Covid-19 News

  • As I understand it, every opinion etc contrary to your view (and that of the 4 other anti-vaxers here)

    You can add me to the list and make that "5 other anti-vaxxers here". After watching this video, who could possibly stay pro-vaccine? :) For those of you unfamiliar; Steve Colbert is a very influential talk show host here in the US:


    External Content twitter.com
    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.

  • I think that video is hilarious!


    (Tyler Cardon does not share my sense of humor. It is surprising how one person finds something hilarious yet another person sees nothing funny in it.)


    What's not to laugh at unshaved guys wearing see-through plastic costumes? It reminds of one of the few hilarious photos to come out of the pandemic:

    Nurse with swimsuit under her clear gown exposes coronavirus PPE issues in Russia

    Nurse with swimsuit under her clear gown exposes coronavirus PPE issues in Russia - National | Globalnews.ca
    Doctors and nurses have criticized the Russian government for PPE shortages and shoddy equipment in their fight against the coronavirus.
    globalnews.ca

  • Since some peope stille believe in HCQ, ther was a thread about that, in-vitro testing ...

    after considering promising results, it appears that Pr Raoult team was aware it could not work...

    Why ? because the way how HCQ works if modifying pH inside endosome, which only works with Cathepsine L (CTSL) that it prevents to activate (clivage? cutting?) the virus after fisrt phase with ACE2.

    Sadly there is another pathway, not through CTSL but through TMPRSS2

    The known problem is that it is working on monkey cells, who express mostly CTSL... It is why first test were promising.

    Humans express more TMPRSS2, making HCQ useless on human, not even working on human cells.


    The worst is that Corie Reverbell of Raoult Team explained in technical terms that she was fully aware of this problems


    E99KbEhXoAEHhNh.png



    It's in French, sorry

    Thread by @Locuste_ on Thread Reader App
    Thread by @Locuste_: 🐞 THREAD 🐞 Vous reprendrez bien un peu d'hydroxychloroquine ? Mais cette fois-ci, nous allons aborder la question de ses effets in vitro.…
    threadreaderapp.com


    The google stranslate

    Thread by @Locuste_ on Thread Reader App
    Thread by @Locuste_: 🐞 THREAD 🐞 Vous reprendrez bien un peu d'hydroxychloroquine ? Mais cette fois-ci, nous allons aborder la question de ses effets in vitro.…
    threadreaderapp-com.translate.goog


    We have been F*d...

    The CV of Raoult was so promising that I followed his nice talk at the beginning...


    I have been F*d. On can stop being F*d, just by deciding.

    This guy have no more value than Gary Taubes.

  • You can add me to the list and make that "5 other anti-vaxxers here".

    Seriously? I suggest you watch this 1 minute Tiktok video. Watch it several times; it is only a minute.


    A View of an Unvaccinated Covid Patient


    TikTok


    Are you really in favor of condemning hundreds of thousands more Americans to that kind of suffering and death? And millions worldwide? Why?

  • Quote

    Since some peope stille believe in HCQ, ther was a thread about that, in-vitro testing ...

    after considering promising results, it appears that Pr Raoult team was aware it could not work..

    I'm not believing in it - I'm using to take Ivermectin (6-9 mg) and HCQ (200-300 mg) combo against all symptoms of cold and flu instead of aspirin, not even bothering if it's Covid-19 or not. A single dose is usually enough for it if taken in time and it works great, much better than aspirin or paracetamol. This is because HCQ not only kills virus - it also inhibits cytokine storm and all symptoms of runny nose and headache (i.e. edema) which follows common respiration diseases and which coronavirus utilizes for entering the organism. Ivermectin also blocks entering virus into cell nucleus, not its replication. From these reasons it's important to take these drugs once first symptoms emerge without any hesitation. I guess, once the disease develops (as it's common for people entering the hospitals), these drugs stop being effective, which may explain poor experience of hospitals with them. Although I suspect that imbecile methodology of clinical tests is also responsible for it - these drugs aren't supposed to be taken without vitamin and mineral zinc supplements, whereas clinical tests usually test single medical for to avoid interference.

  • Harvard Physician & Scientists Critical of Current Public Health Response to COVID-19


    Harvard Physician & Scientists Critical of Current Public Health Response to COVID-19
    A prominent but controversial Harvard Medical School professor of medicine and a Brigham and Women’s Hospital epidemiologist and statistician have
    trialsitenews.com


    A prominent but controversial Harvard Medical School professor of medicine and a Brigham and Women’s Hospital epidemiologist and statistician have declared that public health officials worldwide have deviated down a dangerous path with the current pandemic approach. Dr. Martin Kulldorff is no stranger to controversy during the pandemic. On October 4th, 2020, Kulldorff and others signed the Great Barrington Declaration to advocate for alternative approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic response. The Declaration is moving away from societal-wide lockdowns and mass vaccination mandates to the concept of “Focused Protection,” targeting proactive prevention, care, and treatment to society’s most high-risk people. Dr. Kulldorf is criticized by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus as a promoter of suspect “herd immunity” approaches to pandemic mediation. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to the White House, also ridiculed Kulldorff for promoting “ridiculous” and “very dangerous” ideas that would lead to large numbers of avoidable deaths. But Dr. Kulldorff won’t be curtailed by such talk, representing a small but growing number of physicians and scientists challenging what many see as draconian public health measures.


    Before progressing to today’s current events, let’s reflect on a brief snippet on the Great Barrington Declaration as reported in the recently launched Global COVID Summit: “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young, low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sports, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”


    Kulldorff recently continued his gorilla education campaign via social networks such as Twitter, declaring, “Many older high-risk and less affluent people are still unvaccinated. But the media’s focus is on boosters, vaccinating children, and workplace vaccine mandates.” How did we end up with such a tilted public health message?


    What’s Kulldorff’s answer?

    According to Kulldorff, a risk-based approach is the answer. Societal shutdowns grossly hurt the economy and did little to stop the pandemic that unfolded, leading to over 700,000 deaths, according to Worldometers.


    Instead, Kulldorff thinks it’s essential to focus any public health response to COVID on high-risk groups, such as the elderly. Proactive measures for the elderly, immunocompromised, and those with comorbidities should be primary.


    The world’s top public health leaders condemned this approach. They declared that letting a virus such as SARS-Cov-2 spread was unethical. To the WHO, Fauci, and others, herd immunity is a concept that’s coupled with vaccination, not learning to live with a pathogen. Of course, many common viruses to this day don’t have vaccine cures. HIV/AIDS is one such virus. The common influenza is another, although the CDC is on the record stating the influenza shot can significantly lower the risk of hospitalization and death from the flu. More than likely, a year or two from now, mitigation of COVID-19 will be like the annual flu shot season.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D.


    Call to Action: Check out Global Covid Summit for articles from other physicians and scientists critical of the current pandemic response paradigm.


    Harvard's Kulldorff: How Did the Public Health Authorities Get Things So Wrong? - Global Covid Summit
    Harvard epidemiologist says "focused protection", not lockdowns or mandates, is best for public health.
    globalcovidsummit.org

  • Cleveland Clinic Potential Breakthrough: Steroid-Based Nasal Spray Can Significantly Reduce Impact of COVID-19


    Cleveland Clinic Potential Breakthrough: Steroid-Based Nasal Spray Can Significantly Reduce Impact of COVID-19
    A notable study showed that patients who typically use steroid-based nasal sprays are less likely to develop severe COVID-19 related disease.
    trialsitenews.com



    A notable study showed that patients who typically use steroid-based nasal sprays are less likely to develop severe COVID-19 related disease. In fact, this important news generated by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic reported that of those people using the nasal spray, they were 20-25% less likely to succumb to serious COVID-19 related hospitalization, ICU admission, and death. Led by pulmonologist Joe Zein, MD, Ph.D. and allergist-immunologist and Director of the Cleveland Clinic Ronald A. Strauss, the recent study results were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. TrialSite raises the question—assuming these findings are repeatable—what if a nasal spray can be developed to maximize eradication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the nasal regions? What an intriguing possibility for a low-cost treatment regimen for COVID-19, particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). More study is necessary but given louder calls for treatments (and vaccines) targeting the nasal mucosal region, these findings should be widely disseminated.


    Basis for the Study

    Driving this Cleveland Clinic-led study was the hypothesis—based on early-stage laboratory reports—that steroid-based nasal spray in vitro reduced the protein receptor ACE2, which allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter the cell and consequently spread the disease. To be specific, if the substance disrupts ACE2, it may make it harder for the COVID-19 pathogen to penetrate and replicate within the cell.


    The Treatment

    As reported by Cleveland Clinic, this form of treatment known as intranasal corticosteroids falls under the category of steroid medicines. This type of medicine is used mostly to alleviate cold or allergy symptoms, such as stuffy nose, allergies, etc. The Cleveland Clinic shares that to date, no one is certain what the “precise role intranasal corticosteroids play in reducing the severity of COID-19 infection.”


    The Study

    The Cleveland Clinic study team tracked 72,147 COVID-19 positive individuals aged 18 and up across the Cleveland Clinic health system from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Of the total study population, 12,608 (17.5) were hospitalized, 2,935 (4.1%) were admitted to the ICU, and 1,880 (2.6%) died during hospitalization. Within this group, 10,187 (14.1%) of the patients received a steroid nasal spray—also known as intranasal corticosteroids before the actual COVID-19 infection, reports Cleveland Clinic.


    The authors reported that those patients using the nasal spray before the COVID-19 infection were 22% less likely to be hospitalized, 23% less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit, and 24% less likely to die from COVID-19 during hospitalization compared to patients not taking the nasal spray.


    Notable Observations

    The study led by Drs. Zein and Strauss found that the ACE2 expression, again the protein receptor involved with SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and multiplication, appears most prominent in the nasal mucosa. The Cleveland Clinic suggests that intranasal corticosteroids may suppress nasal-based viral load and receptor expression. However, the authors emphasize more studies need to be in place to corroborate these findings.


    Dr. Zein went on the record for Cleveland Clinic Newsroom, declaring, “This study shows the importance of the nose in COVID-19 infection.” He continued, “The nose, in this instance, is the gateway to our bodies, allowing the virus to enter and replicate within. The use of intranasal corticosteroids may help disrupt that gateway.”


    Implications

    What spray could be optimized for maximum effect? Given the economy of this potential treatment, the implications for worldwide access—especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) are considerable. Dr. Strauss concurred with this assessment declaring, “Our findings are particularly significant, as decreased COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and mortality could alleviate the strain on health care systems with limited resources across the globe, especially in developing countries where there is limited access to vaccines and where mutations in SARS-CoV-2 have emerged.


    Study Funding

    National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health


    Limitations

    A real-world observational data study involves a cross-sectional analysis of EHR data and thus is subject to bias introduced by confounding variables and other considerations.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Joe Zein, MD, PhD, MBA, allergist-immunologist


    Ronald A. Strauss, MD Director of the Cleveland Clinic


    Call to Action: For those interested in the details, follow the link to the study.


    DEFINE_ME

  • About 70% in the US are vaccinated. Of the remaining, about half have natural immunity, so that leaves about 15% without anti-bodies. That 15% is largely composed of the young and healthy, blacks of all ages, those with weak immune systems, or have a history of allergic reactions. And yes, some are just stubborn conservatives, and if Trump were still in office would probably go ahead and do it for him. Then there are those who have checked out of society, live in the shadows like the illegals, homeless, etc.


    In otherwords, we are down to the hardest people, the hardcore, to convince, persuade or coerce to take the jab. They each have their reason not to get vaccinated that they obviously feel strongly about, so these scare tactics will probably have little success in making them change their minds. I suspect they have seen it all by now, and few will change their minds at this point.


    Frankly, I think having almost all the vulnerable vaccinated now, with 85% of the country with partially protective anti-bodies, is something we should be celebrating. Not dwelling like we are on smearing that small segment of the population who for whatever reason are resisting.


    Leave them alone I say. They are only a threat to themselves, not us.

  • If only science backed up your position, Shane. Sadly, it does not.


    "Leave them alone I say. They are only a threat to themselves, not us."


    They are a threat to every living human. In the following sense. The larger the available infection target population, the more possible mutation cycles, and the greater likelihood of a more deadly strain of covid.


    This is very well understood among biologists. To underestimate the danger endangers us all.


    It is, in my opinion, short-sighted to assume that our life choices have little impact on others.


    I respect your opinion Shane, however, I strongly disagree with it. We are all joined at the hip.

  • There is nothing new about the so called new anti-viral drugs....the ones we identified in ANTI-BAT were always effective...this new incarnation of those new ANTI-VIRAL drugs is just another SCAM by drug companies to CASH IN on the PANDEMIC yet again....puting$$$$$$$$ before human life. But AT LAST they are acknowledging the better basic scientific approach of using antiviral therapy rather than vaccines alone. :) :) :)

  • Dutch Case Report—Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reactivates Hepatitis C Leading to Death of 82-Year-Old Woman


    Dutch Case Report—Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reactivates Hepatitis C Leading to Death of 82-Year-Old Woman
    Recently, researchers from prominent Netherlands academic medical centers investigated a COVID-19 vaccine death involving an 82-year-old patient with
    trialsitenews.com


    Recently, researchers from prominent Netherlands academic medical centers investigated a COVID-19 vaccine death involving an 82-year-old patient with dementia who was admitted to a nursing home in Holland. The nursing home resident received a COVID-19 vaccine as well as physical examinations and standard lab tests. The investigators, led by corresponding author Rudd Lensen from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, sought to explore this case as the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine appeared to have reactivated hepatitis C infection as well as jaundice, loss of consciousness, hepatic coma, and ultimately death.


    The researchers included: Dr. Lensen, Mihai G. Netea, Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Immunology and Metabolism, Life and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, and Frits R. Rosendaal, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.


    As reported in Int Med Case Rep J, the authors acknowledge that while the COVID-19 vaccines are generally considered safe and effective, “they have been developed at unprecedented speed,” and they still merit a deep dive into investigations of adverse reactions and deaths when they do occur.


    The researchers conclude that the vaccine is causally linked to the death. They suggest that before any at-risk person is given the COVID-19 vaccine, there should be “critical consideration for any “prior HCV infection.”


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Rudd Lensen from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands


    Mihai G Netea, Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Immunology and Metabolism, Life and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany


    Frits R Rosendaal, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.


    Hepatitis C Virus Reactivation Following COVID-19 Vaccination - A Case Report - PubMed
    This reactivation of hepatitis C virus after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine suggests a need for critical consideration of individuals…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • Since some peope stille believe in HCQ, ther was a thread about that, in-vitro testing ...

    after considering promising results, it appears that Pr Raoult team was aware it could not work...

    To much vaccine terror news. HCQ never should be used alone. This already shows that you post FUD as others here too. The biggest benefit of HCQ is its ability to curb up zinc uptake. It also interrupts viral replication. Usually it is given with the same combination as Ivermectin too + DOXY, +VD + zinc. You can also change HCQ with Quercetin that is totally harmless.

    Raoult has been followed up by the French vaccine terror Zar Macron himself. Fact is: It is still way better the Merckvectin or Pfizervectin.

  • Group of Concerned Medical Professionals & Children File Legal Action in UK to Slow Down Child Vaccinations


    Group of Concerned Medical Professionals & Children File Legal Action in UK to Slow Down Child Vaccinations
    There are legal challenges for child vaccinations in the UK. One recent example at the Royal Courts of Justice found that attorneys from
    trialsitenews.com


    There are legal challenges for child vaccinations in the UK. One recent example at the Royal Courts of Justice found that attorneys from employment-focused Jackson Osborne argued for an injunction to stop the COVID-19 vaccine program in children aged 12 to 15. Actually behind the legal action are two children, one 13 and one 16, who brought the action for a judicial review questioning the UK’s drug regulatory, MHRA, and their authorization of COVID-19 vaccines in children, report the Hart Group, a group of qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists, and other academic experts. This group of professionals bonded over the need to scrutinize policy and guidelines associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.


    The plaintiffs, again age 13 and 16, seek to demonstrate the recent UK MHRA authorizations were, in fact, illegal as from their point of view, the benefits of vaccination for this young age group don’t outweigh the risks. TrialSite reported that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) opted to hold back on this age group. Why would the MHRA push so aggressively to vaccinate such young children, given JCVI’s decision?


    The Request

    Hart Group reports on its website that plaintiffs seek “the High Court to grant an injunction pausing the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccinations to children pending determination of their earlier application for judicial review.” For two instances now, the High Court has completely ignored the children’s proposed action (the injunction application), consequently working with the law firm, the plaintiffs have appealed to the Court of Appeal. In front of a live-stream audience, the Court of Appeal reports the Hart Group “refused to grant the injunction” to the children, ruling that “the balance of convenience fell in favor of the government.”


    Plaintiff Argument

    At the most recent hearing had attorney Stephen Jackson, the plaintiff’s lawyer, declare:


    “This vaccine has been authorized for emergency use, but the emergency is long over, and for children, there has never been an emergency. Healthy children do not benefit from this vaccination as children are not at risk from COVID-19; however, they are at risk from its serious side effects such as paralysis (Guillain-Barré syndrome), myocarditis, and potential long-term effects, which we cannot yet know about.”


    The Hart Group reports that the judicial review decision occurred Friday afternoon (today). As soon as TrialSite has an update from community members in England, the website will be updated.


    HART: Health Advisory & Recovery Team
    HART is a group of doctors, scientists and other academic experts who share concerns about UK COVID-19 policy.
    www.hartgroup.org

    Jackson Osborne – Employment Lawyers Cardiff, Wales

  • this important news generated by the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic reported that of those people using the nasal spray, they were 20-25%

    And Austrian doctor treated 5000 CoV-19 patients with Budenoside nasal spray. None did go to hospital. What is 25%??? Astra Zeneca!!! the producer of the spray tried to intimidate her...what is a clear sign how the vaccine terror mafia works. Only inferior drugs get published like Merck crap Pfizervectin...


    Frankly, I think having almost all the vulnerable vaccinated now, with 85% of the country with partially protective anti-bodies, is something we should be celebrating.

    No! The pharma mafia wants to crack the jack-pot. A booster all 6 months even for dogs and cows may be minks and rats too...

  • MOLNUPIRAVIR: MUTED APPROVAL IN VIETNAM’S BIGGEST CITY


    MOLNUPIRAVIR: MUTED APPROVAL IN VIETNAM’S BIGGEST CITY
    Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s largest city, accounts for over half of all cases in Vietnam, and 80% of all deaths, in the last four
    trialsitenews.com


    MOLNUPIRAVIR: MUTED APPROVAL IN VIETNAM’S BIGGEST CITY


    Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s largest city, accounts for over half of all cases in Vietnam, and 80% of all deaths, in the last four months. Movements are still heavily limited, and except for three districts, citizens of Ho Chi Minh City are mostly restricted to their houses. In those three districts, which have satisfied the health ministry’s outbreak control criteria, individuals can go out once a week to buy food as well as to other locations where outdoor exercise is permitted.


    TrialSite recently reported on Ho Chi Minh’s use of molnupiravir in a non-clinical trial across the city. The medication is in Pack C, a medicine administered to COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms. On September 17, the ministry of health was tasked with guiding molnupiravir trials, as well as developing measures to assure the supply of treatment drugs to fulfill demand.


    INFORMED CONSENT – OR IS IT?

    Mai Tra and her mother, Ho Chi Minh City residents, both contracted COVID-19 in August 2021. At the start of the quarantine period, they got one visit from local health officers and received a home care kit based on their level of severity. They were asked if they were willing to try the Pack C with written consent. Tra’s mother received the Pack C home care kit, while she got a different home care kit.


    Informed consent entails giving a potential participant enough time to ask questions and reviewing the research protocol with family and friends before deciding whether or not to participate. Because it was a voluntary process, health officers did not rush or force them to sign the document, according to Mai Tra. They were able to talk about it and make their decision at their leisure.


    Tra and her mother were told that pregnant women cannot receive the medication pack, and this information is written on the consent form, too. The participating patient has to make sure she is not currently pregnant or breastfeeding while taking this drug. However, the consent form does not mention the health department liability if the person got seriously sick. While the health authorities explained that the medications were experimental, they did not emphasize how little is known about the potential short- or long-term side effects.


    Tra explains that there has been a lot of positive media coverage on social media and television regarding molnupiravir, with the growing support of Vietnam’s ministry of health. This seems to have influenced support for Pack C within the community. “Maybe that’s one of the reasons why I haven’t seen a lot of negative news and negative posts from people on social media,” Tra wonders. “Almost all of them wanted to try out this medicine.” Of course, the advertisement and marketing of an investigational drug product is lawful but it’s not clear if these promotions crossed any lines.


    DO YOU HAVE THE APP?

    Pack C patients are tracked virtually during the 14-day treatment period. There is no contact with a doctor during that period to monitor the dosage, and no blood tests or physical examinations to see how their bodies are responding to the medicine.


    The government has developed a smartphone app to improve patient access to health authorities, which is especially useful for people who are receiving a home-health medicine kit. HCM City Health is the name of the app, and it’s accessible on the App Store and Google Play.


    Mai Tra told TrialSite “They (the department of health) released a few health apps, but we did not use any of those because it was quite hard to (get) updated information.”


    In place of clinical monitoring, hotline numbers are provided to patients taking Pack C, and they are instructed to phone to report any incidents. When her mother felt that her initially mild symptoms were progressing, Tra explains, her mother rang the hotline and told them about her discomfort. Questions regarding other symptoms such as fever, cough, or difficulty in breathing, were asked during the phone call without any physical assessment. After Tra’s mother provided this information, she was told she did not have to stop taking molnupiravir and advised that if she has a fever, she should take paracetamol.


    IS MOLNUPIRAVIR WORKING?

    Involvement in the Pack C trial is not compulsory but is offered to COVID-positive residents within the city. It is only given to those who are willing to give consent and be part of the two-week assessment. Patients are initially contacted by phone, and if they are interested in trying the medication, the health officials bring the kit to the patient’s home. “A more popular choice among COVID-19 patients in Ho Chi Minh City is either Pack A or Pack B,” Tra said.


    Binh Tan is one of Ho Chi Minh City’s most impacted areas. Dr. Duong Duy Khoa, a volunteer frontline health worker, claims he has witnessed a decline in the number of COVID-19 illnesses and deaths in the city.


    “Even though (molnupiravir) has not been certified by the general health ministry, our government has acted fast enough to provide the medication in a timely and also decent manner,” Tra explains.


    While residents of Ho Chi Minh are supportive of the government’s strategy of providing molnupiravir as a home care package, there are certain shortcomings in the recruitment of patients for this large-scale clinical trial. Obtaining informed consent involves communicating the limitations of what we already know about a drug, including the risk of potential side effects that may only be discovered months or years after the treatment period.


    Call to Action: What does the TrialSite community think? Is Merck indirectly benefitting from such programs?

  • They are a threat to every living human. In the following sense. The larger the available infection target population, the more possible mutation cycles,

    You get the vaccine terror nonsense news award of the day!


    Vaccinated age 40..80 get more infections than unvaccinated: See UK vaccine reportn weeks 37 & 38. Did you know that you can only spread CoV-19 virus from mucosa or lung tissue?? None of the ones inside body - that stay much longer and kill you?

    Do you know that using non sterile vaccines (all CoV-19 vaccines are non sterile) in a pandemic is against science as it promotes mutations? Darwins first principle is selection. Without selection = vaccinate no mutation will have success.

  • VA Boston-Led Retrospective National Cohort Study Results Raise Questions About COVID-19 Hospitalization Metrics


    VA Boston-Led Retrospective National Cohort Study Results Raise Questions About COVID-19 Hospitalization Metrics
    A VA Boston-led study team recently completed a study, uploading their manuscript to a preprint server called Research Square. Leading a retrospective
    trialsitenews.com


    A VA Boston-led study team recently completed a study, uploading their manuscript to a preprint server called Research Square. Leading a retrospective cohort study tracking inpatients identified as positive with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, the real-world study authors used electronic health records of patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, to investigate not only the progression of disease severity but also identify how vaccination trends in a bid to better understand the accuracy of common metrics for pandemic severity via the common “hospitalization plus a positive SARS-CoV-test.” The researchers, led by corresponding author Westyn Branch-Elliman in the VA Boston Healthcare System, determined that vaccination, in fact, did influence how hospitalizations recorded “increasingly proportions of mild and asymptomatic cases in hospitalization reporting metrics.” To date, hospitals and tracking agencies haven’t defined SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization disease severity as the actual “metric for tracking SARS-CoV-2 disease burden. “This recent study, yet to be peer-reviewed—represents an observational peer into real-world data locked in the VA’s electronic health record system.


    The Findings

    The study team did observe that when applying various severity categories overlapping the data sets, they found that the actual ratio of moderate-to-severe disease changed from pre-vaccine era at 64% (95% CI, 63.1-64.9%) versus the vaccine era at 52% (95% CI, 50.9-53.2%); the p-value for non-constant effect reported at <0.001.


    The real-world investigation also revealed that the metric “disease severity” in the vaccine era among hospitalized patients came out less among both vaccinated (55.0%, 95% CI, 53.7%-56,4%) and unvaccinated patients (42.6%, 95 CI, 40.6-44.8%).


    The study team concluded that vaccine availability was associated with changes to the proportion of hospitalizations that are due to severe COVID-19. Consequently, a growing ratio of “…mild and asymptomatic cases were included in hospitalization reporting metrics.”


    Limitations

    As with any observational study, limitations are addressed by the authors. First, the VA subject pool isn’t necessarily a representative sampling of the entire population. Second, the authors precluded controls for those patients with baseline hypoxia or oxygen requirement, which they point out is a “common” situation at the VA, or for that matter, “altitude.” The authors shared that “some mild cases are misclassified as moderate-to-severe.”


    It is significant to note that most of the analysis covers a time period before the emergence of the Delta variant of concern. But the authors did share that “proportions of patients with moderate-to-severe respiratory distress or being treated with dexamethasone did not appear to be rising at the end of the observation period.”


    Atlantic Commentary

    In “Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number is Losing Meaning” in The Atlantic, David Zweig shared, “From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely or had only a mild presentation of the disease.”


    Hospitalization metrics during the pandemic morphed and may have led to an overstatement of the number of purely COVID-19 cases. But one of the co-authors from Tufts Medical Center, an infectious-disease doctor, as well as hospital epidemiologist Shira Doran suggest, “We should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there for a diagnosis other than COVID-19 don’t belong in the metrics.”


    The COVID-19 Hospitalization Metric in the Pre- and Post-vaccination Eras as a Measure of Pandemic Severity: A Retrospective, Nationwide Cohort Study
    Research Square is a preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.
    www.researchsquare.com

  • Persistence of robust humoral immune response in COVID-19 convalescent individuals over 12 months after infection


    Persistence of robust humoral immune response in COVID-19 convalescent individuals over 12 months after infection
    SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits varying degrees of protective immunity conferred by neutralizing antibodies (nAbs). Here we report the persistence of nAb…
    www.medrxiv.org


    Abstract

    SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits varying degrees of protective immunity conferred by neutralizing antibodies (nAbs). Here we report the persistence of nAb responses over 12 months after infection despite its decreasing trend noticed from 6 months. The study included sera from 358 individuals who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 between January and May 2020. Samples were collected at 6 and 12 months after onset. The titers of IgG to the viral nucleocapsid protein (NP) and receptor-binding domain of the spike protein (RBD) were measured by CLEIA. The nAb titer was determined using lentivirus-based pseudovirus or authentic virus. Antibody titers of NP-IgG, RBD-IgG, and nAbs were higher in severe and moderate cases than in mild cases at 12 months after onset. While the nAb levels were likely to confer adequate protection against wild-type viral infection, the neutralization activity to recently circulating variants in some of the mild cases (∼30%) was undermined, implying the susceptibility of reinfection to the variants of concerns (VOCs). COVID-19 convalescent individuals have robust humoral immunity even at 12 months after infection albeit that the medical history and background of patients could affect the function and dynamics of antibody response to the VOCs.


    Discussion

    In this study, we examined the persistence of serum nAbs and their effectiveness in neutralizing VOCs and VOIs at 12 months in 358 naturally infected individuals. Early reports have indicated that nAbs acquired upon infection could disappear within the following 3 months [6]; however, a series of recent reports indicate that they are maintained for longer durations [20-24]. We reveal that nAbs persist at functionally effective titers at one year despite showing a declining trend in most study participants (61%). Our report supports a recent report that infection immunity is maintained for at least one year following natural infection [24], and it further suggests the possibility of nAbs persisting longer. In a cohort of 164 patients, Chia et al. demonstrated that over 65% of subjects showed either a negative or a declining trend in nAbs at 6 months. We observed a similar trend, but at 12 months, which possibly indicates the better detection efficacy of the CLEIA used in our study than the methods employed by Chia et al. [13].


    Several reports have suggested that overall antibody levels, including the nAb titer, correlate with the severity of infection [24, 25]. Severe patients have a much higher viral load, which may elicit a more robust humoral response than patients with mild or asymptomatic illness [26]. Consistent with these reports, we observed in our cohort that the individuals who recovered from severe disease possessed higher levels of all types of antibodies tested. These patients had high nAb titers and showed higher neutralizing capacity against VOCs, including the beta strain, notorious for immune escape, and the more rampant delta strain. In contrast, those recovered from mild illness not only had lower nAb levels, but also showed reduced protection against the VOCs. This may be because of nAbs having reduced binding activity against RBD of VOCs.


    The duration and intensity of humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been shown to vary based on the severity of the clinical presentation [27]. Some host factors, such as sex, obesity, and smoking, have been reported to influence disease severity [12]. However, the effect of these host factors on the persistence of nAbs at 12 months after infection remains unknown. We reveal in this study that disease severity in the acute phase and the age of the patients correlate significantly with the magnitude of neutralization activity after 12 months. Muller et al. reported that older people have a weaker humoral response to vaccines characterized by lower titers of nAbs in the elderly cohort than in the younger cohort [28]. In contrast, our findings suggest that in natural infection, the elderly possess more nAbs, probably because the elderly more often have serious diseases, which results in the production of more nAbs, which is not the scenario with a fixed dose of antigenic exposure in vaccination. We also found that to obtain the equivalent titer of nAbs as that of the convalescents, two doses of vaccination are necessary for previously uninfected persons, while a single dose could achieve the same in previously infected individuals, corroborating previous suggestions [29].


    While the factors responsible for the maintenance of neutralizing activity remain unclear, recent reports suggest that B-cell clones expressing broad and potent nAbs are selectively retained in the repertoire over time [11, 30]. Moriyama et al. suggested that the neutralizing potency (NT50 divided by RBD-IgG) of the antibody increases over time [17]. Although this seems to be an attractive indicator for the maturation of humoral immunity in convalescents, we did not observe a robust increase in the neutralizing potency between 6 and 12 months. This finding suggests that selection of B-cell clones expressing potent nAb may occur immediately after the acute phase, and selection between 6 and 12 months after onset may be rare [24]. Alternatively, the initial high-potency antibodies produced may continue to be produced, especially in those with severe disease.