Definitely not the first to post on this but am completely floored by a 2008 paper published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases by Professor David Morens (Medical Epidemiologist), Dr Jeffery Taubenberger (Virologist), and Dr Anthony Fauci (Immunologist) at the NIAID. 1/11

In the paper the authors question the cause of mortality during the 1918 pandemic and those which follow. They go on to hypothesize and prove that bacterial pneumonia is actually the prominent causative factor during viral respiratory pandemics. 2/11
Part of the methodology was examining several histological specimens which had been preserved from the pandemic. They found that in essentially every single case there was evidence of severe acute bacterial pneumonia either as predominant or in conjunction with virus. 3/11
The paper notes that previous post mortem cultures picked up bacterial colonization with more than half of those being pathognomonic. 4/11
Morens et al. note that subsequent pandemic deaths were also attributable to secondary bacterial pneumonia following primary viral infection despite significant advancements in medicine. 5/11
The paper concludes that ample evidence from influenza pandemics (and similar viruses) spanning almost a century indicates that viral deaths are actually due to bacterial infection. 6/11
The authors even provide a solid explanation for why we might be masking bacterial pneumonia deaths in this context, and note that primary viral pneumonia deaths are exceptionally rare “even in pandemic peaks”. 7/11
There’s then this throw forward to the “next pandemic” in which the authors note that a human-adapted virus (Influenza; SARS-CoV-2) will cause severe disease by bacterial colonization in the background of viral infection. 8/11
The paper was published in 2008 by 3 leading scientists at least one of whom now seems to have forgotten he ever wrote this. It’s available for viewing and download here:

https://t.co/urpWqLFpij

9/11
If we knew in 2008 that co-infection during respiratory pandemics is the major driver of mortality, then why are we basically ignoring this entirely in 2020?

New variant and less than perfect vaccine, or bacterial infection we’re not treating properly for viral obsession? 10/11
There are so many questions to be asked given the existence of this paper and the people who published it. We are treating pandemic science as if it started in March of this year when in fact we have lots of good data prior to this - if only we’d read it. 11/11

More from For later read

There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like