Covid-19 News

    If small sample given 80+ unvaxxed is small proportion maybe quantisation leads to downward error. Still unless down to 0 (and then there is no proper rate) i'd not expect this to be enough

    Natural COVID immunity might not last



    Unvaccinated people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at risk of reinfection within a couple years, according to a model based on knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. Researchers combined long-term data for ‘endemic’, or continually circulating, coronaviruses that can cause the common cold with genetic data from SARS-CoV-2 and the closely related coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The results suggest that the average reinfection risk rises from about 5% at 4 months after initial infection to 50% by 17 months. “Immunity is relatively short-lived,” says bioinformatician Jeffrey Townsend. “You should still get vaccinated even if you got infected.”


    Nature | 4 min read

    And arguable, you should get infected soon after you have been vaccinated.


    Infection triggers parts of immune response that vaccine does not.


    I expect we will go on having 6 months or yearly vaccine shots - like Flu, in which case getting infected is maybe not worth it at any time.


    Vaccination (or prior infection) turns COVID into something muhc closer to Flu in terms of its deadliness. It would be interesting to do a per age comparison.


    It would however be weird and strange to think the best course of action is to get infected without vaccination.


    Yet, there are many who do this!


    I blame those microchips Bill Gates added to the vaccine. Puts people off!

    Quote from Alan Smith

    The report states that the president had let the COVID-19 virus kill Brazilians "in a failed bid for herd immunity" and had turned down early vaccines orders, Reuters and the New York Times report.

    It's well known the tactics Pfizer has employed.


    ‘Held to ransom’: Pfizer demands governments gamble with state assets to secure vaccine deal
    The Bureau has learned that the pharmaceutical giant also insists on indemnity against its own negligence in hardball negotiations with Latin American countries
    www.thebureauinvestigates.com


    In late December, Pfizer made another unexpected request: that the government put up sovereign assets – which might include federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases – as collateral.

    “We offered to pay for millions of doses in advance, we accepted this international insurance, but the last request was unusual: Pfizer demanded that the sovereign assets of Argentina also be part of the legal support,” the official said. “It was an extreme demand that I had only heard when the foreign debt had to be negotiated, but both in that case and in this one, we rejected it immediately.”

    ...

    The same demands were made of Brazil’s Ministry of Health. Pfizer asked to be indemnified and asked the ministry to put up sovereign assets as collateral, as well as create a guarantee fund with money deposited in a foreign bank account. In January, the ministry refused these terms, describing the clauses as “abusive”.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    it includes (and refused to remove) Elgazzar now withdrawn

    "it" being ivmmeta.com


    That is simply not true.

    They say :


    7/15: Elgazzar et al. was retracted and has been removed.

    7/9: We added [Hazan].

    And

    Elgazzar.
     This study was withdrawn and was removed from this analysis on the same day. There was no significant change (excluding 1 of 66 studies has very little effect, and the exclusion actually improves the treatment delay-response relationship)

    This is confirmed by the wayback machine
    7/15/21 https://web.archive.org/web/20…0325/https://ivmmeta.com/

    7/16/21 Elgazzar Removed https://web.archive.org/web/20…0109/https://ivmmeta.com/

    A couple of notes : before the removal of Elgazar and Niaee the overall mortality RCT (Mostly double-blind) was 57% improvement, and firmly in the "Favors IVM" column. After, the removal (plus adding another study) it's down to 27% (and the 95% CI overlapping into the "favors control" -- I could argue for a 1-tailed 82% CI)
    (Jul 9 : Fig 16 Oct 20: Fig 17)

    As an example of their "bias" in extracting the "most severe" result from a paper. Shahbaznejad didn't even report deaths in their primary results. They do comment on ONE death in the treatment arm:

    > In the ivermectin group, a 78-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and heart failure died. She was critically ill at the time of admission and died within the first 24 hours.

    IVMmeta took that death as the most severe outcome.
    (I wonder if she even got her Ivermectin!)

    Most severe : Test < Symptom < Hospitalization < ICU < death ?
    https://www.clinicaltherapeuti…-2918(21)00201-0/fulltext

    Edit: Based on the results of the current study, we found significant effects of ivermectin on parameters including hospital stay, dyspnea (as an easily assessed symptom), cough, and lymphopenia.

    Note to THH: I endorse your vax analysis, but not your meta-meta-study analysis. But I don't have time to debate that right now.

    Here in Canada our members of parliament (MPs) have special privileges, and did not have to disclose their state injection status. Now that has changed, and they have until November 22nd to disclose. What is this with multiples of 11?


    Speaking of 11, Pfizer got on its knee yesterday and proposed yesterday to Canada, offering their injection for 5 to 11 year olds. They've been dating for a long time so I have no doubt that Health Canada will say Yes! with glee. So, very soon Pfizer will be 'taking care' of our children. The premier of Quebec has even said that he won't lift their Covid emergency order until 5 to 11 year olds are injected.


    It used to be that society would sacrifice itself for the future of its children. Now, we sacrifice our children for society.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    <https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-da…/#rates-by-vaccine-status>

    April to Sep 4 (One month behind to allow for correct coding)

    This is low to no value data as all people are mixed into one big pot. You cannot download detail data... Thus this is just what CDC wants to tell people not the reality.


    UK presents the best data up to date and I trust that they do not much cheat except with the recovered number that is a 100% cheat may be not fully intentional...


    So only one thing to say:: USA and UK are two different countries that obviously use totally different vaccines...

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    "it" being ivmmeta.com


    That is simply not true.

    NO


    Sorry for the ambiguity.


    It in this sentence is Bryant et al.


    Hill, for example retracted his meta-analysis when Elgazaar was withdrawn - because it had such a large effect on the results.


    Bryant et al should have redone (or just withdrawn) their meta-analysis. Not difficult to do it.


    I'm not accusing ivmmeta.com of major factual errors, just inappropriate interpretation of their list, and claiming to be a principled scientific meta-analysis (not sure though that they do that) when they are not.


    THH

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    UK presents the best data

    Only because you like bits of the data!


    But it is good data, especially when you read the * caveat about not using that one table you like because of issues about the rate denominators.


    Except that those unvaccinated rates are highly unreliable because we do not have great population figures anyway, and the database used was NIMS, which contain GP registrations not people and overcounts. That makes the unvaccinated figures higher than they should be - by what amount we do not know.


    I tried to get some handle on this and decided in the end to wait - time cures all and we will get some resolution. Unvaccinated lower infection rate than vaccinated? Not impossible, there are various effects that would push things like that, but unlikely and not consistent with other data.


    THH

    At long last the message has got through to the drug companies that ANTI-VIRAL therapies are now UNDER INVESTIGATION..... which I have maintained all along since the very beginning of this thread. LOOK AGAIN at our eminent VIROLOGIST'S initial papers by DIDIER RAOULT etc etc, or at the NATURE PAPER by GORDON et al (2021) then all the evidence is THERE!!! Even the CHINESE research papers coming out of WUHAN were saying the same thing that quinine or its derivatives D or L or S-enantiomer thereof HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE were effective against this family of SARS-2 corona viruses. Its EXACTLY the same strategy taken for trying to treat the COMMON COLD or HIV for example!!! Ivermectin too is effective acting at completely different sites. Thus our joint agreement, Ladies and gentlemen that ANTI-BAT was the better option to vaccination. Vaccination although effective, it only lasts for a limited time until the coronavirus family mutate again!!" :) :) :)

    Looks like Dr. Richard and wyttenbach were right very early on, something sitting in your medicine cabinet can successfully treat Covid 19. Pepcid ,L-arginine and vitamin D .


    Large RWE Study: Famotidine (Pepcid) May Have Saved Hundreds of Thousands of Lives During COVID-19 Pandemic



    Large RWE Study: Famotidine (Pepcid) May Have Saved Hundreds of Thousands of Lives During COVID-19 Pandemic
    A cutting-edge federated technology-powered network known as TriNetX powered an impressive real-world evidence study involving approximately 400 million
    trialsitenews.com


    A cutting-edge federated technology-powered network known as TriNetX powered an impressive real-world evidence study involving approximately 400 million patients across 30 countries. Based on a federated, distributed model the system pulls electronic medical records—that is from diagnoses and procedures to medications and more—in an aggregated format supporting deep analytics of the de-identified patient data. American and German researchers represent the University of Virginia at Charlottesville and Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin analyzed a cohort of 22,560 COVID-19 patients receiving H1/H2 receptor antagonists, with a special focus on 1,379 severe cases requiring respiratory support. Establishing mortality as a primary endpoint the researchers explained they hoped to mitigate cofounder by employing propensity-score matching with a goal of “stratified and balanced sub-cohorts across age and gender.” What they found was stunning. Among other benefits famotidine provided what the authors declared was “an immense benefit” to COVID-19 patients.


    Famotidine Background

    Known for its trade name Pepcid, this drug is a histamine H receptor antagonist medication reducing stomach acid production. Used to treat peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, the drug can be administered orally or intravenously.


    The TrialSite advisory committee member Dr. Michael Goodkin recently educatedTrialSite readers about the significant progress associated with this economical, widely available treatment. Can famotidine help treat COVID-19?


    Early in the pandemic another TrialSite advisory committee member, Dr. Robert Malone identified famotidine as a potential inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. In fact, Dr. Goodkin notes at least some scientists have wondered why some people became very ill with COVID-19 while others didn’t. Could this observation be associated with the responses of individuals’ mast cells to infection?


    Drs. Malone, Goodkin, and many other prominent investigators suspect that “Therapies to blunt their response appear to be effective, most commonly the over-the-counter H2 blocker famotidine (Pepcid).” Goodkin argues, “numerous observational studies suggest its [famotidine] benefit, yet the medical establishment has paid little attention.”


    This RWE TriNetX study led by researchers from the University of Virginia and Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin sought to investigate this question further.


    The Study

    In this study, the author shared results in the form of a letter published in Nature. Led by corresponding authors Cameron Mura and Saskia Preissne, the investigators sought to tap into and capitalize on the massive TriNetX data set in a bid to identify if there are any “beneficial effects of famotidine detectable on population-wide international scales.”


    The authors ask other important questions:


    Is it synergistic to treat with famotidine in conjunction with aspirin or general-purpose anti-inflammatory?

    Does famotidine use correlate with any measurable parameters that may serve as biomarkers, perhaps offering mechanistic clues (e.g., serum C-reactive protein [CRP] levels a proxy for inflammation and the cytokine storm

    The American and German team worked first with the following data set:


    Total Description

    257,864 Total COVID-19 cases

    7,479 Deaths

    18,624 Famotidine

    8,335 Cetirizine

    3,928 loratadine

    23,148 Aspirin

    5,955 Aspirin and Famotidine

    The research team ran a series of statistical analyses such as quantifying association, risk ratios (RRs) as well as odds ratios (ORs) as reported in Nature. The study team established respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in addition to Kaplan-Meier survival curves.


    Conducting a series of statistical analyses involving “(i) the H1RAs loratadine (e.g., Claritin®) and cetirizine (e.g., Zyrtec®), (ii) the H2RA famotidine, (iii) aspirin, and (iv) a combination of famotidine and aspirin, the authors found that famotidine treatment reduced fatality risk in cases needing respiratory support (OR 0.73, CI 0.57-0.94).


    The authors didn’t find an observable benefit using dual-histamine receptor blocker targeting H1 and H2 receptors versus famotidine alone (OR 0.75, CI 0.39-1.46). To the authors’ surprise, “the combination of famotidine and aspirin (344 severe cases before matching) did exhibit a significant synergistic survival benefit (OR 0.55, CI 0.39-0.78).”


    Benefits associated with fatalities became even more pronounced. With a decreased Risk Ration of 32.5% the authors declare, “An immense benefit, given the more than 3.8 million COVID-19-related deaths thus far.


    Limitations

    The study team shared some limitations they shared: they didn’t use sub-cohorts categorized by disease severity as they declared “a limitation of our work stems from the distribution of such severities almost certainly being related to the efficacy of any therapeutic intervention.” For other limitations follow the link at source to the journal.


    What is TriNetX?

    TrialSite’s InvestorWatch has profiled TriNetX. Founded by an ex-Microsoft technology executive in 2013, the Boston-based global health research network has raised tens of millions in at least four venture capital rounds.


    In 2020 the company was acquired by the prestigious private equity group called Carlyle Group.


    TriNetX positions itself as connecting the world of drug discovery and development from pharmaceutical company to study site, and investigator to patient by sharing real-world data to make clinical and observational research easier and more efficient. The company’s federated technology combines real-time access to longitudinal clinical data with state-of-the-art analytics to optimize protocol design and feasibility, site selection, patient recruitment, and enable discoveries through the generation of real-world evidence. The TriNetX platform is HIPAA and GDPR compliant.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Cameron Mura, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Chemistry


    Saskia Preissner, Ph.D.


    Real-world evidence for improved outcomes with histamine antagonists and aspirin in 22,560 COVID-19 patients

    Real-world evidence for improved outcomes with histamine antagonists and aspirin in 22,560 COVID-19 patients - Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy
    www.nature.com

    Britain secures COVID-19 antivirals from Merck and Pfizer


    Britain secures COVID-19 antivirals from Merck and Pfizer
    Britain said on Wednesday it had secured deals for two COVID-19 antivirals, one developed by Merck and the other by Pfizer , which it said could be used to…
    www.reuters.com


    REUTERS/Brendan McDermid



    LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Britain said on Wednesday it had secured deals for two COVID-19 antivirals, one developed by Merck (MRK.N) and the other by Pfizer (PFE.N), which it said could be used to treat patients by the end of the year if regulatory approval is granted.


    Prime Minister Boris Johnson has removed almost all COVID-19 restrictions and is relying on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments to try and withstand winter pressures on hospitals given high case numbers of more than 40,000 new infections a day.


    "We may soon have a new defence in our arsenal with two new antiviral drugs that we have secured," health minister Sajid Javid said in a statement.


    Britain said it had secured 480,000 courses of Merck's molnupiravir, an antiviral pill which can be used in non-hospitalised patients.


    The drug cut the rate of hospitalization and death by 50% in mild-to-moderately ill patients who had at least one risk factor for the disease, according to trial data released earlier this month. read more


    If approved, molnupiravir, which Merck is developing with partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, could become the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19.


    Pfizer is also racing to develop an easy-to-administer antiviral pill for COVID-19, and last month began a large study of its investigational oral antiviral drug for the prevention of COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus. read more


    In the trial, PF-07321332, designed to block the activity of a key enzyme needed for the coronavirus to multiply, will be administered along with a low dose of ritonavir, an older medication widely used in combination treatments for HIV infection.


    Britain said it had secured 250,000 courses of the PF-07321332/ritonavir antiviral.


    No price was disclosed for either order. Both Merck's and Pfizer's antivirals would need approval by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) before being used, the government said.


    A national study will also be set up to gather more data on the effectiveness of the antivirals, it added.

    Why Team Biden is purposely scaring folks about kids and COVID


    Why Team Biden is purposely scaring folks about kids and COVID
    The papers and newscasts were filled with stories about how just incredibly focused the Biden people are on the rollout of the vaccinations of American kids…
    nypost.com




    The papers and newscasts on Wednesday morning were filled with stories about how just incredibly focused the Biden people are on the rollout of the vaccinations of American kids from the ages of 5 to 11 (once the science guys give absolutely final approval).


    Yessiree, Bob: They’re working so hard! I know this because Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told me so on the “Today” show this morning. “We’re working really hard” talking to doctors and nurses and teachers and the like, he said.


    Also: They’re shortening needles to make them less scary for kids! They’re developing a whole new model that doesn’t involve mass vaccination sites!


    Yes, they’re all just working their Zoom ring lights to the bone going on TV show after TV show, and you know how tiring that can be.



    There’s a reason for the intensity and omnipresence of this specific PR rollout. The Bidenites are desperate to change the focus of the national political conversation.


    On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average had Joe Biden at 42 percent approval — only three points higher than Donald Trump’s on the same day in his first year in 2017 and a full 10 points lower than Barack Obama’s 52 percent on Sept. 20, 2009.


    That’s a bad Biden number. Very bad.


    Obama’s high approval ratings in his first year helped create the long-term momentum that secured him a second term in 2012 despite the fact that he lost 4 million voters off his 2008 total. For his part, Trump gained voters from 2016 to 2020 and still lost because he was never able to climb out of the hole he dug himself in 2017.

    Biden’s in a hole.


    What the Bidenites know is there’s one issue on which Biden finds himself with a net positive approval rating. In FiveThirtyEight’s poll average, his handling of COVID stands at 49 percent.


    The people who approve of Biden in this regard, we can surmise, are happy with the vaccines and with their own vaccinations and support the imposition of vaccine mandates on others.


    The problem is that the vaccination of kids 5-11 does not fall in the same category as the necessary vaccinations of adults.

    The number of kids who get really sick from COVID, and the number who have died from it, is vanishingly small. Some 724,000 Americans are dead of COVID. The number under the age of 18: 542.

    That’s seven one-hundredths of one percent.


    Yet Murthy is eager to make it seem as though the vaccination of children is of primary importance. “Every child who’s vaccinated is one fewer child who is susceptible to the risk we see right now where so many kids have gotten COVID, thousands have been hospitalized — and sadly we’ve lost hundreds of children to COVID.”

    Every death of a child is a tragedy. But trying to frighten people by using the phrase “hundreds of children” when you’re talking about a disease that has killed hundreds upon hundreds of thousands over the age of 18 is an egregious case of emotional misrepresentation.


    And consider the false sentiment he expressed immediately afterward: “COVID has disrupted our kids’ lives. It’s made school harder. It’s disrupted their ability to see friends and family. It’s made youth sports more challenging. By getting our kids vaccinated we have the prospect of protecting them but also getting all of those activities back.

    The disruptions here were deliberate choices made by public-health officials — and what we know about them now is that they were the wrong choices. They were unnecessary then, and to the extent that they are ongoing, they are unnecessary now. In 2020, officials had the excuse that they didn’t really know better. Now they do. But they’re still using children as a political tool.


    Look, I will be happy to see my 11-year-old get vaccinated, and will arrange it first thing when it is made available. But mostly that’s about putting him in the position to be free of the behavioral and social burdens that have been improperly placed on him by the one-size-fits-all regulatory madness of the public-health bureaucracy that is now trying to generate a panic around childhood vaccinations to try to save their own — and Joe Biden’s — diminishing credibility.


    [email protected]

    Hmmmmm something else wyttenbach relayed to us very early on. I wonder W, is it a burden to always being right and having to defend it? Thanks for your contributions !!!


    Effects of 100% Orange Juice on Markers of Inflammation and Oxidation in Healthy and At-Risk Adult Populations: A Scoping Review, Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis


    Effects of 100% Orange Juice on Markers of Inflammation and Oxidation in Healthy and At-Risk Adult Populations: A Scoping Review, Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis
    Statement of Significance: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of 100% orange juice interventions on common markers of in
    academic.oup.com


    ABSTRACT

    One hundred percent orange juice (OJ) has no added sugar, naturally contains flavonoids and ascorbic acid, and can modulate the body's oxidative and inflammatory systems. This scoping review, systematic review, and meta-analysis investigated associations between 100% OJ and markers of inflammation or oxidation in healthy adults and those at risk for chronic diseases. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and scoping review extension. Literature in English was searched to July 2021 in Embase and 4 Ovid platform databases. Clinical and observational studies of any duration were eligible. Cochrane Collaboration tools were used to assess the risk of bias in controlled trials. Strength of evidence was determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The scoping review presents a qualitative synthesis of evidence in summary and results tables. Twenty-one interventional studies (16 controlled trials and 5 before-after studies) conducted in 307 healthy and 327 at-risk participants were included. Six common markers [C-reactive protein (CRP) or high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP), IL-6, TNF-α, malondialdehyde (MDA), oxidized LDL (oxLDL), and antioxidant capacity] measured across 16 studies were systematically reviewed, and results were synthesized narratively. Random-effects model meta-analyses were conducted on 10 studies reporting hs-CRP, IL-6, and/or MDA. After consuming 100% OJ, healthy and at-risk participants showed significantly lower IL-6 concentrations (pooled net difference: −1.51 pg/mL; 95% CI: −2.31, −0.70) and lower, but nonsignificant, hs-CRP (pooled net change: −0.58 mg/L; 95% CI: −1.22, 0.05) and MDA (crossover trials pooled net difference: −0.06 μmol/L; 95% CI: −0.19, 0.08). Findings suggest that 100% OJ may reduce inflammation, but results should be interpreted with caution due to moderate risk of bias, very low strength of evidence, and the low number of subjects. This study was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) as CRD42021235438.


    Discussion

    Summary of evidence

    In this study, we aimed to conduct a scoping review, systematic review, and meta-analysis to identify gaps in the literature and summarize available evidence on the impact of 100% OJ on markers of inflammation and oxidative stress in healthy and at-risk adults. The 21 studies identified in this review reported >50 markers of inflammation and oxidative stress. Markers reported by 3 or more studies, including CRP or hs-CRP, IL-6, MDA, TNF-α, oxLDL, and antioxidant capacity, were systematically reviewed, and meta-analyses were conducted on hs-CRP, IL-6, and MDA. Noteworthy gaps in the reviewed literature included the lack of observational studies on this topic and the paucity of studies measuring most markers. Only 2 reviewed studies included >50 participants, no intervention lasted >3 mo, and no studies compared 100% OJ interventions with vegetable juices or whole-fruit equivalents. Importantly, only 2 studies assessed samples with an average age >50 y; yet, incidence of inflammation-related chronic diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes, is known to increase sharply with age and to be more prevalent in those over age 65 (54). Furthermore, few studies were conducted in North and South America where consumption of OJ is high (55) and diseases related to chronic inflammation are prevalent (56–58).


    Overall, the impact of 100% OJ interventions alone was either beneficial or null on all markers reported in the included studies. These results remained consistent when 100% OJ was compared with non-100% OJ interventions regardless of which comparators were used (e.g., water, isocaloric sugar-matched controls, no 100% OJ), with the possible exception of a commercial OJ enriched with polyphenols derived from oranges. The meta-analysis for IL-6 concentrations also showed significant improvements in inflammation after 100% OJ interventions compared with non-100% OJ comparators, with no significant heterogeneity between included studies. However, our meta-analyses conducted for hs-CRP and MDA concentrations showed no overall effect after 100% OJ consumption, with some significant heterogeneity that was at least partially explained by ROB among studies measuring hs-CRP. Although results from individual studies and the IL-6 meta-analysis suggested generally improved or attenuated inflammation and oxidative stress following consumption of 100% OJ, the paucity of studies measuring each marker and the very low SoE for commonly reported markers necessitate caution when drawing conclusions regarding effects of 100% OJ on inflammation and oxidative stress.


    To our knowledge, no other systematic review has looked at the role of 100% OJ in markers of inflammation and oxidative stress, but 4 reviews published in the last decade considered the impact of fruit and/or juices on inflammation and oxidative stress in healthy or at-risk populations. One very recent systematic review assessed the antioxidant effects of natural foods, including OJ among many other juices and foods, for participants with dyslipidemia (59). Just 1 study using OJ as an intervention in a before-after design was included [a study also included in the present review (37)]. The review authors reported that OJ was among the “natural” foods found to increase plasma antioxidant activity and decrease inflammation and oxidative damage of lipids in dyslipidemias. One older review on the impact of polyphenol-containing fruits and fruit products on inflammation in humans (60) included 2 acute studies on OJ [also reviewed in the present study (40, 50)]. This review concluded that postprandial inflammation induced by Western eating patterns may be stabilized by polyphenol-rich beverages, such as OJ, accompanying the meal. Another older review included 8 studies with OJ interventions (16), 4 of which were included in the present review (33, 40, 50, 51), and investigated their acute and chronic anti-inflammatory properties. The review authors reported that OJ-mediated plasma inflammatory response and related gene expression may be due to the presence of bioactive compounds such as flavonoids. These authors further suggested that fruit juices such as OJ may be useful in preventing and treating chronic disease. This is consistent with the findings from a prior systematic review and meta-analysis that compared incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk associated with intake of 100% fruit juice with sugar-sweetened fruit juice in prospective cohort studies (61). Subgroup effects in a stratified meta-analysis showed no effect of 100% fruit juice on incident T2D but a significantly higher risk (28%) of T2D incidence with sugar-sweetened fruit juice intake. It is now well known that several markers of inflammation and oxidative stress are involved in the pathogenesis of diet-related chronic diseases such as T2D (62) and cardiovascular disease (63). While 100% juice has been considered by some to contain too much sugar and not enough fiber to be healthful, evidence uncovered in our present work supports potential benefits of 100% OJ for both healthy and at-risk populations.

    Quote from Fm1

    LONDON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Britain said on Wednesday it had secured deals for two COVID-19 antivirals, one developed by Merck (MRK.N) and the other by Pfizer (PFE.N), which it said could be used to treat patients by the end of the year if regulatory approval is granted.

    This is how states run by criminals (FM/R/J <3 B- mafia) do act. They will buy all crap just on good news.


    The Merck drug has failed in all hospital studies also in an India out patient study and does not reduce death. Now they try the same trick as Gillead fake the end point and show it works a little fro some days.... The Merck drug for 1000% sure will cause cancer but slowly. Such a drug should only be allow after a 10 years observation period.


    So we wait for the next Auschwitz II trial!

    Quote from Fm1

    Some 724,000 Americans are dead of COVID. The number under the age of 18: 542.

    That’s seven one-hundredths of one percent.

    This is a fraction of the flu death in a medium year. And most of these kids have been on chemo. So really bad luck ! Biden did not give them Ivermectin+doxy,zinc,V-D, V-C.


    How can happy kids live in a state run by fascist killers ?? Ask the Boston kids...

    Quote from Fm1

    Look, I will be happy to see my 11-year-old get vaccinated, and will arrange it first thing when it is made available. But mostly that’s about putting him in the position to be free of the behavioral and social burdens that have been improperly placed on him by the one-size-fits-all regulatory madness of the public-health bureaucracy that is now trying to generate a panic around childhood vaccinations to try to save their own — and Joe Biden’s — diminishing credibility.

    This explains everything. Its the Rhinoceros effect (stage play by Ionescu) . People join the fascists and even sacrifice the beloved children just to be conform.


    Only idiots kill themselves by a CoV-19 cancer chemo therapy called vaccine.


    Or may be clowns do the same as they do not understand the base rate effect...This is how far a chronic reading disability can bring you. Just listen to their buddies seems to be all clowns can do ...

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.