less than that caused by the Influenza virus.
Over-reaction of governments and media did more harm than good.
Lockdowns and school closures in particular have caused economic chaos and delayed routine vaccinations as well delayed or postponed routine follow up care for chronic diseases such as hear disease, hypertension and diabetes. These issues will definitely have long term negative consequences in the near and distant future.
Cancelling of “in class” schooling will have long issues for a whole generation of children. These include no getting support and help with learning difficulties but also decreased socialization, which is almost as important as actual learning, in the raising of healthy ( mentally and socially) young men and women.
The author presents good scientific evidence for these statements and feels, as do I, that the response was overblown. He points out that that for governments the only “face saving “ way out is with a magic bullet. This bullet is COVID-19 vaccine.
This allows the anxiety of the disease to be relieved, a “fear mongering state”which the governments sponsored. The actual survival rate in healthy, low risk people who were infected, was 99.5%. The suicides, bankruptcies and addictions are only the surface of the results from the poor science and at times hysterical response. The documented substantial increase in child abuse as well alcohol and drug addiction resulting from these measures, are in my opinion unforgivable.
This book is very much based in scientific fact and not unsubstantiated ideas. There is no political bias that I can see. I would definitely suggest this as a good book to start with, when one feels the need to start one’s life over after the propaganda of the last 2 1/2 years.
I am a retired Family Physician who was Board Certified in both Canada and the USA.
September 9, 2021
This book was originally censored by Amazon for....reasons. But it's hard to tell specifically what those reasons might have been without assuming the worst of Amazon (which let's be frank, are likely accurate anyways). The book essentially is nothing but the author asking common questions about Covid (Do lockdowns work? Are masks effective? How deadly is Covid?) and then answering these questions not with opinion but through the findings of scientific studies. Yes, he contextualizes the studies but does so in a way that clearly identifies his own biases and openly owns them. Furthermore, the studies are all cited and sourced.
The book is an easy-to-read analysis of the Covid pandemic and the actual scientific studies and figures that have been used to assess it. For those that are unfamiliar with reading scientific studies, Rushworth does an excellent job of describing how research gets published and how the papers are structured. He then carefully breaks down how and why various tricks are used by research authors to present information more or less favorably. It's a great primer even for the totally uninitiated.
So why the initial censorship from Amazon? Well, Rushworth's science-backed conclusions don't always (virtually never) mesh well with the talking points being advanced by the media and world governments. Apparently what we need is less science and more blind obedience to political strategies unsupported by evidence-based medicine.
Recommended for anybody curious to know what the science actually says.
The book is an easy-to-read analysis of the Covid pandemic and the actual scientific studies and figures that have been used to assess it. For those that are unfamiliar with reading scientific studies, Rushworth does an excellent job of describing how research gets published and how the papers are structured. He then carefully breaks down how and why various tricks are used by research authors to present information more or less favorably. It's a great primer even for the totally uninitiated.
So why the initial censorship from Amazon? Well, Rushworth's science-backed conclusions don't always (virtually never) mesh well with the talking points being advanced by the media and world governments. Apparently what we need is less science and more blind obedience to political strategies unsupported by evidence-based medicine.
Recommended for anybody curious to know what the science actually says.
May 26, 2021
Some pretty interesting points in this book. The author tries to clear the air on a few topics related to covid stats, processes + vaccines. It's more of an extended blog article (110 pages) so ez one day read. Not sure of the legitimacy because I'm not a doctor but it was recommended by one so make of that what you will. Some key takeaways:
• covid isn't as serious as people think.
• covid is VERY infectious (masks aren't v effective either)
• all vaccines have flawed research but Moderna's is the most promising (to the author).
• stop jumping to conclusions without proper research.
• lockdowns are ineffective
I'm still kinda paranoid about covid to the point where we still wash packets of bread or milk pouches and don't order outside food. And I'm not quite sold on the "not serious" point because I've heard of a few people succumbing because of covid (some had comorbidities but not all). Stay safe and take care, ya'll...
• covid isn't as serious as people think.
• covid is VERY infectious (masks aren't v effective either)
• all vaccines have flawed research but Moderna's is the most promising (to the author).
• stop jumping to conclusions without proper research.
• lockdowns are ineffective
I'm still kinda paranoid about covid to the point where we still wash packets of bread or milk pouches and don't order outside food. And I'm not quite sold on the "not serious" point because I've heard of a few people succumbing because of covid (some had comorbidities but not all). Stay safe and take care, ya'll...
August 15, 2021
Too Bad...
Yep....too bad the book came out so late.
Most intelligent people already had an idea, but as the author said of the governments near the end of the book....saving face and digging themselves in a hole so deep that the plausible truth will never be out in force.
Again it seems we repeat history, just in different flavours. Meanwhile, those who really needed good health needs coverage lost out in a big way because of the lockdowns.
Was there a conspiracy? No I really don't think so in the long run, just plain every day stupidity and ego stroking. And sadly enough we are the people who elect our so called representatives in governments, so I guess shame on us.
Take care of yourself folks and your loved ones. It's going to be a long and bumpy ride back to sanity.
Yep....too bad the book came out so late.
Most intelligent people already had an idea, but as the author said of the governments near the end of the book....saving face and digging themselves in a hole so deep that the plausible truth will never be out in force.
Again it seems we repeat history, just in different flavours. Meanwhile, those who really needed good health needs coverage lost out in a big way because of the lockdowns.
Was there a conspiracy? No I really don't think so in the long run, just plain every day stupidity and ego stroking. And sadly enough we are the people who elect our so called representatives in governments, so I guess shame on us.
Take care of yourself folks and your loved ones. It's going to be a long and bumpy ride back to sanity.
January 19, 2022
The other view
I always had doubts on the efficacy and safety of the hasty vaccine. So I took a conventional one made in old school method. Available in India. Covaxin. Attenuated COVID virus. With adjutants. After 10 months of having severe COVID. More to follow Govt policy. Than out of full faith. But I did use proper masks and other safety norms. Now this book, though it does not tally with the other scientific opinion more widely available, does at least confirm that vaccines do some good. And masks work of proper and used in correct
circumstances. So despite the attending views, it does help reinforce conventional ideas. And also clarifies the great mystery of Sweden's not going for lockdown. Read it to know the true reason. It's not about the media touted herd immunity.
Overall a must read book.
I always had doubts on the efficacy and safety of the hasty vaccine. So I took a conventional one made in old school method. Available in India. Covaxin. Attenuated COVID virus. With adjutants. After 10 months of having severe COVID. More to follow Govt policy. Than out of full faith. But I did use proper masks and other safety norms. Now this book, though it does not tally with the other scientific opinion more widely available, does at least confirm that vaccines do some good. And masks work of proper and used in correct
circumstances. So despite the attending views, it does help reinforce conventional ideas. And also clarifies the great mystery of Sweden's not going for lockdown. Read it to know the true reason. It's not about the media touted herd immunity.
Overall a must read book.
March 26, 2022
Humans or Sheep?
The ability of people to work themselves into a frenzied panic over something they have zero understanding of is something that can never be underestimated. The fear of sickness or death is understandable but the probability of that outcome is extremely variable. The number one reason for the incredible stupidity and excessive terror that many people responded with is almost entirely due to the MEDIA. In what truly seems almost a GLEEFUL attempt to create a Huge story to pump up ratings and Lord knows what else (I am certain it was money motivated) the media was thrilled to do anything in their mighty power to create mass hysteria. Who owns the media? If you do your research you may be surprised, or maybe not. Again money talks, or in this case screams it from the rooftops and viewscreens!
The ability of people to work themselves into a frenzied panic over something they have zero understanding of is something that can never be underestimated. The fear of sickness or death is understandable but the probability of that outcome is extremely variable. The number one reason for the incredible stupidity and excessive terror that many people responded with is almost entirely due to the MEDIA. In what truly seems almost a GLEEFUL attempt to create a Huge story to pump up ratings and Lord knows what else (I am certain it was money motivated) the media was thrilled to do anything in their mighty power to create mass hysteria. Who owns the media? If you do your research you may be surprised, or maybe not. Again money talks, or in this case screams it from the rooftops and viewscreens!
April 12, 2021
The author of this too short explanation of "The Dreaded" is a Swedish E.R. doctor who explores every aspect of the virus and backs them up with links to publications like New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA. So, it would be kind of hard to ban the book unless you also banned those periodicals. However, nobody is promoting the book, hence I am about the 70th person to review (read) the book on GR. Okay, so cloth masks don't work and better masks barely work, distance protocols don't work, and the vaccines...? If you must, go with Moderna, Pfizer is questionable, and Astra Zeneca is a flat out crap shoot, but if you need not, do not. Now, if you have your hands over your ears going "Na, Na, Na..." well, that's your right. Otherwise, try to find this very important book.
June 7, 2021
A clear, unbiased and objective analysis of the current events concerning Covid by a junior Swedish doctor. A detailed and comprehensive overview based on many studies, published in prestigious journals, on the effectiveness of masks, the effectiveness of the lockdowns, the effectiveness of the vaccines, ... This book could be seen as quite controversial given the climate around the topic, which is highly political and causes lots of stir in the public sphere. One easily gets the stamp of being 'anti-scientific' when questioning the standing 'consensus' around the current case of affairs being it Covid and its consequences on the majority of societies around the globe. This book could be considered a vaccine against 'BS'.
April 9, 2021
Highly recommended
This book clearly explains how trials are carried out and how the vaccines work. There are references to support all the claims. However, the author discusses relative and absolute risk pointing out that it is absolute risk that matters to individuals, but this is ignored when discussing the vaccine trial results.
I suspect the final paragraphs about the government policies will turn out to be true. The problem not discussed is the damage it has done to people and the economy, and perhaps why people are so gullible.
This book clearly explains how trials are carried out and how the vaccines work. There are references to support all the claims. However, the author discusses relative and absolute risk pointing out that it is absolute risk that matters to individuals, but this is ignored when discussing the vaccine trial results.
I suspect the final paragraphs about the government policies will turn out to be true. The problem not discussed is the damage it has done to people and the economy, and perhaps why people are so gullible.
May 23, 2021
Do you have a nagging feeling that SARS-Cov-2 is not the deadly virus portrayed by the media and many governments worldwide? That it’s not Ebola. That it’s not the Black Death, as seemingly portrayed. Then read this primer written by Sebastian Rushworth. He explores each of the main issues methodically, with balance, and with reference to the available scientific evidence and data.
Then once you have done that, look up Ivor Cummins and Joel Smalley. And don’t suffer any more lockdown abuse by your respective government.
Then once you have done that, look up Ivor Cummins and Joel Smalley. And don’t suffer any more lockdown abuse by your respective government.
October 5, 2021
Well Researched and Well presented
The COVID 19 pandemic has a lot of layers. It is extremely difficult to separate these layers without solid, concrete evidence. Sadly, that entity is in very short supply. Dr. Rushworth has done a decent job of defining the some of the layers and gives a cogent analysis of where they take us. The statistical analysis alone is worth the time to read and process. This is a good start. More reading will be necessary to get to the bottom of how this pandemic was handled.
The COVID 19 pandemic has a lot of layers. It is extremely difficult to separate these layers without solid, concrete evidence. Sadly, that entity is in very short supply. Dr. Rushworth has done a decent job of defining the some of the layers and gives a cogent analysis of where they take us. The statistical analysis alone is worth the time to read and process. This is a good start. More reading will be necessary to get to the bottom of how this pandemic was handled.
January 12, 2022
Well written and scientific evidence of covid overreactions
This book refutes much of what the US government has been touting as reasons for masks, lock downs and quarantines. The author does this in a very scientific way. His reasoning is unemotional and unbiased. This being said, I have been vaccinated and boosted. There is something that can be said by watching a family member suffer with this disease to try to do SOMETHING to prevent its spread, even wearing an ineffective mask. Maybe I wear it to show respect for those who are sick. Well written!
This book refutes much of what the US government has been touting as reasons for masks, lock downs and quarantines. The author does this in a very scientific way. His reasoning is unemotional and unbiased. This being said, I have been vaccinated and boosted. There is something that can be said by watching a family member suffer with this disease to try to do SOMETHING to prevent its spread, even wearing an ineffective mask. Maybe I wear it to show respect for those who are sick. Well written!
June 19, 2021
Common sense supported by science
Great book and easy read. For those of you with common sense and don't understand the hysteria for something that, based simply on available data, is not that big of a deal for 95% of the population, this book is for you. If you are dreadfully concerned about covid, this book is also for you to help you understand the personal freakout is not needed. The biggest takeaway is how the western govts and media can easily manipulate the public.
Great book and easy read. For those of you with common sense and don't understand the hysteria for something that, based simply on available data, is not that big of a deal for 95% of the population, this book is for you. If you are dreadfully concerned about covid, this book is also for you to help you understand the personal freakout is not needed. The biggest takeaway is how the western govts and media can easily manipulate the public.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews