Are Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Deficiency and Insufficiency Risk Factors for the Incidence of Dynapenia?

Are Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Deficiency and Insufficiency Risk Factors for the Incidence of Dynapenia? - Calcified Tissue International

Epidemiological evidence showing the association between low 25(OH)D and age-related reduction in neuromuscular strength (dynapenia) is a paucity and…

link.springer.com

Abstract

Epidemiological evidence showing the association between low 25(OH)D and age-related reduction in neuromuscular strength (dynapenia) is a paucity and controversial and, to date, the effect of osteoporosis and vitamin D supplementation on these associations has not been measured. Thus, we analyze whether serum 25(OH)D deficiency and insufficiency are risk factors for the incidence of dynapenia in individuals aged 50 or older and whether osteoporosis or vitamin D supplementation modify these associations. For that, 3205 participants of the ELSA study who were non-dynapenic at baseline were followed for 4 years. Vitamin D was measured at baseline by the serum concentration of 25(OH)D and classified as sufficient (> 50 nmol/L), insufficient (≥ 30 and ≤ 50 nmol/L) or deficient (< 30 nmol/L). The incidence of dynapenia was determined by a grip strength < 26 kg for men and < 16 kg for women at the end of the 4-year follow-up. Poisson regression models were adjusted by sociodemographic, behavioral, clinical and biochemical characteristics. Serum 25(OH)D deficient was a risk factor for the incidence of dynapenia (IRR = 1.70; 95% CI 1.04–2.79). When only individuals without osteoporosis and those who did not use vitamin D supplementation were analyzed, both serum 25(OH)D deficiency (IRR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.01–3.13) and insufficiency (IRR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.06–2.94) were risk factors for the incidence of dynapenia. In conclusion, a serum level of 25(OH)D < 30 nmol/L is a risk factor for the incidence of dynapenia. Among individuals without osteoporosis and those who do not take vitamin D supplementation, the threshold of risk is higher (≤ 50 nmol/L).

There are wonders happening in the united states.

Hundreds die each day of Covid at least on paper... The even bigger wonder is what are the > 300 million fools believing?

Here in the Zürich region - just 1.5 million we had not a single death from covid for 7 weeks now. https://github.com/openZH/covi…ahlen_Kanton_ZH_total.csv

Switzerland 9 (mio) as a whole reports about 1 cov-19 death/day : https://www.covid19.admin.ch/d…=abs&epiRelDeathCause=abs.

So the question is: How off is the US data? Looks like 10x at least.

Pfizer claimed a 95% protection from CoV-19 for a gene therapy. OK this simply was a lie and never tested at all. Reality is 10x more infections after therapy... But who tests the daily wrong data of e.g. NYT?

BMJ..."From the FDA to the MHRA. Are drug regulators for hire"

Australia No.1

"Of the six regulators, Australia had the highest proportion of budget from industry fees (96%)

and in 2020-2021 approved more than nine of every 10 drug company applications..."

John Campbell alludes to potential corruption..

him and Russell , banter and humour..

Thank God their British?

Effect of acetic acid inactivation of SARS-CoV-2

Effect of acetic acid inactivation of SARS-CoV-2

Effective measures are needed to prevent the spread and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19. Chemical inactivation may help to prevent the spread…

journals.plos.org

Abstract

Effective measures are needed to prevent the spread and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19. Chemical inactivation may help to prevent the spread and transmission of this and other viruses. Hence, we tested the SARS-CoV-2 antiviral activity of acetic acid, the main component of vinegar, in vitro. Inactivation and binding assays suggest that acetic acid is virucidal. We found that 6% acetic acid, a concentration typically found in white distilled vinegar, effectively inactivated SARS-CoV-2 after 15-min incubation with a complete loss of replication of competent virus as measured by TCID50. Transmission electron microscopy further demonstrated that 6% acetic acid disrupts SARS-CoV-2 virion structure. In addition, 6% acetic acid significantly inhibits and disrupts the binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding to ACE2, the primary SARS-CoV-2 cell receptor, after contact with spike protein for 5, 10, 30 and 60 minutes incubation. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that acetic acid possesses inactivating activity against SARS-CoV-2 and may represent a safe alternative to commonly used chemical disinfectants to effectively control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Quote from Fm1

Taken together, our findings demonstrate that acetic acid possesses inactivating activity against SARS-CoV-2 and may represent a safe alternative to commonly used chemical disinfectants to effectively control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Infection by contact can be completely neglected for SARS-CoV-2. Only fools endlessly disinfect their hands. As long as you don't touch a thick drop of viral fluid and then stick your finger wide back in your nose/throat nothing will happen...

But fear mongering ist the best selling marketing trick.

Study Identifies Two Botanical Extracts That COVID-19 Cell Entry

Study Identifies Two Botanical Extracts That COVID-19 Cell Entry

Two common wild plants contain extracts that inhibit the ability of the virus that causes COVID-19 to infect living cells, according to a study from Emory…

www.trialsitenews.com

Two common wild plants contain extracts that inhibit the ability of the virus that causes COVID-19 to infect living cells, according to a study from Emory University. The findings, published in Scientific Reports, represent the first major screening of botanical extracts to search for potency against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The research team created a method to rapidly test more than 1,800 extracts and 18 compounds from the Quave Natural Product Library for activity against SARS-CoV-2.

They devised experiments with virus-like particles (VLPs) of SARS-CoV-2 and cells programmed to overexpress ACE2 on their surface. The VLPs were stripped of the genetic information needed to cause a COVID-19 infection. Instead, if a VLP managed to bind to an ACE2 protein and enter a cell, it was programmed to hijack the cell's machinery to activate a fluorescent green protein.

A plant extract was added to the cells in a petri dish before introducing the viral particles. By shining a fluorescent light on the dish, they could quickly determine whether the viral particles had managed to enter the cells and activate the green protein.

A handful of compounds were identified that protected against viral entry, but two showed the strongest activity: flowers of tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima) and the rhizomes of the eagle fern (Pteridium aquilinum) each blocked SARS-CoV-2 from entering human cells. Both plant species are native to North America and are known for traditional medicinal uses by Native Americans.

Additional experiments showed these plant extracts worked across four variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Partnering with lab that has a higher security rating, the researchers were also able to test the two plant extracts in experiments using infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus instead of VLPs. The results confirmed the ability of the tall goldenrod and eagle fern extracts to inhibit the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to bind to a living cell and infect it.

Botanical inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry: a phylogenetic perspective - Scientific Reports

www.nature.com

Quote from Fm1

Two common wild plants contain extracts that inhibit the ability of the virus that causes COVID-19 to infect living cells,

There are two problems with this type of herbs. If they work as antibodies, then the cellular immune response will not work or just a bit giving you no future immunity.

So plants that mimic ivermectin and block viral replication are much better. The other problem is extracts contain hundreds of chemicals and it is difficult to find the component that works as antibody or as enzyme...And some components may have unwanted effects ...

Plants are great for therapy and may be best if you carry virus in the guts! Known - confirmed by studies - to work fine: Black cumin!

Quote from Wyttenbach

There are two problems with this type of herbs. If they work as antibodies, then the cellular immune response will no work or just a bit giving you no future immunity.

So plants that mimic ivermectin and block viral replication are much better. The other problem is extracts contain hundreds of chemicals and it is difficult to find the component that works as antibody or as enzyme...And some components may have unwanted effects ...

Plants are great for therapy and may be best if you carry virus in the guts! Known - confirmed by studies - to work fine: Black cumin!

It's just reassuring that researchers are investigating medical benefits from plants. One prominent member here believes this is quackery. Someone might like to tell him they have been used for 10s of thousands of years as medicine. By the way black cumin effects are enhanced by tumeric , black seed oil and honey. Lion's mane mushrooms will fix the gut.

Some fact about 3 years fear mongering : (in German) : https://www.infosperber.ch/ges…angstmache-zum-quadrat-4/

Flu is more deadly for kids and overall costs more living days than Covid...

Keep in mind while reading that the authors base their conclusions largely, or in total, on the premise that IVM and HCQ "were widely hyped cures", and "had been definitively ruled out as therapeutic". Therefore, IMO, the study exposed more their own biases, and ideology, rather than that of their test subjects.

Controlled experiments show MDs dismissing evidence due to ideology | Ars Technica

Controlled experiments show MDs dismissing evidence due to ideology

When it comes to evaluating COVID treatments, MDs are only human.

JOHN TIMMER - 2/9/2023, 1:41 PM

It's no secret that ideology is one of the factors that influences which evidence people will accept. But it was a bit of a surprise that ideology could dominate decision-making in the face of a pandemic that has killed over a million people in the US. Yet a large number of studies have shown that stances on COVID vaccination and death rates, among other things, show a clear partisan divide.

And it's not just the general public having issues. We'd like to think people like doctors would carefully evaluate evidence before making treatment decisions, yet a correlation between voting patterns and ivermectin prescriptions suggests that they don't.

Of course, a correlation at that sort of population level leaves a lot of unanswered questions about what's going on. A study this week tries to fill in some of those blanks by performing controlled experiments with a set of MDs. The work clearly shows how ideology clouds professional judgments even when it comes to reading the results of a scientific study.

Call a doctor

The work primarily focuses on a panel of about 600 critical care physicians—the people who are most likely to be the first source of treatment for those who develop severe COVID-19. It also involved a panel of 900 people who aren't involved in medicine to provide a comparison population. While some initial surveys were done earlier, most of the data comes from the spring of 2022, long after COVID-19 vaccines had established their effectiveness in limiting severe symptoms of the disease. By then, a couple of widely hyped "cures"—hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin—had been definitively ruled out as therapeutic.

All the participants were asked to self-rate on a seven-point scale, from very liberal to very conservative. For most studies, the answers from the liberal and conservative participants were evaluated in terms of how greatly they differed from those of the moderate participants.

When asked about the effectiveness of treatments, the non-MDs showed exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect from politically polarized subjects. Liberal participants were more likely than moderates to say vaccines worked and less likely to ascribe effectiveness to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Conservatives showed the converse behavior, being enthusiastic about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and less likely to think vaccines worked. If you plot these results across a liberal-to-conservative axis, the result is a nearly straight line with a slope that represents the liberal-conservative difference of opinion. In these graphs, purple represents physicians, green the general public. For these medicines, liberals and moderates evaluate their effectiveness similarly, while conservative MDs evaluate them like the public does. Levin, et. al.

For physicians, things were considerably different. Here, the lines were largely straight and flat from very liberal to moderates, indicating that these physicians all had similar opinions on the value of these three medicines. But then the graph changed moving from moderates to the conservative end of the spectrum. This indicates that, among experts, the political polarization is one-sided. In other words, the opinions of liberal MDs look like those of moderate MDs, while the opinions of conservative MDs are difficult to distinguish from those of non-experts.

I see what you did there

The other big experiment done here involves the equivalent of a blind taste test. MDs were given a manuscript that described the results of a study that clearly showed ivermectin doesn't work. Half the MDs got the original text of the study, while the other half received one where every instance of ivermectin had been replaced by the meaningless name GL-22. The non-medical participants received a press report on the study with the same substitution.

When the drug used in the study was anonymized, there was general agreement among MDs across the political spectrum that the study was fairly informative and rigorous. While liberals were less likely to see signs of bias in the study, the average conservative disagreed that it was a biased study. This pattern was similar in the non-MDs who read the press report on the study, although their opinions were more moderate.

A lot changed among those who knew the study was addressing ivermectin, which had become a drug of choice among conservatives by this time. The opinions of liberal MDs became stronger, with more of them strongly agreeing that the study was informative and unlikely to be biased. By contrast, conservatives rated the study as less rigorous, and fewer said the study was unlikely to be biased. Among the rest of the participants, the strongest conservatives now rated the study as likely to be biased and unlikely to be informative.

One important caveat here is that, by the time this study appeared as a pre-print, a lot of other data had already suggested ivermectin was likely to be useless. So at least some of the MDs in the group where ivermectin was named were likely reacting to how the study fit into their pre-existing expectations. By contrast, they'd be more likely to react cautiously when it was anonymized since it would seem to be the first results reported about an unknown drug.

Nevertheless, the results pretty clearly show that expertise doesn't serve as a vaccine to prevent ideology from clouding people's judgments—in many cases, MDs reacted just as strongly as people with no medical training whatsoever. It's an important finding given that, in theory at least, MDs should have received some training to precisely evaluate the evidence presented in this study.

And it's just one more piece of evidence that, when it comes to ideology, neither training in critical reasoning nor evidence itself will necessarily be a decisive factor.

Quote from Shane D.

Keep in mind while reading that the authors base their conclusions largely, or in total, on the premise that IVM and HCQ "were widely hyped cures", and "had been definitively ruled out as therapeutic". Therefore, IMO, the study exposed more their own biases, and ideology, rather than that of their test subjects.

Controlled experiments show MDs dismissing evidence due to ideology | Ars Technica

Controlled experiments show MDs dismissing evidence due to ideology

When it comes to evaluating COVID treatments, MDs are only human.

JOHN TIMMER - 2/9/2023, 1:41 PM

It's no secret that ideology is one of the factors that influences which evidence people will accept. But it was a bit of a surprise that ideology could dominate decision-making in the face of a pandemic that has killed over a million people in the US. Yet a large number of studies have shown that stances on COVID vaccination and death rates, among other things, show a clear partisan divide.

And it's not just the general public having issues. We'd like to think people like doctors would carefully evaluate evidence before making treatment decisions, yet a correlation between voting patterns and ivermectin prescriptions suggests that they don't.

Of course, a correlation at that sort of population level leaves a lot of unanswered questions about what's going on. A study this week tries to fill in some of those blanks by performing controlled experiments with a set of MDs. The work clearly shows how ideology clouds professional judgments even when it comes to reading the results of a scientific study.

Call a doctor

The work primarily focuses on a panel of about 600 critical care physicians—the people who are most likely to be the first source of treatment for those who develop severe COVID-19. It also involved a panel of 900 people who aren't involved in medicine to provide a comparison population. While some initial surveys were done earlier, most of the data comes from the spring of 2022, long after COVID-19 vaccines had established their effectiveness in limiting severe symptoms of the disease. By then, a couple of widely hyped "cures"—hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin—had been definitively ruled out as therapeutic.

All the participants were asked to self-rate on a seven-point scale, from very liberal to very conservative. For most studies, the answers from the liberal and conservative participants were evaluated in terms of how greatly they differed from those of the moderate participants.

When asked about the effectiveness of treatments, the non-MDs showed exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect from politically polarized subjects. Liberal participants were more likely than moderates to say vaccines worked and less likely to ascribe effectiveness to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Conservatives showed the converse behavior, being enthusiastic about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and less likely to think vaccines worked. If you plot these results across a liberal-to-conservative axis, the result is a nearly straight line with a slope that represents the liberal-conservative difference of opinion. In these graphs, purple represents physicians, green the general public. For these medicines, liberals and moderates evaluate their effectiveness similarly, while conservative MDs evaluate them like the public does. Levin, et. al.

For physicians, things were considerably different. Here, the lines were largely straight and flat from very liberal to moderates, indicating that these physicians all had similar opinions on the value of these three medicines. But then the graph changed moving from moderates to the conservative end of the spectrum. This indicates that, among experts, the political polarization is one-sided. In other words, the opinions of liberal MDs look like those of moderate MDs, while the opinions of conservative MDs are difficult to distinguish from those of non-experts.

I see what you did there

The other big experiment done here involves the equivalent of a blind taste test. MDs were given a manuscript that described the results of a study that clearly showed ivermectin doesn't work. Half the MDs got the original text of the study, while the other half received one where every instance of ivermectin had been replaced by the meaningless name GL-22. The non-medical participants received a press report on the study with the same substitution.

When the drug used in the study was anonymized, there was general agreement among MDs across the political spectrum that the study was fairly informative and rigorous. While liberals were less likely to see signs of bias in the study, the average conservative disagreed that it was a biased study. This pattern was similar in the non-MDs who read the press report on the study, although their opinions were more moderate.

A lot changed among those who knew the study was addressing ivermectin, which had become a drug of choice among conservatives by this time. The opinions of liberal MDs became stronger, with more of them strongly agreeing that the study was informative and unlikely to be biased. By contrast, conservatives rated the study as less rigorous, and fewer said the study was unlikely to be biased. Among the rest of the participants, the strongest conservatives now rated the study as likely to be biased and unlikely to be informative.

One important caveat here is that, by the time this study appeared as a pre-print, a lot of other data had already suggested ivermectin was likely to be useless. So at least some of the MDs in the group where ivermectin was named were likely reacting to how the study fit into their pre-existing expectations. By contrast, they'd be more likely to react cautiously when it was anonymized since it would seem to be the first results reported about an unknown drug.

Nevertheless, the results pretty clearly show that expertise doesn't serve as a vaccine to prevent ideology from clouding people's judgments—in many cases, MDs reacted just as strongly as people with no medical training whatsoever. It's an important finding given that, in theory at least, MDs should have received some training to precisely evaluate the evidence presented in this study.

And it's just one more piece of evidence that, when it comes to ideology, neither training in critical reasoning nor evidence itself will necessarily be a decisive factor.

Display More

A bought and paid for study by the NIH. All it shows is it's bias and passing this on to a very gullible public. Another pathetic attempt to savage early treatment!!!

This goes a long way to show how ideologies have captured many technical and scientific institutions. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

The Complex Relationship Between NIH and EcoHealth Alliance

The Complex Relationship Between NIH and EcoHealth Alliance

It is now apparent that funding for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 was provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy…

www.trialsitenews.com

It is now apparent that funding for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 was provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Both Fauci (head of NIAID) and former director of NIH Frances Collins have repeatedly denied that their agencies funded any gain-of-function research anywhere, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Despite their denials, the lab leak origin of the virus started gaining acceptance by mainstream so-called experts several months ago.

In March, Jeffrey Sachs, chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, started telling any podcaster or reporter who would interview him that he had tried diligently to get to the bottom of the origin of the virus, but everyone lied to him, including Peter Daszak (head of EcoHealth Alliance, which received funding from NIH and NIAID). Sachs has stated that it is likely that the virus was produced in a lab and funded by the U.S. government.[i] Even the World Health Organization (WHO), which praised China for its draconian response to COVID-19 and insisted that the Chinese Communist Party was not culpable, has acknowledged the “possibility” that the virus leaked from a lab.[ii]

But the most damning evidence comes from The National Institutes of Health itself.

Several congressional committees have held hearings since mid-2021, and several Representatives and Senators have demanded that the NIH produce documents and other information concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

In a letter to Rep James Comer (R-KY) dated October 20, 2021, NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak acknowledged that the NIH had given a grant to EcoHealth Alliance Inc., which then awarded a subgrant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In this letter, Tabak stated that EcoHealth’s “limited experiment” looked at whether “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat viruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the ACE2 receptor in a mouse model. According to Tabak, “mice infected with the modified virus became sicker than those who were infected with the unmodified virus.” He wrote, “As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do.”[iii]

Tabak added that EcoHealth had failed to submit reports as required under the terms of the grant, and that the NIH had demanded that EcoHealth submit any and all data concerning the experiment conducted under the NIH grant within five days of October 20, 2021. He wrote that “Additional compliance efforts continue.”[iv]

A letter dated Oct 27, 2021, from Congressional leaders to Frances Collins, (former) Director of the National Institutes of Health, concerned inadequate oversight of grants made from NIH to EcoHealth Alliance. Some of the concerns arose from a bipartisan “in camera” review of documents that took place at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The documents were examined in chambers because the NIH refused to make them available for public view.

The letter asked NIH to be transparent about its relationship with EcoHealth Alliance and specifically requested documents related to a 2014 grant to EcoHeath, and money from this grant which was funneled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This grant was in addition to funding EcoHealth received from NIAID, Fauci’s agency, some of which was also funneled to the WIV.[v]

The letter describes just some of the interactions between NIH and EcoHealth and included these details:

NIH terminated an EcoHealth Alliance grant in April 2020, reinstated the grant, and then suspended it in July 2020 due to EcoHealth’s inadequate oversight of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

EcoHealth Alliance refused to provide information to the NIH related to its subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In spite of this non-compliance, NIH gave another $369,819 to EcoHealth on July 13, 2020, just 5 days after the suspension.

NIH failed to report EcoHealth’s noncompliance and grant suspension to a database that alerts other U.S. Government agencies about risky grant recipients.[vi]

Both Daszak and officials at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases knew that EcoHealth’s research was crossing the line in consideration of the moratorium on gain-of-function research. In 2016, EcoHealth proposed a research project with the WIV that involved testing chimeric viruses using humanized mice to determine if the viruses could infect human cells.

Subsequently two NIH staff members, Jenny Greer and Erik Stemmy, wrote to EcoHealth, stating that the proposal appeared “to involve research covered under the pause.” They asked Daszak to provide additional information concerning how EcoHealth would conduct the research without violating the pause within 15 days and stated that funding would be withheld until the information was received.[vii]

Daszak replied and asserted that the organization’s research did not involve gain of function: “These 2 chimeric bat-like CoVs were constructed on Sept. 24, 2015. They use the backbone of one virus, and the spike proteins of two newly discovered bat viruses. The construction of these chimeric viruses aims to understand the receptor usage and infectivity of bat viruses that may be progenitors of SARS-CoV. We have not yet tested the pathogenicity of these viruses in animals.”[viii]

Daszak stated that this work would not be considered GoF because “…the pause specifically targeted experiments that related to the pathogenicity or transmissibility of SARS-CoV, MERS CoV and any influenza virus. Our molecular clone is WIV1, which is a group 2b SARS-like bat coronavirus that has never been demonstrated to infect humans or cause human disease.” But this was not true.

Gain of function research funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Aging of the NIH had resulted in the conclusion that WIV1 was known to be potentially dangerous to humans. An article published in a prestigious journal reporting this research concluded:

“…that the virus has significant pathogenic potential.”[ix]

AND

“…the WIV1-CoV cluster has been identified as a threat for future emergence in human populations due to robust replication in primary human airway epithelial cell cultures.”[x]

In order to keep the money flowing from NIAID, Daszak proposed that Daszak/EcoHealth and its collaborators would immediately stop their research and inform their NIAID program officer if the chimeras showed evidence of virus growth greater than 1 log (or 10 times) the growth rate of the original viruses and/or grew more efficiently in human lung cells.

Ignoring obvious warning signs, NIAID agreed with EcoHealth’s self-assessment and agreed to let EcoHealth police its own activities.

The NIAID added the following award condition, per the grant documents (NOTE: this is almost the identical language proposed by Daszak to NIAID):

NIAID acknowledges that if any of the MERS-like or SARS-like chimeras generated under this grant show evidence of enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log over the parental backbone strain, Dr. Daszak will immediately stop all experiments w/ these viruses and provide the NIAID Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and Wuhan Institute of Virology Institutional Biosafety Committee, with the relevant data and information related to these unanticipated outcomes. (Emphasis added).[xi]

Daszak and EcoHealth did not do what they promised. Sometime during the period June 2017-May 31 2018, EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology infected humanized mice with the WIV1 parental virus and three chimeric viruses. The virus grew at rate 10,000 times greater than the parent virus. Mice lost 20% of their body weight in six days.[xii]

At day two and four, “Viral loads in lung tissues of mice challenged with all three chimeras reached >106 genome copies per/g, significantly higher than related WIV1 infection (Fig. 6b). This demonstrates that pathogenicity of SARS-related coronaviruses in humanized mice differs with divergent S proteins, confirming the value of this model in assessing novel SARS related coronavirus pathogenicity.”[xiii]

In spite of running two years behind in submitting required reports to NIH, and the failure of EcoHealth to stop the experiments and report to NIAID as promised, NIH approved the renewal of EcoHealth’s grant on June 18 2018. In its November 5 2018 progress report to NIH for the period of June 1 2014 through May 31 2019, EcoHealth reported that the strains of viruses it was using could represent a significant threat to public health because they could escape existing vaccine and therapeutic treatments.[xiv]

Even more shocking: On September 21 2022, a new grant was awarded by The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to EcoHealth Alliance. The title of the grant is “Analyzing the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.[xv]

The bottom line:

The NIH and Fauci’s agency did provide funding for gain of function research that was conducted by EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology

EcoHealth has a terrible track record – the organization lied about its activities and failed to file reports as required under the terms of its grants.

Fauci’s agency continues to fund EcoHealth – today! And EcoHealth continues to conduct gain-of function research – today!

[i] Harrison NL, Sachs JD. “A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” PNAS 2022 May;119(21):e2202769119

[ii] Scientific Advisory Group for the Origin of Novem Pathogens (SAGO). Prliminary Report of the SAGO. 9 June 2022 https://cdn.who.int/media/docs…=42b55bbc_1&download=true accessed 11.5.2022

[iii] Emily Crane. NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan – despite Fauci’s denials. New York Post Oct 21 2021 https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/…-faucis-repeated-denials/ accessed 9.10.2022

[iv] IBID

[v] https://republicans-energycomm…1.10.27-Letter-to-NIH.pdf

[vi] IBID

[vii] Sharon Lerner, Mara Hvistendahl. NIH Officials Worked With EcoHealth Alliance to Evade Restrictions on Coronavirus Experiments. The Intercept Nov 3 2021 https://theintercept.com/2021/…rch-ecohealth-nih-emails/

[viii] https://republicans-energycomm…1.10.27-Letter-to-NIH.pdf

[ix] Menachery VD, Yount BL, Sims AC et al. “SARS-like W1V1-CoV poised for human emergence.” PNAS 2016 Mar;113(11):3048-3053

[x] IBID

[xi] https://republicans-energycomm…1.10.27-Letter-to-NIH.pdf

[xii] Andrew Kerr. Fauci-Funded Wuhan Lab Viruses Exhibited Over 10,000 Times Higher Viral Load Than Natural Strain, Documents Show. Daily Caller Sept 9 2021

[xiii] https://republicans-energycomm…1.10.27-Letter-to-NIH.pdf

[xiv] IBID

[xv] https://reporter.nih.gov/searc…/project-details/10522470

CU Health Study—More Evidence Long COVID the Result of Hidden SARS-CoV-2 Viral Reservoirs

CU Health Study—More Evidence Long COVID the Result of Hidden SARS-CoV-2 Viral Reservoirs

TrialSite has reported that a potential cause of long COVID lurks in the gastrointestinal world&mdash;hidden reservoirs in the microbiome as stool samples have…

www.trialsitenews.com

TrialSite has reported that a potential cause of long COVID lurks in the gastrointestinal world—hidden reservoirs in the microbiome as stool samples have evidenced the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 lingers in the body. Researchers from the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CU Medicine), led by Brent Palmer, PhD, associated professor of allergy and clinical immunology, acknowledges that about 20% of persons affiliated with COVID-19 may end up with the long COVID version. Long COVID is defined according to the Colorado-based principal investigators as “…persistent symptoms that last longer than four weeks post-initial infection. Those symptoms can include chest pain, cough, shortness of breath, brain fog and fatigue.” But what’s Prof. Palmer’s hypothesis with long COVID also known as post-acute sequelae of COVID or “PASC”? “Viral reservoirs that linger in the body, causing the immune system to become overactive in its efforts to eradicate them.”

Recently published in the journal PLOS Pathogens, this CU-led study compares the frequencies of COVID-19-specific T cells and inflammatory markers with lung function in patients who had either pulmonary PASC or resolved COVID-19.

The CU Medicine study started in 2020, when Palmer evaluated 40 patients infected with COVID-19. While 20 of the subjects cleared the virus completely, 20 went on to develop PASC. Collaborating with Palmer was CU Pulmonologist Sarah Jolley, MD, head of the UC Health Post-COVID Clinic for PASC patients. The duo and team collected blood and stool samples from both sets of patients in a quest to identify COVID-19-specific T cells active in the body after the initial infection long passed.

According to Palmer on the study methodology:

“We took these blood cells, and we incubated them with little parts and pieces of the virus. Then we looked at the frequency of two types of T cells — CD4 and CD8 — that respond by producing cytokines.” The CU investigator involved with HIV research continued “The cells that responded to the viral parts were specific for SARS-CoV-2.”

Palmer emphasized:

“We found a very pronounced high frequency of cytotoxic CD8 T cells in the individuals with PASC. These responses were up to 100 times higher in the PASC group than in the individuals who didn’t have long-term, persistent symptoms.” In an astonishing find, the Colorado HIV research reports that six months out from their initial infection at least a few subjects had almost 50% of their T cells directed against COVID-19.

“That’s an amazingly high frequency, much higher than we typically see in HIV, where you have ongoing viral replication all the time,” he says. “These responses were in most cases higher than what we see in HIV.”

Further Analysis & Immune System

The CU team reported that the findings led to the hypothesis that PASC symptoms are driven by the immune system reacting to the present COVID-19 virus, one that “remains hidden in the body post-initial infection.”

Can Antivirals Help?

While some studies show vaccination may help reduce severity of PASC or long COVID, that’s not proven yet. It’s possible that antivirals such as Pfizer’s Paxlovid may help treat PASC according to this study.

The principal investigator further emphasized, “Some of the early data from these studies, especially the Paxlovid study, suggests that suppressing the virus using an antiviral medication might be a treatment for long COVID.” He continued, “It also supports the idea that maybe there is residual virus hanging out somewhere that we haven’t been able to access. Our research suggests that virus is still being produced in hidden reservoir in some individuals long after they’re testing negative with a nasal swab.”

Quote from Fm1

Daszak replied and asserted that the organization’s research did not involve gain of function:

Peter Daszak is a clever chap..

Managed to extract $2 million or so from the NIH for GIF research

under the guise of pandemic prevention..

for his one man "save the World" band EcoHealth Alliance..

You can donate today.to EcoHealth

Unfortunately The Covid Horse has already bolted from the Wuhan laboratories

Daszak..Clever chap gone wrong..

US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Drugs Not Meeting Pivotal Trial Primary End Points, 2018-2021

1 in 10 new drugs don't achieve their main goals despite FDA approval, study finds

The study by Harvard and Yale researchers found 10% of FDA approved drugs were based on studies that missed their goals.

www.usatoday.com

One in 10 new drugs were cleared by federal drug regulators in recent years based on studies that didn't achieve their main goals, a new study shows.

The study by Harvard and Yale researchers found that of 210 new therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2018 through 2021, 21 drugs were based on studies that had one or more goals, or end points, that weren't achieved. Those 21 drugs were approved to treat cancer, Alzheimer's and other diseases.

Researchers said the findings raise questions about whether the federal agency's drug approvals lack transparency about the some products' safety and effectiveness.

Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, an assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine who co-authored the study, said doctors, patients and health insurers depend on the FDA to rigorously vet new drugs

well people have noticed, so the bullshit propoganda starts!

Why heart attacks are rising for young people, according to experts

Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin isn't a lone case; people 25-44 are increasingly suffering heart attacks

Why heart attacks are rising for young people, according to experts

Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin isn't a lone case; people 25-44 are increasingly suffering heart attacks

www.salon.com

Quote from Fm1

The bottom line:

The NIH and Fauci’s agency did provide funding for gain of function research that was conducted by EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology

the new director ,Tabak, of NIH sings the same tune as Fauci.. NO Gain of function

"The acting director of the National Institutes of Health is taking the same stance as Dr. Anthony Fauci,

denying the U.S. ever funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab ..

as does the Chinese Communist Party.

"the Chinese Communist Party-owned China Daily touted Tabak’s comments with the headline: “NIH head refutes COVID lab-leak rhetoric.”

but the GAIN of Function chorus continues

"

Richard Ebright, the lab director for the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University

, said that Tabak’s testimony was “untruthful” in at least four ways.

“First, Tabak falsely stated that NIH is not currently supporting gain-of-function research or enhanced potential pandemic pathogens research,”

Second, Tabak falsely stated that NIH had not supported gain-of-function research or enhanced potential pandemic

pathogens research in Wuhan.

Third, Tabak falsely stated that the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance that supported high-risk research in Wuhan had received the risk-benefit review mandated under the HHS P3CO Framework.”

, “Fourth, Tabak falsely stated that the NIH-supported high-risk research in Wuhan couldn't have resulted in SARS-CoV-2.

Tabak said"“It would be equivalent to saying that a human is equivalent to a cow" ..

NIH’s new boss same as old boss on Wuhan lab and gain-of-function research

The acting director of the National Institutes of Health is taking the same stance as Dr. Anthony Fauci, denying the U.S. ever funded gain-of-function research…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Australian Regulators Concealed Fatal Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis from the Public

Zeal to Push COVID-19 Immunization Program Risked More Lives

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) led by Dr. John Skerritt, MD, PhD, has been the face of regulatory decisions for Australia during the pandemic crisis. This week in an explosive set of public lectures, crowded halls filled with thousands of Australians learned from Dr. Melissa McCann, BPharm, MBBS, FRACGP, who also holds a Graduate Certificate of Allergic Disease, that Skerritt and the TGA had determined that several young previously healthy children died of COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis. Redacted letters from the TGA to McCann indicated these facts and an admission of willful concealment