The authors reported a mortality rate of approximately 1% for the ivermectin group versus 9.66% in the non-ivermectin group
Oh ooops - just a slight difference. Pfizer offers a 15% mortality increase with crap gene therapy far more yield!
Country Recommends Vaccination for 50 and Over
Denmark : Government still payed by the mafia. Nobody needs a gene therapy for Omicron. Ivermectin in time is 10000x better.
The big pharma Gulag USA..
Actual latimes front >> https://www.latimes.com/
Fear mongering to sell a deadly gene tech cure...
It's all about Vitamin D!!!
Sensing of SARS-CoV-2 by pDCs and their subsequent production of IFN-I contribute to macrophage-induced cytokine storm during COVID-19
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.add4906
pDCs are at the eye of the storm
In severe COVID-19, macrophages induce cytokine storms, which can lead to poor patient outcomes. However, macrophages are not directly infected by SARS-CoV-2, so how this cytokine storm is induced remains unclear. Here, Laurent et al. used COVID-19 patient databases and cell culture to identify that the macrophage-induced cytokine storm was linked to IFN-I signaling in patient lungs. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) were the main producers of IFN-I, because they were directly infected with SARS-CoV-2, which triggered TLR7 activation. This IFN-I made macrophages more responsive to environmental stimuli, thus triggering the production of multiple cytokines. Thus, the authors present a mechanism whereby pDCs are infected by SARS-CoV-2, subsequently producing IFN-I, and stimulating a macrophage-mediated cytokine storm during SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Abstract
Lung-infiltrating macrophages create a marked inflammatory milieu in a subset of patients with COVID-19 by producing a cytokine storm, which correlates with increased lethality. However, these macrophages are largely not infected by SARS-CoV-2, so the mechanism underlying their activation in the lung is unclear. Type I interferons (IFN-I) contribute to protecting the host against SARS-CoV-2 but may also have some deleterious effect, and the source of IFN-I in the lungs of infected patients is not well defined. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), a key cell type involved in antiviral responses, can produce IFN-I in response to SARS-CoV-2. We observed the infiltration of pDCs in the lungs of SARS-CoV-2–infected patients, which correlated with strong IFN-I signaling in lung macrophages. In patients with severe COVID-19, lung macrophages expressed a robust inflammatory signature, which correlated with persistent IFN-I signaling at the single-cell level. Hence, we observed the uncoupling in the kinetics of the infiltration of pDCs in the lungs and the associated IFN-I signature, with the cytokine storm in macrophages. We observed that pDCs were the dominant IFN-α–producing cells in response to the virus in the blood, whereas macrophages produced IFN-α only when in physical contact with infected epithelial cells. We also showed that IFN-α produced by pDCs, after the sensing of SARS-CoV-2 by TLR7, mediated changes in macrophages at both transcriptional and epigenetic levels, which favored their hyperactivation by environmental stimuli. Together, these data indicate that the priming of macrophages can result from the response by pDCs to SARS-CoV-2, leading to macrophage activation in patients with severe COVID-19.
Vitamin D Controls Murine and Human Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Function
Topical application of the vitamin D (VitD) analog calcipotriol is a highly effective standard treatment modality of psoriatic skin lesions. However, the immune modulatory effects of the treatment are incompletely understood. VitD is well known to induce tolerogenic responses in conventional dendritic cells (cDCs). Plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) comprise a specialized, naturally occurring DC subset known to be important in autoimmune diseases including psoriasis. pDCs from the blood rapidly infiltrate psoriatic skin and are key to the initiation of the immune-mediated pathogenesis of the disease. We now demonstrate that pDCs express various proteins of the VitD receptor (VDR) pathway, including the VitD-metabolizing enzymes Cyp27B1 and Cyp24A1, and that VDR is transcriptionally active in pDCs. Moreover, VitD impairs the capacity of murine and human pDCs to induce T-cell proliferation and secretion of the T-helper 1 cytokine IFNγ. The inhibitory effect of VitD is dependent on the expression of the VDR in the DCs. This study demonstrates that VitD signaling can act as a natural inhibitory mechanism on both cDCs and pDCs, which may instigate the development of VitD-based therapeutic applications for psoriasis and other inflammatory skin diseases
BBC Collaborates with Facebook to Purge Vaccine-Injured Groups Online
Covered by DS too. Vile actions by 'impartial' BBC and their boasting about it is pure evil
Never forget: Facebook and Twitter have banned users for posting death certificate or coronor's report that says husband's cause of death was vaccne
John Cambell: Record excess deaths in Europe and Vaxxed World
Spain +37%, Greece +31%, Switzerland +26%
[Ask yourself "What one medical thing changed in 2021 ?"]
"I have to be very careful with what I say" - can't mention V word
Watch to end
Hydroxychloroquine blocks SARS-CoV-2 entry into the endocytic pathway in mammalian cell culture
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03841-8
Abstract
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug used to treat lupus and malaria, was proposed as a treatment for SARS-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, albeit with controversy. In vitro, HCQ effectively inhibits viral entry, but its use in the clinic has been hampered by conflicting results. A better understanding of HCQ’s mechanism of actions in vitro is needed. Recently, anesthetics were shown to disrupt ordered clusters of monosialotetrahexosylganglioside1 (GM1) lipid. These same lipid clusters recruit the SARS-CoV-2 surface receptor angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to endocytic lipids, away from phosphatidylinositol 4,5 bisphosphate (PIP2) clusters. Here we employed super-resolution imaging of cultured mammalian cells (VeroE6, A549, H1793, and HEK293T) to show HCQ directly perturbs clustering of ACE2 receptor with both endocytic lipids and PIP2 clusters. In elevated (high) cholesterol, HCQ moves ACE2 nanoscopic distances away from endocytic lipids. In cells with resting (low) cholesterol, ACE2 primarily associates with PIP2 clusters, and HCQ moves ACE2 away from PIP2 clusters—erythromycin has a similar effect. We conclude HCQ inhibits viral entry through two distinct mechanisms in high and low tissue cholesterol and does so prior to inhibiting cathepsin-L. HCQ clinical trials and animal studies will need to account for tissue cholesterol levels when evaluating dosing and efficacy.
This paper quoted by FM1 is interesting, and a great example of how science can be misread.
It shows strong evidence that HCQ is more effective against COVID-19 in cells in vitro with high cholesterol levels, and gives insight into how that efficacy works.
That is very helpful in evaluating when HCQ is more likely to work against COVID, or in increasing the efficacy of HCQ (by adding other drugs).
It says nothing about whether HCQ is actually effective in vivo!
How is it that these lab studies (not just sometimes - usually) - prove to be misleading?
For in vitro results to predict that a drug works you need:
(1) the drug can kill covid faster than covid reproduces
(2) the concentration needed to do that is safe
(3) the drug when administered gets to the right place - so that drug levels are high enough where they are needed.
(4) the in vitro culture correctly mimics what happens in the much more complex human body
All of 1,2,3,4 are needed for in Vitro studies to predict drug performance. 4 is particularly difficult, which is why in vivo studies are a starting point for further work but often do not predict drug performance well.
However, for in vivo studies to predict anything, you need to compare in vitro concentrations that kill the virus with in vivo safe levels.
Any study that does not at least mention whether the levels they use are tolerated by humans should be taken as meaning those levels are in fact not prcatical - or at least not known to be practical.
So this specific study - because it does not answer that key question - says nothing about whether HCQ might be expected to work in humans against COVID.
What actually works is always unknowable due to 4. Maybe in reality it works better, or worse, than expected.
The experience for anti-viral drugs is that it is very difficult to find new effective ones. I guess the human body is already pretty good at dealing with viruses.
Anyway - FM disagrees with me about what works because he reads and posts all these hopeful-sounding studies without checking whether hopeful-sounding is the same as evidence it works.
Since all scientists will hope their work might end up useful, and work that is interesting will get published regardless of is it useful, we get a lot of hopeful-sounding papers.
THH
Question, will the United States even consider this therapy? I say no! It works!!!
Nasal Therapy Already Authorized in Multiple Nations Targeting SARS-CoV-2 Secures $24m
TrialSite has pondered why little to no mainstream press has reported on the material news that a nasal spray used to treat COVID-19 has been authorized to use in places as distinct as Israel to Thailand and India. This media has pointed out in “Now Approved in India & Israel Bahrain Indonesia & Thailand: No Mention in Big Media” this glaring information suppression. Could it be that mass media in the West is somehow under a pharma spell? Well investors are coming out of the spell as the nasal therapy’s sponsor, SaNOtize based in British Columbia just raised a Series B round totaling $24 million for its Nitric Oxide-based therapeutics, including the nasal spray product for treatment of COVID-19.
The company was able to crowd fund considerable portions of the investment, along with major contribution by Horizons Ventures. They have used the OurCrowd funding platform.
Use of funds?
With $24 million in hand, the biotech will invest in a sizeable ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial to further prove the efficacy and safety of the nasal product targeting COVID-19. The product called “Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray” or NONS™ has been demonstrated to treat COVID-19 in high-risk adult patients with an ability to prevent infections when used right after a known exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The recent press release issued by the company acknowledges its authorized use around not only Europe and the Middle East but also Asia. We repeat why has there been so little media on this company and its product?
Anyone dare guess to speculate?
TrialSite sends Kudos to SaNOtize leadership for a job well done.
Display MoreThis paper quoted by FM1 is interesting, and a great example of how science can be misread.
It shows strong evidence that HCQ is more effective against COVID-19 in cells in vitro with high cholesterol levels, and gives insight into how that efficacy works.
That is very helpful in evaluating when HCQ is more likely to work against COVID, or in increasing the efficacy of HCQ (by adding other drugs).
It says nothing about whether HCQ is actually effective in vivo!
How is it that these lab studies (not just sometimes - usually) - prove to be misleading?
For in vitro results to predict that a drug works you need:
(1) the drug can kill covid faster than covid reproduces
(2) the concentration needed to do that is safe
(3) the drug when administered gets to the right place - so that drug levels are high enough where they are needed.
(4) the in vitro culture correctly mimics what happens in the much more complex human body
All of 1,2,3,4 are needed for in Vitro studies to predict drug performance. 4 is particularly difficult, which is why in vivo studies are a starting point for further work but often do not predict drug performance well.
However, for in vivo studies to predict anything, you need to compare in vitro concentrations that kill the virus with in vivo safe levels.
Any study that does not at least mention whether the levels they use are tolerated by humans should be taken as meaning those levels are in fact not prcatical - or at least not known to be practical.
So this specific study - because it does not answer that key question - says nothing about whether HCQ might be expected to work in humans against COVID.
What actually works is always unknowable due to 4. Maybe in reality it works better, or worse, than expected.
The experience for anti-viral drugs is that it is very difficult to find new effective ones. I guess the human body is already pretty good at dealing with viruses.
Anyway - FM disagrees with me about what works because he reads and posts all these hopeful-sounding studies without checking whether hopeful-sounding is the same as evidence it works.
Since all scientists will hope their work might end up useful, and work that is interesting will get published regardless of is it useful, we get a lot of hopeful-sounding papers.
THH
No I disagree with you because you are so uncertain. Everything is uncertain in the huxster world. I disagree with you because you fail to acknowledge that vitamin d is the key and I have provided the studies all pointing to this, but in your world it's all uncertain. I disagree with ignorant counter productive people like you.
John Cambell: Record excess deaths in Europe and Vaxxed World
Spain +37%, Greece +31%, Switzerland +26%
[Ask yourself "What one medical thing changed in 2021 ?"]
"I have to be very careful with what I say" - can't mention V word
John Campbell - retired Nurse Practitioner with a doctorate in Education - has proved himself a remarkably effective antivaxxer. I think he is actually taken in by this stuff. The problem is, once you go down that rabbit-hole, unless you have the analytic ability and independence to work things out for yourself, it grabs you.
Luckily everyone on this site has all that (though the antivaxxers here suspend it when talking about vaccination).
The key comment above which tells you this is AVD (Anti-Vaxxer-DoubleSpeak) is "What one medical thing changed in 2021 ?"
Of course if you are an antivaxxer your mind leaps to "the whole world got jabbed with poisonous experimental vaccines".
For any neutral person there are (I am here dealing with the UK, but there will be similar lists for other developed countries) very many medically significant things from 2021:
Again, neutral people would look at the detailed stats to try and work out which of these causes are relevant and which not. Just because they could be significant does not mean they are significant. And they would look at other evidence to determine does CPVID vaccination effect these things. That is pretty difficult to do well because vaccination rates vary with vulnerability - the "vulnerable or vaccinated" effect. If you can capture all the ways in which people can be more vulnerable (age most obvious) and do the right statistical analysis you can try to control for it but as we all know it is never perfect and so answering questions like this based on overall mortality figures are difficult.
Still, people (I've not see any detailed analysis from antivaxxers - they tend to ignore confounders) are doing this. Thus far it seems the main effect on UK overall mortality figures comes from increased suicides. That is not the end of the matter, and we will go on getting more info. No-one can rule out some unexpected "vaccine makes you ill" effect. However it is unlikely. Vaccines affect the immune system - which sounds scary when antivaxxers talk about it - and is potentially scary. But all those scary things apply to all vaccines, and they are all things the real scientists are on the lookout for. Thus far, the COVID vaccines seem much better than we expected (we never expected vaccines for diseases like Flu to be great) but also much less good than we would like.
Omicron is difficult - in that it evades both vaccines and prior immunity. Yes - you heard that right. Both vaccines and prior non-omicron infection have a potentially negative effect on some aspects of immune response to omicron. Which makes sense - prior infection and vaccination are pretty similar, and omicron has evolved to try and beat both.
Does that mean vaccination does no good now? No! And the low hospitalisation rates in the UK show that (though as always you need a good deal of number crunching to be sure). That is because there are many different aspects to the immune reposnse to COVID and a clever virus variant that can suppress or even take advantage of some will not beat the others.
So - on balance - are we better off with the vaccines? Certainly we have thus far been better off. As always how long that will remain true is not a simple picture. If the antivaxxers claim it is simple - they are not thinking critically and swallowing their own propaganda.
THH
No I disagree with you because you are so uncertain. Everything is uncertain in the huxster world. I disagree with you because you fail to acknowledge that vitamin d is the key and I have provided the studies all pointing to this, but in your world it's all uncertain. I disagree with ignorant counter productive people like you.
I am happy for you to challenge me about uncertainty.
There are some things pretty certain in physics, maths, even chemistry. Maybe you are not interested in that stuff?
Almost everything in medicine is uncertain because every living being is different and reacts differently to disease and medicine. Also those reactions are so very complex, 100s of metabolic pathways - different for people with different genetics - there is a lot we don't know.
I am sure you realise this - so why the concern about uncertainty?
There are things in medicine you can be 95% certain about. But completely new viruses do not fall into that category.
Nor does vitamin D given the very poor RCT evidence which show all that other evidence is not worth much. I understand - you want to be certain about it. It is your privilege to believe whatever you want and I have no wish nor right to tell you to alter your beliefs.
I suggest you be a bit more polite about mine.
THH
Genetic Risk Factors for ME/CFS Identified using Combinatorial Analysis
Abstract
Background Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating chronic disease that lacks known pathogenesis, distinctive diagnostic criteria, and effective treatment options. Understanding the genetic (and other) risk factors associated with the disease would begin to help to alleviate some of these issues for patients.
Methods We applied both GWAS and the PrecisionLife combinatorial analytics platform to analyze ME/CFS cohorts from UK Biobank, including the Pain Questionnaire cohort, in a case-control design with 1,000 cycles of fully random permutation. Results from this study were supported by a series of replication and cohort comparison experiments, including use of disjoint Verbal Interview CFS, post-viral fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia cohorts also derived from UK Biobank, and results compared for overlap and reproducibility.
Results Combinatorial analysis revealed 199 SNPs mapping to 14 genes, that were significantly associated with 91% of the cases in the ME/CFS population. These SNPs were found to stratify by shared cases into 15 clusters (communities) made up of 84 high-order combinations of between 3-5 SNPs. p-values for these communities range from 2.3 × 10−10 to 1.6 × 10−72. Many of the genes identified are linked to the key cellular mechanisms hypothesized to underpin ME/CFS, including vulnerabilities to stress and/or infection, mitochondrial dysfunction, sleep disturbance and autoimmune development. We identified 3 of the critical SNPs replicated in the post-viral fatigue syndrome cohort and 2 SNPs replicated in the fibromyalgia cohort. We also noted similarities with genes associated with multiple sclerosis and long COVID, which share some symptoms and potentially a viral infection trigger with ME/CFS.
Conclusions This study provides the first detailed genetic insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning ME/CFS and offers new approaches for better diagnosis and treatment of patients.
A prospective observational study of post-COVID-19 chronic fatigue syndrome following the first pandemic wave in Germany and biomarkers associated with symptom severity
Abstract
A subset of patients has long-lasting symptoms after mild to moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In a prospective observational cohort study, we analyze clinical and laboratory parameters in 42 post-COVID-19 syndrome patients (29 female/13 male, median age 36.5 years) with persistent moderate to severe fatigue and exertion intolerance six months following COVID-19. Further we evaluate an age- and sex-matched postinfectious non-COVID-19 myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome cohort comparatively. Most post-COVID-19 syndrome patients are moderately to severely impaired in daily live. 19 post-COVID-19 syndrome patients fulfill the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Disease severity and symptom burden is similar in post-COVID-19 syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and non-COVID-19/myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Hand grip strength is diminished in most patients compared to normal values in healthy. Association of hand grip strength with hemoglobin, interleukin 8 and C-reactive protein in post-COVID-19 syndrome/non-myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and with hemoglobin, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, bilirubin, and ferritin in post-COVID-19 syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome may indicate low level inflammation and hypoperfusion as potential pathomechanisms.
Involvement of the Vitamin D Receptor in Energy Metabolism Revealed by Profiling of Lysine Succinylome of White Adipose Tissue
Pre-infection 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels and association with severity of COVID-19 illness
Abstract
Objective
Studies have demonstrated a potential correlation between low vitamin D status and both an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and poorer clinical outcomes. This retrospective study examines if, and to what degree, a relationship exists between pre-infection serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level and disease severity and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2.
Participants
The records of individuals admitted between April 7th, 2020 and February 4th, 2021 to the Galilee Medical Center (GMC) in Nahariya, Israel, with positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) were searched for historical 25(OH)D levels measured 14 to 730 days prior to the positive PCR test.
Design
Patients admitted to GMC with COVID-19 were categorized according to disease severity and level of 25(OH)D. An association between pre-infection 25(OH)D levels, divided between four categories (deficient, insufficient, adequate, and high-normal), and COVID-19 severity was ascertained utilizing a multivariable regression analysis. To isolate the possible influence of the sinusoidal pattern of seasonal 25(OH)D changes throughout the year, a cosinor model was used.
Results
Of 1176 patients admitted, 253 had records of a 25(OH)D level prior to COVID-19 infection. A lower vitamin D status was more common in patients with the severe or critical disease (<20 ng/mL [87.4%]) than in individuals with mild or moderate disease (<20 ng/mL [34.3%] p < 0.001). Patients with vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/mL) were 14 times more likely to have severe or critical disease than patients with 25(OH)D ≥40 ng/mL (odds ratio [OR], 14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 51; p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D was associated with increased disease severity and mortality.
Display MoreI am happy for you to challenge me about uncertainty.
There are some things pretty certain in physics, maths, even chemistry. Maybe you are not interested in that stuff?
Almost everything in medicine is uncertain because every living being is different and reacts differently to disease and medicine. Also those reactions are so very complex, 100s of metabolic pathways - different for people with different genetics - there is a lot we don't know.
I am sure you realise this - so why the concern about uncertainty?
There are things in medicine you can be 95% certain about. But completely new viruses do not fall into that category.
Nor does vitamin D given the very poor RCT evidence which show all that other evidence is not worth much. I understand - you want to be certain about it. It is your privilege to believe whatever you want and I have no wish nor right to tell you to alter your beliefs.
I suggest you be a bit more polite about mine.
THH
It's your uncertainty to everything,that's the joke, including math chemistry physics. You think you see things that are not there or you are uncertain of any early treatment except of course Paxcrap and Merck poison. I'm usually a good judge of character and thought you were a smart guy. Guess the joke is on me. I was so wrong about you. Your uncertainty really make you a pathetic soul. I feel sorry for you.
Display MoreJohn Campbell - retired Nurse Practitioner with a doctorate in Education - has proved himself a remarkably effective antivaxxer. I think he is actually taken in by this stuff. The problem is, once you go down that rabbit-hole, unless you have the analytic ability and independence to work things out for yourself, it grabs you.
Luckily everyone on this site has all that (though the antivaxxers here suspend it when talking about vaccination).
The key comment above which tells you this is AVD (Anti-Vaxxer-DoubleSpeak) is "What one medical thing changed in 2021 ?"
Of course if you are an antivaxxer your mind leaps to "the whole world got jabbed with poisonous experimental vaccines".
For any neutral person there are (I am here dealing with the UK, but there will be similar lists for other developed countries) very many medically significant things from 2021:
- The major 2020 - winter 2021 lockdowns vastly reduced all chronic epidemic diseases - leading to a predicted resurgence after lockdown
- The same lockdown led to higher rates of mental illness than normal
- That same lockdown led to the population putting on weight by half a stone
- The COVID hospital issues, coupled with people's fear of visiting hospital because you might catch COVID (in the UK it was a very realistic fear early on in the lockdowns), meant that routine investigatory tests, appointments, etc essentially stopped
- That 12 month gap means that now the health service has stayed totally overwhelmed with additional demand for routine medical care - including cancer treatment
- The side-effects of whole-population COVID - a nasty disease - are working through
Again, neutral people would look at the detailed stats to try and work out which of these causes are relevant and which not. Just because they could be significant does not mean they are significant. And they would look at other evidence to determine does CPVID vaccination effect these things. That is pretty difficult to do well because vaccination rates vary with vulnerability - the "vulnerable or vaccinated" effect. If you can capture all the ways in which people can be more vulnerable (age most obvious) and do the right statistical analysis you can try to control for it but as we all know it is never perfect and so answering questions like this based on overall mortality figures are difficult.
Still, people (I've not see any detailed analysis from antivaxxers - they tend to ignore confounders) are doing this. Thus far it seems the main effect on UK overall mortality figures comes from increased suicides. That is not the end of the matter, and we will go on getting more info. No-one can rule out some unexpected "vaccine makes you ill" effect. However it is unlikely. Vaccines affect the immune system - which sounds scary when antivaxxers talk about it - and is potentially scary. But all those scary things apply to all vaccines, and they are all things the real scientists are on the lookout for. Thus far, the COVID vaccines seem much better than we expected (we never expected vaccines for diseases like Flu to be great) but also much less good than we would like.
Omicron is difficult - in that it evades both vaccines and prior immunity. Yes - you heard that right. Both vaccines and prior non-omicron infection have a potentially negative effect on some aspects of immune response to omicron. Which makes sense - prior infection and vaccination are pretty similar, and omicron has evolved to try and beat both.
Does that mean vaccination does no good now? No! And the low hospitalisation rates in the UK show that (though as always you need a good deal of number crunching to be sure). That is because there are many different aspects to the immune reposnse to COVID and a clever virus variant that can suppress or even take advantage of some will not beat the others.
So - on balance - are we better off with the vaccines? Certainly we have thus far been better off. As always how long that will remain true is not a simple picture. If the antivaxxers claim it is simple - they are not thinking critically and swallowing their own propaganda.
THH
Propoganda from the huxster the joker. More word salad.
John chambell has been an advocate for Covid vaccines. He has looked at the data and determined that certain vaccines affect people different some serious yet CDCS around the world ignore this with the exception of some Nordic states. Are they anti vax hux? Denmark sees no benifit to vaccinate anyone under 50, are they anti vax? Ill stick with my last post. You are a pathetic soul
John Campbell - retired Nurse Practitioner with a doctorate in Education - has proved himself a remarkably effective antivaxxer. I think he is actually taken in by this stuff. The problem is, once you go down that rabbit-hole, unless you have the analytic ability and independence to work things out for yourself, it grabs you.
I think your are completely misrepresenting the stance of John Campbell. If you care enough to watch his channel videos since the beginning of the pandemic, and since the beginning of the jab roll out, he was a staunch and enthusiastic advocate for these jabs, even if he always recommended a preventive approach based in Vit. D.
His staunch support, however, begun cracking around 5 months ago where he began to analyze the FOIA released documents about the Pfizer trials. He even backpedaled a few weeks later, But then The statistics and papers, as he always bases his analysis in those, began to see problems again, And then YouTube started censoring him.
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
Abstract
Introduction
In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.
Methods
Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest.
Results
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).
Discussion
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
Display MoreThere was a BBC program some months ago featuring a woman mathematician (I think statistician) interviewing various people who had decided to remain unvaccinated. She (representing the BBC) wanted to glean insights into the reasons these poor ignorant misguided souls haven't yet been vaccinated, and perhaps nudge them in the right direction. I haven't seen it in full, just little clips. Here's one :
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
THH would be proud of the interviewer.
I feel exactly the opposite.
"So you're saying your mother has bruises on her arms that she didn't have two days ago?
Yes.
And that you heard her and your father arguing upstairs the other night after your father had been drinking?
Yes.
Did you see your father hit your mother?
No.
Did your mother say how she got those bruises after you asked her?
No, she was visibly upset though.
But then, having not seen it happen and your mother not saying, how then can you be SURE it was your father who injured her?"
A few years ago I didn't even know what gaslighting was. Times have changed.
gaslighting is subterfuge. I have pointed out the many times the huxster uses it. He is a master of subterfuge, thru innuendo, character assignation and of course the newest hypothesis, " The HuXley uncertainty principle. Nothing but throwing shade!
Surges in Early Puberty Reported During COVID-19 Pandemic: Verified in Multiple Observational Studies
Why has the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated precocious puberty? The phenomenon, when a child’s body starts to change into that of an adult too soon, has been observed now in multiple studies. Generally, an uncommon condition, it typically manifests in one of every 5,000 to 10,000 children, afflicting girls ten times more common than boys. According to some reports, girls as young as five years old have developed breasts, while the menstruation process has commenced in girls as young as eight. Earlier this year, this unusual seemingly pandemic-led trend was covered by the Washington Post and The Fuller Project in a co-published report.
What follows is a brief TrialSite breakdown of the situation. Incidences of this condition have been reported in multiple countries across a few continents. Most of the research has been conducted in Italy.
What’s this condition?
Precocious puberty is a condition involving the development of puberty-related changes before the normal ages. Puberty typically commences around age 8 for girls and age 9 for boys. While genetic syndromes may be involved, other conditions from tumors impacting key parts of the body (e.g., ovaries or pituitary gland for example) to central nervous system issues. See the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), part of the National Institutes of Health.
What's been going on since the pandemic?
Doctors and other healthcare providers worldwide report an increase in precocious puberty diagnosis, from North America to Europe and Asia.
What studies have verified this trend?
In Turkey, researchers set up a retrospective, observational real-world study to compare various demographic, clinical anthropometric, and laboratory data of two patient cohorts in a pediatric endocrinology clinic probing for idiopathic central precocious puberty (CPP) during a year of the pandemic (April 2020-March 2021) and a three year period prior to the pandemic (April 2017-March 2020). They diagnosed 58 CPP patients during the pandemic in this study, reporting that the number of such cases more than doubled in the pandemic when compared to the three prior years.
In another retrospective study, Italian researchers studied 338 girls referred to a handful of endocrinology clinics in 2020 during the onset of the pandemic, comparing them to 140 referrals in the same time period in 2019. The study demonstrated a 122% increase in precocious puberty cases in 2020 as compared to 2019. The authors wrote, “The present findings corroborate the recently reported association between the complex lifestyle changes related to the lockdown and a higher incidence of CPP in Italian girls.”
Another Italian retrospective study looked into CPP from April 20 to April 2021 based on surveys to parents of girls diagnosed with CPP during the COVID-19 lockdown, matching healthy controls to the cohort under study. Published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics, the investigators confirmed the observation of more frequent incidence of CPP post-COVID-19 lockdown measures in Italy. Those kids with CPP demonstrated more incidence of sleep disruption and later bedtime than the healthy controls.
Investigators from Rome’s Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Department of Pediatrics earlier this year designed a retrospective, observational study of all children at the university’s hospital for suspected CPP during COVID-19 probing a study cohort against controls over the past three years like one of the other Italian studies. This unit reports in the journal Minerva Pediatrics that the data indicates “a progressive increase of newly diagnosed CPP, and a significantly accelerated rate of pubertal progression in children during COVID-19 outbreak.”
What’s the cause?
No one is certain. Physicians and scientists specializing in pediatric endocrinology at Italy’s USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia and University of Modena and Reggio speculated in a paper last year published in Frontiers in Pediatrics first considering life-style changes due to the pandemic (e.g. more screen time, change in sleep habits, etc.) but increasingly moved to other possible explanations such as “central nervous system mediators” as well as “an increase in catecholamines,” yet these possible hypotheses are “poorly studied and understood.” Other topics raised by this Italy-based team: more indoor time led to more exposure to various contaminants “working as endocrine disruptors.”
Others such as the authors of one of the Italian studies suggest investigating “the causality link between sleep disturbances and CPP.” The physician-scientist unit from Rome’s Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore hypothesized about the cause; could the explanation for the observations have to do with “the increase in weight and BMI during the lockdown and the psychological effects of the COVID-19 outbreak?”
Importantly, early puberty has been associated with behavioral health issues such as depression and substance abuse, as well as other antisocial behavior, reported Puja Changoiwala, writing for the Fuller Project.
How is early puberty treated?
Providers treat early puberty primarily with a hormone therapy called GnRH analogue therapy, which reportedly to work well. However, as reported by Ms. Changoiwala, many families avoid treatment due to “lack of awareness or stigmas that come with menstruation.”
Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor this trend. Any medical research topics that interest you? Reach out and make a research request to TrialSite. The best way to do this is create a group in TSN Groups—it’s easy to do. Start a community and make requests. We will assign a team to cover. See TSN Groups.
Vitamin D and growth hormone in children: a review of the current scientific knowledge
Abstract
Background
Human growth is a complex mechanism that depends on genetic, environmental, nutritional and hormonal factors. The main hormone involved in growth at each stage of development is growth hormone (GH) and its mediator, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). In contrast, vitamin D is involved in the processes of bone growth and mineralization through the regulation of calcium and phosphorus metabolism. Nevertheless, no scientific study has yet elucidated how they interact with one another, especially as a dysfunction in which one influences the other, even if numerous biochemical and clinical studies confirm the presence of a close relationship.
Main body
We reviewed and analyzed the clinical studies that have considered the relationship between vitamin D and the GH/IGF-1 axis in pediatric populations. We found two main areas of interest: the vitamin D deficiency status in patients affected by GH deficit (GHD) and the relationship between serum vitamin D metabolites and IGF-1. Although limited by some bias, from the analysis of the studies presented in the scientific literature, it is possible to hypothesize a greater frequency of hypovitaminosis D in the subjects affected by GHD, a reduced possibility of its correction with only substitution treatment with recombinant growth hormone (rGH) and an improvement of IGF-1 levels after supplementation treatment with vitamin D.
Conclusions
These results could be followed by preventive interventions aimed at reducing the vitamin D deficit in pediatric age. In addition, further research is needed to fully understand how vitamin D and growth are intertwined
The HuXley uncertainty principle
That was clever! I appreciate the capitalized X.
Those darned conjugate variables of replicability and seeming high certainty.
THH thinks he is rightly bowing before the altar of corporate mainstream sanctified truth.
When that changes, that will give him permission to change.
Heck when my wife gives me permission to change, I seize that opportunity - for my own safety. 
The key is vitamin D
Covid-19 in seniors linked to increased Alzheimer’s risk, study finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/09/15/covid-alzheimers-disease-case-western-reserve/
jad_2022_89-2_jad-89-2-jad220717_jad-89-jad220717.pdf
John Campbell - retired Nurse Practitioner with a doctorate in Education - has proved himself a remarkably effective antivaxxer.
Wrong again TH. Until about three months ago John Campbell was strongly pro the Covid jab
However, he's always kept an eye on emerging data, unlike most medics. As risk/benefit became more apparent he regularly increased youmgest age that should take jab
Even now he is not 100% against the jab
An Anti-vaxxer? No, you deceive. John Campbell reports - as honestly as allowed by YT - what data shows rather than a BBC fantasy world view
Edit to add:
Remainder of your post is word salad excuses
One topic studiously ignored is live Births falling by up to 30% across vaxxed countries. That can not be blamed on lockdowns, Covid etc
That same lockdown led to the population putting on weight by half a stone
You omitted the word 'some'. I didn't, nor did those on TW's and LR's sites as we called BS in Feb 2020 and said like Flu. Then ignored all the rules
Masks? Cry freedom "I'm Exempt"
God Bless The Queen
