People have died from the coronavirus, contrary to article claiming to report pathologist’s “revelations” on COVID-19

People have died from COVID-19. This is evident from the excess mortality observed in 2020 compared to previous years before the pandemic occurred. Monoclonal antibodies that bind to SARS-CoV-2 have also been discovered and reported in published studies, and pathologists have been using such antibodies, as well as other techniques like in situ hybridization which do not require antibodies, to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in human tissue.

Article inaccurately claims that coronavirus vaccine by Oxford researchers caused animal test subjects to develop COVID-19

Preliminary results from small-scale animal studies suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford researchers may be protective against viral pneumonia. However, the researchers also detected viral genetic material in nasal passages in vaccinated monkeys, leading scientists to caution that the vaccine may not prevent virus shedding and its spread. Financial backing for the production of the Oxford vaccine has come from several sources, including the U.K. government and charities.

No evidence that using a face mask helps coronavirus enter the brain, contrary to claim by Russell Blaylock

Blaylock produces no evidence for his claim that wearing a face mask increases risk of coronavirus infection of the brain. His statement that using face masks lead to serious health risks are also unsupported. While face masks and cloth face coverings do not provide 100% protection from infection, they still play an important role in reducing the risk of disease transmission by blocking infectious droplets containing the virus, which is the main mode of COVID-19 transmission.

Contrary to claims in viral social media posts, the novel coronavirus was not man-made nor patented before outbreak

Patents cited to support this claim are not related to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which was first identified as a new virus in early January 2020 after genome sequencing. Instead, these patents are for known coronavirus strains such as SARS-CoV-1. The joint pandemic simulation exercise Event 201 did not predict the COVID-19 pandemic, and the hypothetical virus it modeled does not resemble SARS-CoV-2. Genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 indicates no signs of genetic modification, and the wide scientific consensus is that the virus is of natural origin and that the outbreak began through zoonotic infection, not through a lab accident.

Blog posts inaccurately claim that a 2005 NIH study demonstrated the effectiveness of chloroquine treatment against coronavirus infection such as COVID-19

Developing or repurposing drugs is a long, stepwise process with a low chance of success. In vitro studies are the first step in that process. Given the high rate of failure, it is impossible to conclude from positive in vitro studies that a drug will be efficient at treating a living person. The 2005 study cited in these articles was actually a Canada-funded study, which revealed an effect of chloroquine on SARS-CoV-1 infection in cell cultures. Contrary to what the articles suggest, the study was not conducted or funded by the NIH. Although SARS-CoV-1 shares some similarities with the current SARS-CoV-2, an in vitro study of the former does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that it will effectively treat COVID-19.

Did the COVID-19 virus originate from a lab or nature? Examining the evidence for different hypotheses of the novel coronavirus’ origins

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, many hypotheses have been advanced to explain where the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) actually came from. Initial reports pointed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the source of infection, however later studies called this into question. Given the uncertainty, many have suggested that … Continued

Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier inaccurately claims that the novel coronavirus is man-made and contains genetic material from HIV

Genomic analyses of the novel coronavirus shows that it has a natural origin and was not engineered. The claim that the virus has genetic material from HIV is based on a preprint with significant flaws in study design and execution that was later withdrawn by the authors. As it turned out, the so-called “HIV insertions” identified by the authors could also be found in many other organisms apart from HIV, refuting the claim that genetic material from HIV was inserted into the novel coronavirus.

PCR tests for COVID-19 are specific for the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and do not detect other coronaviruses, contrary to claims in viral article and video

The PCR tests for COVID-19 are designed to be highly specific for the novel coronavirus—they can detect this virus unequivocally and differentiate it from other members of the coronavirus family. These PCR tests are also capable of measuring viral load (amount of virus) in patient samples, which is related to virus transmissibility and severity of infection.

Evidence points to coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 being of natural origin, no evidence it could have been intentionally propagated

All available data indicate that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is of natural origin. Comparisons of viral genome sequences show that it shares a strong identity with similar coronaviruses that infect pangolins and bats. And further investigations of the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggest that the virus was not artificially created or propagated in laboratories. In the absence of evidence proving otherwise, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created and intentionally released is not only unsubstantiated but also implausible.

Claim that flu vaccine increases coronavirus infection is unsupported, misinterprets scientific studies

More research is needed to provide a conclusive answer to the question of whether the flu shot increases the risk of non-influenza viral respiratory infections. It is important to keep in mind that while the flu vaccine cannot prevent COVID-19, it still provides several indirect benefits. For example, it reduces cases of flu and flu complications that require hospitalization, in turn reducing the burden on the healthcare system, which has become strained during the COVID-19 pandemic.