copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2020-07-22): FULL CLAIM: "For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives; 10 will have permanent lung damage; 3 will have strokes; 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination; 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function." [...] Despite the update, Veaux’s methods for calculating probability remain unclear and the sources he used contain some unacknowledged flaws and/or caveats. To support his statement that 18 people will have permanent heart damage for every one person who dies, he gathered statistics on heart damage from this article, which is largely based on a 12 June article published by Vox. The relevant passage states: [...] Finally, if we assume that Veaux made his calculations based on the Lancet study and if we leave aside all these caveats, the number of deaths (six) among the study cohort to the number of cases of heart damage (five) means that for every one person who dies, approximately one person suffers from heart damage, rather than 18 as he stated in his post. At any rate, given the limitations of the Lancet study, it would not be good practice to attempt to use its numbers to extrapolate to a hypothetical situation for the general population in the U.S., or indeed, anywhere else.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2020-07-27): - 10 will have permanent lung damage. [...] - 59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage. - 32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2024-07-24): Heart disease deaths vary by sex, race, and ethnicity Heart disease is the leading cause of death for people of most racial and ethnic groups in the United States. These include African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic, and White men. For women from the Pacific Islands and Asian American, American Indian, Alaska Native, and Hispanic women, heart disease is second only to cancer.1 [...] Several other medical conditions and lifestyle choices can also put people at a higher risk for heart disease, including:
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2021-06-11): - Over three quarters of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries. [...] - rheumatic heart disease – damage to the heart muscle and heart valves from rheumatic fever, caused by streptococcal bacteria; [...] There are also a number of underlying determinants of CVDs. These are a reflection of the major forces driving social, economic and cultural change – globalization, urbanization and population ageing. Other determinants of CVDs include poverty, stress and hereditary factors.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2020-07-13): > One study published in March found that out of 416 _hospitalized_ Covid-19 patients, 19% showed signs of heart damage. [...] Assuming 19 in 100 require hospitalization, according to the study: 19% of 19 will have heart damage or 3.61. Similar breakdown for other points. [...] > 59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2022-02-24): That’s all the more true because these populations may be even more vulnerable not only to dying from Covid-19, but from getting infected to begin with. People whose health conditions mean that they require the support of others to eat, dress and bathe, for example, are less able to socially distance.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2020-03-05): How many people are in hospital due to COVID-19 at a given time? [...] Note that this is distinct from the weekly new number of people admitted to hospital due to COVID-19. You find this metric in the next section. [...] Note that this number is distinct from the total number of patients in hospital due to COVID-19 at any given time. You find this data in the previous section.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2024-09-17): If you have one or more of the conditions listed below, you are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 and be hospitalized, need intensive care, require a ventilator to breathe, and/or die.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2023-01-01): Alcohol overdose can lead to permanent brain damage or death, so a person showing any of these signs requires immediate medical attention. Do not wait for the person to have all the symptoms, and be aware that a person who has passed out can die. Call 911 if you suspect alcohol overdose.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2023-08-18): The percentage of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization was 6 times higher in those with preexisting medical conditions than those without medical conditions (45.4% vs. 7.6%) based on an analysis by Stokes et al. of confirmed cases reported to the CDC from January 22 to May 30, 2020.[35] The study also reported that the percentage of patients who succumbed to this illness was 12 times higher in those with preexisting medical conditions than those without (19.5% vs 1.6%).[35]
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2024-08-12): Clinical questions included in this guideline were developed into a PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) [5] and prioritized according to available evidence that met the minimum acceptable criteria (i.e., the body of evidence reported on at least a case-series design, case reports were excluded). Panel members prioritized patient-important outcomes such as mortality, hospitalization, development of severe disease (e.g., need for non-invasive or invasive ventilation) and clinical improvement (such as disease-oriented outcomes inferred by radiological findings or virologic cure), and severe adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Serious adverse events are death, life threatening reactions, those that require hospitalization, result in disability or permanent damage or require an intervention to prevent permanent impairment [6]. Additional drug specific harms were evaluated when clinically relevant, including possible drug-drug reactions, if applicable. [...] 301. Kim L, Whitaker M, O'Halloran A, et al. Hospitalization Rates and Characteristics of Children Aged <18 Years Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 - COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1-July 25, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020; 69(32): 1081-8.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2024-07-30): This makes your lungs stiffer, and it's even harder for oxygen to flow from the air sacs into your bloodstream. Stress ulcers. Extra acid that your stomach makes because of serious illness or injury can irritate the stomach lining and lead to ulcers. Thanks to better treatments, more people are surviving ARDS. But many survivors end up with potentially serious and sometimes lasting effects: Breathing problems. After having ARDS, many people get most of their lung function back within several months to several years, but others may have breathing problems for the rest of their lives. Even people who do well usually have shortness of breath and fatigue and may need extra oxygen at home for a few months. Depression. Most ARDS survivors also report going through a period of depression, which can be treated. Problems with memory and thinking clearly. Sedatives and low levels of oxygen in the blood can lead to memory loss and learning problems after ARDS. In some people, the effects may get better over time. But in others, the damage may last for the rest of their lives. Tiredness and muscle weakness.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2014-09-16): My step-dad who has been a part of my family for 41 years and a loving grandfather to my children died 2 days ago due to septic shock. He was in the hospital for appox, 5 weeks. The sepsis caused heart damage, kidney failure, and finally a cardiac arrest that took him from us. There is information on Dr. Google about sepsis, and I learned more from that than the doctors revealed to us. I wish they didn’t give us false hope about his condition, no mention of palliative care or hospice. My heart is broken, I can’t believe he’s gone, the last 5 weeks have been a nightmare I can’t wake from from,. May God bless those affected by sepsis.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2021-02-18): Esther Dyson, internet pioneer, journalist, entrepreneur and executive founder of Wellville, responded, "Things will be both better and worse. Many people will be dead and many others more will be permanently damaged, physically or mentally or economically. And those people will mostly be the ones who were worse-off in the first place, poor, Black or another minority, disabled or ill, or otherwise challenged. Yet at the same time, the U.S. and even the world at large are much more aware of the disparities and the unfairness of this situation.
Claim: “For every one person who dies: 19 more require hospitalization; 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives” (Franklin Veaux, 2020-07-13)
Evidence (2023-09-10): However, a 2017 study reports that the 5-year life expectancy is poor among all people admitted to the hospital with heart failure regardless of their EF. Researchers estimate the 5-year death rate is 75.4%. [...] Below are some frequently asked questions about CHF and life expectancy. [...] Life expectancy depends on a person’s stage and class of CHF and what other complications or health problems they have. People who have received an early diagnosis may have a better outlook than those who did not.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2020-01-24): The coronavirus patent referred to in the post is for the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1), not the 2019 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). In the case of both viruses, initial cases were detected in China and evidence points to animal reservoirs as the sources of both infections. Neither virus was created in a lab.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2024-08-22): FULL CLAIM: [The coronavirus is] "new" yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (in development since ‘03) [...] The patent also tells us the CDC helped make this! This claim, which was published in late January 2020, went viral on Facebook within a day and spawned several copycat posts on Facebook, receiving more than 86,000 views. The claim states that "[The coronavirus is] "new" yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015". Similar claims have also been made on Twitter. The rapid spread of this claim on social media has been attributed to QAnon and anti-vaccine groups. [...] Furthermore, the claim states that 2019-nCoV was patented in 2015, but then links to a patent for SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 is a different coronavirus—one that caused a 2003 outbreak of more than 8,000 cases of infection in 26 countries. The SARS-CoV-1 outbreak began in the Chinese province of Guangdong and, as with 2019-nCoV, evidence indicates that an animal reservoir—likely civet cats in the case of SARS-CoV-1—was the source of infection. Similar false claims about patents related to 2019-nCoV have inaccurately referenced patents to other coronaviruses, such as the avian infectious bronchitis virus.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2021-06-08): Nature examines arguments that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab in China, and the science behind them. [...] Debate over the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus emerged from a laboratory has escalated over the past few weeks, coinciding with the annual World Health Assembly, at which the World Health Organization (WHO) and officials from nearly 200 countries discussed the COVID-19 pandemic. After last year’s assembly, the WHO agreed to sponsor the first phase of an investigation into the pandemic’s origins, which took place in China in early 2021.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2020-01-27): The coronavirus patent was applied for in 2015. [...] We’ve seen a number of claims on social media saying that a patent for coronavirus was filed in 2015, since a new respiratory illness was recently observed in Wuhan, China. A patent application from 2015 does exist for one type of coronavirus, but not the same one as that identified in Wuhan.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2021-01-04): "The balance of the scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the new coronavirus emerged from nature — be it the Wuhan market or somewhere else," said the Washington Post’s "Fact Checker" column. "Dr. Fauci Again Dismisses Wuhan Lab As Source of Coronavirus," said CBS News, posting a video interview of Anthony Fauci by National Geographic. "If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what’s out there now," Fauci said, "it’s very, very strongly leaning toward ‘This could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated’ — the way the mutations have naturally evolved." [...] If one of the first thoughts that goes through the head of a lab director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is that the new coronavirus could have come from her lab, then we are obliged to entertain the scientific possibility that it could indeed have come from her lab. Right then, there should have been a comprehensive, pockets-inside-out, fully public investigation of the Virology Institute, along with the other important virus labs in Wuhan, including the one close by the seafood market, headquarters of the Wuhan CDC. There should have been interviews with scientists, interviews with biosafety teams, close parsings of laboratory notebooks, freezer and plumbing and decontamination systems checks — everything. It didn’t happen. The Wuhan Institute of Virology closed down its databases of viral genomes, and the Chinese Ministry of Education sent out a directive: "Any paper that traces the origin of the virus must be strictly and tightly managed."
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2020-06-29): There is no evidence the new coronavirus comes from a laboratory or is man-made. Bill Gates is not a partner in any of these labs. [...] "Isn’t it Amazing that Bill Gates Owns The Patent For Coronavirus and Owns The Vaccine. He is also A Partner n [sic] the Lab In Wuhan China" [...] There is no patent for the new coronavirus, known as SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2023-11-20): Patent application doesn’t show COVID test was developed in 2015 CLAIM: A COVID-19 test patent application is dated 2020 but was actually filed in 2015. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The patent application, for a system to determine if someone has a viral infection such as COVID-19, notes that a related provisional patent application was filed in 2015. But while the earlier provisional application is related to the technology in the 2020 application, it made no mention of COVID-19.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2021-10-12): Geography aside, the nature of the experiments undertaken by the W.I.V. and its partners has raised concerns. In 2015, Shi was a co-author on a groundbreaking study, in Nature, with Ralph Baric, a coronavirus expert at the University of North Carolina. Through the use of pioneering genetic technology, Baric examined which viral structures could give a coronavirus the ability to infect humans. The work involved synthesizing what is known as a chimeric virus, named for the mythical beast with its parts taken from various animals; in this case, a modified clone of SARS was combined with a spike protein taken from one of the bat coronaviruses that Shi had discovered in Yunnan. [...] The DARPA proposal stated that scientists would introduce furin cleavage sites into lab-created versions of SARS-related coronaviruses, recovered from bats in Yunnan. They planned to fully sequence and generate clones of three to five novel bat viruses each year. Then they would test the altered viruses in human respiratory cells, and, potentially, in humanized mice. "This describes work that is, like, ‘Let’s go out and discover new viruses,’ " Andersen said, "and do things like furin cleavage sites. So, yes, that’s why this is relevant to the wider conversation."
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2021-05-31): And yet, headlines are currently screaming that scientists have "proved" that COVID-19 was bioengineered in a lab despite this being no more likely than in July 2020. What's going on? [...] In fact, the paper doesn't even claim to demonstrate that COVID-19 was created in a lab, it just posits the theory and then says that others should disprove this theory because it is so "parsimonious". [...] We can't exclude the possibility that COVID-19 was constructed in a lab, but on balance it is a much less likely explanation.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2020-05-01): It also claims diplomats were concerned the lab's research on bat coronaviruses could risk a new Sars-like pandemic. The newspaper says the cables fuelled more recent discussions in the US government about whether the WIV or another lab in Wuhan could have been the source of the virus behind the current pandemic. [...] But a US study of the coronavirus genome published in March found no signs it had been engineered. "By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that Sars-CoV-2 originated through natural processes," co-author Kristian Andersen, from Scripps Research in California, said at the time. [...] On 16 April, China's foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian addressed the matter at a news conference, telling journalists the World Health Organization's officials "have said multiple times there is no evidence the new coronavirus was created in a laboratory".
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2021-10-22): • The idea that the virus was patented derives from a misreading of documents and confusion between the name of the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) and the name of the virus that causes SARS (SARS-CoV). [...] The article goes on to say that whatever is causing COVID-19 was actually manufactured in a laboratory and was patented "years ago." [...] Reuters examined a video that claimed to show two patents for SARS-CoV-2 filed in 2004 and 2015 — proof that the virus had been known well before the pandemic started in 2019, and had somehow been kept hidden in a secret plot.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2024-08-22): Misrepresents source: Several coronavirus strains have been patented or referenced in the labeling of animal vaccines and disinfectants, such as Lysol. However, the 2019 outbreak was caused by a new coronavirus strain which emerged more recently. FULL CLAIM: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created and patented; SARS-CoV-2 is not a new virus; COVID-19 pandemic was man-made and planned [...] The claim that SARS-CoV-2, the causative virus of COVID-19, is not actually a new virus has taken many different forms. One of its first incarnations, published in late January 2020, was made by Jordan Sather, who stated that the coronavirus is "‘new’ yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015". Sather asserted that the proof of this claim was the existence of a patent for a coronavirus held by the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom. This claim went viral on Facebook within a day and spawned numerous copycat posts on Facebook that received more than 86,000 views. The rapid spread of this claim on social media was attributed to the group QAnon, as well as anti-vaccine groups.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2020-01-25): Another, which was shared by others, and is part of a series of false coronavirus posts, proclaims that the virus is "‘new’ yet it was lab created and patented in 2015 (in development since 03’)." [...] Yet another proposes a similar conspiracy. "So.. patent on this ‘new’ Corona virus expired on the 22nd, today," the post says. "We have a sudden outbreak. There’s magically already a vaccine available." [...] "Neither of these has anything to do with the new 2019-nCoV virus," said Frieman. "This is clearly a bogus theory that this virus was created in a lab, patented and has a vaccine already made to it."
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2021-08-10): FACT CHECK: Was A Patent For A COVID-19 Test Issued In 2015? A post shared on Facebook claims a patent for a COVID-19 testing system was issued in 2015. [...] Furthermore, COVID-19 first emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, according to the World Health Organization, meaning it would be impossible for the original patent application from 2015 to be related to the virus.
Claim: [The coronavirus is] “new” yet it was lab-created and patented in 2015 (Chris Kirckof, Jordan Sather, 2020-01-24)
Evidence (2020-01-24): Health Feedback, "Contrary to claims in viral social media posts, Wuhan coronavirus was not lab-created nor was it patented years before outbreak," Jan. 23, 2020 [...] Justia Patents, Coronavirus, July 23, 2015 [...] The Scientist magazine, "Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate," Nov. 16, 2015