Covid-19 News

    Quote from zorud

    that there can only be 1 or 0,

    In human mRNA the code is triplets, codons with U, A, G , C..

    but with Pfizer the code is with <X , A, G, C


    The Pfizer virus goes one better than computer viruses,,

    at least they still use the same bits... 1 ,0

    imagine if they used ........1, <X

    :)

    Reverse Engineering the source code of the BioNTech/Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine - Bert Hubert's writings
    Translations: ελληνικά / عربى / 中文 (Weixin video, Youtube video) / 粵文 / bahasa Indonesia / český / Català / český / Deutsch / Español / 2فارسی / فارسی /…
    berthub.eu

    UT Dallas Researchers Progress Molecular Sweat Detection Device to Identify COVID-19 Immune Response: Headed to Clinical Trials


    UT Dallas Researchers Progress Molecular Sweat Detection Device to Identify COVID-19 Immune Response: Headed to Clinical Trials
    A team of scientists at the University of Texas at Dallas developed a wearable sensor that can monitor the human body’s immune response to COVID-19 and
    trialsitenews.com


    A team of scientists at the University of Texas at Dallas developed a wearable sensor that can monitor the human body’s immune response to COVID-19 and other infections via the detection of molecules in human sweat. Published in Bioengineering & Translational Medicine, apparently, the detection apparatus can measure a response with extreme accuracy, while also identifying who was ill with COVID-19. Imagine the potential. During most health crises, including this pandemic, physicians typically need to access biological samples such as urine, blood, or tissue to offer insight into the health of a patient. What if all that was needed was a sample of sweat?


    What’s next for this life science technology breakthrough out of the University of Texas at Dallas? The research team is gearing up for clinical trials and hoping to commence a study in the upcoming year. The authors suggest that for this class of medical device, and if all goes according to plan, they could be in the market within three years.


    How does the device work?

    The device includes a sensor that’s designed to detect cytokines, a type of molecule produced by immune cells. The human body makes cytokines to help activate the immune system and protect against external invaders, such as viruses or bacteria.


    What’s the potential benefit of the device?

    If there was a way to test a person’s sweat to determine if he/she was going to get more sick from a virus, such as COVID-19 or influenza, care providers could be more proactive in triaging, prioritizing, and allocating appropriate care in a more efficient manner.


    Potential Conflicts

    The authors disclosed that there were possible conflicts of interest involving EnLiSense LLC, a company positioning for commercial interest in the research technology. The possible conflict of interest is managed by the University of Texas at Dallas. As it turns out, Drs. Shalini Prasad and Sriram Muthukumar have significant equity interests in this venture.


    EnLiSense LLC

    This company falls into TrialSite’s Investor Watch. EnLiSense LLC seeks to use small samples of sweat to transform the detection of diseases in the future. Imagine an easy-to-use, reliable, and cost-effective sensor technology that reports from low volumes (a few microliters) of passively-expressed sweat with no external stimulation. This company was recently recognized by BARDA.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Shalini Prasad, PhD, professor of bioengineering, UT-Dallas


    Badrinath Jagannath, PhD


    Kai-Chun Lin, Department of Bioengineering, University of Texas at Dallas


    Madhavi Pali, Department of Bioengineering, University of Texas at Dallas


    Devangsingh Sankhala, PhD


    Sriram Muthukumar, EnLiSense LLC, Allen, Texas

    Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated Health Care Workers


    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109072


    Abstract

    BACKGROUND

    Despite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been reported, including infections among health care workers. Data are needed to characterize these infections and define correlates of breakthrough and infectivity.


    METHODS

    At the largest medical center in Israel, we identified breakthrough infections by performing extensive evaluations of health care workers who were symptomatic (including mild symptoms) or had known infection exposure. These evaluations included epidemiologic investigations, repeat reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT), serologic assays, and genomic sequencing. Correlates of breakthrough infection were assessed in a case–control analysis. We matched patients with breakthrough infection who had antibody titers obtained within a week before SARS-CoV-2 detection (peri-infection period) with four to five uninfected controls and used generalized estimating equations to predict the geometric mean titers among cases and controls and the ratio between the titers in the two groups. We also assessed the correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and N gene cycle threshold (Ct) values with respect to infectivity.


    RESULTS

    Among 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented.


    CONCLUSIONS

    Among fully vaccinated health care workers, the occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 was correlated with neutralizing antibody titers during the peri-infection period. Most breakthrough infections were mild or asymptomatic, although persistent symptoms did occur.

    Quote from Bob#2

    with RCT's. They can easily leave out absolutely critical components

    Dengvaxia is a recent case ..

    Sanofi ignored advice about ADE. antibody-dependent enhancement

    and did not check for antibody status sufficiently in third stage trials.

    On mass distribution of the vaccine at least 600 children died due to ADE..

    (the FDA (Ph) said 150.. only.).

    Dengvaxia in the Philippines: timeline of the dengue dilemma


    Quote from Fm1

    UT Dallas Researchers Progress Molecular Sweat Detection Device to Identify COVID-19 Immune Response: Headed to Clinical Trials

    They now sell do-it-yourself instant COVID tests at CVS. If we had had them in May 2020, they might have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths, by telling people to self-quarantine.


    Here is one of the kits. I think I saw another brand as well.


    https://www.cvs.com/shop/abbott-binaxnow-covid-19-antigen-self-test-2-tests-for-serial-testing-prodid-550147

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Not 110%?


    Do you remember that flu is more dangerous than CoV-19 for people age < 55? Poor immune suppressed live in a flu non vaxxed world..

    This board has become a vaccine promotion vehicle for a couple of the usual suspects. Just a reminder to the board admins, that when things really go south these promoters will be long gone to their little cave no longer defending the indefensible -- and you'll have to admit you were played!


    Keep holding down Fort Reality Wyttenbach. But you are being too nice, I suspect we are T-minus a few days from second and third confirmations of graphene oxide in the shot.

    And then this board will diverge even more into Fairytale land with the promoters telling us how it was ok and justified and not to make anything of it. Mmmm myyy precious vaccine! Laugh a little, you have "schoolchildren" acting like they know science!

    The mRNA vaccine hurt my Jimmy!

    Two days ago Jimmy Dore tells Joe Rogan how he continues to fight side effects from the Moderna jab, and about the shush! shush! culture he and others he knows have experienced to not speak of such things. Eight minutes, from 2 minute to 10 minute mark. I'm surprised the video is still up.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    If Fauci survives this he is a genius

    ..as for the CDC... :whistling:


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    08:38
    and you heard the date correctly 2002

    where the NIAID

    built an infectious replication defective coronavirus

    that was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium in other words

    we made sars and we patented it on april 19 2002

    before there was ever any alleged outbreak in asia

    which as you know followed that by several months etc etc


    Peter Daszak..2015

    29:59
    "We need to increase public understanding of the

    need for medical countermeasures

    such as a pan-corona coronavirus vaccine

    a key driver is the media and the

    economics will follow the hype

    we need to use that hype to our advantage

    to get to the real issues investors

    will respond if they see profit

    at the end of the process

    transient neutropenia..post Pfizer

    My wife was wondering why her wbc was low a month ago..

    Regular biannual blood tests OK..for 10 years... cholesterol iron..all OK

    but 2021 was different..

    low WBC and neutropenia and the iron was low.. so has been taking iron tablets for 2 months

    Two other postmenopausal nurses ,colleagues..also reported similar..

    never happened to them before too.

    Physician asked my wife many questions.. but never .." have you had the Pfizer?"

    Perhaps the physician didn't know... it is not fully disclosed... not good for bu$iness perhaps..

    Those unknown knowns...

    Hopefully her WBC,iron levels have stabilised by the next blood test tomorrow..


    "Of those with laboratory changes, the largest changes were decreases in the lymphocyte count after the first dose in 8.3% (1 out of 12), 45.5% (5 out of 11) and 50.0% (6 out of 12) of participants who received 10 μg, 30 μg and 100 μg BNT162b1, respectively. One participant each in the 10-μg (8.3% (1 out of 12)) and 30-μg (9.1% (1 out of 11)) groups and 4 participants in the 100-μg group (33.3% (4 out of 12)) had grade 3 decreases in the lymphocyte count. These decreases in lymphocyte count after the first dose were transient and returned to normal 6–8 days after vaccination (Extended Data Fig. 1). In addition, grade-2 neutropenia was noted 6–8 days after the second dose in 1 participant each in the 10-μg and 30-μg BNT162b1 groups. These two participants continue to be followed in the study, and no adverse events or clinical manifestations of neutropenia have been reported to date.

    Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults - Nature
    In a dose-escalation study of the COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in 45 healthy adults, RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera…
    www.nature.com


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Not 110%?


    Do you remember that flu is more dangerous than CoV-19 for people age < 55? Poor immune suppressed live in a flu non vaxxed world..

    Flu is more dangerous that Covid-19 for those < 55?


    OK - I don't think that likely, but let us be clear - we are we talking about those vaccinated (and that is two separate questions - Flu and COVID).?


    We could compare vax Flu with vax COVID, or unvax Flu with unVax COVID?


    The COVID-19 elimination debate – needs to use correct data


    Research conducted in New Zealand (NZ) and internationally suggests that the IFR for COVID-19 is typically at least an order of magnitude higher than for seasonal flu. The most detailed study of seasonal influenza mortality in NZ to date estimated average annual mortality of 13.5 (95%CI 13.4, 13.6) per 100,000 population [1]. Furthermore, the proportion of the NZ population infected with influenza in a year has been measured from a seroconversion study at 35% (95%CI: 32%-38%) [2]. Combining these figures suggests an IFR for seasonal influenza of about 0.039% (ie, 13.5/35,000) in NZ. This seasonal influenza IFR is 17 times lower than that estimated for COVID-19 at 0.68% [3] and 0.65% [4], based on international data (there have been too few COVID-19 cases in NZ to produce an IFR estimate).


    IFR 0.039%


    From my previous post quoting Hilda's analysis of two wildly different early COVID IFR meta-analyses we had some uncertainty still about vanilla COVID IFR.0.2% - 0.68%. I'll take 0.44% as a reasonable middle ground - although I think we could do better now with analyses using better whole population data:


    Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2 - Nature
    The relative risk of COVID-19-associated death for younger individuals (under 65) is consistent across countries and can be used to robustly compare the…
    www.nature.com


    That gives the age-specific IFR of COVID for age 50-54 as 0.1% women, 0.2% men


    So for this age group vanilla COVID mortality is 2.5 - 5 X worse than age-averaged Flu mortality.


    However in terms of danger we must consider also long COVID. It is difficult to estimate its danger - and to compare that with the equivalent "long Flu" which also exists. What we do know is that long COVID seems to have a relatively high prevalence.


    CAVEATs


    • Delta is probably more dangerous than original COVID (2X estimate).
    • Edpidemic influenza - for which no immunity or vaccine exists - is a lot more dangerous than average seasonal influenza
    • Vaccination makes a big difference to both Flu and COVID danger. the answer then depends on vaccination rates which vary wildly


    In the US - for Flu - the danger is considered enough routinely to vaccinate everyone.

    Whether we should vaccinate children against COVID - down to what age - is a really complex question. See here for a long discussion. Part of the answer relates to the risks from the vaccines, which since they are new, we are still quantifying. another part relates to the risks from long COVID which again we do not yet have a good handle on.



    Quote from Navid

    This board has become a vaccine promotion vehicle for a couple of the usual suspects. Just a reminder to the board admins, that when things really go south these promoters will be long gone to their little cave no longer defending the indefensible -- and you'll have to admit you were played!


    Keep holding down Fort Reality Wyttenbach. But you are being too nice, I suspect we are T-minus a few days from second and third confirmations of graphene oxide in the shot.

    And then this board will diverge even more into Fairytale land with the promoters telling us how it was ok and justified and not to make anything of it. Mmmm myyy precious vaccine! Laugh a little, you have "schoolchildren" acting like they know science!

    Navid - if you engaged with us more with science rather than conspiracy theories and personal remarks - you could equally - as one of the anti-vax suspects - put your case. I don't see any vaccine promoter saying vaccines are risk-free. The main risk mis-estimation has been vaccine-deniers counterfactually claiming:

    • COVID is not dangerous
    • vaccines will have low efficacy
    • vaccines will (change DNA / make people magnetic / implant microchips)
    • mRNA vaccine-induced pericarditis has the same danger as normal pericarditis (when it is thank God much less dangerous)


    As it stands I'd say the "suspicious of vaccines" line is pretty well represented without you. I can't see any take-over. I see almost no support here for the (boring) mainstream view, and lots of support for less well supported anti-vax views.


    Can I ask - are you and your family vaccinated against COVID? if not, have you had COVID yet (and which variant was it)? Finally, does your "going South" comment apply only to COVID vaccines, or do you consider Flu vaccines and other commonly given vaccines equally dangerous? Because if so we went South a long time ago...


    THH

    Not so very unknown.


    Neutropenia as an Adverse Event following Vaccination: Results from Randomized Clinical Trials in Healthy Adults and Systematic Review
    In the context of early vaccine trials aimed at evaluating the safety profile of novel vaccines, abnormal haematological values, such as neutropenia, are often…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    WSJ Brings Some Objectivity to the Media & Asks What the FDA’s Agenda is with Ivermectin


    WSJ Brings Some Objectivity to the Media & Asks What the FDA's Agenda is with Ivermectin
    In a breath of fresh air, a mainstream media opinion piece asks why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is denigrating a perfectly safe and
    trialsitenews.com


    In a breath of fresh air, a mainstream media opinion piece asks why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is denigrating a perfectly safe and effective drug? David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hopper wonder, “Why is the FDA attacking a safe, effective drug?” After all, the ‘Gold Standard’ agency is supported by science, yet it is truly on the offensive against a drug it approved in 1996. Of course, what that WSJ Op-Ed is referring to is the FDA’s hit piece against ivermectin that TrialSite covered, where they declared in a special warning letter “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” And of course, the agency loaded the letter with scary terms such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “seizures,” and more. TrialSite sensed vested interests were now circling the wagons. That is, a low-cost, affordable approach couldn’t be first in line—not in America at least.


    Of the two scholars/authors, Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He previously served on President Regan’s Council of Economic Advisors as a senior health economist. While Mr. Hooper currently serves as president of a pharmaceutical consultancy called Objective Insights.


    It’s as if this was some super poisonous stuff, the way they scare people with such language, but is ivermectin so dangerous? Actually, it’s not—the FDA has approved ivermectin as a safe and effective antiparasitic, and the drug is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck, although trash-talking its own product for purposes of use targeting COVID-19, has even donated 4 billion doses to prevent river blindness and other tropical bone diseases, report Mr. Henderson and Mr. Hooper. The effort is known as the Mectizan program.


    And what about all the positive studies? There are dozens of positive ones while dedicated, knowledgeable doctors worldwide treat millions of people with the drug—and it’s working against COVID-19, often cutting the duration of disease time in half. Upstanding organizations, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), tout the drug as “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” The WSJ writers declare the drug’s under investigation in about 70 clinical trials with mounting statistically significant evidence, making it potentially a robust public health tool targeting COVID-19. This drug could also be predominantly used in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) where vaccination rates are slow.


    But either way, in addition to vaccines, therapeutics for early-onset use for the 90% of COVID-19 cases that remain asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate is a fundamental goal of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In fact, during this crisis, billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled into highly novel, expensive therapies that have never been tried before, with high potential failure rates. The NIH dropped the ball by the lack of focus on low-cost, repurposed drugs. Although the apex research agency now has an ivermectin study, the credibility hit is real. TrialSite chronicled the NIH and HHS spending to reveal the bias in the U.S. health and research apparatus.


    The writers go on to provide some study examples. They ponder a serious question: If the FDA is driven by science and evidence, it would have already granted ivermectin an emergency use authorization targeting COVID-19. Instead, the FDA asserts (without evidence) that ivermectin is dangerous? So does Merck, one of the drug’s makers, even though they continue to give out over a couple hundred million doses per year.


    Could the problem be regulatory capture? After all, Merck has received $356 million in taxpayer dollars to develop a competitive product. Most recently, they received a secured procurement commitment of $1.2 billion for the drug Molnupiravir—a drug with nowhere near the track record of ivermectin when addressing COVID-19 and safety. The Health and Human Services agencies of the U.S. government must be careful—they could lose permanent trust among large segments of society.


    Call to Action: Follow the link to read this refreshing editorial.

    Is Moderna Overdosing in the KidCove Clinical Trial


    Is Moderna Overdosing in the KidCove Clinical Trial?
    The Moderna Kidcove trial tests the efficacy of the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in children. As we already know, NCT04649151 was used
    trialsitenews.com


    The Moderna Kidcove trial tests the efficacy of the vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in children. As we already know, NCT04649151 was used to gain EUA for Moderna mRNA-1273 in children/adolescents 12 to 18 years of age. The dosing of this trial was the same as used in adults regardless of body weight. It was two (2) doses of 100mcg. We’ve already seen a strong correlation of myocarditis in the younger populations from the mRNA vaccines, which has led to warnings. While the warnings are for young males, myocarditis in young females is much higher than the expected occurrence rate in this age group. We have also seen that even a reduced dose of only 25% in adults has yielded strong immunogenicity. It’s very concerning that lower dosages were not tested in this younger population.


    Unfortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Moderna haven’t learned from their past. In the Kidcove RCT, they use 50mcg and 100mcg dosing for children between 2-12 years old. Shockingly, they are using 25mcg, 50mcg, and 100mcg in children under two. It’s questionable if trials should be conducted on children under 12 years old, much less under two years. Then to think they will test the same adult dose (which is arguably too high even for adults) in these children is frightening.


    Pfizer-BioNTech More Reasonable

    Notice the much more reasonable dosing approach by Pfizer-BioNTech. Their adult dose is already much lower than Moderna’s at only 30mcg. Then for children 5 to 11 years old, they reduce it down to 10mcg, and for children 6months-5years, it’s only 3mcg. We ask a fundamental question as to whether we should be vaccinating any children under 5 years old. However, a dose of 90% less than the already lowered adult dose seems much more reasonable.


    Open Questions

    There’s an open question in many parents’ minds when it comes to the vaccination of their young children. Frankly, when under 7 or 8 years old, the risk-benefit ratio becomes highly questionable. But if you are going to test on these children, using an adult dose is unconscionable.


    TrialSite has attached a document that includes the details below. These details were not included in Moderna’s clinicaltrials.gov registration nor the trial’s dedicated website.


    TrialSite wonders how much information about the dosing background is being disclosed to the parents of these young children during the process of informed consent?


    Some questions come to mind. For example, this is an investigational product—are the sponsors disclosing the full risks to parents? Is the biotech sponsor disclosing that some of the study children may receive a full adult dose? Are they being told the full adult dose also has associated safety risks, leaving it possibly a higher dose than what’s optimal for adults?


    Based on what we have reviewed, Pfizer-BioNTech seems to be taking a more balanced and safe approach when it comes to the dosing of children in clinical trials.


    Call to Action: See the Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates PDF.

    Lower serum 25(OH)D levels associated with higher risk of COVID-19 infection in U.S. Black women

    Yvette C. Cozier ,Nelsy Castro-Webb,Natasha S. Hochberg,Lynn Rosenberg,Michelle A. Albert ,Julie R. Palmer

    Published: July 27, 2021

    Lower serum 25(OH)D levels associated with higher risk of COVID-19 infection in U.S. Black women
    Objective Limited evidence suggests that higher levels of serum vitamin D (25(OH)D) protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) infection. Black women commonly…
    doi.org


    Lower serum 25(OH)D levels associated with higher risk of COVID-19 infection in U.S. Black women
    Objective Limited evidence suggests that higher levels of serum vitamin D (25(OH)D) protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) infection. Black women commonly…
    journals.plos.org



    Objective

    Limited evidence suggests that higher levels of serum vitamin D (25(OH)D) protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) infection. Black women commonly experience 25(OH)D insufficiency and are overrepresented among COVID-19 cases. We conducted a prospective analysis of serum 25(OH)D levels in relation to COVID-19 infection among participants in the Black Women’s Health Study.


    Methods

    Since 1995, the Black Women’s Health Study has followed 59,000 U.S. Black women through biennial mailed or online questionnaires. Over 13,000 study participants provided a blood sample in 2013–2017. 25(OH)D assays were performed in a certified national laboratory shortly after collection of the samples. In 2020, participants who had completed the online version of the 2019 biennial health questionnaire were invited to complete a supplemental online questionnaire assessing their experiences related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including whether they had been tested for COVID-19 infection and the result of the test. We used logistic regression analysis to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of 25(OH)D level with COVID-19 positivity, adjusting for age, number of people living in the household, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and other potential confounders.


    Results

    Among 5,081 eligible participants whose blood sample had been assayed for 25(OH)D, 1,974 reported having had a COVID-19 test in 2020. Relative to women with 25(OH)D levels of 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/l) or more, multivariable-adjusted ORs for COVID-19 infection in women with levels of 20–29 ng/mL (50–72.5 nmol/l) and <20 ng/mL (<50 nmol/l) were, respectively, 1.48 (95% CI 0.95–2.30) and 1.69 (95% CI 1.04–2.72) (p trend 0.02).


    Conclusion

    The present results suggest that U.S. Black women with lower levels of 25(OH)D are at increased risk of infection with COVID-19. Further work is needed to confirm these findings and determine the optimal level of 25(OH)D for a beneficial effect.

    if a doctor is recommending vitamin D why hasn't the CDC or the NIH recommend it?


    Daily Dose Of Vitamin D Could Ramp Up Immune System, Doctors Say


    Daily Dose Of Vitamin D Could Ramp Up Immune System, Doctors Say – CBS Dallas / Fort Worth


    FORT WORTH (CBSDFW.COM) – Your daily dose of sunshine could help ramp up your immune system, and studies are ongoing to find out if vitamin D could be helpful in the fight against COVID-19.


    “Vitamin D got a lot of press over the last few years about everything, not just osteoporosis and bones but mental health and feeling well,” said Dr. James Herd, the Chief Medical Officer at Baylor Scott & White All Saints Medical Center.


    A quick browse of Google reveals all sorts of articles about vitamin D and COVID-19.


    Dr. Herd said while the exact relationship is still unclear, it does appear that patients with lower levels of vitamin D have a higher association with COVID-19.


    “So there may be a protective effect of having a little bit higher vitamin D,” he said. “With my own patients personally I suggest even if they’re out in the sun, which is where you naturally make vitamin D through your skin and through sun exposure, try to get least 15 minutes a day of that, but also supplements.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.