#epidemiological data

[pandemic-info]

Biobot’s interactive tracker is no longer available:

(From Raw Data to Actionable Insights: Biobot’s Evolution of Public Data Sharing | Biobot Analytics)

Blog update 5/30/24:

We want to thank the public for all the love and support of this work over the years.

After more than three years of making COVID-19 wastewater data available to the public, Biobot has reduced its public data reporting efforts. As we expand our wastewater epidemiology technologies to other population health areas, we no longer have the resources to maintain our COVID-19 dashboard. We decided to sunset the dashboard now because of other publicly available sources of wastewater data, including at the local level through our customers and partners and nationwide through the CDC NWSS program. We are optimistic that government sharing of wastewater data will continue to improve.

This does not mean we believe COVID-19 is no longer a threat, nor are we stopping our work. We see great potential for wastewater to positively impact public health efforts and the healthcare ecosystem in many areas beyond COVID-19. We remain committed to leading in this space and pioneering new applications for wastewater epidemiology.

Wastewater data resources can be found at:

You can find our risk reports here

You can find CDC’s COVID tracker here

Check your local and state public health departments and wastewater treatment facilities as they may be sharing this information directly

Epidemiologists doing important data reporting for the public:

Your Local Epidemiologist, Katelyn Jetelina

Force of Infection, Caitlin Rivers

Helen Branswell, STAT News

[mangled-by-disuse]

I have such mixed feelings about the love languages thing specifically, because, like, gary chapman fucking sucks and there's no scientific validity to his work BUT

at the same time, i do think there's some value in recognising and discussing the fact that different people need different expressions of love in different amounts? Especially in relationships.

Like, I have just recently been having a discussion with my partner about how he really doesn't tend to express his affection through gifts, whereas (as someone who is mega-bad at expressing sincere feeling) I do rely heavily on giving gifts and doing things for people as a less scary way to express love. Joe doesn't like giving gifts, because he's scared he'll do it wrong, and is only so-so on receiving them. He prefers to express love through physical contact and saying nice things. I hate having nice things said to me unless I am allowed to immediately rebut them with a joke or sarcastic comment that makes them less scarily close to emotional honesty. too many words of affirmation and i will genuinely just start avoiding you because it is painfully awkward to me.

and none of that means we are fundamentally different categories of people, which is where the 5 Love Languages stuff falls into being absolute bollocks. but I have seen, and done, enough throwing the baby out with the bathwater on that to be a little defensive - I think reasonable applications of the concept are actually really quite valuable. and for me, the taxonomy Chapman suggests (words of affirmation, quality time, gifts, acts of service, physical touch) while not at all exhaustive or thorough, is a useful framework to hang those conversations on. bc, like, no, the way people communicate and receive affection is not universal, and from personal experience, assuming that it is can have really significant problems for a relationship.

...you could argue that this is parallel to BMI in terms of "tools being used in totally not the way they should be used" though, tbf.

I can't keep having the same conversations about love languages, mbti, iq, bmi, "brain fully formed at 25" and shit over and over again...

[detroitography]

Event: Detroit Data Forum: Health Data and Assessments

Welcome to our Data Forum where we will discuss City, County, and Hospital health assessments in Detroit. Join us online for lunch-and-learn filled with insightful discussions, tips, and tricks on all things related to the data. We’ll be joined by the Tiffani Stewart and the Detroit Health Department team releasing their latest Community Health Assessment (CHA), Katerina Stylianou sharing the…

[vamptastic]

wish that studies on weight gain and loss were more in depth especially on the patient's weight history and their families' statistics.

i think that, basically, there are lots of people that are naturally fat- their families are fat, they were fat for most or all of their life, and anecdotally people that have been lifelong fat seem to have better health wrt the standard stuff like cholesterol, heart disease, etc. and there are also life events that can lead to (usually smallish but enough to change BMI categories) weight gain that seems for most to be irreversible, like pregnancy. it's pretty well established that long term (5-year mark) weight loss is statistically rare, only 5-10%. essentially i wonder if there's some unifying factor for that 5-10% and my unfounded hypothesis is that it's probably people with endocrine and metabolic disorders whose 'set point' or 'natural weight' or what have you is lower than their previous weight but who experienced weight gain as a part of their disorder.

pretty impossible to actually ever answer my question though because long-term weight loss studies are pretty rare (because they're hard to conduct) and they never include data on weight before the study nor family history (because it's hard to gather). where the data can be found, it's an issue of like, a paper studying weight cycling doesn't bother with family history because it's not relevant to proving their hypothesis.

it could also very much be that people who lose weight longterm are just engaging in disordered eating. given that most diet programs are just that, and one generally regains weight when they quit an extreme diet.

[dr-jeremia-j-pyuza-tips]

Letting others know is part of sharing. Please share anything good in the realm of education progress.

[jcmarchi]

Heavy metals are toxic to ovaries, may lead to earlier menopause - Technology Org

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/heavy-metals-are-toxic-to-ovaries-may-lead-to-earlier-menopause-technology-org/

Heavy metals are toxic to ovaries, may lead to earlier menopause - Technology Org

Middle-aged women with elevated levels of heavy metals are more likely to have depleted ovarian function and egg reserves, which may lead to earlier arrival of menopause and its negative health effects, a new University of Michigan study shows.

Focus on cadmium, lead and mercury that are forbidden in european legislation inside electronics.

Researchers reviewed data on hundreds of women approaching menopause and found that the presence of cadmium, mercury, and arsenic in their urine was connected to low levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). AMH measures ovarian reserve, or the number of eggs available for fertilization or menstruation. Menopause is the time of life when hormone depletion ends monthly menstruation and sets off many changes to women’s health and wellness.

The observed magnitude of associations between heavy metals and AMH was stronger than the association between smoking and AMH, which is a known risk factor for depleted ovarian reserve, according to the study published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Widespread exposure to toxins in heavy metals may have a big impact on health problems linked to earlier aging of the ovaries in middle-aged women, such as hot flashes, bone weakening and osteoporosis, higher chances of heart disease, and cognitive decline,” said study author Sung Kyun Park, associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health sciences at the U-M School of Public Health.

“Our study linked heavy metal exposure to lower levels of anti-Müllerian hormone in middle-aged women. AMH tells us roughly how many eggs are left in a woman’s ovaries. It’s like a biological clock for the ovaries that can hint at health risks in middle age and later in life.”

Using data from the longitudinal Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, Park and colleagues reviewed 2,252 repeated measurements of AMH in 549 women within 10 years after their final menstrual period. The women in the study were ages 45 to 56 were ethnically diverse: 45% white, 21% Black, 15% Chinese and 19% Japanese.

“Given that heavy metals are widespread in the general population and urinary metal concentrations measured in our study were comparable to the general female population across the United States, the potential adverse effects of heavy metals on ovarian function should be of significant public health concern,” Park said.

Arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead are commonly found in drinking water, air pollution and some foods, notably seafood and rice. The metals are considered endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can cause infertility, cancers and other diseases.

Prior research offers toxicological evidence that heavy metals may negatively affect reproductive health. Only a few studies have explored associations of cadmium and lead with AMH, reporting that cadmium may alter AMH concentrations in pregnant women and premenopausal women ages 30 to 45. The new study focused on perimenopausal women.

This information may enable researchers to address adverse health outcomes known to be associated with metals and with reproductive hormone changes such as premature menopause, bone loss and osteoporosis, increased risks of cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline and vasomotor symptoms, according to the study authors.

“We see this significant public health concern, which may also have implications for women of all ages,” Park said.

The researchers say their findings require further investigation, particularly in a younger population, to fully understand the role of heavy metals as potential ovarian toxicants that diminish ovarian reserves.

Source: University of Michigan

You can offer your link to a page which is relevant to the topic of this post.

[nuadox]

Cases of chikungunya and zika fall in Brazil, but most risk clusters exhibit an upward trend

- By Julia Moióli , Agência FAPESP -

Analysis of occurrence and co-occurrence patterns shows the highest-risk clusters of chikungunya and zika in Brazil spreading from the Northeast to the Center-West and coastal areas of São Paulo state and Rio de Janeiro state in the Southeast between 2018 and 2021, and increasing again in the Northeast between 2019 and 2021.

In Brazil overall, spatial variations in the temporal trends for chikungunya and zika decreased 13% and 40% respectively, but 85% and 57% of the clusters in question displayed a rise in numbers of cases. 

These findings are from an article published in Scientific Reports by researchers at the University of São Paulo’s School of Public Health (FSP-USP) and São Paulo state’s Center for Epidemiological Surveillance (CVE) who analyzed spatial-temporal patterns of occurrence and co-occurrence of the two arboviral diseases in all Brazilian municipalities as well as the environmental and socio-economic factors associated with them.

Considered neglected tropical diseases by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO), chikungunya and zika are arboviral diseases caused by viruses of the families Togaviridae and Flaviviridae respectively, and transmitted by mosquitoes of the genus Aedes. Case numbers of both diseases have risen worldwide in the last decade and expanded geographically: chikungunya has been reported in 116 countries and zika in 92, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the main health surveillance agency in the United States. Some 8 million people are estimated to have been infected worldwide, although the number may have reached 100 million in light of generalized underreporting of neglected tropical diseases.

The emergence and re-emergence of chikungunya and zika are facilitated by environmental factors such as urbanization, deforestation and climate change, including droughts and floods. “Identifying high-risk areas for the spread of these arboviruses is important both to control the vectors and to target public health measures correctly,” said Raquel Gardini Sanches Palasio, corresponding author of the article. She is affiliated with FSP-USP’s Department of Epidemiology, where she is a researcher in the Laboratory for Spatial Analysis in Health (LAES).

Working with her PhD thesis advisor, Francisco Chiaravalloti Neto, and other researchers at USP and CVE, Palasio analyzed more than 770,000 cases (608,388 of chikungunya and 162,992 of zika) diagnosed by laboratory test or clinical and epidemiological analysis; most were autochthonous (due to locally acquired infection). The analysis encompassed spatial, temporal and seasonal data, as well as temperature, rainfall and socio-economic factors.

The results showed that high-risk areas had higher temperatures and identified co-occurrence clusters in certain regions. “In the first few years of the period the high-risk clusters were in the Northeast. They then spread to the Center-West – zika in 2016 and chikungunya in 2018 – and to coastal areas in the Southeast – in 2018 and 2021 respectively – followed by resurgence in the Northeast,” Palasio said. 

“Spatial variations in the temporal trends for chikungunya and zika decreased 13% and 40% respectively, but numbers of cases rose in 85% and 57% of the clusters concerned. Spatial variation clusters with a growing internal trend predominated in practically all states, with annual growth of 0.85%-96.56% for chikungunya and 2.77%-53.03% for zika.

“We also found that both diseases have occurred more frequently in summer and fall in Brazil since 2015. Chikungunya is associated with low rainfall, urbanization and social inequality, while zika correlates closely with high rainfall and lack of basic sanitation.”

Both are also more frequent in urban areas with less vegetation, she said, adding that socio-economic factors appear to correlate less with zika than with chikungunya.

Next steps 

“Both diseases have the same vectors and are similar in some other ways, so theoretically they should occur in the same places. We didn’t observe perfect overlapping in space and time, however,” Palasio said.

A hypothesis raised by the researchers who conducted the study, which was funded by FAPESP, relates to socio-economic factors, environment and climate. The main source of data was the 2010 census, and next steps will include an update using fresh data from IBGE’s 2022 census.

“We also want to perform a spatial and temporal analysis using a broader dataset that takes socio-economic factors and climate [especially temperature and rainfall] into account together rather than separately,” Palasio said.

Another focus will be co-occurrence or overlapping of the two diseases. Future climate change models will be run under best-case and worst-case scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions.

The article “Zika, chikungunya and co-occurrence in Brazil: space-time clusters and associated environmental-socio-economic factors” is at: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42930-4.

Image: Analysis of spatial variations in temporal trends for cases of chikungunya (A) and zika (B) in Brazil between 2015 and 2022. Credit: Scientific Reports.

This text was originally published by FAPESP Agency according to Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-ND. Read the original here.

--

Read Also

Mapping dengue hot spots determines risks for Zika and chikungunya

[mariacallous]

With vaccination rates among US kindergarteners steadily declining in recent years and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vowing to reexamine the childhood vaccination schedule, measles and other previously eliminated infectious diseases could become more common. A new analysis published today by epidemiologists at Stanford University attempts to quantify those impacts.

Using a computer model, the authors found that with current state-level vaccination rates, measles could reestablish itself and become consistently present in the United States in the next two decades. Their model predicted this outcome in 83 percent of simulations. If current vaccination rates stay the same, the model estimated that the US could see more than 850,000 cases, 170,000 hospitalizations, and 2,500 deaths over the next 25 years. The results appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“I don’t see this as speculative. It is a modeling exercise, but it’s based on good numbers,” says Jeffrey Griffiths, professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, who was not involved in the study. “The big point is that measles is very likely to become endemic quickly if we continue in this way.”

The United States declared measles eliminated in 2000 after decades of successful vaccination campaigns. Elimination means there has been no chain of disease transmission inside a country lasting longer than 12 months. The current measles outbreak in Texas, however, could put that status at risk. With more than 600 cases, 64 hospitalizations, and two deaths, it’s the largest outbreak the state has seen since 1992, when 990 cases were linked to a single outbreak. Nationally, the US has seen 800 cases of measles so far in 2025, the most since 2019. Last year, there were 285 cases.

“We’re really at a point where we should be trying to increase vaccination as much as possible,” says Mathew Kiang, assistant professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University and one of the authors of the paper.

Childhood vaccination in the US has been on a downward trend. Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from state and local vaccination programs found that from the 2019–2020 school year to the 2022–2023 school year, coverage among kindergartners with state-required vaccinations declined from 95 percent to approximately 93 percent. Those vaccines included MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis), polio, and chickenpox.

In the current study, Kiang and his colleagues modeled each state separately, taking into account their vaccination rates, which ranged from 88 percent to 96 percent for measles, 78 percent to 91 percent for diphtheria, and 90 percent to 97 percent for the polio vaccine. Other variables included demographics of the population, vaccine efficacy, risk of disease importation, typical duration of the infection, the time between exposure and being able to spread the disease, and the contagiousness of the disease, also known as the basic reproduction number. Measles is highly contagious, with one person on average being able to infect 12 to 18 people. The researchers used 12 as the basic reproduction number in their study.

Under a scenario with a 10 percent decline in measles vaccination, the model estimates 11.1 million cases of measles over the next 25 years, while a 5 percent increase in the vaccination rate would result in just 5,800 cases in that same time period.

In addition to measles, the authors used their model to assess the risk of rubella, polio, and diphtheria. The researchers chose these four diseases for their infectiousness and risk of severe complications. While sporadic cases of these diseases do occur and are usually related to international travel, they are no longer endemic in the US, meaning they no longer regularly occur.

The model predicted that rubella, polio, and diphtheria are unlikely to become endemic under current levels of vaccination. Rubella and polio have a basic reproduction number of four, while diphtheria’s is less than three. In 81 percent of simulations, vaccination rates would need to fall by around 35 percent for rubella to become endemic in the next 25 years. Polio, meanwhile, had a 50 percent chance of becoming endemic if vaccination rates dropped 40 percent. Diphtheria was the least likely disease to become reestablished.

“Any of these diseases, under the right conditions, could come back,” says coauthor Nathan Lo, a Stanford physician and assistant professor of infectious diseases.

To evaluate the validity of the model, the researchers ran a scenario with recent state-level vaccine coverage rates over a five-year period and found that the number of model-predicted cases broadly aligned with the number of observed cases in those years. The authors also found that Texas was at the highest risk for measles.

One limitation of the study was that the model assumed that vaccination rates were the same across all communities within a state. It didn’t take into account large variations in vaccination levels. Pockets of low vaccination rates, like in the Mennonite community at the center of the West Texas outbreak, would likely lead to local outbreaks that are larger than expected given the overall vaccination rate.

The study also didn’t take into account the possibility that vaccination rates could rebound in an area in response to an outbreak. “That’s the thing that we have control over. If you’re able to change that cycle, then that disease won’t spread anymore,” says Mujeeb Basit, associate chief of the Clinical Informatics Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Kiang and Lo say the full impact of decreased vaccination will likely not be seen for decades. “It’s important to note that it’s totally feasible that vaccinations go down and nothing happens for a little while. That’s actually what the model says,” Kiang says. “But eventually, these things are going to catch up to us.”

[probablyasocialecologist]

Analysis of data gathered using cutting-edge methodology – including detailed satellite images and measurements from more than 1,400 ground monitoring stations – reveals a dire picture of dirty air, with 98% of people living in areas with highly damaging fine particulate pollution that exceed World Health Organization guidelines. Almost two-thirds live in areas where air quality is more than double the WHO’s guidelines.

[...]

“This is a severe public health crisis,” said Roel Vermeulen, a professor of environmental epidemiology at Utrecht University who led the team of researchers across the continent that compiled the data. “What we see quite clearly is that nearly everyone in Europe is breathing unhealthy air.”

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

Something y'all may need with family get-togethers for the winter hollidays coming up. Several studies have shown 500% increase in risk for cardiovascular episodes after a covid 19 infection, but not for vaccination. Call people out if they spread this bs.

By Chris Mueller

The claim: Studies show COVID-19 vaccine recipients are 500% more likely to die from a heart attack A Nov. 29 Threads post (direct link, archive link) makes a claim about the COVID-19 vaccine and its effect on the heart.

“Your chance of dying from a heart attack from that ‘vaccine,’ according to their own studies, is 500% greater than if you were unvaccinated,” reads the post. “This is state-sanctioned murder.”

It was liked more than 500 times in four days.

Our rating: False There are no studies that show COVID-19 vaccine recipients have a 500% greater chance of having a heart attack. Some studies show the opposite − that the shot is associated with a lower risk of heart attack.

COVID-19 virus linked to heart attack risk, not vaccine There are no credible news reports about a study saying COVID-19 vaccine recipients have a 500% greater chance of having a heart attack. The American Heart Association even recommends the COVID-19 vaccine to people with a history of heart disease and stroke, saying they are "at much greater risk from the virus than they are from the vaccine."

There are several studies that show the vaccine is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes.

A study of nearly 46 million adults in England found that people who received the COVID-19 vaccine had fewer heart attacks and strokes than those who had yet to be vaccinated. The researchers examined medical records from the two years between December 2020 and January 2022.

“This England-wide study offers reassurance regarding the cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccines, with lower incidence of common cardiovascular events outweighing the higher incidence of their known rare cardiovascular complications,” the study says.

Erin Faherty, a pediatric cardiologist at Yale Medicine, previously told USA TODAY that vaccination for COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of heart attack.

"We have no evidence to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccine shuts down the heart or is associated with widespread heart failure," she said in February. "From the data we have, the risks of COVID-19 infection far outweigh the minor cardiac risk of vaccination."

Some studies have linked the virus – not the vaccine – to a higher risk of cardiovascular events. People who caught the disease early in the pandemic had double the risk, while others with severe cases had nearly four times the risk, according to a study supported by the National Institutes of Health published in October.

But a study of more than 8 million adults in Sweden found “full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of several more severe cardiovascular outcomes linked to COVID-19, such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure,” said Fredrik Nyberg, an epidemiology professor and one of the study’s authors, in a news release.

There is a “causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis,” which is inflammation of the heart muscle, but cases are rare, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

USA TODAY reached out to the user who shared the post for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Our fact-check sources Nature, July 31, Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different COVID-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England University of Cambridge, July 31, Incidence of heart attacks and strokes was lower after COVID-19 vaccination American Heart Association, Oct. 9, COVID-19 Is a Coronary Artery Disease Risk Equivalent and Exhibits a Genetic Interaction With ABO Blood Type American Heart Association, Oct. 6, 2023, What people with heart disease should know about vaccines today National Institutes of Health, Oct. 10, First wave of COVID-19 increased risk of heart attack, stroke up to three years later USA TODAY, Feb. 14, No evidence COVID-19 vaccine 'shuts off' the heart, contrary to anti-Kelce post | Fact check Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed Dec. 4, Clinical Considerations: Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adolescents and Young Adults

[kenyatta]

The history of computing is one of innovation followed by scale up which is then broken by a model that “scales out”—when a bigger and faster approach is replaced by a smaller and more numerous approaches. Mainframe->Mini->Micro->Mobile, Big iron->Distributed computing->Internet, Cray->HPC->Intel/CISC->ARM/RISC, OS/360->VMS->Unix->Windows NT->Linux, and on and on. You can see this at these macro levels, or you can see it at the micro level when it comes to subsystems from networking to storage to memory. The past 5 years of AI have been bigger models, more data, more compute, and so on. Why? Because I would argue the innovation was driven by the cloud hyperscale companies and they were destined to take the approach of doing more of what they already did. They viewed data for training and huge models as their way of winning and their unique architectural approach. The fact that other startups took a similar approach is just Silicon Valley at work—the people move and optimize for different things at a micro scale without considering the larger picture. See the sociological and epidemiological term small area variation. They look to do what they couldn’t do at their previous efforts or what the previous efforts might have been overlooking.

- DeepSeek Has Been Inevitable and Here's Why (History Tells Us) by Steven Sinofsky

[liminalweirdo]

Read the full piece at whn.global/scientific/the-unspoken-consequences-of-covid-19

More than five years into the pandemic, a dangerous narrative has taken hold: that SARS-CoV-2 has become a mild, endemic virus. This belief has been used to justify the removal of protections and the halting of mitigation efforts. But data from multiple disciplines — epidemiology, clinical research, and economics — show that this perception is not only inaccurate, but harmful.

. . .

Rather than succumbing to a cycle of denial and inaction… we must acknowledge the consequences of unmitigated mass infection."

Despite mounting evidence, Long COVID continues to be downplayed in public discourse, dismissed by outdated medical frameworks, and overlooked in policymaking. The long-term burden of COVID-19 is no longer hypothetical—it is a present reality with cascading impacts across healthcare, labor, and society.

COVID-19 is not over. And ignoring it will not make it go away.

[ppth-staff]

PPTH Staff Directory

Administration

Hen Nenaginad, Dr. Cuddy’s personal assistant (@toplessoncology), ask blog @ppthparttimer

Cardiology

Sydney Forrest, Head of Cardiology (@wilsons-three-legged-siamese), ask blog @ask-head-of-cardio

Custodial

Bruce N. Valentine (@ghostboyhood), ask blog @the-cleaning-guy

Diagnostics

Haven Ross House (@birdyboyfly), ask blog @ultimate-diagnostician-haven

Teagan Sinclair, Gynecologist (@robbinggoodfellows), ask blog @ask-teagan-sinclair

Cosmo Anderson, House's personal assistant (@cupofmints), ask blog @underpaid-assistant

Dr. Avery Alice Beau (@audiovideodisco), ask blog @dr-avery-beau

Emergency Medical Services

Dr. Kadee Montgomery, Head of Emergency Medical Services and Infectious Disease Specialist (@privatehousesanatomy), ask blog @kadeejeanmontgomery

Anji Foxx-Knight, Ambulance Operator and Automotive Technician (@rainismdata), ask blog @technician-para-driver

Fritz Litte, ER Doctor, ask blog @erdocfritz

Dr. Rylan Hopps, ER Physician (@dndadsbara), ask blog @nervous-physician

Endocrinology

Ev Price, Head of Endocrinology (@sillyhyperfixator), ask blog @ppth-endocrinology-head

Dr. Katherine “Kate” Rooke, Endocrinologist (@katttkhaos), ask blog @drkrooke

Epidemiology

Dr. Arwen Callejas, Head of Epidemiology (@addicbookedout)

Emilie Martin, Epidemiologist (@picking-dandelions-and-tunes)

Forensics

Stevie “Bird” Corcoran, Forensic Scientist and Teacher (@1mlostnow), ask blog @head-of-forensics

Melvin Rideau, Forensic Technician (@datas-boobs), ask blog @ppth-forensic-technician

Hematology

Ivan Andrews, Hematologist (@kleinekorpus)

IT

Andrew Hayes, Software Engineer (@tired-and-bored-nerd), ask blog @ask-ppths-it-guy

Immunology

Anastasia Vîrgolici, Immunologist (@starry-scarl3tt), ask blog @tired-ppth-immunologist

Lab

Anatol Dybowski, Head Lab Scientist (@tino-i-guess), ask blog @ppth-lab-head

Dr. Rachel Wilson-Cuddy, Pathologist & Medical Researcher (@annabelle-house)

Legal

Valerie Carr, Legal Consultant (@writing-and-sillies), ask blog @ask-ppth-legal

Neurology

Dr. Charlotte Eldorra (@estellemilano), ask blog @tiredicedlatte-enjoyer

Nursing

Nurse Sophie "Angel" Lile (@annoylyn), ask blog @doll-lile

OB-GYN

Dr. Fluoxetine Pearl, Head of OB-GYN (@asclexe), ask blog @ppth-obgyn-dept-head-real

Dr. Katherine Rhodes, Head of NICU and ICU (@privatehousesanatomy), ask blog @katherineelainerhodes)

Danny Begay, Gynecologist (@hemlocksloadofbull), ask blog @ask-danny-in-gynecology

Oncology

Dr. Francesca Scott, Head of Oncology (@birdyboyfly), ask blog @ask-head-of-oncology

Leo Fitsher, Nurse (@asclexe)

Mat Hulme, Ongologist (@evilchildeyeeter), ask blog @ratfather-oncologist

Dr. Gavin Maxwell, Hematologist (@worldrusher), ask blog @dr-maxwell-hemaoncol

Ophthalmology

Maddox “Maddie” N. Jagajiva, Ophthalmologist (@rainismdata), ask blog @dr-visionary-counselor

Pediatrics

Dr. Nanette “Ninny” Amesbury, Head of Pediatrics (@desire-mona)

Eddie Sting, Head of Pediatrics (@cherrishnoodles), ask blog @ask-head-of-pediatrics

Romeo "Vinny" Vincent, ENT nurse (@wilsons-three-legged-siamese), ask blog @earsandthroatnursey

Melanie Byrd, Pediatric Orthopedist (@tired-and-bored-nerd), ask blog @ppth-baby-bone-doc

Marie, Pediatrician (@marieinpediatrics-stuff)

Dr. Sophie Baker, Pediatric Neurosurgeon (@privatehousesanatomy), ask blog @sophieeloisebaker

Skye Ann-Meadows, Pediatrician (@estellemilano), ask blog @doctorof-unknownorgin

Plastics

Gabriella “Gabi” Kramer, Plastic Surgeon (@1mlostnow), ask blog @plastic-surgeon-gabi

Psychiatry/Psychology

Lena Ehris, Head of Psychiatry (@jellifishiez), ask blog @head-of-psychiatry

Dr. Venus Watanabe, Head of Psychiatry (@chocovenuss)

Dr. Annabelle House-Cuddy, Head of Psychiatry (@annabelle-house)

Dr. Madlock, Head of Psychology (@sushivisa)

Domingo Estrada, Social Worker (@robertseanleonardthinker), ask blog @ppth-socialworker

Dr. Kieran F. Campbell, Psychiatrist and Geneticist (@kim-the-kryptid), ask blog @consult-the-geneticist

Caitlin, Psychologist (@littlelqtte), ask blog @caitlin-interrupted

Dr. Callum Stone, Psychiatrist, ask blog @themanthemyththepsychologist

Pulmonology

Reina Linh Rivera, Head of Pulmonology (@prettypinkbubbless)

Dr. Milana Walker (@evilchildeyeeter), ask blog @dr-redbull-addict

Radiology

Dr. Eneko Ruiz-Arroyo, Head of Radiology (@katttkhaos), ask blog @headoradiology

Beth Klein, Radiology Tech (@emptylakes)

Steven Sandoval, Radiologist (@endofradio)

Research

Dr. Nadzieja Kruczewska, Toxicologist and Clinical Research Coordinator, ask blog @indigo-toxicologist

Patients

Ilja "Illusha" Vancura, Head Archivist at Rutgers Med (@scarriestmarlowe), blog @vancurarchivist

Francesco Cage, Best girldad patient (@dndadsbara), ask blog @francesco-cage

Joey Abrams, Forensics Student - kind of (@1mlostnow), ask blog @joey-is-fine

OOC: Hi, I'm Bird, and I run this PPTH blog! I'm 19, agender, aroace, and use they/them pronouns.

If you have an OC or a post that you would like for me to add to the blog, please feel free to send me an ask/message! If I follow you back, it'll be at my main blog, @birdyboyfly.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

The McCullough Foundation study authored by M. Nathaniel Mead, Jessica Rose, William Makis, Kirk Milhoan, Nicolas Hulscher (myself), and Peter A. McCullough, was just published in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Research & Innovation: Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination: Epidemiology, outcomes, and new perspectives

ABSTRACT Myocarditis, typically manifesting as myopericarditis, is among the serious cardiac consequences observed over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a comprehensive, evidence-based literature synthesis of findings from clinical trial data reanalyses, post-marketing surveillance, large observational studies, and other diverse research sources that help shed light on the phenomenon of myocarditis post SARS-CoV-2 infection versus COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. Our conclusions refute several claims previously made by public health agencies and professional associations, namely the following: (1) the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Omicron infections have caused more cases of myocarditis than the COVID-19 mRNA immunizations; (2) mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis is typically mild, transient, and rare, with no long-term sequelae; and (3) the risk-bene t calculus favors continued use of these products despite evidence of more iatrogenic cases. We address each of these misconceptions by applying a combination of epidemiological, clinical, and immunological perspectives. We urge governments to remove the COVID-19 mRNA products from the market due to the well-documented risk of myocardial damage, a risk that is strongest for younger males (<40 years old).