Quote from JedRothwell

It is not an analogy.

There was NO VACCINATION.in 1918... that is the obvious point.

the disappearance of Spanish Flu is rationalised to have been due to mutation..

however there is also a theory that those who died were presensitised to the"flu'

by a Russian flu in their childhood.

Perhaps the sudden disappearance is because most of the sensitised individuals died.

two of them were my great grandparents.. leaving three orphan kids

There is no point making a comparison.of Spanish flu.with Covid

For one there was NO VACCINATION

Furthermore we know diddly squat about the Flu except it killed adults. mostly in the 20-40 age range

Different pathogen.. different circumstances.. minimal information.

Age-Specific Mortality During the 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Unravelling the Mystery of High Young Adult Mortality

The worldwide spread of a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus in 2009 showed that influenza remains a significant health threat, even for individuals in the prime…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You might as well compare with the eradication of smallpox.

How fast was that?

Smallpox: The 20th Century Threat

A glycan gate controls opening of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

A glycan gate controls opening of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein - Nature Chemistry

The opening mechanism of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been studied by integrating computational and experimental data. Combining weighted ensemble…

www.nature.com

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 infection is controlled by the opening of the spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), which transitions from a glycan-shielded ‘down’ to an exposed ‘up’ state to bind the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor and infect cells. While snapshots of the ‘up’ and ‘down’ states have been obtained by cryo-electron microscopy and cryo-electron tomagraphy, details of the RBD-opening transition evade experimental characterization. Here over 130 µs of weighted ensemble simulations of the fully glycosylated spike ectodomain allow us to characterize more than 300 continuous, kinetically unbiased RBD-opening pathways. Together with ManifoldEM analysis of cryo-electron microscopy data and biolayer interferometry experiments, we reveal a gating role for the N-glycan at position N343, which facilitates RBD opening. Residues D405, R408 and D427 also participate. The atomic-level characterization of the glycosylated spike activation mechanism provided herein represents a landmark study for ensemble pathway simulations and offers a foundation for understanding the fundamental mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry and infection.

Conclusions

We report extensive WE MD simulations of the glycosylated SARS-CoV-2 spike head characterizing the transition from the ‘down’ to ‘up’ conformation of the RBD. Over 130 µs of simulation provide more than 300 independent RBD-opening transition pathways. The simulated opening pathways align very well to conformations detected from cryo-EM with the ManifoldEM method. Analysis of these pathways from independent WE simulations indicates a clear gating role for the glycan at N343, which lifts and stabilizes the RBD throughout the opening transition. We also characterize an ‘open’ state of the spike RBD, in which the N165 glycan of chain B is the last remaining contact with the RBD en route to further opening of S1. BLI experiments of residues identified as key in the opening transitions, including N343, D405, R408 and D427, broadly supported our computational findings. Notably, a 56% decrease in ACE2 binding of the N343A mutant, compared with a 40% decrease in N234A mutant and a 10% decrease in the N165A mutant reported previously8, evidenced the key role of N343 in gating and assisting the RBD-opening process, highlighting the importance of sampling functional transitions to fully understand mechanistic detail. None of the individual mutations fully abolished ACE2 binding, indicating that the virus has evolved a mechanism involving multiple residues to coordinate spike opening. Our work indicates a critical gating role of the N343 glycan in spike opening and provides new insights into mechanisms of viral infection for this important pathogen.

U.S. probing Moderna vaccine for higher heart inflammation risk - Washington Post

U.S. probing Moderna vaccine for higher heart inflammation risk - Washington Post

U.S. health officials are investigating reports that Moderna Inc's COVID-19 vaccine may be linked to a higher risk of a rare heart condition in younger adults…

www.reuters.com

Aug 19 (Reuters) - U.S. health officials are investigating reports that Moderna Inc's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine may be linked to a higher risk of a rare heart condition in younger adults than previously thought, the Washington Post reported late on Thursday, citing people familiar with the review.

The report quoted a source saying it was too early for the regulators to reach a conclusion, and that additional work was needed before any recommendation was made.

Health regulators in June had added a warning to the literature that accompanies the mRNA vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer to flag the rare risk of heart inflammation seen primarily in young males. However, they said the benefit of the shots in preventing COVID-19 continued to outweigh the risks. read more

There might be a 2.5 times higher incidence of myocarditis in those who get the Moderna vaccine compared with Pfizer's vaccine, the Post quoted a source as saying.

The investigation that is focused on Canadian data suggests that risks of myocarditis might especially be higher for males below the age of 30 or so, according to the report.

Moderna and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment.

Covid-19 "Deja-vù" in Germany & Switzerland.... strong raise in hospitalizations, EC units filling again. Strongly effected by people returning from vacation.... Vast majority of new patients non-vaccinated. (German language)

Corona-Zahlen in der Schweiz steigen rasant: Infektiologe frustriert – „Es fühlt sich an wie ein Déjà-vu“

In der Schweiz stehen die Intensivstationen kurz vor einer vierten Welle. Diesen Monat haben sich die Corona-Fälle dreimal verdoppelt. Die Ärzte sind…

www.merkur.de

Morphological cell profiling of SARS-CoV-2 infection identifies drug repurposing candidates for COVID-19

Morphological cell profiling of SARS-CoV-2 infection identifies drug repurposing candidates for COVID-19

Since its emergence in China in December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemic. Repurposing of FDA-approved drugs is a promising strategy for…

www.pnas.org

Abstract

The global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the associated disease COVID-19, requires therapeutic interventions that can be rapidly identified and translated to clinical care. Traditional drug discovery methods have a >90% failure rate and can take 10 to 15 y from target identification to clinical use. In contrast, drug repurposing can significantly accelerate translation. We developed a quantitative high-throughput screen to identify efficacious agents against SARS-CoV-2. From a library of 1,425 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved compounds and clinical candidates, we identified 17 hits that inhibited SARS-CoV-2 infection and analyzed their antiviral activity across multiple cell lines, including lymph node carcinoma of the prostate (LNCaP) cells and a physiologically relevant model of alveolar epithelial type 2 cells (iAEC2s). Additionally, we found that inhibitors of the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK signaling pathway exacerbate SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. Notably, we discovered that lactoferrin, a glycoprotein found in secretory fluids including mammalian milk, inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in the nanomolar range in all cell models with multiple modes of action, including blockage of virus attachment to cellular heparan sulfate and enhancement of interferon responses. Given its safety profile, lactoferrin is a readily translatable therapeutic option for the management of COVID-19

Discussion

In this study, we developed an experimental workflow based on high-content imaging and morphological profiling that allows for rapid screening of FDA-approved compounds and identified 17 compounds that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. Of these, seven were previously reported and serve as a benchmark validation of our endpoints and experimental approach, and 10 were hitherto unknown. We evaluated the antiviral activity of the 17 hits identified in Huh7 in three transformed cell lines (VeroE6, Caco-2, and LNcaP) and one nontransformed cell line (iAECs) and observed six compounds (amiodarone, ipratropium bromide, lactoferrin, lomitapide, remdesivir, Z-FA-FMK) exhibiting activity across multiple cell lines.

Since the completion of this screen (June 2020), over 30 studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 antiviral activity of FDA-approved drugs have been published. A meta-analysis of these in vitro screens (including this effort) show consensus around 11 compounds, with small total overlap between studies (27). This observation suggests that drug screening of FDA-approved compounds is highly dependent on the chosen cell line and infection conditions. It is expected that compounds exerting an antiviral effect through direct binding to viral proteins would be more independent of the chosen cell system rather than drugs modulating host cell factors that can vary widely by cell type. For example, we observed conserved activity across cell systems for remdesivir, which directly inhibits the viral polymerase (28); lomitapide, which is proposed to directly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) (29); and lactoferrin, which we have shown directly inhibits viral entry.

As most FDA-approved drugs are optimized against human molecular targets, active compounds can lead to target identification of host factors involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Z-FA-FMK is an irreversible cathepsin L inhibitor that exhibits potent antiviral activity in all of the five cell systems tested herein because cathepsin L has been shown to be an entry factor of SARS-CoV-2 through the late endolysosome (30, 31). Another hit in our Huh7 screen, fedratinib, was approved by the FDA in 2019 for myeloproliferative neoplasms (32) and is an orally bioavailable semiselective JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor. JAK inhibitors have been proposed for COVID-19 treatment to specifically inhibit the Th17-mediated inflammatory response (33, 34) and to block numb-associated kinase responsible for clathrin-mediated viral endocytosis (35). The JAK inhibitor baricitinib (36) in combination with remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in late 2020, while jakotinib (ChiCTR2000030170) and ruxolitinib (ChiCTR2000029580) are currently being evaluated in clinical trials for COVID-19 as potential dual action therapeutics (antiviral and innate immune response inhibitors).

In contrast to the antiviral drug hits, we report the connection between MEK inhibition and exacerbated SARS-CoV-2 infection, likely by increasing cell-to-cell spread as suggested by the formation of larger syncytia and more diffuse localization of viral RNA and S protein within infected cells (Fig. 5). Intriguingly, in the context of other virus infections, including SARS-CoV-1, pharmacological inhibition of the Ras–Raf–MEK–ERK pathway results in restriction of viral infection (37). This underscores the importance of this pathway during viral infections and warrants further examination into the mechanism of action of this signaling cascade during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study has generated several clinically testable and readily translatable hypotheses. As an example, we observed potent antiviral activity of ipratropium bromide (Atrovent), a quaternary ammonium salt and muscarinic receptor antagonist that is commonly prescribed for asthma. It is administered via inhalation into the lungs with little systemic absorption. Given its potential mode of action as inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 attachment, prophylaxis or postexposure treatment with ipratropium bromide may curb infection of the upper respiratory tract and drastically reduce systemic viral spread and development of severe symptoms while achieving beneficial bronchodilation. Similarly, we identified metoclopramide and domperidone, both dopamine D2 receptor antagonists used to treat gastrointestinal symptoms, as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Gastrointestinal symptoms have been increasingly reported in more than half of the patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 (2). Hence, these compounds may ameliorate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during COVID-19 infection, and, in addition, the reduced viral load in the GI tract could also reduce fecal-oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (38). Consistent with our findings, the approved leprosy drug clofazamine was recently shown to not only have antiviral activity in cells, but block viral infection in a hamster model of disease (39), making it a strong candidate for clinical translation.

Most noteworthy, our screen identified bovine lactoferrin, a safe and widely available dietary supplement, with multimodal efficacy in multiple cell systems, including nontransformed and physiologically relevant iAEC2s. Our study is the only repurposing discovery effort that included several proteins (like lactoferrin), as conventional high-throughput screening is generally limited to small molecules in DMSO. Lactoferrin gene expression was shown to be highly up-regulated in response to SARS-CoV-1 infection (40), and in addition to enhancing natural killer cell and neutrophil activity, lactoferrin blocks SARS-CoV-1 attachment through binding to heparan sulfate proteoglycans (20). Here, we showed that lactoferrin likely has a multimodal mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection (Figs. 6 and 7). First, it strongly inhibited cellular binding of SARS-CoV-2 to cells via competition with heparan sulfate. Second, it modulated host cell innate immune responses through increased expression of interferon-stimulated genes and TNFα. Through heightening the innate immune response of host cells, orally administered lactoferrin could be effective in resolving the GI symptoms that are present in COVID-19 patients (41) with a mechanism similar to norovirus infection (42). In addition, lactoferrin was previously shown to decrease the production of IL-6 (43), which is one of the key players of the “cytokine storm” produced by SARS-CoV-2 infection (44, 45). Bovine lactoferrin, widely available as 250-mg gelatin capsules for oral administration, is classified by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe” and therefore may represent a promising therapy for preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis. As a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19, lactoferrin might exert direct antiviral and anti-inflammatory efficacy in the airway with alternative routes of administration like intranasal delivery or in a nebulized formulation delivered to the lungs.

Combination therapies are likely to be required for effectively treating SARS-CoV-2 infection, and this approach has already shown promise, i.e., combination therapy with interferon β-1b, lopinavir–ritonavir, and ribavirin showed efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in a prospective, open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial (46). Here, we show that lactoferrin potentiates the antiviral activity of remdesivir and could be used in combination therapy with these drugs, which are currently being used or studied for the treatment of COVID-19. Due to its wide availability, limited cost, and strong safety profile, lactoferrin could be a rapidly deployable option for both prophylaxis and the management of COVID-19. Although our findings are promising and have led to several clinical studies, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of our lead antiviral compounds in animal models and/or clinical studies.

Fauci won't like this

A third COVID-19 vaccine shot markedly boosts neutralizing antibody potency and breadth

Abstract

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines have been rapidly developed and deployed globally as a measure to combat the disease. These vaccines have been demonstrated to confer significant protection, but there have been reports of temporal decay in antibody titer. Furthermore, several variants have been identified with variable degrees of antibody resistance. These two factors suggest that a booster vaccination may be worthy of consideration. While such a booster dose has been studied as a series of three homologous vaccines in healthy individuals, to our knowledge, information on a heterologous regimen remains unreported, despite the practical benefits of such a scheme. Here, in this observational study, we investigated the serological profile of four healthy individuals who received two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, followed by a third booster dose with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. We found that while all individuals had spike-binding antibodies at each of the timepoints tested, there was an appreciable drop in titer by four months following the second vaccination. The third vaccine dose robustly increased titers beyond that of two vaccinations, and these elicited antibodies had neutralizing capability against all SARS-CoV-2 strains tested in both a recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based pseudovirus assay and an authentic SARS-CoV-2 assay, except for one individual against B.1.351 in the latter assay. Thus, a third COVID-19 vaccine dose in healthy individuals promoted not just neutralizing antibody potency, but also induced breadth against dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Significance COVID-19 vaccines confer protection from symptomatic disease, but the elicited antibody titer has been found to decrease with time. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 variants with relative resistance against antibody neutralization have been identified. To overcome such issues, a third vaccine dose applied as a booster vaccine may be necessary. We studied four healthy individuals who received a heterologous booster dose as a third vaccine. All of these individuals had heightened neutralizing antibody titer following the booster vaccination, and could neutralize nearly all variants tested. Thus, a heterologous third COVID-19 vaccine dose may be a mechanism to both heighten and broaden antibody titers, and could be an additional strategy for controlling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Quote from Mark U

Why no mention that Bolivia, with about the highest indigenous and lowest income demographic - both of which are strikes against it for success against coronavirus - has a relatively low death per capita for SA.

Here's the study you didn't link to:

https://www.hilarispublisher.c…treatment-of-covid-19.pdf

Mark U. Can i suggest that like RB and W., who have similar trouble remembering my post content - hence I have to repeat it - you remember this one?

I would suppose it was juts that you dismissed the content as false or badly argued, except that this specific point, which i have made many times, has never been refuted.

Why no mention of Bolivia? Bolivia has a median age of 25.6 years. Young. Countries with a young median age, and which are underdeveloped, will succeed against coronavirus if they do nothing at all.

Of course all three of you (MU, RB, W) know this since W posts the reason every other post. Maybe the other two of you cannot understand his rather compressed style. COVID mortality is age dependent with an exponential that doubles every 6 years. Thus - on basis of population demographics alone - we expect mortality in Bolivia 25% that of US (in fact the advantage will be more than this if the age distribution is more truncated at high end in Bolivia than in the US - as is likely - since the mortality figures are dominated by the number of old people in teh population.

You (all three) have been posting examples of this effect - low median age countries / provinces / doctors with young practices - doing very well in the COVID stakes as proof positive that the favourite drug - whether this is HCQ (Zelenko) ivermectin (many examples esp UP in India) or ClO2 (here).

Comment on study in next post.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Why no mention of Bolivia? Bolivia has a median age of 25.6 years. Young. Countries with a young median age, and which are underdeveloped, will succeed against coronavirus if they do nothing at all.

Of course Bolivia was mentioned and often. It's just that its relatively low incidence of Covid deaths was not. Yes they have a somewhat younger median age even for SA, but it's not so simple. The distribution of that age matters. For instance about 30 percent is age 14 and under, like the USA. Only about 7 percent are over 65, but in the US it's close to 30 percent.

Also, you speak as if the supposed 6 year doubling period for Covid mortality you gave is uniform across countries. It is not. From

https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol44/16/44-16.pdf

However, the rate at which COVID-19 mortality and fatality increase with age varies considerably between countries.

For instance the supposed doubling period is about 10 in Mexico and about 4.5 in Denmark.

Context to Mark's positive ClO2 cures COVID research trial - which has now been published in a journal.

I did a google scholar search for citations - as one does. There was only one that referenced that report, from COMUSAV. Note my link above about COMUSAV and pseudoscience in LA.

The COMUSAV document is a magnificant piece of non-science - starting by listing the patents granted for the use of ClO2 in various medical ways. As we all know, the existence of a patent for something in no way validates it, but in any case ClO2 is a very widely used biocide (disinfectant). Its use (for example as a mouth wash) to kill bacteria is uncontentious. It is not however used to treat viral disease. Since its action against viruses is non-specific - if it really were helpful against COVID you would expect it to be equally helpful against Flu, etc. etc.

Given the lack of followup to that one study - and given that it is observational and non randomised - and commissioned by a known fraudulent cult-like organisation - I'm going to look (myself - for once all we can do is own research) at how ClO2 might be a useful antiviral agent.

More googling.

Good heavens! ClO2 reduces Flu in mice!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18089729/ (2010)

Influenza virus infection is one of the major causes of human morbidity and mortality. Between humans, this virus spreads mostly via aerosols excreted from the respiratory system. Current means of prevention of influenza virus infection are not entirely satisfactory because of their limited efficacy. Safe and effective preventive measures against pandemic influenza are greatly needed. We demonstrate that infection of mice induced by aerosols of influenza A virus was prevented by chlorine dioxide (ClO(2)) gas at an extremely low concentration (below the long-term permissible exposure level to humans, namely 0.1 p.p.m.). Mice in semi-closed cages were exposed to aerosols of influenza A virus (1 LD(50)) and ClO(2) gas (0.03 p.p.m.) simultaneously for 15 min. Three days after exposure, pulmonary virus titre (TCID(50)) was 10(2.6+/-1.5) in five mice treated with ClO(2), whilst it was 10(6.7+/-0.2) in five mice that had not been treated (P=0.003). Cumulative mortality after 16 days was 0/10 mice treated with ClO(2) and 7/10 mice that had not been treated (P=0.002). In in vitro experiments, ClO(2) denatured viral envelope proteins (haemagglutinin and neuraminidase) that are indispensable for infectivity of the virus, and abolished infectivity. Taken together, we conclude that ClO(2) gas is effective at preventing aerosol-induced influenza virus infection in mice by denaturing viral envelope proteins at a concentration well below the permissible exposure level to humans. ClO(2) gas could therefore be useful as a preventive means against influenza in places of human activity without necessitating evacuation.

I'm now beginning to wonder why this miracle cure is not widely used as first treatment for a variety of viral diseases in hospitals.

More from the mouse paper:

However, the antimicrobial activities of gas-phase ClO2 have not been well studied. This is especially true of ClO2 gas at very low concentrations (subtoxic levels) that are sufficiently safe to use in places of human activity without evacuation. According to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the long-term (8 h) permissible exposure level of ClO2 in environmental air in a human workplace is 0.1 p.p.m. (v/v) (US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2006).

If gas-phase ClO2 is shown to have potent antimicrobial activity at a subtoxic level, it would be useful to employ it at such levels to prevent transmission of respiratory infections in public places such as offices, schools, theatres, hospitals and airport buildings without evacuating occupants. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether ClO2 gas at a subtoxic level can protect against influenza A virus infection by using a mouse–influenza model. The mechanism of the effect of ClO2 against this virus was further substantiated by in vitro biochemical experiments.

That sounds entirely reasonable. Maybe low concentrations of ClO2 in the air could act as a disinfectant, reducing transmission? But that is not the same as using ClO2 as a cure. The ClO2 here reduced Flu in the air that the mice breath.

For each set of experiments, groups consisted of 15 mice. Five were sacrificed on day 3 (72 h) after exposure to virus aerosols (see below) for virus titre determination in their lungs and pathological examinations of lung tissue. Ten animals were observed further for mortality until day 21. The animal experiment was approved by Taiko Pharmaceutical Experiment Committee. Influenza virus strain A/PR/8/34 (H1N1) was used for animal experiments, and strain A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1) was used for all in vitro experiments. These viruses were grown and propagated by using Madin–Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells and Eagle's minimum essential medium (MEM) supplemented with 10 % fetal bovine serum. They were purified by velocity density-gradient centrifugation through a 20–50 % linear sucrose gradient. Virion-containing fractions were collected, titrated and stored at −80 °C until use. Just before use, a vial of virus was thawed quickly and diluted with Dulbecco's PBS to approximately 1 LD50 (one 50 % lethal dose) when delivered as aerosols. Mice were exposed to this preparation for 15 min. The diluted virus suspension was placed in a reservoir of an Aero-Mist nebulizer (CIS-US, Inc.). As a no-virus control, another interchangeable nebulizer holding a reservoir of PBS alone was used in parallel. The virus and no-virus aerosols were changed quickly by a converter (Fig. 1F1). The day of aerosol challenge was termed day 0.

ClO2 generator.The ClO2 generator was made in our laboratory (Fig. 1aF1). ClO2 was generated by mixing 250 mM HCl with 28 mM NaClO2; these solutions were delivered into a reaction vessel by precision liquid pumps A and B. ClO2 was generated according to the reaction 5NaClO2+4HCl→4ClO2+5NaCl+2H2O. ClO2 generated in the reaction vessel was next bubbled with air to expel it as gas. Approximately 50 p.p.m. ClO2 gas came out of the vessel at a flow rate of 0.4 l min⁻¹. The ClO2 gas was next diluted by air using air pumps B and C. Finally, ClO2 gas at approximately 0.8 p.p.m. was delivered from the generator into the mouse cage at a flow rate of about 1.8 l min⁻¹ (Fig. 1F1). Concentration and flow rate of ClO2 gas were adjusted finely by a concentration regulator and a flow-rate regulator, respectively, to meet the gas concentration and flow rate required for the experiment. The ClO2 gas was finally delivered into the mouse cage as shown in Fig. 1(b)F1.

So this experiment shows that adding low concentration ClO2 (0.1ppm) to air is protective (for mice) against air-bourne influenza. I personally think this is a great idea. like swimming pools. And wonder why hospitals do not implement this in COVID ICUs, schools and universities as well. i guess there might be concern about the toxic effect of even low quantities of ClO2 given long-term continuous exposure? Like being in a swimming pool all the time.

There is some research on that https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/19/5/790

Swimming is generally considered to be a healthy leisure activity for both the young and old. Swimming is even often advised as the most appropriate sport for asthmatic children 1–3, mainly (but probably not solely) on the grounds that inhaling moist air is less conducive to triggering exercise-induced asthma 4. However, for obvious reasons of microbiological safety, the water of public and private swimming pools must be disinfected 5. The most common procedure for water disinfection consists of chlorination. As with all human and technological intervention, the use of chlorine-based products to disinfect swimming water may lead to a number of unwanted effects, in particular the presence of chlorine-containing compounds in the air. Consequently, chlorination may affect the respiratory health of either those who work as swimming attendants or instructors, or those who use the pools as customers, particularly children and the general public, but also competitive swimmers. Although the issue of the chlorination of public water supplies has received considerable attention, mainly with regard to the presence of potentially carcinogenic or teratogenic chlorinated by-products 6, 7, the respiratory hazards of chlorinated swimming water have been less well addressed. Thus, old 8, 9 and even more recent 10 reports on indoor pollution do not deal with the air of chlorinated swimming pools, despite the generally obvious and readily noticeable irritant character of this type of environment, even in well-maintained pools 11.

Thus there are potential concerns both for cancer and respiratory function (especially anyone with asthma).

That does not kill the idea. the levels of ClO2 needed are very low (0.1ppm) so maybe that is OK.

Continuing....

Chlorine Dioxide (CLO2) As a Non-Toxic Antimicrobial Agent for Virus, Bacteria and Yeast (Candida Albicans)

Clinical application of CLO₂

Ongoing research at the Innerlight Biological Research Foundation has been investigating the clinical usage of CLO₂ for the following applications for over twenty-five years.

1. Herpes I and HI
2. AIDS (HTLV-m)[45]
3. Sty (eye)
4. Cold sores (herpes)
5. Shingles (herpes)
6. Warts
7. Cytomegalovirus
8. Polio
9. Influenza
10. Canker sore
11. Ear infection
12. Chronic bronchitis Sinusitis
13. Dandruff
14. Psoriasis
15. Strep throat
16. Pseudomonas Pneumonia
17. Peridontal disease
18. Bladder infections
19. Mycotic (Fungal)
20. Candida (systemic)
21. Candida (snails)[45]
22. Candida (vaginitis)
23. Candida (oral; thrush)
24. Candida (gastrointestinal)
25. Ringworm Scleroderma

This research also includes nonspecific spores; bacteria and virus.

Clinical outcome studies of CLO₂

Extensive clinical applications of CLO₂ to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) [46]; cytomegalovirus (CMV); hepatitis virus A; B; HIV (AIDS virus) and others are being used continually. The DNA of EBV within the virus itself is in a linear form. Sometime after infection; the ends are linked together; forming the circular form (episome). Once this form of DNA is firmly established; the cell is said to be in a latent state. The virus remains in this state in certain B-cells for the remainder of the patient’s life. About 10% of the B-cells are in the actively proliferating state [47]. An Epstein-Barr clinical study was conducted in the American Biologics Medical Center over a four year period from 1992 to 1996 [46].

Case load:There were 1207 patients treated with the Dioxychlor® protocol. 784 patients were female - 65%. 423 patients were male - 35%. Ages ranged from 16 to 52 years.

Initial status:High IgG serum titers ranged from 400 to 5800. Intensive treatment for 14 days. Nutritional Supplementation. Sodium Chlorite CLO₂.

Therapy (baseline):

1. Sodium chlorite CLO₂- intravenous drip; 10 cc in 100 cc saline; daily
   
   Intravenous studies in the 90's at the American Biologics Medical Center have established that 10 ml of 25;000 ppm of Sodium Chlorite CLO₂ in 100 ml of physiologic saline administered over 30 minutes is a safe dosage level.
2. Sodium chlorite CLO₂- sublingual; 10 drops under tongue; twice daily.
3. Thymus extract (im) – weekly.
4. Vitamin C – 15 g parenteral (drip).

Results (averages):Minimun time clinical improvement: 3 days significant clinical improvement: 10 – 20 days Antibody (IgG); 90% reduction; <35 days [48].

Microbiological Laboratory Studies:

1. In 1986; the Microbiology Laboratory at Stanford University performed a series of tests showing the efficacy of CLO₂ in neutralizing a variety of viruses. The concentration of CLO₂ used was 0.75 ppm in all the studies.
2. The viruses included Herpes II; HTLV III and Cytomelagalovirus. The study also included the bacterium Pseudomonas. Electron micrographs show the complete eradication of the viruses and Pseudomonas following treatment [49].

I note with some concern that this very impressive list of clinical achievements (seemingly not picked up by anyone else) are all from Innerlight Bilogical Research Foundation

A Critical Look at "Dr." Robert Young's Theories and Credentials | Quackwatch

In July 2017, Robert O. Young, who has marketed himself as "Robert O. Young, M.S., D.Sc., Ph.D.,"was sentenced to prison for practicing medicine without a…

quackwatch.org

[a lot more info on Robert Young who is a well-attested alt medicine medical quack]

Questionable Activities

In addition to writing, Young has operated retreats and marketed herbal and dietary supplements, many of which are his own brand (“Young pHorever”). The supplements are marketed by him directly and through a multilevel company called InnerLight, which he founded. In 2010, his Web site stated:

The Youngs supplements . . . literally bring new energy to each cell directly. It’s a big idea that begins with the tiniest of particles—the particles called colloids. Since colloids are so small, it is easy for our cells to absorb vitamins and minerals introduced at this size. Knowing this, the pH Miracle begins by breaking basic nutrient elements into billions of colloidal particles. Then, unlike any other supplement provider, we ensure these colloids remain individually separated through a proprietary process called Micro-Ionization™.
Perhaps the most striking difference about the Young’s products are their living energy. Not only are colloids separated for prime absorption, they are given an additional electrical charge. This charge actually attracts the colloids to your cells where they can be instantly utilized. The energy within each cell literally “jumps.” Functionality is rejuvenated. And your cells—and you yourself—can feel that maybe the energy you knew as a kid isn’t so long gone after all [6].

This description uses scientific terms, but the processes he describes are fanciful.

In 2010, Young’s “private retreats” were said to include “personal live and dried blood microscopy, preceded by an in-depth health history including developing an understanding of the physical, social, psychological, medical, and pharmaceutical components of a person’s life.” [7] Young promises to “personally oversee each activity for the day which may include: history, microscopy, supplements, water and ionization, exercise, lymphatic massage, cooking, food preparation, colonics and other health programs.” His findings would then provided in a 35-page blood microscopy report plus a recommended program and a three-month supply of supplements and other products he created. There were also group retreats that cost from $400 to $15,000, depending on the length and setting. In 2013, the private retreats cost from $1,295 to $2,495 per night.

In 2010, the pH Miracle site also asserted that, “Over the many years, Dr. Young has performed live and dry blood analysis on over 15,000 people repeatedly, while simultaneously adjusting nutrition to create a pH balanced Alkaline lifestyle. This practice clearly makes Dr. Young the preeminent nutritional microbiologist in history.” [6]

Not quite. Live blood cell analysis is carried out by placing a drop of blood from the patient’s fingertip on a microscope slide under a glass cover slip to keep it from drying out. The slide is then viewed at high magnification with a dark-field microscope that forwards the image to a television monitor. Both practitioner and patient can then see the blood cells, which appear as dark bodies outlined in white. The practitioner may take Polaroid photographs of the television picture or may videotape the procedure for himself and/or the patient. The results are then used as a basis for prescribing supplements. Dried blood cell analysis is similar but is done after the blood dries. Although much can be learned by looking at blood cells under a microscope, the practitioners who do these tests draw conclusions that have no scientific validity are are used primarily to sell products [9].

It would be interesting to know the context in which Young performed 15,000 blood analyses. In most states, doing blood tests and recommending products based on these tests are considered diagnosing and prescribing and are restricted to licensed health professionals. As far as I can tell, Young has never been eligible for any type of health-related professional license.

Summary

ClO2 is a powerful disinfectant because it causes oxidative (free radical) stress on living cells and also (less clearly).

Proposals to use ClO2 as an environmental disinfectant (e.g. as in Swimming Pools) are uncontentious.

Proposals to use ClO2 as a medical cure, taken internally, are not normally considered sensible because ClO2 has such powerful effects, and the free radicals that are released ClO2 would kills normal cells as much as they do viruses or bacteria.

A 2008 paper shows that ClO2 works (in mice) as an atmospheric disinfectant to reduce Influenza viral transmission.

A 2016 article published by a publish anything but pay to do this publisher MedCraveOnline in the not properly registered journal International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccinology (a weird off topic fit for this topic) shows ClO2 as a cure for almost every possible bodily ailment. It is written by Robert Young who has no medical qualifications and has been running a profitable alt medicine scam selling people ClO2.

A 2020 trial into the use of ClO2 as therapy for COVID was done by Robert Young's people coincidentally with the FDA trying to shut down his scam selling people ClO2 as a cure-all. They had done well out of COVID (as you would expect). A report related to this emerged, published in the open access (real) journal https://www.hilarispublisher.c…lar-genetic-medicine.html

This published paper has never been cited except by the highly political COMUSAV. Its authors are the head of the Genesis Foundation (Robert Young sell people ClO2 scam) and a very weird miscellaneous set of people.

The paper, and this study, deserves yet another post, see below.

Medcraveonline

Medcraveonline is a dubious online publisher:

Check out online journals before submitting your manuscript | Office of Information Technology

The following solicitation from MedCraveOnline for submissions to their Sociology International Journal set off a few red flags (can you spot them?) and an inquiry into online publishers, some with questionable practices.

Should you receive such an email, we recommend reviewing the steps on thinkchecksubmit.org before responding. For example, how does the publisher fare when trying to answer the following questions about them?

• Are you familiar with the journal?
• Do they provide easy to find contact information?
• Is it clear what fees will be charged?
• Is the publisher a member of a recognized industry initiative?
• Do they belong to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ?
• If the journal is open access, is it listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ? Does it belong to the Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA) ?

they must be right-wing anti vax death cult members

Scientists blast U.S. push for Covid vaccine booster shots as premature, say data isn't compelling

Scientists blast U.S. push for Covid vaccine booster shots as premature, say data isn't compelling

While data suggests there is a reduction in protection against mild and moderate disease, the shots still held up well against severe disease, scientists said.

www.cnbc.com

KEY POINTS

Scientists sharply criticized the Biden administration's push to widely distribute Covid booster shots, saying the data provided by U.S. officials wasn't compelling.

While data suggests there is a reduction in protection against mild and moderate disease, the shots still held up well against severe disease, scientists said.

"The data are showing that yes, we are seeing breakthrough infections but, the infections are mild or moderate colds," said Johns Hopkins University's Dr. Anna Durbin.

Scientists sharply criticized the Biden administration's push to widely distribute Covid-19 vaccine booster shots in the U.S. next month, saying the data provided by federal health officials this week wasn't compelling enough to recommend third shots to most of the American population right now.

U.S. health leaders say they are preparing to offer booster shots to all eligible Americans beginning the week of Sept. 20. The plan, outlined Wednesday by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and other health officials, calls for a third dose eight months after people get their second shot of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

They cited three new studies, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that showed their protection against Covid diminished over several months. One study in New York from May 3 through July 25 showed that vaccine protection against infection dropped from around 92% to 80%. Another study by the Mayo Clinic showed that Pfizer's vaccine efficacy fell from around 76% to 42% while Moderna's declined from 86% to 76%.

"Taken together, you can see that while the exact percentage of vaccine effectiveness over time differs depending on the cohort and settings study, the data consistently demonstrate a reduction of vaccine effectiveness against infection over time," Walensky told reporters during a White House Covid press briefing.

But scientists and other health experts said the data they cited wasn't compelling, characterizing the administration's push for boosters as premature. While the data did suggest there was a reduction in protection against mild and moderate disease, the two-dose vaccines still held up well against severe disease and hospitalizations, scientists said.

For example, the New York study released by the CDC showed there were 9,675 infections among fully vaccinated adults, compared with 38,505 infections among unvaccinated adults during the period examined. Among the fully vaccinated people who were infected, 1,271 were hospitalized, accounting for roughly 15% of all Covid hospitalizations.

"People are still highly protected against severe disease, hospitalization, and death. This is what vaccines are supposed to do," said Dr. Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "If we start seeing significant upticks of more severe disease and hospitalizations in vaccinated people, that would be a signal to consider boosters."

The body's immune system is complex, Durbin said. While the presence of antibodies induced by the vaccine may decline, resulting in a rise in breakthrough infections, the body has other mechanisms, like T cells, that may protect someone from getting seriously sick, she said.

The body's immune system is complex, Durbin said. While the presence of antibodies induced by the vaccine may decline, resulting in a rise in breakthrough infections, the body has other mechanisms, like T cells, that may protect someone from getting seriously sick, she said.

The data are showing that yes, we are seeing breakthrough infections but, the infections are mild or moderate colds," she said.

To be sure, federal health officials said the vaccines are still holding up against severe disease over time, even as their ability to prevent infections declines. They said, based on their latest assessment, "the current protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and death could diminish in the months ahead, especially among those who are at higher risk or were vaccinated during the earlier phases of the vaccination rollout."

There are some groups in the U.S. who would benefit from a third dose right now, according to Dr. Archana Chatterjee, a member of the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Data does support the need for booster doses primarily among those who are moderate to severely immunocompromised, Chatterjee said. Federal health officials on Friday approved giving booster shots to such people – which include cancer and HIV patients and people who have had organ transplants – after data suggested they don't produce an adequate immune response after getting two doses.

As of now, "breakthrough infections in the general public tend to be asymptomatic or mild," she said.

People who are 65 or older or living in a long-term care facility may also benefit from a booster shot, said Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto,

U.S. will begin wide distribution of Covid booster shots next month as protection wanes over time

Texas Gov. Abbott, who banned mask and vaccine mandates, tests positive for Covid

NIH director says new Israeli Covid data is building case for booster shots in the U.S.

Airlines split on whether to mandate Covid vaccines for employees

Israel, a country U.S. officials have also cited in their push for boosters, has begun giving out third doses to the elderly after new data showed a reduction in the effectiveness of Pfizer's Covid vaccine against severe illness among people 65 and older who were fully vaccinated in January or February.

"Do we all need a third dose of a vaccine right now? No, we don't. Do some people need a third dose of a vaccine right now? Yes. Will we need a third dose of a vaccine in the near future? Maybe," Bogoch said in a phone interview.

Dr. Priya Sampathkumar, an epidemiologist at the Mayo Clinic, agreed, saying a booster could be needed for the general public in the future, but not right now. "There isn't enough data to support the third booster for all at this point," she said.

Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization's Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law, said federal health officials should put their focus elsewhere: the unvaccinated, both in the U.S. and around the world.

Earlier this month, the WHO asked wealthy nations to stop distributing booster shots until at least the end of September to give poorer countries the chance to vaccinate their populations with the first rounds of shots.

Shortly after the U.S. announced its booster plan, the international agency condemned wealthy nations that support boosters for the general public.

"Boosting the entire U.S. population while poor people are dying in poor countries is tone-deaf and is widely viewed as uncaring," Gostin said. "It's also a slap in the face to WHO after it called for a booster moratorium."

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy defended the administration's booster plan on CNBC on Wednesday, saying health officials decided to give boosters to the general public at the eight-month mark as a way "to stay ahead of this virus."

"We are making plans now, because No. 1, you've got to plan ahead, but two, we wanted the public to know what we were seeing in the data, in our effort to be transparent and open with the public," Murthy told "The News with Shepard Smith."

During a White House briefing Tuesday, press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration believes it can boost the American population while ensuring the rest of the world gets vaccinated.

"We believe that is a false choice. We can do both," Psaki said, adding that the U.S. is contributing more vaccine doses than any other nation to fight Covid across the globe. "We will continue to be the arsenal for vaccines around the world. We also have enough supply and had long planned enough supply should a booster be needed for the eligible population."

Why Forcing Unvaccinated Students To Wear Cloth Masks Is Anti-Science

For one, the immunity of those who have recovered from COVID and their ability to transmit the virus are not proven to be different than that of the vaccinated

Why Forcing Unvaccinated Students To Wear Cloth Masks Is Anti-Science

The immunity of those who have recovered from COVID and their ability to transmit the virus are not proven to be different than that of the vaccinated.

thefederalist.com

Almost 600 colleges and universities have mandated COVID-19 vaccination for students attending classes in the fall semester. Most of these schools have also mandated vaccination for faculty and staff. They all say the objective is to provide a “safe” campus environment. The University of Notre Dame, for example, stated in a recent “Policy Update” that its “highest priority” is the “health, safety, and well-being of every member of this community.”

Most of these schools make exemptions available for medical or religious reasons. Along with that group, every campus population will include those who decline to be vaccinated for other reasons. On every campus there will be a substantial number of staff, faculty, and students who are not vaccinated when classes resume. What is to become of them?

Where the unvaccinated are permitted to remain on campus at all, they will be subject to a regimen of discriminatory burdens. These protocols might include social distancing or repeated surveillance testing, sometimes at considerable cost to the student. They will surely include masking in all indoor spaces and in certain circumstances outdoors.

Currently, due to the delta variant, mask requirements for the vaccinated are fluid. Because we are now seeing more breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated, the latest recommendation from the CDC includes indoor masking even for the vaccinated, but this may continue to change as cases fluctuate.

Many campuses are still likely to subject the unvaccinated to dramatically different masking requirements than those incumbent on the vaccinated. Notre Dame, for example, makes masking indoors “optional” for anyone who is vaccinated. But “[u]nvaccinated faculty, staff and students must wear a mask indoors, except when alone in a private office.”

Does the relevant scientific evidence support this disparate treatment of unvaccinated campus residents and workers? Most certainly not, as we will explain.

Unvaccinated with Natural Immunity to COVID

To begin with, many of the unvaccinated students, staff, and faculty have already had COVID. Their immunity to the virus and their ability to transmit the virus are not proven to be different than that of the vaccinated. The scientific evidence establishes that the natural immunity carried by these COVID survivors is at least as effective and as durable as anything the vaccines deliver.

For example, this recent Centers for Disease Control study of a gamma variant outbreak among miners showed the attack rate was 60 percent among fully vaccinated miners and 75 percent among unvaccinated miners without a history of infection. By contrast, there were zero cases in those who were previously infected with COVID.

While vaccine efficacy may be waning with time and new variants, we have not seen natural immunity wane over time. Another recent CDC study of a July outbreak in Massachusetts found that 74 percent of COVID cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons. By contrast, there have not been recent reports of similar breakthrough cases in those with natural immunity.

But none of the college exemption protocols we have examined offer exemptions on the ground of prior infection. Insofar as a discriminatory mask regimen is meant to protect unvaccinated COVID survivors from getting the disease, the regimen is, literally, pointless – even more so, as mounting evidence, including the studies mentioned above, suggests that the duration of immunity from the vaccines is considerably shorter than that of natural immunity.

While vaccinating COVID-recovered patients might produce an antibody uptick, there is no epidemiological evidence that this improves relevant clinical outcomes like symptomatic reinfection. The data also show that those who possess this natural immunity present no greater risk of transmitting the virus to others than those who have been vaccinated and acquire breakthrough infections.

Vaccinating COVID-recovered individuals anyway adds nothing of clinical value. Here, too, discriminating against the unvaccinated who have recovered from COVID by making them wear masks is, as a matter of scientific fact, pointless.

Unvaccinated without Natural Immunity

Not all of the unvaccinated persons on campus will be naturally immune, though. One might quickly jump to the conclusion that requiring them to wear masks is justified because it protects the unvaccinated against infection. There are two reasons this justification fails.

One is the scientific evidence that masks do not prevent community transmission of respiratory viruses. Between 2008 and 2020, 12 consecutive randomized controlled trials of community masking (here, here, and here), conducted among approximately 18,000 persons worldwide, established that this intervention does not reduce community respiratory virus transmission, including COVID-19 transmission.

The second reason is the desire to protect the mask wearer from infection does nothing to justify discrimination: while reinfection for the naturally immune is exceedingly rare (Israel recently reported that 53 percent of new cases were in vaccinated individuals, 43 percent of cases were in unvaccinated individuals, while only 1 percent of cases were in individuals who had already recovered from the coronavirus), both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are subject to COVID infection.

Reinfection for the naturally immune is comparatively much rarer than it is for those who are vaccinated. Another recent study from the Israeli Health Ministry examined a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus. The 72 instances of reinfection counted were 0.0086 percent of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with more than 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578 percent, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave. Unfortunately, breakthrough infections among the vaccinated are now increasingly common, as we learn that the vaccines’ effectiveness sharply diminishes with time since injection.

Besides, the vaccines never promised immunity from infection. All that their makers said was that they would prevent most people who get infected from developing serious symptoms. That’s all that the evidence shows that they do too. As mentioned already, natural immunity seems to offer more robust and longer-lasting protection.

Mistaken Rationales for Masking the Unvaccinated

Of course, one might say that the unvaccinated are at a singular risk of developing a serious symptomatic case of COVID. The way to protect the unvaccinated from the risk of serious COVID-related illness is not, however, to mask them. It would be to mask everyone else so that the unvaccinated do not get sick from the airborne germs of others, a burden that the colleges rightly do not impose.

Another possible justification for the colleges’ discriminatory mask rules is that they protect the vaccinated majority from risks presented to them by the unvaccinated minority. Keep in mind, however, that the vaccinated are now known to be at risk both of contracting the virus from others and of transmitting it to others once infected.

The CDC’s director recently acknowledged, when commenting on the increasing number of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated, that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections of the delta variant carry just as much virus in the nose and throat as unvaccinated people and may spread it just as readily. With the rise of breakthrough infections and the waning of vaccine efficacy over time, members of the unmasked vaccinated majority may present a more significant risk to each other of infection than would a minority of unvaccinated people, if only due to their far greater numbers among the campus. Thus, to be safe, it would make sense to require the larger group to mask up too, following the logic of reducing risk.

The last possible justification for these mask-the-unvaccinated rules is, perhaps, paradoxical: it is to protect the unvaccinated people on campus from each other. If it is true that masks impede the transmission of the disease, then masking them would indeed likely lower the incidence of infection and, in turn, of serious consequences.

But even supposing that masks work in this way does not justify the discriminatory rules in place on campus. Remember, we are not talking about segregating the unvaccinated, as if one could imagine all of them interacting only with each other while all masked. On the contrary: the colleges require masks of the unvaccinated precisely so that they can go about normal business, mixing at will with everyone else on campus. In these circumstances, the unvaccinated are at risk of infection from the majority of those they encounter who are vaccinated and unmasked, yet still possibly infectious.

Consider, for example, the CDC study of the Massachusetts outbreak in July in which 74 percent of those infected had been fully vaccinated. Requiring the minority of campus denizens who are unvaccinated to wear masks in such a setting makes less of a difference than would requiring the majority to wear masks. If protecting the unvaccinated from each other is the rationale, then the majority should be required to wear masks too.

Why Not Require Masks Just to be Safe?

Of course, one might say that masking the unvaccinated might yet do some good. Who knows? The science is always “evolving” some say. So go ahead and require it. Why not?

This casual reply is wrong in several important respects. It ignores the truth that the masking rules in place are arbitrarily discriminatory, and that is simply wrong.

Besides, masks are burdensome, and some evidence suggests they may harm people socially and psychologically. They are annoying for many to wear. They are medically contra-indicated for some. They typically impede conversation and generally reduce the quality of social interactions.

Most important, those wearing masks on campus this fall will thus be marked with a scarlet “A,” as persons who – according to the negative implication of everything the colleges say about masking them – have chosen not to make the “health, safety, and well-being of every member of this community” their “highest priority.” Those wearing masks will, in other words, stand out as unclean and dangerous – when in scientific fact they certainly are not.

Of course, we do not suggest that colleges should prohibit mask-wearing. We recognize that many people might feel more comfortable or secure wearing masks. We suggest the colleges say these people are welcome to do so, so long as the colleges also stipulate that mask-wearing is not mandatory.

This allows both the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are still concerned about infection to choose to mask. By making it a matter of personal choice, the colleges could accommodate everyone, and incidentally remove the unjust stigma and discrimination of the protocols now in place for the school year.

Andrew Bostom, MD, MS, is an associate professor of family medicine (research) at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Gerard V. Bradley, JD, is a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Aaron Kheriaty, MD, is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine and the director of the Medical Ethics Program at UCI Health. Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.

COVID COVID vaccine COVID-19 vaccine face mask face masks mandatory vaccination mask mandate mask mandates university University of Notre Dame vaccination vaccination rates

Tracking Cryptic SARS-CoV-2 Lineages Detected in NYC Wastewater

Abstract

Tracking SARS-CoV-2 genetic diversity is strongly indicated because diversifying selection may lead to the emergence of novel variants resistant to naturally acquired or vaccine-induced immunity. To monitor New York City (NYC) for the presence of novel variants, we amplified regions of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein gene from RNA acquired from all 14 NYC wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and ascertained the diversity of lineages from these samples using high throughput sequencing. Here we report the detection and increasing frequencies of novel SARS-CoV-2 lineages not recognized in GISAID’s EpiCoV database. These lineages contain mutations rarely observed in clinical samples, including Q493K, Q498Y, H519N and T572N. Many of these mutations were found to expand the tropism of SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses by allowing infection of cells expressing the human, mouse, or rat ACE2 receptor. In addition, pseudoviruses containing the Spike amino acid sequence of these lineages were found to be resistant to many different classes of receptor binding domain (RBD) binding neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. We offer several hypotheses for the anomalous presence of these mutations, including the possibility of a non-human animal reservoir. Although wastewater sampling cannot provide direct inference of SARS-CoV-2 clinical sequences, our research revealed several lineages that could be relevant to public health and they would not have been discovered if not for wastewater surveillance.

Conclusions and Outlook

To date, most data on SARS-CoV-2 genetic diversity has come from the sequencing of clinical samples, but such studies may suffer limitations due to biases, costs and throughput. Here we demonstrate the circulation of several lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in the NYC metropolitan area that have not been detected by standard clinical surveillance. While the origins of these lineages have not been determined, we have demonstrated that these lineages have expanded receptor tropism which is consistent with expansion to an animal reservoir. Finally, we demonstrated that these lineages have gained significant resistance to some patient-derived neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Thus, these novel lineages could be relevant to public health and necessitate further study.

I started to wonder how different strains of viruses compete with each other and whether there was any truth to the statement that "the unvaccinated are a breeding ground for mutations". Sadly the opposite may be true. I sincerely hope that the mad rush to a vaccine centric solution is not making things worse.

The Need for Evolutionarily Rational Disease Interventions: Vaccination Can Select for Higher Virulence

Abstract

There is little doubt evolution has played a major role in preventing the control of infectious disease through antibiotic and insecticide resistance, but recent theory suggests disease interventions such as vaccination may lead to evolution of more harmful parasites. A new study published in PLOS Biology by Andrew Read and colleagues shows empirically that vaccination against Marek’s disease has favored higher virulence; without intervention, the birds die too quickly for any transmission to occur, but vaccinated hosts can both stay alive longer and shed the virus. This is an elegant empirical demonstration of how evolutionary theory can predict potentially dangerous responses of infectious disease to human interventions.

Finally, the clinical study from Robert Young who has for many years claimed that ClO2 cures (everything) and sold a devoted group of adherents ClO2 on this basis. He has got into trouble with FDA for this.

This is a real registered clinical trial

Determination of the Effectiveness of Oral Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID 19 - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

Determination of the Effectiveness of Oral Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID 19 - Full Text View.

clinicaltrials.gov

And has published results:

https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/determination-of-the-effectiveness-of-chlorine-dioxide-in-the-treatment-of-covid-19.pdf

The Registered Trial

chlorine dioxide 3000 ppm. Bottle x 150 cc.

Assignment of study medication Each patient will receive, in order of admission to the study, a consecutive patient number and the corresponding study medication. The assignment of this medication was made before the start of the study, using a computer generated list. Patients will receive the 3,000 ppm chlorine dioxide base preparation with written and precise instructions on how to prepare and take the dilutions.

7.1 Dosage and route of administration. Medication: chlorine dioxide 3000 ppm. Fco x 150 cc. 10 ml of 3000 ppm chlorine dioxide are added to 1 liter of water, per day. One part is taken every hour, until the content of the bottle is finished (8 to 12 shots).

Both the original dioxide bottle and the preparation for the day should be kept refrigerated.

So this is an observational trial. 20 patients are sent this treatment.

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. negative testing of covid19 [ Time Frame: 7 DAYS ]amplification of coronavirus genes by RT-PCR

And the outcome measure is time to negative testing.

No control group. No way this can tell us does the treatment work. As with the lowest of low quality trials, you can try to compare time to clear with that which is typical - but we know this depends greatly on the severity of the COVID. That can be gamed by selecting young patients, or patients with less advanced disease, etc. It is (even if trying to do this) very difficult to control all of the confounding factors and compare such tests.

The published paper does not correspond to the registered trial

Once the research protocol was done, it was decided to register it
in clinicaltrials.gov which was accepted on April 7, 2020 under the number
NCT 04343742. The design was made international multicenter in order
to have a faster collection of the sample and in the future, to have a much
larger and more representative sample. The same protocol was presented
in eleven American countries and in Spain for approval. Unfortunately, drug
control entities in all countries generated warnings and even bans on its
use for human consumption that made it difficult for ethics committees to
approve the protocol. In Bolivia the law was approved No. 1351 of 2020 that
authorized the elaboration, commercialization, supply and consented use of
the CDS chlorine dioxide solution as prevention and treatment in the face of
the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19); The ethics committee endorsed by
the Bolivian Ministry of Health was legally constituted, which approved this
multicenter research protocol of international scope, retro-prospective, made
up of five (5) universities (Technical University of Oruro, Public University of
El Alto, Universidad Mayor de San Simón, Gabriel René Moreno Autonomous
University and Yacuiba Technical Institute "Gran Chaco") which in turn, through
its scientific and ethical clinical research committees, are doing their own
research on chlorine dioxide for use in different applications [20-35].

You all remember the Bolivian political issues that lead to this aberrant decision!

this observational study has morphed - retrospectively - into a study with a control group. This is NOT an RCT. The control group patients are selected in some way

Population
The experimental population to which the multicenter study was directed
consisted of a group of patients with active infection with COVID-19, in various
medical centers in Bolivia (14 patients), most of them in the southern clinic in
La Paz, Bolivia, Peru (two patients) and Ecuador (four patients) for a total of
twenty (20) patients. The control population consisted of eight (8) patients from
Ecuador, seven (7) patients from Bolivia, three (3) from Mexico and two (2)
from Peru, for a total of twenty (20) patients.
Patients
The selection of the treatment or experimental group was made based
on patients with active COVID-19 infection, who were with positive RT-PCR,
symptomatic in intervals from 3 to 7 days, which were not in the resolution
phase, who were proposed to be voluntary research subjects. Control group
patients chose not to be chlorine dioxide treatment subjects. Similarly,
simultaneity was applied, which means that patients were obtained in the
same period of time in which the cases arose. Viral load was not determined
due to costs, technical and logistical difficulties of the reference laboratories in
Mexico, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.
Number of patients
Twenty patients (n=20) for the experimental group and 20 patients (n=20)
for the control group were included in the study. A one-to-one relationship per
center was not maintained and they were presented randomly according to a
probabilistic sample design.

The use of a contol group was not in the trial registration and I guess would have been an ad hoc decision from those hired to do it to try and make things a bit better. The results do not control for age because the number of patients is small and the average age (more or less matching) says nothing as to the average severity because of the highly nonlinear exponential dependence of disease severity on age. This is observational, and there are so many ways for this to have unconscious bias it has on its own almost no value - probably why it has not been picked up.

The authors admit defects and say they plan a larger properly randomised and blinded study. Fair enough and I'd be interested in the results.

I would point out: if ClO2 works as a treatment for COVID then presumably also for many other viruses, and perhaps the many things that Robert Young claims are true. This is highly unlikely.

THH

Quote from RobertBryant

There is no point making a comparison.of Spanish flu.with Covid

For one there was NO VACCINATION

In 1918 and 1919 there was a build up of acquired immunity, leading to herd immunity. This is the same effect a vaccine produces, only the vaccine does not kill people. So, there is a comparison.

There is no doubt the dangerous 1918 influenza variant disappeared. You can see that people stopped dying. Perhaps it went extinct, or perhaps it evolved into a less dangerous variant. I wouldn't know. You cited an article saying it is still with us. If so, a less dangerous variant must have become dominant, just as Delta COVID is becoming dominant.

There is a fourth wave in Italy, but it seems to be under control.

Italy COVID: 4,471,225 Cases and 128,683 Deaths - Worldometer

www.worldometers.info

Reuters has a pretty good website:

Italy: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps

Tracking the COVID-19 outbreak, updated daily

graphics.reuters.com

Things are bad in Japan but the death rate remains very low, because they vaccinated nearly everyone over 60. They are giving 1.2 million shots per day, which is more than the U.S., but that's only enough for 600,000 people.

Japan: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps

Tracking the COVID-19 outbreak, updated daily

graphics.reuters.com

Quote from Mark U

I assumed it could be nebulized for inhalation but I haven't seen that yet, but then I haven't looked either.

Found a video showing nebulizing done in Mexico. This four minute video gives insight into boots on the ground treatment using chlorine dioxide.

Nebulizing 150 ppm CDS in Mexico - English Audio

Nebulizing 150 ppm CDS in Mexico Some people say 50 ppm CLO2 nebulized should be the highest used. This video shows 150 ppm being used on 8 people. Thanks…

www.brighteon.com

Six minute video showing the work of Dr. Patricia Callisperis using chlorine dioxide on patients in Bolivia and other places, also with her personal testimony about how it cured her of lesions.

Dr. Patricia Callisperis' Chlorine Dioxide Testimonial

Dr. Patricia Callisperis' Chlorine Dioxide Testimonial (with English Subtitles). She is a specialist and surgeon in orthopedic pediatric trauma in La Paz,…

www.brighteon.com

Quote from Fm1

Of course, we do not suggest that colleges should prohibit mask-wearing. We recognize that many people might feel more comfortable or secure wearing masks. We suggest the colleges say these people are welcome to do so, so long as the colleges also stipulate that mask-wearing is not mandatory.

Sure. Absolutely. And let's not make it mandatory that people have to use bathrooms. Let them shit in the hallways if they want. Because freedom. No need to wash your hands, and all these rules about food preparation -- there is no proof that food poisoning results from contamination and bacteria. The science is always evolving.

Stop signs and traffic lights should also be optional. Stop if you want to stop. Barrel through at 60 mph in a 25 mph zone if you feel good with that. It's all about freedom.

AstraZeneca’s AZD7442 Phase 3 Data Looks Promising—Indicating Prophylactic Potential & Possibly Superior to Vaccine in Some Scenarios

AstraZeneca’s AZD7442 Phase 3 Data Looks Promising—Indicating Prophylactic Potential & Possibly Superior to Vaccine in Some Scenarios

At the end of 2020, TrialSite asked, “Does AstraZeneca’s AZD7442 Represent the Breakthrough Treatment to Address SARS-CoV-2?” as the company took $486

trialsitenews.com

At the end of 2020, TrialSite asked, “Does AstraZeneca’s AZD7442 Represent the Breakthrough Treatment to Address SARS-CoV-2?” as the company took $486 million in public U.S. funding and capitalized on the intellectual property of some brilliant people at Vanderbilt University to develop a long-acting antibody targeting SARS-CoV-2. The company has conducted two large clinical trials, one to test the treatment as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and the other as post-exposure prophylaxis (PeP). Fast forward until today, and the positive, high-level results from their PROVEN study indicate that AZD7442 evidence statistically significant reduction in the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19, meeting the trial’s endpoint. Again, this data is still preliminary and must go through the formal vetting, review, and the like. A significant potential breakthrough in the war on COVID-19, this therapeutic approach may in some cases supersede vaccination use cases.

What is AZD7442?

AstraZeneca declares that this long-acting antibody (LAAB) combination first discovered by Vanderbilt represents the first possible antibody combination, that is not a vaccine, that could possibly provide long-lasting protection that has demonstrated prevention in a clinical trial.

AZD7442 combines two LAABs—tixagevimab (AZD8895) and cilgavimab (AZD1061)—derived from B-cells donated by convalescence patients after SARS-CoV-2 virus. Discovered by Vanderbilt University Medical Center and licensed to AstraZeneca in June 2020, the human monoclonal antibodies bind to distinct sites on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein7 and were optimized by AstraZeneca with half-life extension and reduced Fc receptor and complement C1q binding. The half-life extension more than triples the durability of its action compared to conventional antibodies and could afford up to 12 months of protection from COVID-19 following a single administration.8-11 The reduced Fc receptor binding aims to minimize the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement of disease – a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies promote, rather than inhibit, infection and/or disease.12

AZD7442 is being studied in a comprehensive clinical trial program to prevent and treat COVID-19 in over 9,000 participants. Ongoing trials include TACKLE COVID-19, a Phase III treatment trial in an outpatient setting and collaborator treatment trials in outpatient and hospitalized settings. AZD7442 is being assessed in both I.M. and intravenous administration routes.

AZD7442 is being developed with support from the U.S. Government, including federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority in partnership with the Department of Defense; Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense, under Contract No. W911QY-21-9-0001.

AstraZeneca is working with governments worldwide to make AZD7442 accessible to high-risk populations as another valuable option in the fight to end COVID-19, should it prove to be effective and well-tolerated.

The Study

This trial included 5,197 participants in a 2:1 randomization of AZD7442 to placebo. The primary analysis was based on 5,172 participants who didn’t have SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. The British sponsor reports that over 75% of the participants reported co-morbidities, such as the types that can adversely impact immune response to vaccination.

Study Results

AZD7442, a combination of two long-acting antibodies (LAAB), reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 by 77% (95% confidence interval (CI): 46, 90), compared to placebo. The trial accrued 25 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 at the primary analysis.

AstraZeneca reports no cases of severe COVID-19 or COVID-19 related deaths in the AZD7442 study arm. In the placebo arm, the sponsor reports three cases of severe COVID-19, two of which led to deaths.

Overall the pharmaceutical company has declared the LAAB was well tolerated, with preliminary analyses showing adverse events balanced between the placebo and AZD7442 groups.

Principal Investigator Point of View

Myron J. Levin, MD Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, served the study as principal investigator U.S. and declared in the sponsor’s press release, “The PROVENT data show that one dose of AZD7442, delivered in a convenient intramuscular form, can quickly and effectively prevent symptomatic COVID-19. With these exciting results, AZD7442 could be an important tool in our arsenal to help people who may need more than a vaccine to return to their normal lives.”

Regulatory Filing

AstraZeneca now is working on preparing a regulatory submission of the prophylaxis (PROVENT and STORM CHASER) data to health authorities for potential emergency use authorization or conditional approach of the investigational product. Of course, they will submit full results to peer review journals for review and publishing while also presenting their findings to a forthcoming medical meeting.

Lead Research/Investigator

Myron J. Levin, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine

AZD7442 PROVENT Phase III prophylaxis trial met primary endpoint in preventing COVID-19

AZD7442 PROVENT Phase III prophylaxis trial met primary endpoint in preventing COVID-19

Quote from Mark U

Of course Bolivia was mentioned and often. It's just that its relatively low incidence of Covid deaths was not. Yes they have a somewhat younger median age even for SA, but it's not so simple. The distribution of that age matters. For instance about 30 percent is age 14 and under, like the USA. Only about 7 percent are over 65, but in the US it's close to 30 percent.

Also, you speak as if the supposed 6 year doubling period for Covid mortality you gave is uniform across countries. It is not. From

https://www.demographic-resear…olumes/vol44/16/44-16.pdf

However, the rate at which COVID-19 mortality and fatality increase with age varies considerably between countries.

For instance the supposed doubling period is about 10 in Mexico and about 4.5 in Denmark.

Display More

Thanks for that paper.

You can see there is a group of countries all with similar doubling rates (at around 6 years) , there are then as you say outliers in both directions.

The rates here are not what I have been consistently using which is IFR - and IFR dependence on age. That is a more useful relationship and should not vary between countries except some possible changes as hospital care alters - though there is no reason to expect a big age-dependent delta from that.

The mortalities here are CFR not IFR - and therefore vary with level of testing which introduces a lot more uncertainty.

The undeveloped countries with bad testing being outliers is expected.

The developed countries which are outliers the other way are a bit unexpected - and I'm not entirely sure how they work. However they are outliers in some other ways too - e.g uncharacteristically low rates of COVID death. One explanation is that they are just much better at shielding the people who are more at risk.

Anyway all of this still means that the explanation for low Bolivian deaths from COVID is found in its population demographics - but also with some extra errors because of lack of testing. this is similar to many other less developed countries.

THH