Covid-19 News

  • 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.

    Here the old paper from early CoV-19 days:: (June 2020:: Hesperidin and SARS-CoV-2 New Light on the.pdf

    Hesperidin is in the orange skin. So press them violently.

    I wonder W, is it a burden to always being right and having to defend it? Thanks for your contributions !!!

    Its a burden. You can loose many friends. So from time to time you have to give them a chance by talking bullshit....

  • 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 .


    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.


    We would ned to look very closely at this study to work out whether the results indicated causal relationship between taking these medicines and lower risk, or something else.


    It is like Vitamin D. It could have beneficial effect on many things, but there are obvious confounding factors that are enough to give the observational evidence. RCTs on things with otherwise highly positive evidence have generally been negative (that positive Spanish one clearly was weird and has been withdrawn).


    So always worth to go on looking at effect of vitamins on anything, and we cannot (and should not) rule out possible benefits, but the many studies claiming they show this are most illusory. I suspect the same here based on historical precedent but do not have time to look at it properly so don't have a clear view.


    One thing you need to consider is that for most vitamins the body maintains homeostasis where the level of the active thing in the blood is maintained constant, so higher or lower doses of the vitamin have little effect. So taking excess of a vitamin - even if higher levels in the blood would be beneficial, is not so easy. Also taking very large amounts to force some level higher is potentially (we do not know) not safe.


    These things are worth inverstigating, and might help, but mostly when invetigated in the past that has not happened. it is not a conspiracy to stop anyone using vitamins.


    THH

  • Your standard reply, interesting but not enough. No data will ever be enough when you position yourself as you have. You are now being cornered with science

  • I think a little refresher coarse for the skeptics is in order


    Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections


    Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections
    Public health practices including handwashing and vaccinations help reduce the spread and impact of infections. Nevertheless, the global burden of infection is…
    www.mdpi.com


    Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections

    by Philip C. Calder 1ORCID,Anitra C. Carr 2ORCID,Adrian F. Gombart 3ORCID andManfred Eggersdorfer 4,*

    1

    Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16-6YD, UK

    2

    Nutrition in Medicine Research Group, Department of Pathology & Biomedical Science, University of Otago, Christchurch, P.O. Box 4345, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

    3

    Linus Pauling Institute, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Oregon State University, 307 Linus Pauling Science Center, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

    4

    Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands

    *

    Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

    Nutrients 2020, 12(4), 1181; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12041181

    Received: 10 March 2020 / Revised: 14 April 2020 / Accepted: 18 April 2020 / Published: 23 April 2020

    (This article belongs to the Special Issue Vitamins C and D: Global and Population Health Perspectives)

    Download PDF Citation Export

    Abstract

    Public health practices including handwashing and vaccinations help reduce the spread and impact of infections. Nevertheless, the global burden of infection is high, and additional measures are necessary. Acute respiratory tract infections, for example, were responsible for approximately 2.38 million deaths worldwide in 2016. The role nutrition plays in supporting the immune system is well-established. A wealth of mechanistic and clinical data show that vitamins, including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper; and the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid play important and complementary roles in supporting the immune system. Inadequate intake and status of these nutrients are widespread, leading to a decrease in resistance to infections and as a consequence an increase in disease burden. Against this background the following conclusions are made: (1) supplementation with the above micronutrients and omega-3 fatty acids is a safe, effective, and low-cost strategy to help support optimal immune function; (2) supplementation above the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), but within recommended upper safety limits, for specific nutrients such as vitamins C and D is warranted; and (3) public health officials are encouraged to include nutritional strategies in their recommendations to improve public health.

    Keywords: immune system; viral infection; influenza; COVID-19; micronutrients; vitamins; omega-3 fatty acids; minerals; vitamin C; vitamin D

    1. Introduction

    Acute respiratory tract infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality across the globe, as illustrated by both seasonal influenza epidemics, and the recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that worldwide, seasonal influenza alone results in 3–5 million cases of severe illness that require hospitalization, and 290,000–650,000 deaths annually [1]. In aggregate, acute respiratory tract illnesses were estimated to be responsible for approximately 2.38 million deaths worldwide in 2016 [2,3]. Indeed, severe lower respiratory tract infections were the most common cause of sepsis-related death globally from 1990–2017 [4].

    A number of standard public health practices have been developed to help limit the spread and impact of respiratory viruses, such as regular hand washing, avoiding those showing symptoms of infection, and covering coughs [5]. For certain viruses, such as influenza, annual vaccination campaigns designed to prime the immune response in case of exposure exist in many countries. Influenza is caused by a single-stranded RNA virus, and as such exhibits high mutation rates and rapid evolution, which may allow these viruses to escape from pre-existing neutralizing antibodies in the host [6]. Vaccination programs therefore must make predictions each year as to which strains to vaccinate against, with varying degrees of success. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate the current year influenza vaccine to be 45% effective for preventing medically attended, laboratory-confirmed influenza virus. This is consistent with estimates from the previous years when the influenza vaccines were antigenically matched to the circulating viruses [7]. Since the 2011–2012 season, vaccine efficacy has ranged from 19%–54% [8].

    The immune system is comprised of both the innate (fast, non-antigen specific) and adaptive (slower, antigen-specific) responses. The innate immune system is comprised of physical barriers that help prevent pathogen entry (e.g., skin, gut epithelium), antimicrobial peptides, the complement system, and a variety of phagocytic and other cells (e.g., neutrophils, macrophages, natural killer cells), that recognize the presence of pathogens via the expression of nonspecific pattern-recognition receptors [9]. The innate system moves quickly to recognize and destroy “non-self” threats, typically via inflammatory processes, and then resolve the inflammation and repair the damage caused by these events [9]. However, innate immunity does not increase efficacy or speed of response with repeated exposure to a pathogen. Subsequent to the innate response, the adaptive response is engaged. The adaptive response includes antigen-specific cells, e.g., T lymphocytes, subsets of which coordinate the overall adaptive response or kill virally-infected cells, and B lymphocytes, which can be activated to secrete antibodies specific to the infecting pathogen [9]. While slower to respond than the innate system, the adaptive system is responsible for generating immunological “memory”, whereby a repeated infection with the same pathogen will generate a vigorous, fast antigen-specific response [9]. The induction of immunological memory is the mechanism by which vaccines can provide protection against subsequent pathogen exposure.

    Undoubtedly, public hygiene practices and, when available, vaccinations can be effective mechanisms to provide protection against infectious disease. However, vaccines can take years to create, are not available against all viruses (including the current coronavirus SARS-CoV-2), and provide varying levels of protection. The morbidity and mortality numbers cited above highlight the need for additional strategies to support the immune system, in order to reduce the impact of respiratory and other infections.

    2. Nutritional Impact on Immunity

    Often missing in public health discussions around immunity and infection are nutritional strategies to support optimal function of the immune system. This is surprising, given that the importance that nutrition plays in immune function is well established. Several vitamins, including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; and trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper, play important and complementary roles in supporting both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Deficiencies or suboptimal status in micronutrients negatively affect immune function and can decrease resistance to infections [10,11,12]. Indeed, with the exceptions of vitamin E and magnesium, each of these micronutrients has been granted health claims in the European Union for contributing to the normal function of the immune system [13]. Other nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids also support an effective immune system, specifically by helping to resolve the inflammatory response [14].

    The mechanistic roles that micronutrients play to optimize immune function have been well-described recently [10,12]. Most micronutrients exhibit pleiotropic roles in supporting immune function. With respect to innate immunity, the vitamins and minerals listed above collectively function to support the development and maintenance of physical barriers; production and activity of antimicrobial proteins; growth, differentiation and motility/chemotaxis of innate cells; phagocytic and killing (e.g., oxidative burst) activities of neutrophils and macrophages; and promotion of and recovery from inflammation (e.g., cytokine production and antioxidant activity). They also support adaptive immunity, via lymphocyte differentiation, proliferation and homing; cytokine production; antibody production; and the generation of memory cells. The roles that vitamins C and D play in immunity are particularly well elucidated. Vitamin C affects several aspects of immunity, including supporting epithelial barrier function, growth and function of both innate and adaptive immune cells, white blood cell migration to sites of infection, phagocytosis and microbial killing, and antibody production [10]. Many immune cells have vitamin D receptors that affect their function after ligand binding, and as such vitamin D profoundly influences immunity. For example, it promotes differentiation of monocytes to macrophages and increases their killing capacity; modulates the production of inflammatory cytokines; and supports antigen presentation. Furthermore, vitamin D metabolites appear to regulate production of specific antimicrobial proteins that directly kill pathogens, and thus are likely to help reduce infection including in the lungs [15,16].

    As mentioned above, inflammation is a key component of the immune response. This response is caused by a variety of pro-inflammatory mediators, produced by several different types of cells, resulting in the influx of fluid, immune cells, and other mediators that function to eliminate the infection. Inflammation typically resolves quickly at the end of the immune response, due to activation of specific negative-feedback mechanisms. Among these, the omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) present at the site of inflammation are enzymatically converted to specialized pro-resolving mediators (SPMs) known as resolvins, protectins, and maresins. These molecules, along with others, function together to orchestrate the resolution of inflammation and to support healing, including in the respiratory tract [14,17]. Notably, nutritional deficiencies in these essential fatty acids can result in delayed or suboptimal resolution of inflammation [17]. This could be very important in the context of severe COVID-19 which manifests as uncontrolled inflammation, the so-called cytokine storm [18,19], linked with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A number of the SPMs formed from EPA and DHA have been shown in animal models to both protect against and resolve acute lung injury and ARDS [20,21,22,23,24]. Nutritional formulas containing antioxidants and rich in EPA and DHA have been used in several human trials of patients with ARDS. A recent Cochrane review of these trials identified a significant improvement in blood oxygenation and significant reductions in ventilation requirement, new organ failures, length of stay in the intensive care unit and mortality at 28 days [25]. Taken together, these findings suggest an important role for EPA and DHA in ameliorating inflammation and lung injury, perhaps acting via conversion to SPMs.

    It is not surprising, then, that deficiencies and even suboptimal status of these nutrients can impair immune functions. Depending on the deficient nutrient or nutrients, there can be decreases in the numbers of lymphocytes, impairment of phagocytosis and microbial killing by innate immune cells, altered production of cytokines, reduced antibody responses, and even impairments in wound healing [12]. These functional impairments are, presumably, what lead to the clinical immune-related manifestations of deficiency. Indeed, people deficient in vitamin C are susceptible to severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia [10,26]. A recent meta-analysis reported a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonia with vitamin C supplementation, particularly in individuals with low dietary intakes [27]. In older patients, disease severity and risk of death were reduced with supplementation, particularly in the case where initial plasma levels of vitamin C were low [27]. Vitamin C supplementation has also been shown to decrease the duration and severity of upper respiratory tract infections, such as the common cold, and significantly decrease the risk of infection when given prophylactically in people under enhanced physical stress [26,28].

    Likewise, vitamin D deficiency increases the risk for respiratory infection. Observational studies report an association between low blood concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (the major vitamin D metabolite) and susceptibility to acute respiratory tract infections [29,30]. Consistent with these findings, several recent meta-analyses have concluded that vitamin D supplementation can reduce the risk of respiratory tract infections in both children and adults [11,31,32,33,34,35]. In 2017, Martineau and colleagues performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (n = 10,933) from 25 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation with a specified outcome of acute respiratory tract infection (ARI). They found a 12% reduction for experiencing at least one ARI irrespective of dosing schedule [11]. They found a 19% reduction in individuals taking a daily or weekly dose without bolus doses and no benefit with bolus dosing. Among those receiving a daily or weekly dose, they observed a 25% reduction for those with baseline 25(OH)D levels ≥25 nmol/L (12 ng/mL) and a 70% reduction for those with baseline levels <25 nmol/L [23]. They concluded that daily or weekly vitamin D supplementation protected against ARI overall and that it was safe.

    Clinical outcomes also demonstrate a role for vitamin E in respiratory tract infections. In a randomized controlled trial of 617 nursing home residents, daily supplementation for one year with 200 IU vitamin E reduced the risk of upper respiratory tract infections, but not lower respiratory tract infections [36]. Vitamin E enhances T cell-mediated immune function in the face of age-related decline [37]. In one study, supplementation of older adults with vitamin E improved natural killer cell activity, neutrophil chemotaxis and phagocytosis, and mitogen-induced lymphocyte proliferation [38]. In a second study, vitamin E supplementation improved T cell-mediated immunity as measured by increased production of antibodies to hepatitis B virus and tetanus vaccines [39].

    Finally, marginal zinc deficiency can also impact immunity. Zinc is important for maintenance and development of cells in both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Zinc deficiency results in impaired formation, activation and maturation of lymphocytes, disturbs the intercellular communication via cytokines, and weakens the innate host defense [40,41]. Those deficient in zinc, particularly children, are prone to increased diarrheal and respiratory morbidity [42,43].

    Furthermore, data from animal models and epidemiological studies in people indicate that deficiency in specific nutrients, particularly selenium and vitamin E, can lead to reproducible genetic mutations and increased virulence of certain viruses, including coxsackievirus, poliovirus, and murine influenza [44,45]. In a double-blind placebo controlled study, an increase of selenium intake by otherwise healthy subjects with relatively low levels of plasma selenium concentrations improved cellular immunity. Subjects receiving selenium cleared an oral live attenuated poliomyelitis vaccine more rapidly and sequence analysis of the viral genome showed lower numbers of mutations as compared to those receiving the placebo. These data suggest that suboptimal nutrient status in the host population could lead to the emergence of more pathogenic strains of viral diseases, thereby increasing the risks and burdens associated with these illnesses. Given the current situation, it may be beneficial to further pursue this line of investigation.

    Optimal intake of all these nutrients ideally would be achieved through the consumption of a well-balanced and diverse diet, but this can be difficult to accomplish for the general population. Indeed, it is generally accepted that nutrient inadequacies and deficiencies are widespread [46,47,48,49,50] (and references therein). Biochemical markers of nutrient status are particularly useful in assessing inadequacy or deficiency, and lead to the conclusion that intakes often are not sufficient. For example, extensive data have been published, using blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to assess vitamin D status. A systematic review involving 195 studies in forty-four countries reported that 37.3% of the studies found mean values lower than 50 nmol/L [51]. The US Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee that reviewed Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for vitamin D has suggested that those with concentrations less than this level are at risk for inadequacy, while those with concentrations between 50–75 nmol/L are considered sufficient [52,53]. Interestingly, while the highest vitamin D levels were reported in North America, data from the United States still indicate that 8% of the non-infant population was at risk for vitamin D deficiency, and 17% exhibited concentrations below the 25(OH)D level that is associated with desirable intake [53]. Other studies based on 25(OH)D levels indicate that vitamin D inadequacy or deficiency are also prevalent in Europe and China [54,55,56]. Similarly, a recent systematic review involving 132 studies of serum alpha-tocopherol status indicated that 13% of the values were below the threshold of deficiency (12 mmol/L). Deficiency was noted in the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Africa [57]. The situation with vitamin C is similar. Currently, the most commonly used vitamin C cutoff levels are approximately ≤23–28 µmol/L for hypovitaminosis C and ≤11 µmol/L for deficiency [58]. The evidence indicates that vitamin C insufficiency or deficiency is common in low and middle-income countries (e.g., Mexico, Brazil, India), and not uncommon in high income countries (e.g., US, Singapore, New Zealand), particularly in at-risk subpopulations [53,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Furthermore, the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations have described that, based on blood markers, vitamin A and iron deficiencies are widespread and of significant global concern [46,49,50]. Status data in the general population or specific subpopulations also reveal inadequacies or deficiencies in various countries, including in developed nations, for vitamins B6, B12, and folate, as well as zinc and selenium [53,59,60,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Finally, a global survey of EPA + DHA status in the blood, from 298 studies, found “low” or “very low” status (i.e., levels associated with increased risk of cardiovascular related mortality) of EPA + DHA in most of the countries assessed [74]. Collectively, the totality of these data strongly suggest that micronutrient and omega-3 inadequacies or deficiencies are prevalent around the globe.

    It should also be noted that optimal nutritional support for the immune system can require intakes above the RDA for some micronutrients, while at the same time infections and other stressors can reduce micronutrient status in the body. Vitamin C levels, in particular, decrease during times of infection and higher intakes are required to restore normal blood levels [10,75]. These higher intakes and blood levels are associated with improved clinical outcomes. For example, supplementation of pneumonia patients with ≥200 mg/d vitamin C restored depleted plasma and cellular vitamin C levels, and resulted in decreased respiratory symptom scores and a dose-dependent decrease in hospital length of stay [76,77].

    3. Recommendations and Conclusions

    Thus, a set of clear nutritional recommendations is needed (Table 1). First, supplementation with micronutrients and omega-3 fatty acids is a safe, effective, and low-cost way to help eliminate nutritional gaps and support optimal immune function, and therefore reduce the risk and consequences of infections [10,12]. Intakes should follow recommended upper safety limits set by expert authorities, such as the European Food Safety Authority and, in the United States, the IOM. Thus, a multivitamin and mineral supplement that supplies the basic micronutrient requirements (e.g., RDA) for vitamins and minerals is recommended in addition to the consumption of a well-balanced diet.

    Table 1. Recommended intakes of selected nutrients to support optimal immune function.

    Table

    Second, we recommend supplementation above the RDA for vitamins C and D. As noted above, recent meta-analyses concluded significant reductions in the risk and impact of both upper and lower respiratory tract infections such as the common cold and pneumonia, including disease severity and risk of death in older patients, with vitamin C supplementation [27,28,79]. Based on this evidence, a daily intake of at least 200 mg/day for healthy individuals is recommended. This level is above the US RDA of 75 and 90 mg/day for female and male adults, respectively [80]. It should be noted that vitamin C requirements depend on health status, and 1–2 g/day are recommended to restore normal blood levels in individuals who are sick, beginning at the onset of symptoms. These levels are within the US tolerable upper limit (TUL) for adults of 2 g/day (note that the upper limit for children aged 1–3 years is 400 mg/day) [80].

    Several recent meta-analyses have concluded that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of respiratory tract infections in both children and adults [11,31,32,33,34,35]. Protective effects were seen with those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, but not with less frequent bolus doses [11,32]. A daily intake of 2000 IU (50 µg) is recommended. This is above the US RDA of 400–800 IU (depending on age), but below the TUL for those over 1 year of age (2500–4000 IU) [52].

    A third recommendation involves the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. An adequate intake supports the resolution of inflammation via the production of anti-inflammatory metabolites of these fatty acids, including in the respiratory tract [14,17]. An intake of 250 mg EPA + DHA per day is recommended, consistent with global, regional and national expert recommendations [81,82,83].

    Public health practices, such as vaccinations and hygiene measures, are important measures that help limit the spread and impact of infections, including against acute respiratory viruses. However, the present situation with SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes of COVID-19 and the annual morbidity and mortality figures for respiratory infections overall make it clear that these practices alone are not sufficient. New strains of influenza continuously emerge, necessitating development of new vaccines with varying efficacy, and outbreaks of novel viruses can be enormously difficult to contain. As such, additional safe and cost-effective strategies are needed to support the immune system, and further protect individuals and populations from harm. One compelling strategy is to provide sufficient nutritional support for the immune system. As described above, optimal nutrient intake, including supplementing above the RDA for certain immune-supporting vitamins, promotes optimal immune function, helps to control the impact of infections, and could help limit the emergence of novel, more virulent strains of pathogenic viruses. We, therefore, strongly encourage public health officials to also include nutritional strategies in their arsenal to improve public health and to limit the impact of seasonal and emerging viral infections.

    Author Contributions

    The outline of the publication was developed with input from all authors based on an expert webinar meeting they held and the conclusions they reached concerning the role of the immune system to reduce risk for infections including viral infections; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

    Funding

    This research received no external funding.

    Conflicts of Interest

    P.C.C. has research funding from BASF AS and Bayer Consumer Care; acts as an advisor/consultant to BASF AS, DSM, Cargill, Smartfish, Nutrileads, Bayer Consumer Care, and Pfizer (now GSK) Consumer Healthcare; has received reimbursement for travel and/or speaking from Danone, Fresenius Kabi, Baxter, Pfizer (now GSK) Consumer Healthcare, Abbott, Smartfish, Biogredia and the California Walnut Commission; and is President and member of the Board of Directors of the European Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute. A.C.C. has received research funding from Bayer Consumer Care and travel reimbursement from DSM. M.E. acts as an advisor for DSM and received travel reimbursement from DSM. He is member of the Scientific Board of PM International and President of the Gesellschaft für angewandte Vitaminforschung. A.F.G. has received research funding from Bayer Consumer Care and has acted as an advisor/consultant for and has received reimbursement for travel and/or speaking from Bayer Consumer Care

  • Should we force vaccination with adverse events in under 40s to “protect” above 70s?

    There are no significant adverse events from the vaccination. You are describing a hypothetical option in a parallel reality, not something we need to worry about. In any case, in the U.S. it would not be politically possible to force vaccinations on adults. Only on children if their parents want to send them to school.

  • Should we force vaccination with adverse events in under 40s to “protect” above 70s?

    Never heard greater nonsense:: CoV-19 chemo - Vaccinated people spread 2-4 more often CoV-19 than unvaccinated.


    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf

    This is rate data!! Only clowns can't read this.

    (This article belongs to the Special Issue Vitamins C and D: Global and Population Health Perspectives)

    Among those receiving a daily or weekly dose, they observed a 25% reduction for those with baseline 25(OH)D levels 25nmol/L(12 ng/mL) and a 70% reduction for those with baseline levels <25 nmol/L [23]. They concluded that daily or weekly vitamin D supplementation protected against ARI overall and that it was safe.


    Recommended: Daily 2000IU's of V-D! even for children. So 5000IU's for older (age > 70) ones does make sense. Even Fauci uses it...

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

    They did .. in a letter to Am Jn of Therapeutics.

    https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Response-to-Elgazzar.pdf


    Original: https://journals.lww.com/ameri…n_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx

    Removing Elgazzar the death risk ratio went from 0.38 to 0.51 -- with the 95% CI within the "favors IVM" side.

    As they point out :


    The claim that conclusions are “entirely reversed” [Guardian] cannot be sustained on the evidence.

  • No data will ever be enough when you position yourself as you have. You are now being cornered with science

    No FM1, because I have never said the vaccines are their primarily to prevent infection.


    I hope they do (and know they do most of the time, from other evidence).


    They protect against serious disease and death> the UK evidence on that is quite stunning.


    But, mainly, as I've said many times, working out anything about protection from infection is just difficult, because infections are not easy to measure.


    Let us suppose that subgroup data is correct (which we kow it is not - but maybe the errors are small).


    So what :) ?

  • Alan - it is reversed if you remove Elgazzar and Niaee - the other "too good to be true - missing info in various places - Cochrane would say high risk of bias" RCT.


    It is good that they have made an additional correction - but they have not withdrawn or changed the original paper? I certainly did not find the correction...


    More spin!


    As for entirely reversed: we would need to look at all of the indicators in detail.


    As with many things, I tend to be skeptical about data when it does not make coherent sense.


    For that ivermectin evidence - when Bryant look at low risk of bias data - it is just those two big highly positive studies that skew the RCT (have a look at Bryant's Forest tables). Unless you allow them , which no-one else does, you get neutral.

    I'm still hoping ivermectin might do something - what makes me pessimistic is that the two big ivermectin-at-home RCT studies (ACTIV-6 and PRINCIPLE) ongoing have not yet reported. That means they have not found strong results.


    And what makes me indignant is the whole FLCC "ivermectin is being suppressed" thing. You could argue that remdesivir is being unreasonably allowed of course - it does not look a lot better from the limited evidence i have seen. But there is no peril of people self-overdosing on remdesivir or thinking that they don't need to get vaccinated since remdesivir will save them., Because of the FLCC hype there is considerable peril of both with ivermectin.


    It is ironic.


    THH

  • Adverse events are happening and being ignored


    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.

  • How can a booka-bux company like Pfizer screw up a simple Press Release?


    PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE PHASE 3 TRIAL DATA SHOWING HIGH EFFICACY OF A BOOSTER DOSE OF THEIR COVID-19 VACCINE

    Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Phase 3 Trial Data Showing High Efficacy of a Booster Dose of Their COVID-19 Vaccine | Pfizer


    Thursday, October 21, 2021 - 06:45am

    First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain


    They get it right later:


    In the trial, a booster dose administered to individuals who previously received the Pfizer-BioNTech primary two-dose series restored vaccine protection against COVID-19 to the high levels achieved after the second dose, showing a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% when compared to those who did not receive a booster


    But the "95.6%" figure is already getting publicized. (Still good news ... )


    What IS the protection against disease?


    From the CDC data above,

    COVID Data Tracker
    CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.
    covid.cdc.gov


    I converted their "Risk Rate" to Risk Ratio, multiplied the two risks CDC vaxed-to-disease, Pfizer boosted-to-vaxed, and converted back to Efficacy) - CDC data at the peak of the Delta wave (Oct 8, 2021)


    -- Overall Pfizer Efficacy 81.7% (Moderna 89.0%, J&J 76.2%)

    -- Booster relative to Vaxed 95.6%

    -- Combined Pfizer Efficacy 99.2% against disease


    (Minor inaccuracy .. the CDC ages 12+ and Pfizer 18+ don't quite match. CDC is at a point in time vs Pfizer trial period)


    Moderna hasn't submitted a case study - just a seriological study, but it's likely to be even better.

  • NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan, Says EcoHealth Violated Reporting Requirements


    NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan, Says EcoHealth Violated Reporting Requirements | National Review
    The admission contradicts Dr. Fauci’s sworn testimony.
    www.nationalreview.com


    A top NIH official admitted in a Wednesday letter that U.S. taxpayers funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan and revealed that EcoHealth Alliance, the U.S. non-profit that funneled NIH money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was not transparent about the work it was doing.


    In the letter to Representative James Comer (R., Ky.), Lawrence A. Tabak of the NIH cites a “limited experiment” that was conducted to test if “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.” The laboratory mice infected with the modified bat virus “became sicker” than those infected with the unmodified bat virus.

    The revelation vindicates Republican senator Rand Paul, who got into heated exchanges with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease director Anthony Fauci during his May and July testimonials before Congress over the gain-of-function question. At the second hearing, Paul accused Fauci of misleading Congress by denying that the U.S. had funded gain-of-function projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.


    Gain-of-function research involves extracting viruses from animals and artificially engineering them in a laboratory to make them more transmissible or deadly to humans.


    In keeping with Fauci’s refusal to use “gain-of-function,” Tabak avoids the term, though the work he described matches its commonplace definition precisely.


    A previously unpublished EcoHealth grant proposal filed with NIAID, obtained by The Intercept, had already exposed that $599,000 of the total grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was for research designed to make viruses more dangerous and/or infectious.

    Dr. Richard Ebright, biosafety expert and professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, had previously rebutted Fauci’s claim that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” as “demonstrably false.”


    Ebright told National Review that the NIH-financed work at the WIV “epitomizes” the definition of gain-of-function research, which deals with “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” or those pathogens “resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.”


    In addition to his admission that gain-of-function research was being conducted with NIH money, Tabak also revealed that EcoHealth failed to comply with its reporting responsibilities under the grant. EcoHealth was required to submit to a “secondary review” in the event of certain developments that might increase the danger associated with the research. So, when Wuhan researchers successfully bound a natural bat coronavirus to a human AC2 receptor in mice, they were supposed to inform the NIH, but they didn’t.


    Eco Health now has five days, according to Tabak, to submit to NIH “any and all unpublished data” relating to this award’s project for compliance purposes.


    The remainder of the document attempts to prove that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses used in the 2014-2018 NIH grant experiments “are decades removed from SARS-CoV-2 evolutionarily,” only sharing 96-97 percent of the genome.

  • Thursday, October 21, 2021 - 06:45am

    First results from any randomized, controlled COVID-19 vaccine booster trial demonstrate a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% against disease during a period when Delta was the prevalent strain

    This is a plain vanilla marketing fake claim only with zero underlined data. Real Israel data shows each day at least 3-4 booster deaths among age >64. Death reporting was 2 weeks late -- as said for Pfizer marketing....


    In reality the number of vaccinated deaths (age >60) and unvaccinated death are narrowing. At best we have a 25% death risk for vaccinated if 100% is unvaccinated. So at best a factor 4 in favor of all types of vaccination.

    The boosters also have a predating effect with promoting COV-19. Still about 200 booster victims in hospital. So the true figure will shine up in 3 months!

    We do not even calculate in natural immunity after CoV-19. With this - as UK shows - you can see that vaccine are already crap - for most people.

    Only recovered people are protected. At least 25x !

  • https://assets.publishing.serv…llance-report-week-41.pdf

    This is rate data!! Only clowns can't read this.


    Only clowns can’t read this, eh?


    LOL




    Never heard greater nonsense:: CoV-19 chemo - Vaccinated people spread 2-4 more often CoV-19 than unvaccinated.


    This being easily explained by the fact that antivaxxers (such as yourself) are much more likely to be spending all their free time posting crazy theories on facebook and forums... As opposed to normal people, who prefer healthy pursuits such as meeting friends in the pub. Or going on holiday.

  • Big Pharma Is Ripping Off America


    Big Pharma Is Ripping Off America
    Americans pay Big Pharma more for the top 20 drugs than the rest of the world combined.
    www.citizen.org


    Big Pharma greed knows no bounds. Pharmaceutical corporations abuse their monopoly power to rip off Americans en mass. Whatever your political affiliation, background, or zip code, you are harmed by the outrageous prices set by the pharmaceutical companies.


    These corporations rake in ridiculous amounts of money from U.S. consumers in comparison to the money they make off all other countries, with Americans spending more per capita for prescription drugs than any other industrialized nation.


    In 2020, the combined sales in the U.S. for 17 of the 20 top-selling worldwide drugs generated more money than those same drugs did for the rest of the world combined. U.S. sales of the 20 top-selling drugs totaled $101 billion while the rest of the world’s revenues on these same drugs totaled nearly $57 billion. Basically, the U.S. spent double what the rest of the world did.


    The pharmaceutical companies happily reap the benefits of laws that allow them to increase their prices at their discretion. Eleven of the 13 pharmaceutical companies selling these top drugs made more money in the U.S. from those drug sales than they did in the rest of the world combined.


    The five drugs with the greatest sales revenue disparities between the U.S. and the rest of the world include: Gilead Sciences’ HIV medication Biktarrvy, AbbVie’s autoimmune disease drug Humira, Eli Lily’s type 2 diabetes drug Trulicity, Roche’s multiple sclerosis drug Ocrevus and Amgen and Pfizer’s autoimmune disease drug Enbrel.


    Biktarvy, the HIV medication, received five times more revenue from the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Humira, the autoimmune disease drug, generated four times more revenue in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Trulicity, the diabetes drug, and Ocrevus, the multiple sclerosis drug and Enbrel, the autoimmune disease drug, got three times more revenue in the U.S. than in the rest of the world.


    These enormous disparities hurt American consumers. A new study done by the Commonwealth Fund found that the U.S. health care system ranked last among 11 wealthy countries despite spending the highest percentage of its gross domestic product on health care.


    Pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of people when they need help the most, with no contrition.


    How Did We Get Here?


    Unlike many other industrialized countries, our laws and regulations allow pharmaceutical manufacturers to set their own prices with little government oversight.


    In 2003, President Bush signed a bill into law that created Medicare Part D, but included among its provisions a ban on allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Congress and President Bush created a new guaranteed market for drug corporations to sell their products, protected by government-granted monopolies, and explicitly prohibited price negotiation. Industry predictably began jacking up prices.


    In response to the industry charging ever-higher prices for drugs old and new, there has been overwhelming public support for anti-price-gouging legislation. So, why has it stalled in Congress every time? Because the pharmaceutical industry has influence over politicians on both sides. Since 2008, the industry has spent $2.7 billion on lobbying in Washington, contributing 44 percent to Congressional Republicans and 56 percent to Congressional Democrats.


    Congress now has the chance to fight back. Granting Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices and push back against Big Pharma company profiteering would mean an end to decades of overpaying for medicines and yield hundreds of billions in cost-savings that could be used to improve and expand health care coverage. In short, bold drug pricing reform would support a healthier America.


    Now, Big Pharma is pushing a disinformation campaign to scare Americans away from the solution. Deceptive ads were created to mislead Americans into thinking the plan would impede on drug research and what medicines Americans can have access to. “Politicians say they want to negotiate medicine prices in Medicare,” the new ad states. “But make no mistake: What politicians mean is they’ll decide which medicines you can and can’t get.”


    In reality, there’s nothing in the proposal that would allow the government to decide which medications people on Medicare can get. Furthermore, drug manufacturers set prices to maximize profits, not to cover research and development costs. Government-funded research provides the scientific foundation for the development of new drugs by private industry.


    The drug-price plan in the reconciliation package is one of our most important tools for stopping greedy pharmaceutical companies from capitalizing on vulnerable Americans. The proposed plan would give Medicare bargaining power to drive down U.S. drug prices. However, Big Pharma has flooded Congress with corporate cash and the media with a false narrative in an effort to stop it from passing. Their substantial donations are made with the intentions of keeping Big Pharma profits untouched.


    It is time to call out Big Pharma and the paid out politicians’ on their ulterior motives. Big Pharma drug prices exemplify the culture of corruption in which special interests advance their interests at the expense of everyday Americans. Congress must enact a robust system of direct government drug price negotiation and price spike protections for people across America now.

  • Only clowns can’t read this, eh?

    Obviously you are a clown. I linked the infection data you cheat with unfounded base data.


    The vaccine terror mafia still claims vaccines do protect from an infection. Reality::


    Vaccines promote CoV-19 infections!


    You also do not account for the 55..60% natural immunity in UK. So you have to divide all your linked figures by about 2.5!! Then you get the basic vaccines protection.

    But it looks like cheating and clown is a synonym.

  • Big Pharma greed knows no bounds. Pharmaceutical corporations abuse their monopoly power to rip off Americans en mass. Whatever your political affiliation, background, or zip code, you are harmed by the outrageous prices set by the pharmaceutical companies.

    I agree with this. On the other hand, Big Pharma did a wonderful job with COVID vaccines. So, it is good in some ways and bad in others. Corporations often are like that. AT&T used to have a monopoly on telephone service. They charged a lot of money. After the monopoly was broken up, costs fell a lot and service improved. However, during the monopoly AT&T did provide highly reliable service to everyone in the U.S., even in low population places where they lost money stringing up poles and wires. They provided better service than the phone service in many other countries. It was expensive, but not ruinously expensive. So it wasn't all bad.


    U.S. healthcare overall is in a terrible state. It has all the disadvantages of both capitalism and communism. As I see it, one of the core problems is the most people do not do comparison shopping when they are sick, or their life is in danger. They pay whatever the hospitals charge. So healthcare is not amenable to the usual mechanisms of capitalism that keep costs in line. Another core problem may be that medical technology is improving rapidly so we end up paying first generation costs for all the gadgets. Before a gadget falls to commodity pricing levels, a new version is invented. People have 20-year-old computers and televisions at home, but no one wants a hospital to have 20-year-old equipment.