We Finally Know Why COVID-19 Damages The Heart

https://www.iflscience.com/hea…ovid19-damages-the-heart/

A new study has discovered how the SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks and damages the heart, answering a long-standing question about mysterious heart conditions following COVID-19 infection. The results could have large implications on how to effectively treat severe infections and develop new therapies for preventing long-term damage.

Throughout the pandemic, people with severe COVID-19 infection have often displayed symptoms of heart distress. Those with underlying heart conditions are at a greater risk of severe illness if they catch it, and reports of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmia) in previously healthy patients with acute COVID-19 have been common.

However, exactly why this happens has eluded scientists until now. Researchers have been unsure whether the heart symptoms are a result of severe inflammation as the body reacts to the infection, or whether the virus particles themselves invade and attack heart cells.

In the new study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, scientists have finally unveiled the elusive mechanism behind COVID-19's heart damage, discovering that the virus directly enters and replicates within heart cells, leading to their destruction. The resulting damage interferes with contraction, leading to severe complications and long-term damage.

“Our study is unique because it definitively shows that, in patients with COVID-19 who developed heart failure, the virus infects the heart, specifically heart muscle cells,” said Kory Lavine, senior author and associate professor of medicine, in a statement.

“Inflammation can be a second hit on top of damage caused by the virus, but the inflammation itself is not the initial cause of the heart injury.”

The study began with autopsies of COVID-19 patients that showed severe myocarditis (inflammation of heart tissue). Samples from four patients were obtained and analyzed for evidence of SARS-CoV-2 within the heart muscle cells, to determine whether the virus enters these cells. The results showed evidence that virus particles were within the cells, including evidence of spike protein and the capsule that surrounds the viral genome.

Subsequently, the researchers engineering human heart tissue using stem cells to model infection, discovering that the virus could enter and replicate within cardiomyocytes. Even when there was no inflammation present, cell death still occurred.

The results are incredibly important for understanding how COVID-19 damages the heart, but the methods may also have other applications. Specifically, engineered heart muscle cells could be useful for future COVID-19 research and creating a new, effective therapy against it.

Until then, the researchers had a powerful message for the people that still need to hear it.

“Even young people who had very mild symptoms can develop heart problems later on that limit their exercise capacity,” Lavine said.

“We want to understand what’s happening so we can prevent it or treat it. In the meantime, we want everyone to take this virus seriously and do their best to take precautions and stop the spread, so we don’t have an even larger epidemic of preventable heart disease in the future.”

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. The vaccines are effective against all variants. Some vaccines are somewhat less effective against the South African variant, but the others have no measurable differences. The variants are more contagious, but not more resistant to vaccines. That is why they are rushing to vaccinate quickly, before they spread. That is why in the UK they are putting off the second dose booster shot in order to vaccinate everyone at least once.

Experts say a more resistant variant might emerge. If that happens, they will tweak the mRNA vaccines and issue a new one. It may call for a second booster shot. There is no need for that yet.

In very rate cases, vaccinated people have been infected. None of them has died. Any vaccine can fail, but such failures are very rate. The patient's immune system does not react enough. Older people have a less powerful immune reaction, so they get a higher dose of the flu vaccine and some others.

No, they recommend that because after 1 dose there is a 35% chance you will be infected if you are exposed, and even after the second dose there is a 5% chance you will be infected. If there was a 5% chance of a car accident you would not drive cars.

No, that is completely false. It is nonsense. All vaccines work by triggering the immune system, the same way the virus itself does. You have said this several times, I think. EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE AND TEXTBOOK says you are wrong. See, for example:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru…ccines/how-they-work.html

"How COVID-19 Vaccines Work

COVID-19 vaccines help our bodies develop immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19 without us having to get the illness. Different types of vaccines work in different ways to offer protection, but with all types of vaccines, the body is left with a supply of “memory” T-lymphocytes as well as B-lymphocytes that will remember how to fight that virus in the future."

Why do you repeating bullshit that anyone can see is bullshit? Who are you trying to fool? You make yourself look like an idiot when you contradict every doctor and every textbook on earth.

Display More

As pointed out all day Saturday, it is you posting bullshit. If I follow your logic, after receiving 2nd dose masks and distancing would no longer be needed, that is not what the CDC or your patron saint to medicine fucci says.

Scientists inch closer to explaining the mysterious 'brain fog' symptom of COVID-19

https://news.google.com/articl…=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

As larger numbers of people recover from COVID-19, researchers are learning more about "brain fog" in those affected by the virus.

For months, doctors and researchers have been aware of a range of longer-term symptoms afflicting people after recovering from an active COVID-19 infection. One such symptom, generally referred to as "brain fog," can take the shape of confusion, difficulty thinking and concentrating, short-term memory loss, and in severe cases, has even been reported to cause delirium and psychosis.

While scientists still don't know for sure what causes brain fog, they're zeroing in on a few theories. Mainly, scientists increasingly believe brain fog happens when cells that are involved in response to an infection make their way to atypical places, such as the brain.

MORE: Biden says there will be enough vaccine for American adults by end of May

A key finding emerged when researchers autopsied brains of COVID victims, discovering certain cells that shouldn't have been there. These large cells, known as megakaryocytes, might be taking up precious space, leaving less room for blood to pass to the brain.

This phenomenon might be unique to COVID, according to David Nauen, MD, PH.D, a professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Now for the reason this happens........ Vitamn d deficenccy

Mitochondrial localization of vitamin D receptor in human platelets and differentiated megakaryocytes

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20107497/

When will they finally understand????

will ivermectin work on variants? Dr bean says............. YES!!!!!!!!!

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. The vaccines are effective against all variants. Some vaccines are somewhat less effective against the South African variant, but the others have no measurable differences.

NOP. That's wrong. E.g the Pfizer vaccines does no longer properly work for the RSA/BRA variants. You will almost certainly get a mild infection, what also answers the bullshit you claim below. Vaccines do not protect you from an infection. Vaccine protect you from developing a serious illness.

Quote from JedRothwell

In very rate cases, vaccinated people have been infected. None of them has died.

The Pfizer vaccine promotes - 2x rate - COV-19 infection during the first 2 weeks after the first shot. Dozens died of vaccines induced COV-19 so far. >1000 people died due to allergic reactions after the Pfizer shot. None would have died with ivermectin!

Quote from JedRothwell

VERY SINGLE WEBSITE AND TEXTBOOK says you are wrong.

Please read: Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease butfail to prevent infection and transmission ina nonhuman primate model.pdf

If you really want to learn something what I highly doubt

Quote from Wyttenbach

NOP. That's wrong. E.g the Pfizer vaccines does no longer properly work for the RSA/BRA variants. You will almost certainly get a mild infection, what also answers the bullshit you claim below. Vaccines do not protect you from an infection. Vaccine protect you from developing a serious illness.

The Pfizer vaccine promotes - 2x rate - COV-19 infection during the first 2 weeks after the first shot. Dozens died of vaccines induced COV-19 so far. >1000 people died due to allergic reactions after the Pfizer shot. None would have died with ivermectin!

Please read: Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease butfail to prevent infection and transmission ina nonhuman primate model.pdf

If you really want to learn something what I highly doubt

Wyttenbach, it just hit me, Jed has become huxley, or huxley hacked here account

Quote from Fm1

Jed has become huxley

I know Jed. He is real, but Huxley is just an Avatar, that has, so far, been used by at least two persons. If you know how to use differential text analysis you can find it out easily.

Jed just is a grumpy old bear and likes to talk. Nobody will ask him for answering a CoV-19 related question,, but if you like to know who did write about Pd/D or other LENR stuff, then he can give you a competent answer and will point you to the literature!

Vaccination does not protect from a nasal infection - hence CoV-19 transmission:

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…01.27.20240309v1.full.pdf

Overview: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs…S0140-6736(21)00424-4.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

Vaccination does not protect from a nasal infection - hence CoV-19 transmission:

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…01.27.20240309v1.full.pdf

Overview: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs…S0140-6736(21)00424-4.pdf

Yup vaccines 2 times a year every year.

I recently discovered a witty, sassy and freethinking fellow Torontonian on Youtube: WhatsHerFace.

Here are her reasons why she wears a mask :

In one of her videos, I learned that Dr. Theressa Tham, Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, was in a video 10 years ago describing drastic measures that might have to be taken - including forced quarantine - if a serious pandemic struck Canada. Yet Tham was saying last fall that it was just conspiracy theory that public health authorities were planning for quarantine camps. (In Canada we now have quarantine hotels where even people who test negative are held against their will, and at their own expense. ) Tham seems to have no awareness of human rights and freedoms, only of stopping a pathogen. It's so CCPish. The excerpt from the documentary of ten years ago is around the 6 minute mark.

Fact Checking the Fact Checker

coverup?

https://www.todayonline.com/wo…robe-covid-19-origins-wsj

WHO investigators to scrap interim report on probe of COVID-19 origins - WSJ

Now let's review

Quote from Fm1

Only under trial protocols can ivermectin be used and right now only one trial and it's having a had time recruiting because nobody wants a placebo. A general practitioner can not prescribe ivermectin for covid treatm

1. No, the FDA does not say ivermectin can only be used on in trials. They have not said one trial, or many. They say only that they cannot recommend it, and the data is unclear. See:

https://www.covid19treatmentgu…viral-therapy/ivermectin/

"Recommendation

• There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

There are many reports of patients in the U.S. taking ivermectin outside of trials. There are no reports that the FDA or any other agency tried to stop them, because these agencies do not have that regulatory power. Merck also discourages the use of ivermectin for Covid-19. Note that neither the FDA nor Merck say you are not allowed to take it.

https://www.merck.com/news/mer…ng-the-covid-19-pandemic/

2. Any general practitioner can prescribe any approved drug in the U.S. for any reason. That is called off-label use, and it is allowed. See:

https://www.fda.gov/patients/l…-use-approved-drugs-label

Understanding Unapproved Use of Approved Drugs "Off Label"

"If you and your healthcare provider decide to use an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition, remember that FDA has not determined that the drug is safe and effective for the unapproved use."

It does not say you can't use it. The rules are clear: you can, if you get a prescription.

Quote from JedRothwell

1. No, the FDA does not say ivermectin can only be used on in trials. They have not said one trial, or many. They say only that they cannot recommend it, and the data is unclear. See:

https://www.covid19treatmentgu…viral-therapy/ivermectin/

"Recommendation

• There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."

There are many reports of patients in the U.S. taking ivermectin outside of trials. There are no reports that the FDA or any other agency tried to stop them, because these agencies do not have that regulatory power. Merck also discourages the use of ivermectin for Covid-19. Note that neither the FDA nor Merck say you are not allowed to take it.

https://www.merck.com/news/mer…ng-the-covid-19-pandemic/

2. Any general practitioner can prescribe any approved drug in the U.S. for any reason. That is called off-label use, and it is allowed. See:

https://www.fda.gov/patients/l…-use-approved-drugs-label

Understanding Unapproved Use of Approved Drugs "Off Label"

"If you and your healthcare provider decide to use an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition, remember that FDA has not determined that the drug is safe and effective for the unapproved use."

It does not say you can't use it. The rules are clear: you can, if you get a prescription.

Display More

Then why are doctors going to court to use it, why are they going in front of congress for approval. Please provide affiliated doctors hat have prescribed it. Only in trial settings and no outpatient use.

Answer the videos posted and articles that say you are wrong. Just take some time and look at what has been posted

here Jed this should explain the FDA IVERMECTIN non stand. I will no longer engage with you on this subject

NIH Revised Stance on Ivermectin for COVID-19

TUCSON, Ariz., Jan. 15, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The National Institutes (NIH) has issued a new statement on the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Previously, it recommended against this treatment, but now states that its Panel “has determined that there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) notes that there are now 49 ivermectin studies summarized on c19study.com, 100 percent of which show favorable results. In contrast, there are very few studies of the antibody cocktails now being used under an Emergency Use Authorization.

NIH concludes from its current analysis that “results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide further guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”

The NIH may be responding to requests related to the testimony strongly favoring ivermectin in a Dec 8 Senate hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

While awaiting further studies, patients are dying, AAPS points out. More than a billion doses of this very safe drug have been administered since 1981. Yet many medical facilities and many physicians refuse to prescribe it for COVID-19, citing NIH guidance.

“Perhaps with this change, patients won’t need a court order to get a lifesaving drug,” stated AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. A patient in Buffalo, who was dying on a ventilator, had a dramatic turnaround when family members persuaded an intensive care doctor to prescribe ivermectin. But doctors refused to allow further doses when her condition declined. State Supreme Court Judge Henry A. Nowak ordered the drug to be re-started, and the patient again improved.

“Once a drug is approved, it may be lawfully used for new indications, and at least 20 percent of prescriptions are for ‘off-label’ uses,” Dr. Orient stated. “To have a doctor withdraw a drug that appears to be saving a patient’s life, because a federal bureaucracy thinks it hasn’t been studied enough for that use, is shocking to those who believe in the traditional ethic of Hippocrates.”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has represented physicians in all specialties nationwide since 1943. It provides information on early home treatment for COVID-19. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto (everything for the patient).

Quote from Fm1

Then why are doctors going to court to use it, why are they going in front of congress for approval.

One group of doctors are going to court to NOT use it. They do not want to use it on their patient. The court says they have to use it. The court is not forbidding the use of ivermectin, it is compelling that use. No court, and no agency in the U.S. can forbid the use of an approved drug in the U.S., even for an off-label use. That decision can only be made by a doctor.

Quote from Fm1

here Jed this should explain the FDA IVERMECTIN non stand. I will no longer engage with you on this subject

NIH Revised Stance on Ivermectin for COVID-19

The NIH is not a regulatory agency. It cannot tell anyone not to use a drug. Only the FDA can do that.

Quote from Fm1

Only in trial settings and no outpatient use.

Nope. That is not the rule for any drug in the U.S. The FDA regulations are quite clear. Any doctor can prescribe any approved drug for any reason the doctor decides. That's called off label use. The FDA does not like it, but they cannot stop it. They say that very clearly in this document:

https://www.fda.gov/patients/l…-use-approved-drugs-label

(Also, perhaps this was not clear, but the article you quoted above is about the NIH, not the FDA. The NIH is a research agency. It has no regulatory power. It makes recommendations to the FDA, but the FDA makes and enforces regulations.)

Quote from Fm1

“Perhaps with this change, patients won’t need a court order to get a lifesaving drug,” stated AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. A patient in Buffalo, who was dying on a ventilator, had a dramatic turnaround when family members persuaded an intensive care doctor to prescribe ivermectin. But doctors refused to allow further doses when her condition declined. State Supreme Court Judge Henry A. Nowak ordered the drug to be re-started, and the patient again improved.

“Once a drug is approved, it may be lawfully used for new indications, and at least 20 percent of prescriptions are for ‘off-label’ uses,” Dr. Orient stated. “To have a doctor withdraw a drug that appears to be saving a patient’s life, because a federal bureaucracy thinks it hasn’t been studied enough for that use, is shocking to those who believe in the traditional ethic of Hippocrates.”

The article you quote says the same thing I just told you!

1. They are getting a court order to compel the use, not because the FDA or any agency has forbidden it. They want to compel their doctors to provide it.

2. As Dr. Orient says: "Once a drug is approved, it may be lawfully used for new indication . . ." 20% of drug use is off-label. There is no exception to off-label rules for COVID-19. What the federal bureaucracy thinks cannot prevent off-label use. If a doctor decides the bureaucrats are right, and it shouldn't be used, he or she might decide to withdraw the drug, but that is the doctor's decision. The FDA cannot compel the doctor to withdraw it.

Let's go over this quote one more time. It means the opposite of what Fm1 is saying. The quote tells us that the government is ordering doctors to use ivermectin. No government agency or official has ordered any doctor to stop using this drug.

https://www.globenewswire.com/…rmectin-for-COVID-19.html

It says:

The NIH may be responding to requests related to the testimony strongly favoring ivermectin in a Dec 8 Senate hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

While awaiting further studies, patients are dying, AAPS points out. More than a billion doses of this very safe drug have been administered since 1981. Yet many medical facilities and many physicians refuse to prescribe it for COVID-19, citing NIH guidance.

“Perhaps with this change, patients won’t need a court order to get a lifesaving drug,” stated AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. A patient in Buffalo, who was dying on a ventilator, had a dramatic turnaround when family members persuaded an intensive care doctor to prescribe ivermectin. But doctors refused to allow further doses when her condition declined. State Supreme Court Judge Henry A. Nowak ordered the drug to be re-started, and the patient again improved.

“Once a drug is approved, it may be lawfully used for new indications, and at least 20 percent of prescriptions are for ‘off-label’ uses,” Dr. Orient stated. “To have a doctor withdraw a drug that appears to be saving a patient’s life, because a federal bureaucracy thinks it hasn’t been studied enough for that use, is shocking to those who believe in the traditional ethic of Hippocrates.”

Judge Nowak ordered the hospital use the drug, not to stop using it. This document says "many facilities and many physicians refuse to prescribe it . . . citing NIH guidance." That's guidance. Not a rule, a regulation or an order. The NIH has no authority to tell a doctor or anyone else what drug they can or cannot take. It is a research organization, with no regulatory or enforcement power. The FDA is a regulatory agency. However, it cannot forbid off-label use of any approved drug. It can only issue advice not to use a drug.

What this paragraph is saying is that many doctors agree with the NIH and refused to prescribe the drug. That is their judgment call. No one forbids them, and there is no penalty for ignoring the NIH. We know there is no penalty because, as Dr. Orient stated, ~20% of drugs are used off-label. Obviously, many doctors do not care what the NIH or the FDA thinks.

Dr. Orient and this organization strongly disagree with the doctors in Buffalo. Dr. Orient thinks they are violating the Hippocratic oath. Perhaps she is right, but it is a matter of opinion, and the doctors in Buffalo have a right to their professional opinions. Their job is to use their best judgment. If the patient or her family disagree, they should find another doctor.

I think it is a dangerous precedent to have judges ordering doctors to use a drug, or not use it. I think such decisions should be made by doctors and patients. Not judges. Not government regulators, provided the drug has been proven safe. It has to be proved both safe and effective for the purpose it was intended for, but there is no requirement it should be proved effective for an off-label use such as to treat COVID-19.

People here have the story exactly backwards. They think the government is stopping the use of this drug, when in fact it is ordering the use of the drug. I am opposed to government interference in our lives and medical decisions. If people here read this carefully and they still agree with Dr. Orient, then they are in favor of government interference and the government ordering the use of unproven drugs. They want the government to force doctors to do things the doctors consider useless, or harmful.