Covid-19 News

Here's one paper, on the differences of protein content in the exosomes of those with no Covid infection, mild Covid infection condition and serious Covid infection condition. They found well over 100 proteins. Worth the read. From https://www.frontiersin.org/ar…89/fmolb.2021.632290/full

my italics.

Our data reports, for the first time, the presence of viral material in COVID-19 patients’ host exosomal cargo. This finding suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may use the endocytosis route to spread infection throughout the host. We did not identify viral proteins via the purification of exosomes; thus, we can conclude that viral particles were not purified together with exosomes, suggesting that the RNA material was originally present in the cargo.

What I am understanding from the above is this : They purified the exosomes. They did not find viral proteins, which they would expect to find in the plasma ; so they concluded that their purification of exosomes was indeed good, so they could conclude that the viral RNA they did find was not from the plasma but from within the purified exosomes.

Now to dig up another paper about exosomes after vaccination (rather than infection).

CORONAVIRUS

Diet-related diseases pose a major risk for Covid-19. But the U.S. overlooks them.

Other countries have been galvanized to confront diet issues. The U.S. has had no such wakeup call

Diet-related diseases pose a major risk for Covid-19. But the U.S. overlooks them.

The same week British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was admitted to intensive care for Covid-19, two studies came out identifying obesity as a significant risk factor for serious illness and death. It was April 2020, and doctors were scrambling to understand why coronavirus gave some people mild symptoms and left others so sick they were gasping for air.

After Johnson recovered, he became vocal about the role he believed his obesity had played in his brush with the virus: “When I went into ICU, when I was really ill ... I was way overweight,” he said.

That summer, Johnson, a conservative who in the past has colorfully railed against “the continuing creep of the nanny state,” launched a new governmentwide obesity strategy, complete with a ban on junk food advertising on TV before 9 p.m., new mandates to label calories in restaurants and a requirement that healthier products be stocked near checkout lines. The prime minister began jogging daily and urged the public to adopt healthier habits.

Other countries, too, have ramped up action as officials begin to recognize diet-related diseases such as obesity, hypertension and diabetes have made their citizens much more vulnerable during the pandemic. Some states in Mexico recently went as far as banning junk food sales to children — on top of the country’s existing taxes on sugary drinks and fast food. Chile was already deep in its own crackdown on unhealthy products, having imposed the first mandatory, national warning labels for foods with high levels of salt, sugar and fat along with a ban on marketing such foods to kids.

In Washington, there has been no such wake-up call about the link between diet-related diseases and the pandemic. There is no national strategy. There is no systemswide approach, even as researchers increasingly recognize that obesity is a disease that is driven not by lack of willpower, but a modern society and food system that’s almost perfectly designed to encourage the overeating of empty calories, along with more stress, less sleep and less daily exercise, setting millions on a path to poor health outcomes that is extremely difficult to break from.

“Nobody is doing anything about this. Nobody is saying this has to stop,” said Marion Nestle, a longtime New York University professor and author of numerous books about food policy. “And how do we stop it? With great difficulty and political will.”

“If you’re going to do anything about it, you have to take on the food industry, which no one wants to do,” she added.

There’s also a deep-seated belief in America that obesity and other diet-related diseases are the result of personal choices and anything the government does to meddle with our diets is an assault on American liberty. That narrative is increasingly being challenged by science. Research shows that once someone has obesity, there are almost no dietary or exercise interventions that are successful at reversing the disease over the long term and many people lack access to more aggressive treatments like drugs and bariatric surgery. Humans, it turns out, are largely hardwired to keep weight on once they gain it.

The problem is deeply entrenched and staggering in scale: More than 42 percent of American adults — about 100 million people — had obesity before the pandemic began, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly three-fourths of American adults are overweight or have obesity. Roughly one in five children now have obesity. The costs associated with this epidemic, along with diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and cancer, all related to diet, are among the greatest threats to the fiscal future of the United States, not to mention the health, well-being and productivity of millions of people.

Researchers have estimated that nearly two-thirds of Covid-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. were related to obesity, diabetes, hypertension and heart failure. One study found that patients with a body mass index of 45 or higher (severe obesity) were about a third more likely to be hospitalized and more than 60 percent more likely to die from the virus compared with individuals without the disease.

The pandemic and resulting lockdowns have also worsened obesity rates for both adults and children, according to early data. There are a number of theories about why, from less exercise and less sleep to poor nutrition, more snacking and a whole lot more stress.

“Globally, these issues are on fire. In the U.S., we’re like sucking our thumb.”

An industry consultant who spoke on the condition of anonymity

As the link between poor diets and the toll of Covid-19 became clear, some food industry leaders began bracing for a backlash, assuming that top government officials would be looking to take action in the aftermath of the pandemic, according to interviews with industry insiders. If former first lady Michelle Obama would take on childhood obesity without a pressing crisis like Covid-19, surely the government would again get serious about nutrition policy after hundreds of thousands of deaths. Food and beverage companies have been closely following whether marketing crackdowns, warning labels or other more aggressive measures could spread. So far, there isn’t much on the agenda in the U.S..

“Globally, these issues are on fire,” said one industry consultant, granted anonymity to speak candidly about a sensitive topic. “In the U.S., we’re like sucking our thumb.”

⧫⧫⧫

It was October 2020 when President Donald Trump announced he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for coronavirus. After spending three days in the hospital, Trump declared he was fine and headed back to the White House. After a cocktail of treatments, the president (who’s own BMI put him at greater risk for severe illness) exclaimed on Twitter: “I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”

Just a few days later, Boris Johnson gave a speech at the Conservative Party Conference alluding to his anti-obesity campaign by striking a personal chord: “I had a very common underlying condition: My friends, I was too fat.” The prime minister also mentioned he’d since lost 26 pounds. He went on to outline a vision for the future of Britain that included a healthier population, with more biking and walking.

Stateside, the U.S. government was still not raising the alarm about the link between rampant metabolic disease and greater risk. It was never part of White House messaging on the virus and the suite of policies needed to respond to the crisis — something that didn’t change when President Joe Biden took the reins, either.

“It’s not central to the discussion at all,” said Dan Glickman, who served as agriculture secretary during the Clinton administration and is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

"It’s a gigantic gap in the discussion about how health care relates to Covid and how it relates to the prevention of disease.”

Dan Glickman, former agriculture secretary during the Clinton administration

Glickman noted that the country’s leading voices on coronavirus, including Anthony Fauci, don’t focus on underlying conditions and what could be done about them long term. Instead, the focus is solely on vaccines, which have been proven to be safe and effective.

They hardly ever talk about prevention,” Glickman said. “It’s missing. It’s a gigantic gap in the discussion about how health care relates to Covid and how it relates to the prevention of disease

As the pandemic heads into its third year, the connection to diet-related diseases and the overall vulnerability of the American population is a theme that remains absent at the highest levels of government. The only high-level Biden administration official who routinely talks about the issue is Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack — and he brings it up often.

Vilsack, who’s serving in the role for a second time after eight years during the Obama administration, likes to point out in his speeches, for example, that the government now spends more treating diabetes than the entire budget of the USDA, which is about $150 billion.

In an interview with POLITICO, Vilsack noted that more than half of the $380 billion per year spent treating just cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes is now picked up by the government, including through programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Ironically, if you could eliminate those costs you would be able to afford a $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill [without pay-fors],” he said.

“It's a significant issue that requires elevation,” Vilsack said. “We're moving the dials that we can move at USDA. I think, however, it takes more than that. I think it takes multiple departments focused on this and multiple leaders saying this is an issue that requires some attention.”

⧫⧫⧫

Dealing with diet-related diseases hasn’t been top of mind in Congress, either. For example, there’s a bipartisan bill to require Medicare to cover medications and more types of specialists to help treat obesity. The legislation has been introduced repeatedly since 2013, the year the American Medical Association formally recognized obesity as a disease, but has not gotten much traction even as major Covid aid bills have moved through Congress.

Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School who is a key advocate for the bill, said the pandemic has sparked much more interest among lawmakers and staff, but it hasn’t yet translated into legislative action.

“If doctors don’t understand obesity, why would the general public? Why would policymakers?”

Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School

One of the biggest challenges, she said, is that most people still do not understand obesity is a complex disease, not something that can be blamed on or fixed by personal choices, and it often requires multidisciplinary treatment that many people do not have access to.

“We aren’t taught about obesity,” Stanford said, referring to a lack of education in medical schools. “If doctors don’t understand obesity, why would the general public? Why would policymakers?”

Last month, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the state of the country’s response to diet-related diseases, concluding that there are scattered efforts across the federal government, but there isn’t enough coordination, nor an overarching plan.

“Congress should consider identifying and directing a federal entity to lead development and implementation of a federal strategy for diet-related efforts aimed at reducing Americans’ risk of chronic health conditions,” the GAO recommended.

Jerold Mande, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a fellow at Tufts University, who served in high-level positions at FDA and USDA in the H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations, said the report should be a gut check. “We’re not serious,” he said. “You look at the GAO report, and you conclude we’re not serious.”

The GAO identified just six “regulatory” actions the government has taken to try to combat diet-related diseases, but those policies are “largely educational” Mande noted, citing the Nutrition Facts label, which he helped design and launch during the H.W. Bush administration.

The Biden administration is already working on some policies aimed at addressing diet-related diseases, but for the most part the actions are modest. For example: One item on the to-do list at USDA is simply putting back in place school nutrition standards that were enacted during the Obama administration but were relaxed under Trump and then further rolled back to make it easier on schools during the pandemic.

Top FDA officials said this month they are planning to update their nutrition strategy “very soon,” but many of the nutrition initiatives the agency set out to do several years ago have still not been completed. One example: The FDA has been working to update what foods can be labeled as “healthy” since 2018 and has yet to unveil a proposed rule, let alone finalize or enforce one. The agency this month released long-delayed voluntary sodium reduction goals for food-makers to try to nudge them to use less salt in their products over the next two years. The policy, which is voluntary, took the better part of a decade to develop amid some pushback from the food industry.

“One of the FDA’s highest priorities is reducing the burden of chronic disease through improved nutrition,” an FDA spokesperson said in an email. “As part of a whole-of-government approach, the FDA is committed to doing our part to reverse the trend of diet-related chronic diseases and advance health equity using the tools we have available to us.”

The spokesperson noted FDA is “actively working” on an updated nutrition plan. The agency also launched an educational campaign during the pandemic to help more consumers understand Nutrition Facts labels, which were updated during the Obama administration.

This month, the Biden administration enacted the biggest ever permanent increase in benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, something some officials have suggested will help improve diets, but there's a sharp disagreement on whether that’s the case. Conservatives have criticized the effort, less so for its cost — even though spending on the program has roughly doubled during the pandemic — but more because they argue it may lead to taxpayers footing the bill for more food that’s not healthy. (Research shows SNAP households tend to buy similar foods as non-SNAP households, though they do spend slightly more on sugar-sweetened beverages. Some conservatives and health advocates argue taxpayers shouldn’t be buying soda and other products that can contribute to poor health.)

“You’re pumping billions of dollars into a system that already provides unhealthy foods for low-income households and that’s extremely concerning,” said Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “I think it’s disingenuous to say this is our nutrition agenda.”

⧫⧫⧫

For its part, USDA is still mulling how best to use its policy levers to tackle diet-related diseases, within what’s politically possible. Some health advocates, for example, really want the department to use SNAP, which currently serves roughly 40 million people, to promote healthier eating, either by ramping up incentives to buy healthier food or by disincentivizing or even banning certain products like sugary drinks from being purchased with the benefits — something that’s been a third-rail issue for the food industry in the past. It’s also opposed by some of the most powerful elements of the anti-hunger advocacy community, which are closely aligned with Democrats on most policy issues.

When asked, Vilsack dodged on whether USDA would consider any disincentives or bans, saying he hadn’t yet discussed it yet with his staff

While there is no coordinated nutrition policy to tackle diet-related diseases in the U.S., even that approach would probably be far too narrow to make much of a dent, experts say. The problem is driven by so many factors, including poverty and systemic inequality, lack of access to healthy foods, lack of time to cook, overall stress levels, trauma, poor sleep, a lack of access to safe walking paths and parks, to name just a few.

“We can’t even just look at the food environment,” said Chin Jou, a historian at the University of Sydney, who last year criticized Boris Johnson’s campaign against obesity as misguided for not tackling root causes. “We have to look at the whole environment and the socioeconomic environment.”

There aren’t easy answers for any of this. No country has reduced their obesity rates. It’s a politically difficult issue to take on. Michelle Obama had to weather a steady stream of critics on Capitol Hill and beyond for her childhood obesity campaign

Johnson has been mercilessly mocked by the press for his efforts — including most recently for going for a run in a dress shirt and dress shoes — and the prime minister just last summer distanced himself from a call to impose a sugar and salt tax on foods in the U.K. as part of a broader government-commissioned food strategy.

“I’m not attracted to the idea of extra taxes on hard-working people,” Johnson said.

In Washington, Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) as well as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) are pushing for a White House conference on food, nutrition, hunger and health, just like one President Richard Nixon held 50 years ago, a convening that launched a lot of action, including the modern food stamp program. McGovern, who has long focused on tackling hunger, said he’s been talking to Cabinet members about the idea, including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Vilsack said in an interview he supports the idea.

The White House, however, isn’t quite sold, McGovern said. (The White House didn’t comment, but congressional staff said there are ongoing discussions about the idea.) Such a convening isn’t exactly on message, as the administration tries to muscle reconciliation and an infrastructure package through Congress, as well as push the ball forward on climate, while responding to a once-in-a-century pandemic that continues to stress the health care system. It’s also somewhat peculiar, politically, to raise the issue while Democrats control the White House, House and Senate, though narrowly so. It naturally raises the question: Well, why aren’t you tackling it?

The White House contends it is working on the issue

The Administration works daily to ensure there is a whole-of-government approach to our work on diet-related diseases, aligning work across multiple federal agencies, including HHS and USDA, among others,” a White House official said in an email. “We have already taken aggressive action to turn the tide against diet-related chronic disease, including the voluntary sodium guidelines for food manufacturers and increased SNAP benefits and will continue taking concrete and bold actions on this issue across government.”

The official also noted the reconciliation deal struck this week includes expanded access to free school meals for nearly 9 million children and an extension of a new program to give 30 million children SNAP-like grocery benefits to help replace meals missed at school in the summer.

Sam Kass, who served as White House chef and senior nutrition policy adviser during the Obama administration, lamented that much of the policy work done under Michelle Obama’s leadership was stalled during the Trump administration.

"We’re still facing a tidal wave — a tsunami — of health problems that our healthcare system will not be able to handle."

Sam Kass, former White House chef and nutrition policy advisor during the Obama administration

“The last four years and Covid has stopped that momentum,” he said. “It’s going to take a redoubling of our efforts and our resources and our leadership to get that back on track.”

Still, he said he’s “empathetic” about why leaders in Washington aren’t making this a focus right now.

“When the house is on fire, you’re not worried about the foundation,” he said. “You’re just trying to put the fire out. But we’ve got to get our arms around this. We’re still facing a tidal wave — a tsunami — of health problems that our healthcare system will not be able to handle. Covid has put that reality in stark relief.”

Quote from Fm1

“at a party convention made possible by donations from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Merck.” In the next year, in the heated fight over the Affordable Care Act, PhRMA kept price negotiation out of the deal, and in what the Intercept calls an exchange, “Democrats were promised $150 million in ads designed to boost public support for health reform.”

As said: > 90% of all Washington parliament people are FM/R/B members. As all these groups now are dominated by personal greed no more politics for the "poor" will happen. Basically 90% of all Americans now are slaves again.

Thanks to WWW you now are able to treat yourself in case of harmless infections like CoV-19....

Quote from THHuxleynew

Antivax never used to be just right-wing. I'm not sure why during COVID the two seem to go together. Anyway i don't claim that all TSN's posts are antivax - only about 75%.

I don't understand why the fact that ill / overweight people are more at risk from COVID is interesting.

I think some antivaxers have this rather unpleasant "I am fit and not old - only unhealthy or old people get COVID - the old will die anyway, the unhealthy probably deserve it and don't count" mentality. Reminiscent of Nazi adulation of fit Aryan youth. I notice it in some of W's posts here, though after we convinced him that age 60+ healthy were at risk from COVID he seems to have gone quiet.

The serious point is that the data here is as expected. Being severely overweight increases risk. As do other comorbidities. True for young and old alike. The point is that in both cases the increased risk seems relatively small - a factor of 2 or so. And perfectly healthy people are also at risk not muhc smaller than the population average. That makes sense because a lot of whether COVID hurts you is down to how strongly your immune system removed the infection balanced against how badly affected are you by the way COVID mucks up your immune system. Both have a lot of variability between people that does not correlate with general health.

Since most people get over COVID fine, most of those people who pride themselves on being healthy will see their personal fast recovery as proof that COVID only hurts the vulnerable. It is not true, and also a dangerous way to think.

Display More

Read my morning post, maybe the lightbulb over that PhD brain will light up. You just don't get it Thomas.

Quote from Wyttenbach

As said: > 90% of all Washington parliament people are FM/R/J/B members. As all these groups now are dominated by personal greed no more politics for the "poor" will happen. Basically 90% of all Americans now are slaves again.

Thanks to WWW you now are able to treat yourself in case of harmless infections like CoV-19....

You understand what lies beneath the problem others promoting vaccines don't have a clue.

Quote from Fm1

Researchers have estimated that nearly two-thirds of Covid-19 hospitalizations in the U.S. were related to obesity, diabetes, hypertension and heart failure.

That is well inline with > 2x lower death rates of other countries!

Quote from Fm1

Johnson has been mercilessly mocked by the press for his efforts — including most recently for going for a run in a dress shirt and dress shoes — and the prime minister just last summer distanced himself from a call to impose a sugar and salt tax on foods in the U.K. as part of a broader government-commissioned food strategy.

“I’m not attracted to the idea of extra taxes on hard-working people,” Johnson said.

He indirectly confirms that slaves can only buy junk food with the little money they make...

Quote from Wyttenbach

That is well inline with > 2x lower death rates of other countries!

He indirectly confirms that slaves can only buy junk food with the little money they make...

I like that you understand the reason I post articles, it seems to to go right over Huxley's head. if it doesn't concern vaccines he seems clueless!

Defense rests in federal ivermectin case

Defense rests in federal ivermectin case

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. by Peter Yim The defense rested

trialsitenews.com

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

by Peter Yim

The defense rested its case on Friday in Jin-Pyong Peter Yim v. National Institutes of Health. In its closing argument NIH stated:

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant summary judgment to the Government; find that the NIH has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA; and dismiss the complaint in all respects.”

NIH was defending itself against the accusation that it had violated FOIA by not responding to the request:

“All updates to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines that were endorsed by a vote of the Panel. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2021 To 01/28/2021)”

The update to the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines for that time period was for its recommendation on ivermectin. That update is available online. In that update the Guidelines states that there is “insufficient evidence” on ivervmectin for use in COVID-19.

The intent of the request was only to find out if a vote of the Guidelines Panel was held to endorse that recommendation. A non-vote by the Guidelines Panel on its ivermectin recommendation would constitute a deception and a betrayal of the nation.

According to NIH, there was a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by not responding to the request in a timely manner. However, according to NIH, it has since responded to the FOIA request and the matter is resolved. NIH acknowledged that the plaintiff did not consider the matter settled but is dismissive:

“Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the information contained in the responsive material does not establish a FOIA violation”

A federal judge will now issue a summary judgement ruling on whether to dismiss the case. There are numerous obvious reasons he should not do so. In a nutshell, the case against NIH is as follows: NIH provided two FOIA response letters and neither was responsive to the FOIA request.

The first FOIA response letter stated:

“All approved updates to the guidelines are posted online and can be found at

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/. The documents posted on this website respond to your request in full.”

The court found that that FOIA response letter did cause the case to be mooted. The court did not provide an explanation but presumably, it was because of the vague, cryptic language. The update is a pdf document and could have been provided as such.

The second FOIA response letter was the same as the first FOIA response letter except for the addition of the following text:

“Please be advised that https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/archive/statement-on-ivermectin-01–14–2021.pdf, is a valid NIH link that directs you to the document responsive to your FOIA request date range from 1/01/2021 to 0/28/2021 (#55822). As you will recall, on or about May 5, 2021, the NIH supplied you with the link to the archive tab and with specific directions regarding how to find the exact document you requested. It appears you were able to locate the publicly available document with those directions.”

The court may consider the second FOIA response letter unresponsive since, like the first FOIA response letter, its language is vague and cryptic. More importantly, FOIA gives the requester a say in the “form and format” of the response which the plaintiff did not accept.

The NIH central argument was summed up by an attorney representing NIH in a conference call:

“… all the information he’s asking for is publicly available ….. It’s a little perplexing to us …. because he does have access to it …“

The actions of NIH, through their court filings and communications, told a different story. Those filings and communications showed the mentality of NIH more accurately; that of full consciousness of guilt. The most significant of these was an email sent on August 27 which contained the statement:

“Please be advised that the link you supplied, to wit https://files.covid19treatment…ivermectin-01-14-2021.pdf, is a valid NIH link that directs you to the document responsive to your FOIA request (#55822). As you will recall, on or about May 5, 2021, the NIH supplied you with the link to the archive tab and with specific directions regarding how to find the exact document you requested. It appears you were able to locate the publicly available document with those directions.”

When asked to provide the same statement in a formal signed FOIA response letter, the NIH provided this modified statement instead:

“Please be advised that https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/archive/statement-on-ivermectin-01–14–2021.pdf, is a valid NIH link that directs you to the document responsive to your FOIA request date range from 1/01/2021 to 0/28/2021 (#55822). As you will recall, on or about May 5, 2021, the NIH supplied you with the link to the archive tab and with specific directions regarding how to find the exact document you requested. It appears you were able to locate the publicly available document with those directions.”

In another incident, NIH filed the above-mentioned August 27 email with the court as evidence. In the original email, the included URL links to the Guidelines update on ivermectin. In the document filed with the court, the link was altered to the following:

https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/archive/statement‐on‐ivermectin‐01‐14‐2021.pdf

The URL contains a different type of hyphen from the URL in the original email rendering the link non-functional. The alteration is fraud and it is in full display in the court records.

Common sense says that NIH is guilty as sin. It has violated FOIA. More importantly, it has committed an atrocity by deceiving the nation on a viable treatment option for COVID-19. The court must find for the plaintiff and for the nation.

(The author is the plaintiff in Jin-Pyong Peter Yim v. National Institutes of Health.

Biography: Peter J. Yim, PhD is a computer scientist and educator. He held a fellowship in the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health and was on the faculty of the Dept. of Radiology at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He is the founder of Virtual Scalpel, Inc. a technology startup. He is also a certified public high school physics teacher.

Take this with a grain of salt. Survivors of SARS are still immune to SARS cov2 18years later.

COVID’s endgame: Scientists have a clue about where SARS-CoV-2 is headed

Pandemic predictions have been made — and then things would change. But based on models and studies (including a 1980s test that squirted virus up human noses), researchers have a new endgame thesis.

COVID’s endgame: Scientists have a clue about where SARS-CoV-2 is headed

Pandemic predictions have been made — and then things would change. But based on models and studies (including a 1980s test that squirted virus up human…

www.wbez.org

Back in the 1980s, scientists in the U.K. performed an experiment that — at first glance — sounds unethical. “Volunteers came into the lab, and someone squirted virus up their nose,” says computational biologist Jennie Lavine.

The researchers took a liquid packed with coronavirus particles and intentionally tried to make 15 volunteers sick.

Ten people got infected. The other five fought off the virus, says Lavine, who’s now at the biotechnology company Karius but was at Emory University when she spoke to NPR.

Then the researchers waited a year and repeated the experiment. They wondered: Did getting sick from the coronavirus the first time protect people from the second exposure a year later? Or could people get reinfected a year later?

Now, this coronavirus injected up the volunteers’ noses wasn’t SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19, Lavine is quick to point out. “No. No. Nobody got very sick. I think they measured disease severity by how many tissue boxes a person used. The experiment was performed with all of the proper ethical considerations.”

The researchers were studying another coronavirus, called 229E, that causes only a mild cold in humans. But the results of that experiment offer some intriguing insights into the possible endgame of the COVID-19 pandemic. After this delta-variant surge wanes this winter, as scientists forecast, what’s next? Will the virus come back next year? And the year after that?

Why there was early hope of eradicating SARS-CoV-2

When COVID-19 erupted worldwide, there was some hope we could put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak. That is, the world could completely wipe out the virus from the human population as it did for the first SARS coronavirus back in 2003.

But as the current virus spread rapidly from continent to continent and cases exploded in every nook and cranny, the hope shifted to local eradication. Perhaps some regions could reach herd immunity via exposure and vaccinations and thus push out the virus from their communities and keep it out with travel restrictions and immunization requirements.

“It’s like, OK, if we’re not going to be able to fully eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from the world,” Lavine says, “then maybe we would achieve local eradication, like we do for measles or polio.”

For that to be possible, the virus must be stable, says virologist Paul Bieniasz, of Rockefeller University. Its genetic sequence can’t mutate or change over time; that way, the vaccine’s protection can last for a long time. “If you have a measles infection or a course of the vaccine, you have essentially lifelong protection,” he says, because that virus doesn’t evolve much.

But not all viruses are like that. For instance, influenza viruses mutate really rapidly, and those mutations can decrease a vaccine’s effectiveness. That’s one reason you can get reinfected with the flu over and over again — “and why we have to update vaccines every year,” says molecular biologist Kathryn Kistler, of the University of Washington, in Seattle. “The virus is evolving so much that our immune system no longer recognizes it.”

So whether communities can locally eradicate SARS-CoV-2 depends largely on how fast its genetic sequence is changing. At the beginning of the pandemic, the virus seemed to look more like the measles than the flu. The general belief among the scientific community was that the SARS-CoV-2 virus wouldn’t change much over time.

Six months into the pandemic, the virus seemed to be following the predicted course. “To date, there have been very few mutations observed,” molecular biologist Peter Thielen at Johns Hopkins University told NPR in June 2020 for a story with the headline: “This Coronavirus Doesn’t Change Quickly, And That’s Good News For Vaccine Makers.”

Then in December 2020, right around the holidays, SARS-CoV-2 shifted course, drastically.

Scientists in South Africa announced that they had detected a mutant version of the virus that seemed capable of reinfecting people — that is, avoiding the immune response created by a previous infection. A few weeks later, scientists in the U.K. identified a rapidly spreading mutant that looked to be about 50% more transmissible than the original versions of the virus. A few weeks later, another mutant cropped up in Brazil, causing a massive second surge then.

An unexpected change in the course of SARS-CoV-2

So all of a sudden, it looked like SARS-CoV-2 not only was mutating but was doing so quite rapidly. Last month, Kistler and her colleagues at the University of Washington published a new metric to measure how quickly SARS-CoV-2 is evolving as it adapts to living inside humans. When Kistler first saw the value, she was shocked. “SARS-CoV-2’s rate of adaptation is remarkably high right now,” she says, “like roughly four times higher for SARS-CoV-2 than it is for seasonal flu.”

Remember, the flu changes so fast that people can be vulnerable to it each year.

“I don’t think SARS-CoV-2 will stop adapting,” Kistler says. “It may slow down, but viruses that evolve adaptively tend to keep doing that. They don’t tend to hit the limit of evolution.”

This fast evolution has immense implications, many scientists say. It essentially dashes the hopes of eradicating SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S. or even in smaller communities. As with the flu, the coronavirus will likely be able to reinfect people over and over again. It will keep returning year after year.

“Eventually everyone will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2,” says Dr. Abraar Karan, who’s an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University. “It’s a matter of whether you’re exposed when you’re fully vaccinated or when you’re not vaccinated.”

On the surface, these findings sound like horrible news. It sounds like the COVID-19 pandemic — along with the masks, physical distancing and quarantining — will never go away.

But Karan doesn’t believe that will be the case. Although he predicts that SARS-CoV-2 will circulate in the U.S. indefinitely, he says that COVID-19, the dreadful disease, as we now know it, will likely go away.

“When you’re fully vaccinated [or been exposed several times], you’re dealing with a very, very different disease and a very different process,” Karan says. In fact, you’re likely dealing with a disease that many of us have already had, perhaps dozens of times, in our lifetimes.

You’ve caught coronaviruses many, many times

This might come as a surprise, but the U.S. has dealt with many — and massive — coronavirus outbreaks before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Besides SARS-CoV-2, there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation: NL63, 229E, OC43 and HKU1. The first two have likely been infecting people for centuries, and the latter two for decades, perhaps longer. They’re related to SARS-CoV-2 but are not the same.

Each year, one or more of these other coronaviruses sweeps through the U.S. — in schools, day care centers, churches and offices — and makes people sick. Many, many people. These coronaviruses are so common that by the time a child starts kindergarten, the youngster has likely been infected with all four of them.

Virologist Rachel Eguia of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and her colleagues have been studying one of these coronaviruses.

“So we’ve been studying strains of a coronavirus from 1984, 1992, 2001, 2008 and 2016,” says Eguia. She wanted to see if people could get reinfected every eight years or so.

Here’s the sneaky thing about these coronaviruses: Just because you caught one of them last year doesn’t mean you’re protected from that same coronavirus infection the next year.

Remember that British experiment described at the beginning of this piece, in which volunteers had virus particles injected up their noses, not just once but twice? In that study, the researchers also measured people’s antibodies in their blood before the second exposure to the virus. They found that having antibodies against that specific virus didn’t necessarily protect people from being infected a second time — but there was a benefit nonetheless. Having higher antibody levels prevented people from developing symptoms altogether and shortened the time they spread the virus.

“Several studies suggest that every few years you’re probably able to get reinfected with these coronaviruses,” Eguia says. A study, published last year in Nature Medicine, found that immunity to these seasonal coronaviruses lasts less than 12 months. Throughout a person’s lifetime, they’ve likely caught them several dozen times.

Yet nobody notices them. We catch these coronaviruses, and “normal” life goes on. Schools and churches stay open. People gather inside bars and clubs. House parties continue. Why? Because these coronaviruses typically cause only colds. They give you the sniffles, a cough, some sneezing, congestion, maybe a low-grade fever. The illness is generally milder than the flu and resolves on its own in a week or so.

Together, these coronaviruses cause about 10% to 30% of all colds in adults, studies have found. So in many ways, these coronaviruses are part of modern life. We simply coexist with them, without much fanfare.

Could the same be true for SARS-CoV-2?

Could SARS-CoV-2 become a common cold?

Some scientists are starting to think that eventually COVID-19 could turn into a disease that looks more similar to those from these other coronaviruses — in other words, a mild flu-like illness.

“That’s what our computer models predict,” says Lavine, the computational biologist at Karius. For the past year and half, she and her colleagues have combined what’s known about the four other seasonal coronaviruses to try to forecast what SARS-CoV-2 will do two, five and even 10 years from now. They published their findings in the journal Science this past February.

For the new virus to turn into a mild cold, she says, two conditions need to be met. First, immune protection against severe disease has to persist. “Being infected a few times or having a few doses of the vaccine needs to provide really long-lasting immunity against severe disease,” she says. It doesn’t have to prevent transmission or a mild disease. But it has to keep you from being hospitalized.

With the vaccine, so far immunity looks like it’s holding up for at least six months or so for healthy adults, says Rustom Antia, a colleague of Lavine’s at Emory. But right now it’s unclear how long that critical immunity will last for people more at risk for severe disease.

“We don’t know how it will hold up for older individuals, above 60 or so. We don’t know how many doses of the vaccine will be needed to build up our immunity so that when we do get infected naturally, it’s not severe.”

But if the vaccine — and/or natural exposure — does provide long-lasting immunity for everyone, then over time the vast majority of the population will eventually be protected against severe COVID-19. That would leave only one population unexposed and vulnerable: brand-new people — newborns.

And that brings us to the second condition required for SARS-CoV-2 to become a seasonal cold: The virus has to continue to be relatively mild in kids.

Although children and babies can, in rare cases, experience dangerous complications, in general COVID-19 poses low risk to young children. Although the reason for this lower risk is unknown, one study, published in August, showed children’s immune cells in their noses can more quickly detect SARS-Cov-2 than the corresponding cells in adults — and take action to ward it off. The data suggest that “immune cells of the upper airways (nose) of children are pre-activated and primed for virus sensing,” the authors wrote.

As long as SARS-CoV-2 continues to be a low risk in children — that is, as long as a new variant that’s dangerous to kids doesn’t emerge — then they can get infected early on when they’re young, build up their immunity to the virus and have protection from severe disease as adults. So in theory, everyone around the world would eventually be protected from the horrible disease that COVID-19 can become.

Now, the buildup of this immunity across a whole population can take time — perhaps years. That’s why, Antia says, it’s so important for people to get vaccinated, because the faster everyone is protected against severe disease, the faster COVID-19 could transform from a disease that causes great fear to a disease that fades into the background of our lives.

Of course, as with all predictions about viruses, this one could be completely wrong. Over the past year and a half, SARS-CoV-2 has surprised even the smartest — and most skeptical — scientists. But the more that researchers learn about our immune response to SARS-CoV-2, says Bieniasz, the Rockefeller University virologist, the more optimistic he becomes that this endgame scenario (or a variation of it) will come true. “Based on what we’re finding, it does look like the immune system is eventually going to have the edge over this virus

Israel:: Age 60+ boosters only show a sub optimal effect of at best 80% for death protection. But the numbers are small (grouping very coarse) as cases go down in general without an increasing vaccination rate! So it looks like widespread natural immunity is high enough now.

Booster:: "double vaxx" over all is currently 2:1 but 8:7 for age 60+.

קורונה - לוח בקרה

Switzerland now is on the UK track with strongly raising infection numbers among the more vaccinated groups. But deaths remain stable at 5-6/day. This is > 3x lower than more obese, less V-D UK!

Finally, here is the other paper I had in mind, unfortunately only the abstract. The abstract indicates no concern that spike protein anchored in the exosome is circulating in the body for four months! (Perhaps such concern is expressed in another part of the paper?) In the abstract the author's point is that the continuing presence of your circulating exosomes with spike protein sticking out appears to be important for continued antibody presence! My italics. (For some reason Bold doesn't work...)

Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes severe acute respiratory syndrome. mRNA vaccines directed at the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein resulted in development of Abs and protective immunity. To determine the mechanism, we analyzed the kinetics of induction of circulating exosomes with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and Ab following vaccination of healthy individuals. Results demonstrated induction of circulating exosomes expressing spike protein on day 14 after vaccination followed by Abs 14 d after the second dose. Exosomes with spike protein, Abs to SARS-CoV-2 spike, and T cells secreting IFN-γ and TNF-α increased following the booster dose. Transmission electron microscopy of exosomes also demonstrated spike protein Ags on their surface. Exosomes with spike protein and Abs decreased in parallel after four months. These results demonstrate an important role of circulating exosomes with spike protein for effective immunization following mRNA-based vaccination. This is further documented by induction of humoral and cellular immune responses in mice immunized with exosomes carrying spike protein.

Novavax on the Move: First EUA with Indonesia & Completed Regulatory Submissions to the UK and European Medicines Agency

Novavax on the Move: First EUA with Indonesia & Completed Regulatory Submissions to the UK and European Medicines Agency

Now on a possible streak, Novavax (Nasdaq: NVAX) has announced a number of filings for emergency use authorization or approval around the world. Last

trialsitenews.com

Now on a possible streak, Novavax (Nasdaq: NVAX) has announced a number of filings for emergency use authorization or approval around the world. Last week, Novavax completed its rolling regulatory submission to the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Also, last week the Gaithersburg, Maryland biotechnology company announced the completion of its rolling submission to Australia’s regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for provisional approval of the vaccine. Today, the company completed its rolling submission to Health Canada for authorization of the vaccine. They also completed the submission of all data and modules with the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Last month, Novavax applied to the World Health Organization (WHO) for emergency use approval. Finally, today Novavax also announced with their partner Serum Institute of India (SII), the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by volume, that the National Agency of Drug and Food Control of the Republic of Indonesia has granted emergency use authorization for the Novavax recombinant nanoparticle protein-based COVID-19 vaccine with Matrix-M™ adjuvant. The product will be produced by SII in India and marketed by SII under the brand name COVOVAX.™

Importantly Indonesia, with nearly 280 million people represents the fourth most populous country worldwide.

Earlier in October, the company announced the full results from the PREVENT-19 pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial, posting the results to the medRxiv preprint server. The study achieved its targeted primary endpoint in which the vaccine demonstrated 100% protection against moderate and severe disease and 90.4% efficacy overall, which was comparable to both mRNA-based vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech).

This randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted in nearly 30,000 adults in the United States and Mexico involved participants 18 years of age and older randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive two 5ug doses of NVX-CoV2373 with 50ug Matrix-MTM adjuvant, or placebo, 21 days apart.

Trial sites were selected to ensure a balanced racial and ethnic diversity participant profile as well as ensuring the participation of high-risk participants. The trial also included a blinded crossover, where those originally randomized to the placebo received the active vaccine and vice versa, ensuring all participants received NVX-CoV2373 without compromising the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-required safety follow-up.

The company submitted the study results manuscript for peer-review. With compelling results in clinical trials and potential embrace by the WHO, could this particular vaccine shake up the market for COVID-19 vaccines?

Novavax received $1.6 billion from the U.S. federal government as part of Operation Warp Speed. Moreover, they secured an investment of up to $388 million from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and $60 million from the Department of Defense.

Over the summer TrialSite suggested Novavax could bring competition to the mRNA-based vaccines. The company has experienced challenges with scaling up manufacturing.

About the Vaccine

NVX-CoV2373 is being evaluated in two pivotal Phase 3 trials: the PREVENT-19 trial in the U.S. and Mexico that showed 100% protection against moderate and severe disease and 90.4% efficacy overall. It was generally well-tolerated and elicited a robust antibody response. It is also being evaluated in a trial in the U.K. that demonstrated efficacy of 96.4% against the original virus strain, 86.3% against the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant, and 89.7% efficacy overall.

NVX-CoV2373, the Novavax Covid-19 vaccine, is a protein-based vaccine candidate engineered from the genetic sequence of the first strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’s recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike (S) protein. It is formulated with Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M™ adjuvant to enhance the immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies. NVX-CoV2373 contains purified protein antigen and can neither replicate nor can it cause COVID-19.

Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine is packaged as a ready-to-use liquid formulation in a vial containing ten doses. The vaccination regimen calls for two 0.5 ml doses (5 microgram antigen and 50 microgram Matrix-M adjuvant) given intramuscularly 21 days apart. The vaccine is stored at 2°- 8° Celsius, enabling the use of existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels.

About Matrix-M™ Adjuvant

Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M™ adjuvant has demonstrated a potent and well-tolerated effect by stimulating the entry of antigen-presenting cells into the injection site and enhancing antigen presentation in local lymph nodes, boosting immune response.

Currently priced at 148.83, the 52 week high/low ranges from 76.59 to 331.68

Novavax and Serum Institute of India Receive Emergency Use Authorization for COVID-19 Vaccine in Indonesia

Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq: NVAX), a biotechnology company dedicated to developing and commercializing next-generation vaccines for serious infectious diseases, and…

ir.novavax.com

Quote from Fm1

COVID’s endgame: Scientists have a clue about where SARS-CoV-2 is headed

Pandemic predictions have been made — and then things would change. But based on models and studies (including a 1980s test that squirted virus up human noses), researchers have a new endgame thesis.

A bit odd that the article doesn't mention that today there is one (or two?) study where volunteers have Sars Cov-2 virus solution squirted up their nose. One of the things they are trying to discern is how much virus is required for infection.

Wanted: Volunteers to be infected with the coronavirus

Researchers are hoping so-called ‘challenge trials’ will offer solutions to the pandemic.

www.politico.eu

Want to volunteer?

1Day Sooner

We advocate for people who want to participate in high-risk, high-reward medical studies. Are you part of a vaccine trial? Join us to make a difference.…

www.1daysooner.org

Quote from Fm1

Now, the buildup of this immunity across a whole population can take time — perhaps years. That’s why, Antia says, it’s so important for people to get vaccinated, because the faster everyone is protected against severe disease, the faster COVID-19 could transform from a disease that causes great fear to a disease that fades into the background of our lives.

This is outrageous nonsense as we know the gene therapy AKA vaccine gives no real protection - just a short time benefit for vulnerable. Currently there is no way around than getting an infection to protect yourself for a longer period. Of course for vulnerable is a hard choice to undergo a high risk gene therapy. Much better would be to widespread distribute the Ziverdo kit.

We know that Ivermectin works perfectly as it blocks the virus replication in the cell and gives the immune system ample time to analyze the fragments. This leads to a full pattern immune response!

Why do you believe that none of the India states had a new surge since 5 months now???

Quote from Mark U

Transmission electron microscopy of exosomes also demonstrated spike protein Ags on their surface. Exosomes with spike protein and Abs decreased in parallel after four months.

This is a severe problem. Your body is continuously shedding spike highly damaging spike proteins for 4 months at least!! This explains the severe immune damage that now evolves in UK.

Quote from Fm1

NVX-CoV2373 is being evaluated in two pivotal Phase 3 trials: the PREVENT-19 trial in the U.S. and Mexico that showed 100% protection against moderate and severe disease and 90.4% efficacy overall.

Finally some good news about the first "real" vaccine!! So it is already far superior to Pfizer/Oxford ASTRA crap.

Lets wait for some 6,9,12 months data. But in this case I do not expect much change in protection as the immunity directly comes from the proper path not by random cell infections.

But it is still "gene therapy" single vector based see output from pharma vigelance - WHO::

COVID-19: State of the Vaccination

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons.

Nice try, but the comparison should have been between those 324 fully vaccinated with COVID and 89, unvaccinated. They keep comparing the 6328 with the 1020, which doesn't make sense and the headline is misleading, because they base their results on COVID like illness (?), not the actual COVID positive patients.

You wrote: "because they base their results on COVID like illness (?), not the actual COVID positive patients." Incorrect. It says "laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection." It does not say "COVID like illness." I cannot imagine where you got that from, but no one would publish a study about "COVID like illness." All reported cases of COVID are based on antibody tests to confirm it is COVID.

Quote from Mark U

Want to volunteer?

I would, if they asked me. I am probably too old.

Quote from Mark U

The abstract indicates no concern that spike protein anchored in the exosome is circulating in the body for four months! (

There is no concern. Because that never happens. The spike proteins are dissolved in a week at most. All alien proteins are. That's what the immune system does. Furthermore, the common cold and other viral diseases produce a million times more spike proteins than the mRNA vaccination does, so if the spike proteins remained circulating in the body, this problem would be a million times worse with these common diseases. It would be roughly a billion times worse with Delta COVID.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is a severe problem. Your body is continuously shedding spike highly damaging spike proteins for 4 months at least!!

This is nonsense. As I said, spike proteins last only a week at most, and there are between a million and billion times more of them from COVID, the common cold and other diseases, so if this were a problem it would be far worse with these diseases.

Quote from Wyttenbach

But it is still "gene therapy" single vector based see output from pharma vigelance

None of this is gene therapy. Genes are never affected. I and others have pointed this out many times, but Wyttenbach is impervious to facts. It is a disservice to this forum that he keeps repeating these lies. People new to the forum might believe him, which might cause harm. It is tedious for me and others to post a correction every time he lies. Frankly, I think it is time to ban him altogether.

I am fed up with him, and I am also fed up with doctors who spread similar lies. They have the right to free speech, but no doctor has the right to spread dangerous lies about medicine. Imagine if a doctor said, "to cure a stomach ache, eat rat poison." His license would be instantly revoked. He might even face criminal charges. Saying "vaccines don't work" or "you don't need a mask" is more dangerous than saying you should eat rat poison, because more people are inclined to follow that advice and kill themselves.

To take another example, imagine that a fire department chief were to say: "Smoke detectors are useless. They don't work. They are dangerous radioactive devices. I don't have one in my house, and neither should you." He would be fired that day. Free speech does not allow a professional to go around killing people with lies. You can only lie about such things with impunity as a private individual with no professional obligations or license. You can, but it is a vile act, and it should not be allowed here, in this forum, or Facebook, YouTube or anyplace else on the internet that claims to abide by minimal moral standards. Facebook and YouTube do not allow pornography, threats, snuff films, and various other things society deems immoral. They should certainly not allow dangerous lies and misinformation that is killing 1,000 to 2,000 people a day.