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

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".