Have you ever wondered where all these new viral diseases come from? The last few decades we get one new virus after another, but nobody explains how that’s possible. Now there is the parechovirus, which is said to cause serious problems in babies. Let’s see how much science is involved.
“A new virus that put 80 Australian babies in hospital” Again: where do these new viruses come from? Do they just happen? That’s not possible. So I would like to see an explanation. And did this virus make the babies sick, or where they sick and tested positive for this new virus? That’s a huge difference, but usually not one that doctors see. They are obsessed with viruses and see them everywhere and anywhere, especially when other explanations might not be so nice.
“found more than half of the babies who had parechovirus in 2013 and 2014 went on to have developmental problems 12 months later.” So not all of them. And it was only 80 to start with. Considering how many children have developmental problems, how on earth can you know that in these few babies it was caused by this virus?
“parechovirus was a new virus, which doctors knew very little about.” Nevertheless they have already decided that it causes brain injuries in babies. That sounds like a lot of fantasy and wild guesses. “the results are concerning” I don’t see what’s so concerning. It’s very concerning that so many babies have brain damage and developmental delays, but those numbers are becoming so huge that a few more or less doesn’t really matter for the statistics. And considering they don’t even know what the virus is, where it comes from or what it does, I really don’t understand what they base this statement on. It seems that this new study is nothing but observations and wild explanations.
“Parechovirus is spread from person to person by direct contact with nose and throat discharges” Interesting. Can anyone tell me how they know this? If the virus can be found in samples of these places that doesn’t automatically mean that it’s also spread that way. But that’s where the paradigm comes in. “Viruses cause disease and when you have them you spread them and you make other people sick”. There is no proof for this, but the paradigm is there and everything else follows. But if the basis for your research is wrong, then any results from your research will also be wrong. Oops!
“There is no specific treatment and no vaccine available against parechovirus.” Don’t worry, a vaccine is probably already in the make. For no matter how little is known about a “new virus”, it never seems to be a problem to make a vaccine against it. You can’t have your cake and eat it. If you don’t know much about the virus you can’t make a vaccine that even theoretically could work. But that has never stopped the pharmaceutical industry from making the vaccines or doctors from using them.
“were hospitalised with parechovirus Type 3” I’m getting confused now. The doctors don’t know much about a virus, which is supposed to be new, but they already have at least three types and they know what type it is? Again, keep your stories straight. You can’t have it all.
“symptoms including seizures, irritability and physical jerks.” Here we get some real information. Many conditions have these symptoms and there is something else that stands out: these are all common bad effects of vaccines. Oops! It doesn’t say at what age these babies got sick, but unless proven otherwise I guess that they got this shortly after vaccinations. Obviously doctors need something new to diagnose babies with and it’s not so hard to find a “new virus” that you can blame. And then Big Pharma can make a vaccine and around and around it goes. “doctors found half of the children had developmental problems” Again: this is a well-known result of vaccinations, so how do the doctors know the difference? How many of these babies were completely vaccine free? Probably none.
“the study highlighted the severity of this new virus” Explain. I don’t see a dangerous virus in this story. I just see a lot of fantasy and a huge smoke screen. “virus usually causes no symptoms, but when illness occurs it is most commonly a mild diarrhoea or respiratory infection.” So let’s assume that there is a parechovirus. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to study why some babies get really sick, while most don’t even notice the infection? By the way, I always wonder how they know how many individuals get an infection without getting sick. If you’re not sick, you won’t get tested, so nobody knows.
“The disease was identified for the first time in Australia at the end of 2013, when the world’s largest recorded outbreak hit Sydney.” That always sounds so scary, but obviously this large outbreak was only a few dozen of babies. And has anyone investigated what more these babies had in common? Where they in the same hospital? Did they get the same medical treatments? Did they maybe get shots from the same batch? When you only look for one cause of a disease you don’t do research, you please your sponsors.
“anyone could get infected with parechovirus, but babies were at risk of more severe disease.” And you know this from just one study, which was clearly biased? Who do you think you are fooling? “we can certainly be confident that we will have further outbreaks in Australia” Confident? That sounds like you would like them to happen, so that you can do more research, which keeps you in the job. Professor Jones, it’s nice that you are so honest about your intentions. But when are you going to do something useful? And when will you stop producing such huge amounts of wishful thinking? I don’t know how many people believe this nonsense, but the group of gullible persons is decreasing. And once the people start thinking for themselves your credibility will quickly get reduced to zero. So enjoy your status as professor for as long as it lasts. It might not be too long anymore.
(By the way, there is very little known about the virus, but there is no lack of colourful pictures showing what the virus looks like. Nice artwork, but nothing more than that.)