Parasites have killed more humans than all wars combined, and modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat them effectively.

Natural News

<h2>Claim Review: Parasites and Modern Medicine</h2>
<p>The claim that parasites have killed more humans than all wars combined and that modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat them effectively is a bold statement that warrants a thorough examination. This article will delve into the veracity of this claim, providing evidence and context to help readers understand the truth behind these assertions.</p>
<h3>Parasites and Human Mortality</h3>
<p>Parasites, such as protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites, have indeed been a significant cause of human morbidity and mortality throughout history. Diseases like malaria, caused by the Plasmodium parasite, have been particularly devastating. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria alone caused an estimated 627,000 deaths in 2020. However, comparing the total number of deaths from parasitic infections to those from all wars combined is a complex and potentially misleading comparison.</p>
<p>Historical data on war-related deaths is challenging to compile accurately, but estimates suggest that tens of millions of people have died in wars throughout history. For example, World War II alone resulted in an estimated 70-85 million deaths. Comparing this to the cumulative deaths from parasitic infections over centuries is not straightforward, and such a comparison lacks context and precision.</p>
<h3>Modern Medicine and Parasite Treatment</h3>
<p>The claim that modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat parasitic infections effectively is also problematic. While it is true that some parasitic infections can be challenging to diagnose and treat, significant advancements have been made in the field of parasitology. Modern diagnostic techniques, such as molecular testing and advanced imaging, have improved the detection of parasitic infections. Additionally, a range of effective treatments, including antiparasitic medications, are available to combat these infections.</p>
<p>For instance, the use of artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) has been instrumental in reducing malaria-related deaths. The WHO reports that the widespread use of ACTs has contributed to a significant decline in malaria mortality rates. Similarly, treatments for other parasitic infections, such as praziquantel for schistosomiasis and albendazole for intestinal worms, have proven effective.</p>
<h3>Misinformation and Fearmongering</h3>
<p>The article in question employs sensational language and makes unsubstantiated claims, which can contribute to misinformation and fearmongering. For example, the assertion that parasites coat themselves in heavy metal toxins to hide from the immune system lacks scientific evidence. While some parasites may have evolved mechanisms to evade the immune system, the specific claim about heavy metal toxins is not supported by peer-reviewed research.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the article suggests that avoiding vaccines, which often contain mercury and aluminum, is a strategy for fighting parasites. This is a dangerous and misleading statement. Vaccines are a crucial public health measure that has saved countless lives by preventing infectious diseases. The presence of trace amounts of metals in vaccines is well-studied and regulated to ensure safety.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that parasites have killed more humans than all wars combined and that modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat them effectively is largely unsubstantiated and misleading. While parasitic infections are a significant health concern, modern medicine has made significant strides in diagnosing and treating these conditions. It is essential to rely on evidence-based information and avoid sensational claims that can contribute to misinformation and fearmongering.</p>
<p>For more information on parasitic infections and their treatment, please refer to reliable sources such as the World Health Organization and peer-reviewed scientific literature.</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria">World Health Organization: Malaria</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1713/">Artemisinin-based combination therapies for malaria</a>&nbsp;</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/index.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Parasites</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Parasites and Modern Medicine

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The Expose claims that Public Health Scotland has revealed that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu. This claim is based on a study that reported an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.08% for Covid-19 in Scotland, which is within the range of the IFR for seasonal flu (0.03% to 0.1%). However, a closer examination of the data and scientific literature reveals significant misinterpretations and misinformation.</p>
<h2>Understanding Infection Fatality Rates</h2>
<p>The infection fatality rate (IFR) is a measure of the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The IFR for Covid-19 has been a subject of intense study and debate throughout the pandemic.</p>
<p>A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext">Lancet</a> estimated the global IFR of Covid-19 to be around 0.68%, which is significantly higher than the IFR of seasonal flu.</p>
<h2>The Winter Covid-19 Infection Study</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose references the Winter Covid-19 Infection Study (WCIS), which reported an IFR of 0.0762% for Scotland. However, it is essential to note that this study has not been peer-reviewed and its methodology and findings should be interpreted with caution.</p>
<p>Moreover, the WCIS study focused on a specific time period (November 2023 to March 2024) and a specific population (participants in England and Scotland). The IFR can vary significantly depending on the population studied, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the availability of healthcare resources.</p>
<h2>Covid-19 vs. Seasonal Flu</h2>
<p>While the IFR is an important metric, it is not the only factor to consider when comparing the severity of Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Other factors include:</p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Transmissibility:</strong> Covid-19 is more contagious than seasonal flu, with a higher basic reproduction number (R0). This means that Covid-19 can spread more rapidly and widely than seasonal flu.</li>
  <li><strong>Hospitalizations:</strong> Covid-19 has resulted in a much higher number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than seasonal flu. This has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide.</li>
  <li><strong>Long-term effects:</strong> Many people who have recovered from Covid-19 continue to experience long-term symptoms, a condition known as 'long Covid.' The long-term effects of Covid-19 are still not fully understood, but they appear to be more severe and persistent than those of seasonal flu.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu is false. While the IFR of Covid-19 in Scotland was reported to be within the range of seasonal flu in a specific study, this finding is not representative of the global IFR of Covid-19, which is significantly higher. Furthermore, Covid-19 is more transmissible, results in more hospitalizations, and has more severe long-term effects than seasonal flu.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and official public health guidance when evaluating claims about the severity of Covid-19. Misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety.</p>

Claim Review: Is Covid No More Deadly Than Seasonal Flu?

<p>The claim that wind turbines are a scam because they do not replace the energy used to manufacture them has been circulating, particularly in an article by Godfrey Bloom on The Expose. This claim suggests that the energy required to manufacture and transport wind turbines exceeds the energy they produce over their lifespan. However, a thorough examination of scientific studies and data reveals a different story.</p>
<p>Wind turbines are a key component of renewable energy strategies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change. The energy payback time (EPBT) is a crucial metric used to evaluate the energy efficiency of wind turbines. EPBT refers to the time it takes for a wind turbine to generate the amount of energy equivalent to the energy used in its production and installation.</p>
<p>A study published in the journal <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917308763">Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews</a> found that the EPBT for modern wind turbines is typically between 3 to 7 months. This means that within a few months of operation, a wind turbine generates enough energy to offset the energy used in its manufacture and installation. Over their typical lifespan of 20-25 years, wind turbines produce a significant net energy gain.</p>
<p>Another study by the <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54509.pdf">National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)</a> in the United States concluded that wind turbines have one of the highest energy return on investment (EROI) ratios among various energy sources. The EROI for wind turbines is estimated to be around 20-30, meaning that for every unit of energy invested in their production, they produce 20-30 units of energy over their lifespan.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the environmental impact of wind turbines is significantly lower compared to fossil fuel-based power generation. Wind energy does not produce greenhouse gas emissions during operation, making it a cleaner and more sustainable option. The manufacturing process of wind turbines does involve the use of fossil fuels, but the overall carbon footprint is much lower than that of coal or natural gas power plants.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that wind turbines are a scam because they do not replace the energy used to manufacture them is largely false. Scientific studies and data show that wind turbines generate more energy than they consume over their lifecycle, making them a viable and environmentally friendly source of renewable energy.</p>

Claim Review: Are Wind Turbines a Scam?

<p>The claim that hospitals treated far more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections has been circulating, based on a journal article published in October 2024. However, a thorough examination of the study and its findings reveals several issues that cast doubt on the validity of this claim.</p>
<p>The journal article in question reported that 5.69% of respondents were hospitalized due to vaccination adverse events, compared to 1.49% hospitalized due to Covid infection. While these numbers may seem alarming at first glance, it is crucial to consider the context and limitations of the study.</p>
<p>Firstly, the study primarily focused on gender differences in Covid-related outcomes and endocrine systems, not on comparing hospitalization rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The data on hospitalizations was a secondary finding and not the main objective of the research.</p>
<p>Secondly, the study relied on self-reported data from a global survey, which can introduce biases and inaccuracies. Self-reported data is not as reliable as clinical data collected in a controlled setting. Participants may misinterpret or misreport their experiences, leading to skewed results.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the study did not provide detailed information on the severity of the adverse events leading to hospitalization. It is possible that some of the reported hospitalizations were for minor or temporary side effects that did not pose a significant health risk.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the study did not account for the overall number of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the population. Without this context, it is impossible to determine whether the hospitalization rates are representative of the broader population.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> &nbsp;found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing Covid-19 infections and severe outcomes.</p>
<p>Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(22)00001-7/fulltext">The Lancet</a> &nbsp;concluded that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccines far outweigh the risks, with adverse events being rare and generally mild.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that hospitals treated more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The study cited has significant limitations and does not provide conclusive data to support this claim. It is essential to rely on peer-reviewed research and expert analysis when evaluating claims about public health issues.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Treated More People for Covid Shot Side Effects than Unvaccinated Patients for Covid Infections

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Parasites have killed more humans than all wars combined, and modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat them effectively." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: