copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2014-11-26): Solar Activity in the Past and Its Impacts on Climate [...] Solar activity is suggested to impact the climate system through the influence of total solar irradiance (TSI), solar ultraviolet (UV), and galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). This chapter reviews the variability of solar forcing parameters and the response of climate/weather reported on various timescales.
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2020-01-24): If solar activity did play a significant role in recent changes in global temperatures, then those temperatures should have stayed roughly the same or even declined over the last decade. A paper from 2012 even predicted there would be a 1.0°C decrease in temperatures. Clearly this has not turned out to be the case. The hottest decade on record has coincided with the weakest solar cycle for over a century. Given this combination of factors, it is rather difficult to defend the position that solar activity is indeed responsible for present climate change without a radical shake up of the understanding of solar physics. In the graphs below we have attempted to correlate the number of sunspots with variations in global sea surface temperatures (taken from the Japan Meteorological Agency), and global surface temperatures (taken from GISTEMP data). [...] These observations of the present solar cycle make it very difficult to defend the position that solar activity is ultimately responsible for the world’s current warming trend. Instead they fit with the argument that human influences are responsible for a large amount of the recent increase in global temperatures.
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2013-12-22): The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere1. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly2,3,4,5 (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained5,6, with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude7,8,9. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions10,11,12,13. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions14 for the past millennium. Our methodology15 also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. [...] Ammann, C. et al. Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA104, 3713–3718 (2007).
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2019-08-13): It is clear from many lines of evidence that human activities—not solar activity—are responsible for modern climate change. Misleading: Evidence shows that solar activity can explain very little of the observed warming since the Industrial Revolution. [...] The scientists’ comments below explain that besides this cosmic ray hypothesis, the solar radiative forcing fluctuations are also insufficient to explain climate changes over the past decades—in contrast to the radiative forcing due to the increased greenhouse gases released by human activities, which matches the magnitude of the observed warming.
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2010-06-03): In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming. [...] Changes in the brightness of the Sun can influence the climate from decade to decade, but an increase in solar output falls short as an explanation for recent warming. NASA satellites have been measuring the Sun’s output since 1978. The total energy the Sun radiates varies over an 11-year cycle. During solar maxima, solar energy is approximately 0.1 percent higher on average than it is during solar minima.
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2014-04-23): Over the last century, changes in solar output, volcanic emissions, and natural variability have only contributed marginally to the observed changes in climate (Figure 2.1).15,17 No natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed increases in the heat content of the atmosphere, the ocean, or the cryosphere since the industrial era.11,19,20,21 Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.10,22
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2022-06-15): Studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with increased volcanic activity helped trigger the Little Ice Age.
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2024-03-25): The earth has always experienced warm and cool phases, with natural forces—from the sun’s intensity, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas concentrations—affecting how much energy from the sun our planet absorbs. As recently as a couple of centuries ago, the planet underwent a "Little Ice Age," caused by a decrease in solar activity and an increase in volcanic activity. But today’s warming—particularly the increase in temperatures since the mid-20th century—is occurring at a pace that can’t be explained by natural causes alone.
Claim: Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change (Cap Allon, Nir Shaviv, 2019-08-11)
Evidence (2021-06-28): Instead of fossil fuels, the energy sector is based largely on renewable energy. Two-thirds of total energy supply in 2050 is from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy. Solar becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of energy supplies. Solar PV capacity increases 20-fold between now and 2050, and wind power 11-fold.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2023-10-31): Ventilators were commonly deployed for critically ill COVID-19 patients who developed trouble breathing. The way ventilators were used initially during the pandemic was based on doctors’ experiences of treating other, known types of pneumonia. Over time, as doctors gained a better understanding of COVID-19, their approach to ventilator use also evolved. While it is probable that ventilators were used on some patients who might not have needed it in the end, the claim that ventilators, not COVID-19, were responsible for killing the majority of COVID-19 patients isn’t substantiated by evidence.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2023-06-01): Ventilators can be lifesaving for critically ill COVID-19 patients. A social media claim that a new study shows ventilators killed "nearly all" COVID-19 patients is "quite wrong," according to the study’s co-author. Ventilator-associated complications can contribute to deaths, but patients are typically put on ventilators when they would otherwise die. [...] The posts misrepresent the conclusions of a study published in April in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The idea that ventilators — and not COVID-19 — killed nearly all COVID-19 patients is "quite wrong," study co-author Dr. Benjamin Singer, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Northwestern Medicine, told us. [...] Adl-Tabatabai, Sean. "Official Report: Ventilators Killed Nearly ALL COVID Patients." The People’s Voice. 13 May 2023.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2023-05-04): What really killed COVID-19 patients: It wasn't a cytokine storm, suggests study Secondary bacterial infection of the lung (pneumonia) was extremely common in patients with COVID-19, affecting almost half the patients who required support from mechanical ventilation. By applying machine learning to medical record data, scientists at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine found that secondary bacterial pneumonia that does not resolve was a key driver of death in patients with COVID-19. It may even exceed death rates from the viral infection itself. [...] The investigators found nearly half of patients with COVID-19 develop a secondary ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2020-04-22): Researchers found that 20 percent of all those hospitalized died — a finding that’s similar to the percentage who perish in normal times among those who are admitted for respiratory distress. [...] A total of 1,151 patients required mechanical ventilators. Of the 320 for whom final outcomes are known (either death or discharge), 88 percent died. That compares with about 80 percent of patients who died on ventilators before the pandemic, according to previous studies — and with the death rate of about 50 percent that some critical-care doctors had optimistically hoped for when the first cases were diagnosed. [...] In a clarification issued on April 24, JAMA said that if the still-hospitalized patients are included, 3.3 percent of the total number who were on ventilators were discharged and 24.5 percent died.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2022-06-17): The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has claimed >4 million lives globally, and these deaths often occurred in hospitalized patients with comorbidities. Therefore, the proposed review aims to distinguish the inpatient mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation risk in COVID-19 patients treated with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and/or the antiviral agents. [...] Citation: Saha S (2022) Death and invasive mechanical ventilation risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and/or antiviral agents: A systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0270196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270196 [...] - Outcome: The primary outcome of interest will be all-cause inpatient deaths. The secondary outcome will include eventual invasive mechanical ventilation requirements in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A trial must report either one or both of these outcomes to be eligible.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2020-11-23): Results: 1023 COVID-19 positive patients were admitted to the Inova Health System during the study period. Of these, 164 (16.0%) were managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed to definitive disposition. 70/164 patients (42.7%) had died and 94/164 (57.3%) were still alive. Deceased patients were older (median age of 66 vs. 55, p <0.0001) and had a higher initial d-dimer (2.22 vs. 1.31, p = 0.005) and peak ferritin levels (2998 vs. 2077, p = 0.016) compared to survivors. 84.3% of patients over 70 years old died in the hospital. Conversely, 67.4% of patients age 70 or younger survived to hospital discharge. Younger age, non-Caucasian race and treatment at a tertiary care center were all associated with survivor status. Conclusion: Mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is high, with particularly daunting mortality seen in patients of advanced age, even in a well-resourced health care system. A substantial proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were not of advanced age, and this group had a reasonable chance for recovery. [...] Mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit in the United States with or without respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia: a retrospective comparison of characteristics and outcomes.Acute Crit Care. 2023 Aug;38(3):298-307. doi: 10.4266/acc.2022.01123. Epub 2023 Aug 23. Acute Crit Care. 2023. PMID: 37652859 Free PMC article.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2020-05-15): Early reports from China, the United Kingdom and Seattle found mortality rates as high as 90% among patients on ventilators. And more recently, a study of some New York hospitals seemed to show a mortality rate of 88%. [...] That's only a bit higher than the death rate for patients placed on ventilators with severe lung infections unrelated to the coronavirus. [...] The mortality rate among 165 COVID-19 patients placed on a ventilator at Emory was just under 30%. And unlike the New York study, only a few patients were still on a ventilator when the data were collected.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2020-04-09): The reason: Some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be harming certain patients. [...] Mechanical ventilators push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing. Using the machines involves sedating a patient and sticking a tube into the throat. Deaths in such sick patients are common, no matter the reason they need the breathing help. Generally speaking, 40 percent to 50 percent of patients with severe respiratory distress die while on ventilators, experts say. But 80 percent or more of coronavirus patients placed on the machines in New York City have died, state and city officials say.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2022-01-01): Mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a systematic review - PMID: 33836621 - DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2021.1915764 Mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a systematic review Introduction: The use of mechanical ventilation associated with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients, defines a high risk population that requires specific consideration of outcomes and treatment practices.Areas covered: This review evaluates existing information about mortality rates and effectiveness of antiviral, immune-modulating, and anticoagulation treatments in COVID-19 patients who received mechanical ventilation. The mortality rate and follow-up periods in patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged widely. Antivirals, including remdesivir and convalescent plasma, have shown no definitive mortality benefit in this population despite positive results in other COVID-19 patients. Dexamethasone was associated with an absolute reduction in 28-day mortality by 12.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 17.6), after adjusting for age. Reduced mortality has been demonstrated with tocilizumab use alongside corticosteroids. Evidence is inconclusive for therapeutic anticoagulation, and further studies are needed to determine the comparative benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation.Expert opinion: Significant variation and high mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients necessitate more standardized outcome measurements, increased consideration of risk factors to reduce intubation, and improved treatment practices. Anticoagulation and dexamethasone should be incorporated in the treatment of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, while more rigorous studies are required for other potential treatments.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2023-03-29): COVID-19 associated pneumonia, derived from SARS-Cov2 infection, led to high and critical occupancy of intensive care resources around the world and stressed the healthcare system capacities immensely. In a surveillance study in the United States 14% of COVID-19 patients were hospitalized, 2% were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU), and 5% died1. The intra-hospital mortality of hospitalized patients summed up to 20% due to progression to COVID-19 related life-threatening complications, e.g. acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), septic shock, or multiorgan failure requiring oxygen support or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)2,3. In case of insufficient oxygenation or decarboxylation despite IMV and prone positioning a veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) could become necessary. Supporting data derived from the successful management of severe respiratory failure in patients with H1N1 influenza A and Middle East respiratory syndrome4,5. Therefore, with growing numbers of severe ARDS during the COVID-19 pandemic the use of ECMO support increased depending on available resources. [...] Nicholson, C. J. et al. Estimating risk of mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality among adult COVID-19 patients admitted to Mass General Brigham: The VICE and DICE scores. EClinicalMedicine.33, 100765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100765 (2021). [...] Hoertel, N. et al. Association between antidepressant use and reduced risk of intubation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: results from an observational study. Mol. Psychiatry26(9), 5199–5212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01021-4 (2021).
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2021-02-19): We prospectively included all 26 autopsy cases of hospitalized patients that had died between 1st of March and 19th of June 2020. All patients had been treated for COVID-19 at either Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin (n = 22), or an affiliated teaching hospital including Immanuel Klinikum Bernau (n = 1), Vivantes Hospitals Berlin (n = 1), DRK Kliniken Berlin (n = 1), and Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann (n = 1). In all cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed by PCR testing of material from nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Informed consent was given by the next of kin, and autopsies were performed on the legal basis of §1 SRegG BE of the autopsy act of Berlin and §25(4) of the German Infection Protection Act. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Charité (EA1/144/13 and EA2/066/20) as well as by the Charité-BIH COVID-19 research board and was in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2023-05-11): A new analysis suggests that a high percentage of people who required help from a ventilator due to a COVID-19 infection also developed secondary bacterial pneumonia. This pneumonia was responsible for a higher mortality rate than the COVID-19 infection. So while COVID-19 may have put these patients in the hospital, it was actually an infection brought on by the use of a mechanical ventilator that was more likely to be the cause of death when this infection didn't respond to treatment. [...] Instead, COVID-19 patients were more likely to develop ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and for longer periods. Cases where VAP didn't respond to treatment were significant in terms of the overall mortality rates in the study.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2021-03-10): Among 3,242,649 patients aged ≥18 years with documented height and weight who received ED or inpatient care in 2020, a total of 148,494 (4.6%) had ICD-10-CM codes indicating a diagnosis of COVID-19 (Table). Among 71,491 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (48.1% of all COVID-19 patients), 34,896 (48.8%) required ICU admission, 9,525 (13.3%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8,348 (11.7%) died. Approximately 1.8% of patients had underweight, 28.3% had overweight, and 50.8% had obesity. Compared with the total PHD-SR cohort, patients with COVID-19–associated illness were older (median age of 55 years versus 49 years) and had a higher crude prevalence of obesity (50.8% versus 43.1%). [...] †† Patients who were hospitalized were defined as those with a reported hospital inpatient encounter, patients who were admitted to an ICU or who received invasive mechanical ventilation were determined by patient billing records, and patients who died were determined by patient discharge records indicating that death that occurred in the hospital or in hospice care. [...] Suggested citation for this article: Kompaniyets L, Goodman AB, Belay B, et al. Body Mass Index and Risk for COVID-19–Related Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, Invasive Mechanical Ventilation, and Death — United States, March–December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:355–361. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7010e4.
Claim: Ventilators, not COVID, killed hospitalized COVID patients (Elon Musk, 2023-10-31)
Evidence (2021-12-06): Predictors at Admission of Mechanical Ventilation and Death in an Observational Cohort of Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 , [...] Admission Symptoms and Vital Signs as Potential Predictors in a Random Forest Model of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death in a Cohort of 297 Patients With Completed Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in Georgia, United States [...] Radiographic Findings and Laboratory Values as Potential Predictors in a Random Forest Model of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death in a Cohort of 297 Patients With Completed Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in Georgia, United States