CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

(fair use applies)


Researchers find medicine for asthma and eczema helps COVID patients
by Josh Barney, University of Virginia
August 11, 2022

A medication used to treat asthma and eczema can improve survival rates for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, a clinical trial conducted at UVA Health suggests.

UVA is the first to test this novel and promising approach to COVID-19 treatment. The study centered on a monoclonal antibody called dupilumab, most often prescribed for skin conditions, asthma, and sinus congestion and swelling. The treatment also proved safe in the small study, as expected, because dupilumab is already a safe and effective allergy medicine.

The small trial, designed and led by Dr. Jennifer Sasson, found that dupilumab improved patient survival at 60 days and reduced the number of patients who needed intensive care. Almost 90% of patients who received dupilumab in the randomized trial were alive at 60 days, compared with 76% of patients who did not.

"Our clinical trial suggests that treatment with the anti-allergy medicine dupilumab may decrease deaths due to COVID-19," said Sasson, of the University of Virginia School of Medicine's Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health. "A large multi-institution study to validate these preliminary results is being designed. If successful, this multi-site trial will open a new window to treatment of COVID-19 and potentially other viral pneumonias."

Treating COVID-19

Sasson and her collaborators were inspired to launch the trial after discovering that patients with COVID-19 were at significantly greater risk of needing a ventilator if their blood contained high levels of interleukin-13, a driver of inflammation in the body. Dupilumab, sold under the brand name Dupixent, works by blocking the effects of IL-13. The federal Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe eczema, an itchy skin condition also known as atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab is now also used to treat patients with asthma and chronic sinus inflammation.

To see if dupilumab could improve the body's immune response to COVID-19, Sasson and her collaborators enrolled 40 patients with moderate to severe cases in a clinical trial. The trial was double-blinded, meaning neither the patients nor the doctors knew whether the patient was receiving the antibody or a placebo. Both groups of trial participants otherwise received standard care.

After 28 days, the two groups saw no difference in ventilator-free survival or in adverse events. But by 60 days, there were only two deaths among the patients receiving dupilumab and five deaths among those receiving placebo.

Among the patients who were not already in the intensive care unit when they joined the trial, three receiving dupilumab were ultimately admitted to the ICU. That's compared with six of those receiving placebo.

"We are indebted to the patients at UVA who consented to participate in this study, without even knowing if they would receive the medicine or placebo, as they are the ones who have advanced our understanding of the pandemic," Sasson said.

The researchers have published their findings in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

(fair use applies)


Powerful new antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants
by Children's Hospital Boston
August 11, 2022

As SARS-CoV-2 has evolved and mutated, therapeutic antibodies that worked early in the pandemic have become less effective, and newer variants, especially omicron, have developed ways to evade the antibodies we make in response to vaccines. A new, broadly neutralizing antibody developed at Boston Children's Hospital could potentially improve our ability to defend against future variants. In tests, it neutralized all currently known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including all omicron variants.

"We hope that this humanized antibody will prove to be as effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 in patients as it has proven to be thus far in preclinical evaluations," says Frederick Alt, Ph.D., of the Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine at Boston Children's Hospital, who co-led the research.

As described in Science Immunology on August 11, Alt and Sai Luo, Ph.D., in his lab turned to a modified version of a humanized mouse model that the lab has used to search for broadly neutralizing antibodies to HIV, another virus that frequently mutates. The mice essentially have built-in human immune systems, and the model mimics the trial-and-error process our immune system uses to create increasingly effective antibodies.

The researchers first inserted two human gene segments into the mice, pushing their B cells to rapidly produce a diverse repertoire of humanized antibodies. They then exposed the mice to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the main protein targeted by our antibodies and current vaccines, from the original Wuhan-Hu-1 strain of the virus. In response, the modified mice produced nine lineages or "families" of humanized antibodies that bound to the spike.

Alt and Luo then vetted these antibodies for efficacy in collaboration with the group of Barton Haynes, MD at Duke University. Antibodies in three of the nine lineages were potent neutralizers of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 virus. In particular, the SP1-77 antibody and other members of its lineage showed very broad activity, neutralizing alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and all previous and current omicron strains.

A novel approach to virus neutralization

What made the SP1-77 antibody so broadly neutralizing? Structural studies by a collaborating team led by Bing Chen, Ph.D. and Jun Zhang, Ph.D. at Boston Children's Hospital and the Haynes group at Duke, showed that SP1-77 works differently from current antibodies (either therapeutic antibodies or those we make in response to current vaccines).

Many of the existing antibodies function by binding to the spike's receptor-binding domain (RBD) in specific locations that prevent SARS-CoV-2 from binding to our cells' ACE2 receptors, the first step in initiating infection. The SP1-77 antibody also binds to the RBD, but in a totally different manner that does not block the virus from binding to ACE2 receptors.

Using a novel live-cell imaging platform described in a preprint, collaborators Alex Kreutzberger, Ph.D. and Tomas Kirchhausen, Ph.D., of Boston Children's Hospital showed that SP1-77 prevents the virus from fusing its outer membrane with the membrane of the target cell. This thwarts the final necessary step that throws the door open to infection.

These features may inform design of new SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. "SP1-77 binds the spike protein at a site that so far has not been mutated in any SARS-CoV-2 variant, broadly neutralizing current variants by a novel mechanism," says Kirchhausen.

(fair use applies)


Study confirms Novavax immunogenicity but with slightly weaker immune response compared to mRNA vaccines
by Claudia Ehrlich, Universität des Saarlandes
August 11, 2022

The Novavax COVID-19 vaccine was approved in Germany this February, followed by the U.S. in mid-July. Immunology professor Martina Sester and her team have now studied how Novavax recipients respond to the vaccine. The study shows that the vaccine leads to a significant development in antibodies and T cells. However, the level of antibodies and T cells is lower than in people who receive the BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. As with the mRNA vaccines, the antibodies had a limited effect against virus variants of concern. However, the T cells, which are important in preventing severe courses of COVID-19 disease, were also able to recognize all variants from alpha to omicron.

Over the past year, several studies by Martina Sester, Professor of Transplant and Infection Immunology at Saarland University, and her team have received international attention. The researchers were able to show very early on how effective certain vaccine combinations are and how diversely the immune system responds to different vaccines.

"When the Nuvaxovid vaccine from the company Novavax started to be used for vaccinations in Saarland in March, we immediately looked for subjects for a study. This proved to be a little more difficult than in previous studies because a large number of people had already been vaccinated and, after the initial rush at the vaccination centers, demand for the vaccine quickly fell," explains Martina Sester. According to the German Federal Ministry of Health, approximately 135,000 doses of the Novavax vaccine have been administered to date and around 60,000 people have received two shots. With around 60 million primary dual-dose vaccinations administered so far in Germany, Novavax accounts for just 0.1%.

The immunologists at the university's campus in Homburg recruited several dozen test subjects for their study. Twenty-two individuals who had not previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and did not develop COVID-19 after their first vaccination were examined in detail after their second dose. Some of them were examined more closely before and after the first shot to see how their immune response developed over the course of the two doses. In addition, further subjects who became infected with the omicron variant after their first dose were examined in more detail.

"Thanks to our studies with the BioNTech and Moderna vaccines last year, even with the relatively small number of cases, we were able to make detailed comparisons with data collected using the same methods and under identical experimental conditions. We were also able to draw on a sample biobank. For all 22 subjects, we used data from gender- and age-matched individuals who had been vaccinated with BioNTech or Moderna at similar intervals," explains Martina Sester.

The research team found that subjects who received only one dose of the Novavax vaccine exhibited an immune response that was too low to provide sufficient protection against a COVID-19 infection. One dose was only sufficient in subjects who had already been infected with COVID-19 before receiving their first dose.

"After two standard doses, antibody levels in blood increased substantially, but were slightly lower than in the comparison group that received the mRNA vaccines," says the immunology professor. However, she was able to see clear differences in the two types of T cells.

The helper T cells have a number of functions, including supporting the production of antibodies. The role of the killer T cells is to destroy those cells that have become infected with the virus. Killer T cells are particularly important in preventing serious COVID-19 illness and hospitalization.

"In the people we studied who had received the Novavax vaccine, the helper cells were present in slightly lower numbers than in those who had been vaccinated with Biontech and Moderna, and in some subjects we were unable to detect them at all," says Martina Sester. The difference was more pronounced in the killer cells: "The killer cells were barely detectable in any of the Novavax test subjects. This is due to the way in which this vaccine works, as the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is unable to mobilize the killer cells in the same way as the mRNA vaccines. The latter provide the 'blueprint' of the spike protein to allow the cells to produce the spike protein themselves, just like they would with a viral infection," explains the immunologist.

In collaboration with Dr. Marek Widera of University Hospital in Frankfurt, the Homburg researchers also conducted tests to determine how well the Novavax vaccine can neutralize the different COVID-19 variants. "To date, all of the vaccines have been based on the original strain of the virus (also called the parental virus). The problem with all of them is that the antibodies are not as good at recognizing the omicron variant in particular, which is resulting in the continuing high incidence rates. Unfortunately, this is no different with Novavax, as our study shows," says the professor. In contrast, the immune response from the T cells continues to function well, which explains why vaccinated individuals are currently much less likely to become seriously ill.

"In recipients of the Novavax vaccine, the immune response of the helper cells is not limited by the numerous mutations. We can't draw any conclusions about the killer cells as they were not detectable in the test subjects. Whether or not the absence of these cells is more likely to lead to more severe illness from COVID-19 in people who receive the Novavax vaccine will need to be monitored over the coming months," says Martina Sester.

To improve antibody function, she recommends that anyone who has two doses of Novavax should receive a third booster shot after six months. Regarding the more minor side effects of vaccination, such as headaches, fatigue, and low-grade fever, the researchers found no differences to the mRNA vaccines.

(fair use applies)


COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe in pregnancy, large study confirms
by Lancet
August 11, 2022

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe to use in pregnancy and pregnant women experienced lower rates of health events post vaccination than similarly aged, non-pregnant vaccinated people, suggests a large Canadian study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected pregnant women, who are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease than similarly aged non-pregnant individuals. COVID-19 vaccines were recommended for use in pregnancy in many countries early on in vaccine deployment, based on established prior safety of inactivated vaccines in pregnancy and reassuring data from the small number of pregnancies occurring during pre-authorization vaccine trials.

This study is one of the first to look at vaccine side effects in a group of vaccinated pregnant women at the same time as both an unvaccinated pregnant group and a vaccinated non-pregnant group to enable comparisons among the three.

"In the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout there was low vaccine uptake among pregnant people due to concerns about data availability and vaccine safety. There still is lower than average uptake among non-pregnant women of reproductive age," says Dr. Manish Sadarangani from the British Columbia Children's Hospital Research Institute and first author on this study. "Large, observational studies like ours are crucial for proper understanding of the rates of adverse health events in pregnant women after different doses of COVID-19 vaccination. This information should be used to inform pregnant women about the side effects they may experience in the week following vaccination."

This new study, from The Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) Network, looked at data from participants across seven Canadian provinces and territories between December 2020 and November 2021. All vaccinated participants were asked to self-report any health events during the seven days following each dose of COVID-19 vaccine. The unvaccinated pregnant control group was asked to record any health problems over the seven days before they filled out the survey. In total, 191,360 women aged 15-49 years with known pregnancy status completed the first dose survey and 94,937 completed the second dose survey.

A "significant health event" was defined as a new or worse health event which was enough to cause the participant to miss school/work, require medical consultation and/or prevent daily activities in the previous seven days. "Serious health event" was defined as any event resulting in an emergency department visit and/or hospitalization in the previous seven days.

The researchers found that 4.0% (226/5,597) of mRNA-vaccinated pregnant females reported a significant health event within seven days after dose one of an mRNA vaccine, and 7.3% (227/3,108) after dose two. The most common significant health events after dose two in pregnant females were a general feeling of being unwell, headache/migraine, and respiratory tract infection.

In comparison, 3.2% (11/339) of pregnant unvaccinated participants reported similar events in the seven days prior to survey completion. In the vaccinated non-pregnant control group, 6.3% (10,950/174,765) reported a significant health event in the week after dose one and 11.3% (10,254/91,131) after dose two. Serious health events were rare in all groups (fewer than 1%) and occurred at similar rates in vaccinated pregnant individuals, vaccinated non-pregnant people and unvaccinated controls after dose one and dose two.

Miscarriage/stillbirth was the most frequently reported adverse pregnancy outcome with no significant difference between the rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated women; 2.1% (7/339) of unvaccinated pregnant women and 1.5% (83/5,597) of vaccinated pregnant women experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth within seven days after dose one of any mRNA vaccine.

"The lower rate of significant health events amongst vaccinated pregnant people, compared with vaccinated non-pregnant individuals, is unexpected and requires more research. Previous studies on other vaccines in pregnant women have mostly reported no significant differences in health events between pregnant and non-pregnant women or have found higher rates in pregnancy. Further studies of non-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are required to identify if the reduced side effects observed in pregnant people in this study is a feature of the mRNA vaccine platform, or of these specific vaccines," says Dr. Julie Bettinger, senior author on this paper and also from the British Columbia Children's Hospital Research Institute.

The authors caution that most participants who reported ethnicity in this study were white, and these data may therefore not be fully generalizable to other populations. Additionally, this study focused on health events occurring within the first seven days following vaccination and so cannot conclude anything about longer term reactions. However, longer-term follow-up of this cohort is ongoing. A further limitation of this study is that data are based on self-reports from study participants, without verification by medical records.

Writing in a linked comment, Dr. Sascha Ellington and Dr. Christine Olson from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S. (who were not involved in the study) note, "These findings are consistent with and add to the growing body of evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe during pregnancy. […] COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant people continues to be lower than among non-pregnant females of reproductive age. Given the risks of significant illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes, it is imperative that we continue to collect and disseminate data on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and to encourage healthcare providers to promote vaccination during all trimesters of pregnancy."

(fair use applies)


More than 1 in 4 children hospitalized with COVID-19 or MIS-C have lingering complications more than two months later
by Children's Hospital Boston
August 12, 2022

In one of the largest follow-up studies to date, involving 25 pediatric hospitals, more than a quarter of children and adolescents hospitalized with coronavirus infection early in the pandemic still had health problems two to four months later, either persisting symptoms or activity impairment. The study, led by Boston Children's Hospital, is published August 12 in the journal Pediatrics.

As part of the national Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators led by Adrienne Randolph, MD, MSc, of Boston Children's surveyed family caregivers of patients under age 21 who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). The study period ran from May 2020 to May 2021, before vaccines were available. Of 358 patients, the researchers received survey responses for 279, or 78 percent.

Of these children and youth, roughly 40 percent were hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and roughly 60 percent with MIS-C. Fifty percent and 86 percent, respectively, were admitted to the intensive care unit.

At two- to four-month follow up, 27 percent of patients with acute COVID-19 and 30 percent of those with MIS-C had persistent symptoms, activity impairment, or both.

"Almost three quarters were back to baseline, which is reassuring," says Randolph. "But unfortunately, more than one in four were not. Although this is much better than many reports in hospitalized older adults, it is still very worrisome. The risks of severe illness and lingering complications are higher than the risk of complications from the vaccine, which are very rare."

Of the children and adolescents with lingering symptoms, the most common symptoms were:

• fatigue or weakness, affecting 11.3 percent of those with COVID-19 and 20 percent of those with MIS-C
• shortness of breath (9.2 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively)
• cough (9.2 and 2.5 percent)
• headache (8.4 and 7.5 percent)
• muscle and body aches (5 and 3.1 percent)
• fever (2.5 and 0.6 percent).

Activity impairment was somewhat more common after MIS-C (affecting 21.3 percent) than after acute COVID-19 (14.3 percent). According to caregiver reports:

• 6.7 percent of the COVID-19 group and 14.4 percent of the MIS-C group could not walk or exercise as much as before.
• 6.7 and 7.5 percent, respectively, were sleeping much more than usual.
• 4.2 and 3.8 percent, respectively, had difficulty getting schoolwork done or felt distracted and unable to focus.

Three factors predicted an increased risk for a prolonged recovery or activity impairment:

• more organ system involvement in patients with acute COVID-19
• underlying respiratory conditions (usually asthma) in patients with MIS-C
• obesity in patients with MIS-C.

Randolph notes that this study was limited to children and adolescents who needed to be admitted to the hospital, and that it took place early in the pandemic; most were admitted before the delta surge.

"We're in the process of analyzing more recent data covering the delta period and part of the omicron period, including effects on health-related quality of life," Randolph says. "I think it's possible there will be differences. It's important to understand how all the different variants affect children and to track how effective vaccination is in preventing long-term complications."

Ongoing investigations led by Boston Children's are also looking at neurologic complications of acute COVID-19 and MIS-C using detailed neurocognitive testing, Randolph says.

"Now that vaccines are available, I strongly recommend that children and adolescents get vaccinated," she says. "We know that patients can be re-infected even if they've had COVID-19, and we previously showed that vaccination can prevent MIS-C and severe COVID-19."

Aline Maddux, MD of the University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado was first author on the current study.

(fair use applies)


Neurologic complications common in children hospitalized with COVID-19
by Vanderbilt University Medical Center
August 11, 2022

Physicians at Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt University have found another reason to vaccinate children against COVID-19: to help reduce the likelihood of neurologic complications caused by the virus.

"COVID-19 and Acute Neurologic Complications in Children," a study of more than 15,000 children hospitalized with COVID-19 across 52 children's hospitals over a two-year period, was recently published in Pediatrics.

"We determined that neurologic complications are relatively common, occurring in about 8% of children hospitalized with COVID-19," said James Antoon, MD, Ph.D., MPH, assistant professor of Pediatrics at Monroe Carell. "The complications are almost uniformly associated with worse outcomes and can be life-altering conditions.

"The best way to prevent these complications is to lower the chances of getting COVID-19 through vaccination, mask-wearing in indoor crowded places and staying home when sick."

Antoon, the first author of the paper, and colleagues noted that when the Omicron variant first emerged, cases of neurologic complications in children were reported, but most of the understanding of the complications were derived from adult studies.

This recent analysis of children ages 2 months to 18 years old showed that neurologic complications, defined as encephalopathy, encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, febrile seizure, non-febrile seizure, brain abscess and bacterial meningitis, Reye's syndrome, and cerebral infarction, were associated with increased risk of ICU admission, readmissions, in-hospital mortality, and increased hospital costs compared to hospitalizations without neurologic complications.

As of April 2022, over 13 million cases of COVID-19 were reported in children and adolescents in the United States, according to the study.

"As we found in our study, COVID-related complications can have a significant impact on the lives of children," said Antoon. "With the emergence of new, highly contagious variants, the potential patients that are at risk is growing. Our findings emphasize the importance of vaccination and prevention of COVID-19 in children in order to prevent these potentially life-threating complications."

(fair use applies)


Social rejection could drive people to take COVID-19 safety precautions, new research finds
by Society for Personality and Social Psychology
August 11, 2022

Interpersonal rejection can motivate people who do not normally worry about disease to protect themselves against COVID-19. The experience of feeling interpersonally hurt or rejected, known as social pain, makes people more likely to feel that they need to protect themselves from others, according to new research in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

This research examines how people protect themselves against disease threats as well as from being hurt by others. Prior research suggests that people may be less likely to take safety precautions when they are more worried about their connection to others, but that might not always be the case.

"Concerns about the social connection and concerns about disease can reinforce one another," says lead author Dr. Sandra Murray of the University at Buffalo. "When you're really concerned about social connection, it can make you take the disease threat that others pose to you more seriously."

Researchers analyzed four daily diary samples involving 2,794 participants from the United States and United Kingdom who reported how hurt or rejected they felt by those they knew, how personally concerned they were about the spread of COVID-19, and how vigilantly they took precautions to safeguard against disease.

The authors found that people who believed they were invulnerable to infectious disease engaged in more concerted efforts to protect themselves against COVID-19 when they were in social pain.

"When social interactions are more painful, it is a warning that motivates people who don't normally worry about diseases to take greater steps to protect themselves against COVID-19," says Dr. Murray.

Likewise, researchers note that when social interactions are less painful, people who are less concerned about catching infectious diseases may be less likely to protect themselves. This can lull them into overlooking the threat that COVID-19 poses.

Dr. Murray emphasizes that the researchers are not urging people to reject others in an effort to motivate them to take actions to protect themselves against COVID-19, nor that social connections are the only factor in the fight against the disease. However, the study suggests that normal social interactions can change the way people respond to the daily threat of COVID-19.

Future research, Dr. Murray notes, should examine how daily experiences with social pain can affect other types of health behaviors, such as preventative vaccinations.

"The current research is only one piece of the puzzle," says Dr. Murray, "but it does suggest that it's important to understand how people's behavior is influenced by the non-physical threats that other pose to them."

(fair use applies)


CDC Quietly Ends Differentiation on Covid Vaccination Status
Oops…
Michael P Senger
7 hr ago

Today, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly ended its policy of differentiating within COVID-19 prevention guidance between those who have received Covid vaccines and those who have not.




As explained by the CDC’s Greta Massetti, lead author of the new guidance:


Someone might want to tell the millions of workers who lost their jobs, the millions of students who received injections out of anticipation for school mandates, and the millions of law-abiding citizens who have been, and often continue to be, excluded from everyday life activities and basic medical care due to their unwillingness to show proof that they received an mRNA shot they neither wanted nor needed, a differentiation that the CDC now admits does not make sense. All cool, I’m sure.
.

(fair use applies)


CDC admits COVID is over!! It's the vaccine, STUPID! COVID is done but is being kept ALIVE by dangerous non-neutralizing COVID gene injections that don't stop transmission, causes infection & variants
Case in point: today, CDC ended its Covid quarantine guidance for unvaccinated people exposed to the virus; CDC also dropped its recommendation to test people in schools who don’t have symptoms

Dr. Paul Alexander
8 hr ago

It is the vaccine and the induced vaccinal antibodies that are causing the infections in the vaccinated and driving more and more infectious variants! CDC today basically admits it is over!



SOURCE:

CDC ends social distancing and contact quarantining Covid recommendations

Change in guidelines come as an estimated 95% of Americans ages 16 and older have acquired some level of immunity

(fair use applies)


Zealotry and fundamentalism are a problem
From masks, to eradication, to vaccines being a zealot hurts
Vinay Prasad
20 hr ago

Many years ago, Cifu and I wrote in our book Ending Medical Reversal, “Fundamentalism in all it's forms is bad”. Our point was simple— being an absolutist was almost always wrong in the messy world of human beings and medicine.

That turned out to be especially true for COVID-19. Recently a wave of bad studies was widely shared, prompting commenters to wonder why? How could smart people not see the flaws? I offer a hypothesis as to how critical thinking become suppressed: fundamentalism clouds reason.

Which covid views are zealot views, and how do they contrast with realistic views? Let me highlight a few e.g.s


These are just a few examples but for those who cling to absolutism, it is easy to miss the errors in papers. Taking a nuanced and flexible position, going where the data goes, and not anchoring too strongly to any worldview is the hallmark of real science. Hopefully we see it again someday.

(fair use applies)

Some Light on Long Covid
A cluster of new data
Eric Topol
9 hr ago

In just a week’s time, we’ve learned more than we’ve had in many months of the Covid pandemic. There’s been a flurry of new reports covering critical holes in our knowledge base. I’m going to briefly review here the new reports on (1) prevalence; (2) mechanisms and biomarkers; and (3) potential treatments.

Prevalence

While there have no shortage of studies that describe symptoms of Long Covid and estimate its frequency, with wide ranges from 5-35%, we finally have one that captured symptoms in thousands of people before they were infected and followed them for months, with age and sex-matched controls who remained uninfected. 12.7% or 1 in 8 people who had Covid were considered to develop the condition, since there were 21.4% with persistent symptoms (3-5 months) in the Covid group compared with 8.7% in the control group. The excess in core symptoms documented included chest pain, difficulties with breathing, painful muscles, general tiredness, and headaches.

The cohort from the Netherlands population wasn't diverse, the study was pre-Omicron, most people were unvaccinated, and it did not include assessment of neurologic symptoms such as brain fog, or those related to mental health. There have been reports that Long Covid is less prevalent with Omicron and reduced by vaccination, but none have prospectively captured symptom data before infection. Whatever the current prevalence of Long Covid is with BA.5 in people who have been previously fully vaccinated remains uncertain. It’s very likely lower, but even high single digits represents an overwhelming burden of chronic morbidity and, in all too many people, disability. I recently discussed this study and the current status of Long Covid with Michael Holmes on CNN.

On the good news front, while that Netherland study was in adults, a recent report in children with controls suggested that Long Covid in kids is of low prevalence. While it had matched controls, there was no baseline ascertainment of symptoms and prospective follow-up. We’ll need more studies in children and adolescents to get at its true prevalence, but it’s low, and there’s a gradient of even less with young age that has been consistently reported. Of note, even though Long Covid in kids appears to be rare, a new CDC report suggests there is a doubling of serious sequelae among the children affected, including a doubling of pulmonary embolism, myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, venous thrombosis, along with an increased risk of diabetes and kidney damage.

Mechanisms and Biomarkers

One of the best studies of Long Covid was just released in preprint form from a 2-year combined effort at Yale School of Medicine, led by my friend Prof Akiko Iwasaki, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine, led by David Putrino. While the cohort assessed was not large (215 individuals) the data assessment was remarkably deep and multi-dimensional, with controls who were healthy (HC), convalesced without Long covid (CC), and Yale health care workers (HCW) without Long Covid. (LC).



The layers of data included:

✓ Flow cytometry of blood mononuclear cells
✓ Memory T cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells
✓ Antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (with bindings sites, aka epitopes, defined)
✓ Auto-antibodies to proteins (extracellular, exoproteome)
✓ Antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and Varicella Zoster virus (VZV)
✓ Various hormones including Cortisol and ACTH

The notable findings include (1) 3 symptom complex clusters and patient reported outcomes identified Long Covid with 94% accuracy; (2) Herpes (EBV, VZV) virus reactivation; (3) multiple antibody + cellular immune markers consistent with heightened immune system activation. These all replicate and extend prior findings.

Notable in this report was the use of machine learning A.I. to let the data talk, tell us whether there was a driving feature from the extensive data collected that might separate Long Covid individuals from controls. And it turned out there was a driver and it was cortisol, with the relevant data summarized below.



The cortisol and ACTH levels were drawn at approximately the same time in the different groups, which is important to note, since they are highly influenced by our circadian clock. The levels of cortisol were “uniformly low” among the people with Long Covid, as you can see from the partitioning in the far right diagram, and this marker was clearly the most significant predictor for Long Covid (an AUC of 0.96 is pretty striking).

ACTH should increase if cortisol is low, but it didn’t, which tells us the Long Covid individuals have a hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) dysfunction. Low cortisol has been noted previously with chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) but this is the first report to reinforce its potential importance as an underpinning of Long Covid. The stress that Long Covid symptoms induce, with persistent immune system activation in many, would be expected to increase cortisol levels.
Their low levels can be linked to many of the well described Long Covid symptoms. But the basis for HPA dysfunction is unclear. Is it part of the neuroinflammatory process that can be a sequelae of a Covid infection? Direct involvement of the pituitary from Covid has been documented in case reports of pituitary apoplexy. A recent essay speculated on the potential of adrenal gland insufficiency but the lack of the pituitary-derived ACTH would suggest that would be secondary. While empiric steroids have been given to many patients suffering Long Covid without clear benefit, there would also be the risk of steroid use, per se, especially when given for prolonged duration, along with suppression of the immune response. Plus that would not get to the underlying HPA source of the problem. Of course, this important finding requires independent replication but, at the least, it may help to lay the foundation for a biomarker, if not provide a clue towards an effective treatment. Which gets us to treatments.

Treatments

These were reviewed in a feature at Nature this week by Heidi Ledford. You can see there were 26 different randomized trials that she was able to find, which included a potpourri of steroids, other anti-inflammatory agents, cell-based therapies, anti-clotting drugs, dietary supplements, and a big category of “other.” First, to emphasize that we have no therapies for Long Covid that have been validated. Second, all of these trials are quite small and disproportionate to the tens of millions of people who are suffering from Long Covid right now. So even if one of these trials “hits” with positive results, it will require a much larger trial to confirm potential benefit. Third, the trials are largely not being conducted on a cluster-specific basis, that is partitioning potential therapies to people with immune dysfunction symptoms as compared with those having predominantly dysautonomia symptoms (such as rapid and extreme increase in heart rate with standing). There likely needs to be very precise matching of a putative treatment with the symptom complex of the cohort studies, since Long Covid is a mosaic that include of both immune system and autonomic nervous system dysregulation.



The most heavily funded research effort for Long Covid is the NIH RECOVER project with $1.15 billion of support, but unfortunately it has been slow to test any treatments, which needs to be done rapidly and at scale when pilot results are encouraging. It’s great that there are so many randomized trials being done by other groups, but we are not nearly as far along as we need to be for zooming in on an effective treatment. And there’s interaction with validation of biomarker(s), since that might provide an objective metric for a treatment’s impact.

In summary, much new information for Long Covid was reported in a matter of days. It would be great to keep up this momentum, now that we are pushing onto 3 years of the pandemic. I have many colleagues who have been severely affected, and have seen multiple patients in my clinic in recent weeks who are debilitated. I wish I had something to offer them, but hopefully over time we’ll build on this recent spurt of knowledge. While we have no treatment or biomarker, the CDC relaxation of Covid guidelines is totally unhelpful— staying Covid cautious is the right move, and we desperately need better tools to block infections and transmission. There’s some hope that the first completed 4,000 participant nasal vaccine randomized trial could be the start of patching up the leak of vaccines against the Omicron subvariants (currently BA.5). Prof Iwasaki and I have called for an urgent Operation Nasal Vaccine initiative. There’s only one surefire way to prevent Long Covid: not to get Covid.

(fair use applies)

Pandemic over? 4 in 10 Americans say life fully back to normal
by Jocelyn Solis-Moreira
August 10, 2022

PHILADELPHIA — The COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect society, but after two years, many Americans have decided it’s over. With the lifting of masking restrictions and test requirements, even those that have been masking indoors are returning to pre-pandemic behavior. Now, a new survey has found that more than half of Americans are ignoring COVID precautions such as mask-wearing, despite the possible health risks to themselves and others.

When asked when things will start getting back to normal, four in 10 people say it already happened. Another 42 percent predict it’ll be another year before things get back to normal. Twenty-three percent say we’ll likely live with the virus forever.

“After more than two years of experience with COVID-19 and its effects, the public is largely aware of the nature and risks of infection,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, in a media release. “A consistent percentage does not believe a pre-COVID normal will ever be restored. But a growing number have returned to their pre-COVID life. One can only hope that those in each group have accurately calculated the risks and benefits that their decision entails.”

Vaccines are changing everything

One reason 41 percent of Americans are going back to their pre-pandemic ways — a noticeable increase from the 16 percent in January 2022 — is because of access to vaccines. Nearly four in five (78%) respondents say they are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, compared to 74 percent in November 2021. Fully vaccinated for this survey means at least two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson shot. Among vaccinated Americans, 77 percent have gotten a booster shot. Sixty-five percent had one booster while 35 percent have received two boosters.

After multiple waves of COVID, more than half of Americans (54%) personally know someone who died because of the virus. More than half of survey respondents say they had COVID-19 or were sure they had it at some point since April 2021. Although it’s no substitute for a vaccine, studies show past infections can produce antibodies that can also protect against future infections.

Compared to a previous survey, fewer Americans are worried about contracting COVID today. However, more people seem to be worried about their close relatives being exposed to the virus. With any COVID-19 infection, vaccinated or not, there is always a risk of having long COVID. More people (71%) are now fully aware of the deleterious effects of long COVID, such as neurological issues and chronic fatigue. Despite that knowledge, fewer people are worried about getting long COVID (40%) now than in January (47%).

Another tool in the pandemic toolbox that may have eased COVID concerns is the FDA’s approval of Paxlovid. While 79 percent say they are unfamiliar with the drug, 61 percent find it to be a safe and effective treatment. Paxlovid is prescribed for mild to moderate COVID infection among people at high-risk of severe illness, hospitalization, or death.

Few Americans fear COVID variants

Breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated individuals have also gone up with more contagious and immune-evasive variants. Nearly two in three people (64%) believe vaccination does not fully protect against infection and 56 percent know someone who was sick but fully vaccinated. Despite all the risks COVID brings, 54 percent are not wearing a mask anymore when indoors and outside their home.

“The wiliness of the newer subvariants and the realities that vaccinated immunity wanes and breakthrough infections can occur, among even those who are vaccinated and boosted, have increased the importance of other modes of protection,” says Jamieson. “These forms of protection include the use of high-quality, well-fitted masks when indoors with others who are not part of our households. Sadly, we are seeing a dramatic drop in this simple form of protection.”

(fair use applies)



Vaxxinity CEO on COVID: The market isn't going away and it's going to be a massive commercial opportunity
Anjalee Khemlani
Fri, August 12, 2022, 4:19 PM

Vaxxinity (VAXX) CEO Mei Mei Hu sees opportunity in low and middle income markets, underserved by the largest COVID-19 vaccine players to-date, for the pandemic and moving forward.

"COVID taught us to look at black swans as a macro event. I think everyone has to be open to LMICs ... as there's a market to still be had — and it's large," Hu told Yahoo Finance in a recent interview.

The Dallas–based company (a merger of formerly COVAXX and United Neuroscience in 2021), went public amid a surge in biotech investment last year, but interest has since waned, leaving Vaxxinity in a period of stasis.

"The investor market, they are so fatigued with COVID. Everyone is fatigued. It's tiring — you don't want to invest in stuff you want to go away," Hu said.

Still, Hu hasn't given up on the company's COVID-19 vaccine, which recently received an endorsement from the White House as a potential second generation vaccine — that is, a stronger candidate that serves a purpose beyond the emergency of the pandemic.

Mutating virus variant and cell mutation variants as a health risk concept and new coronavirus outbreak or covid-19 viral cells mutations and influenza background as a 3D render.

"If you're realistic, [the virus] is not going away," Hu said.

"The market isn't going away and it's going to be a massive commercial opportunity," she added.

The two market frontrunners in the U.S., Pfizer/ BioNTech (PFE/BNTX) and Moderna (MRNA), have raked in billions of dollars in government money since late 2020 when the first doses were administered.

But experts say that there is always a new generation of vaccine that is likely to be a better product. In the case of Covid, a number of options, including nasal administration and targeting all coronaviruses, are on the table. That was the topic of discussion at a recent White House vaccine summit, which featured Vaxxinity.

Hu explained that the company's vaccine is targeting more of the current coronavirus, which should translate to stronger protection.

In simple terms, think of the virus like a face, she explained.

It's one thing to identify the virus by the nose, but once you capture more identifiers of the face, you can program the vaccine for the eyes, the ears, the mouth, Hu said.

"So if the nose evades you, you still have more to catch," she said.

Vaccine makers are scrambling to meet a fall campaign booster deadline, set by the U.S. government, to roll out a newly formulated vaccine that will target the BA.5 variant — the latest to dominate in the U.S. which has shown some level of making current vaccines less effective against infection. But they remain effective against severe disease and illness.

And it is not just a need within the U.S. The global vaccination rate remains a concern — as new infections give rise to the likelihood of new, more troublesome variants.

"We are targeting the rest of the world. There's still massive demand and a lot of times we don't think about it because it doesn't impact us," Hu said.

But actually, the global population is multiples larger than the U.S. population. And if consortiums are purchasing the vaccines to distribute, as is the case with the COVAX program, price isn't as big a barrier.

"LMICs, they've never been top of mind for most U.S. drug companies, but there's a lot of market there," Hu said.

While major vaccine makers have always captured some of the market, especially in the case of childhood vaccinations, the pandemic has opened the door for a broader adult vaccine market.

Especially in the $10-$20 per dose price point that has been the norm during the pandemic.

"Just look at the numbers," Hu said. "When you get down to it, most of the world is an LMIC."

(fair use applies)


CDC Drops Quarantine, Distancing Recommendations, as 1.3 Million COVID Vaccine Injuries Reported to VAERS
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,379,438 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 30,162 deaths and 251,075 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Aug. 5, 2022.
By Megan Redshaw
08/12/22


Editor’s note: In previous VAERS weekly updates, The Defender focused exclusively on U.S. reports in the sections where reports are broken out by age groups and types of adverse events. However, excluding foreign reports from these categories excludes thousands of vaccine injuries reported to the system, so those sections now include all — U.S. and foreign combined — reports submitted to VAERS in the categories indicated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,379,438 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Aug. 5, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). That’s an increase of 7,964 adverse events over the previous week.

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 30,162 reports of deaths — an increase of 181 over the previous week — and 251,075 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,959 compared with the previous week.

Of the 30,162 reported deaths, 19,462 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 8,038 cases to Moderna, 2,613 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 854,084 adverse events, including 13,972 deaths and 87,488 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Aug. 5, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 13,972 U.S. deaths reported as of Aug. 5, 7% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 54% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 604 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of Aug. 3, including 357 million doses of Pfizer, 228 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).



Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Aug. 5, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:

• 2,975 adverse events, including 140 cases rated as serious and 5 reported deaths.
• 4 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
  The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
• 20 reports of blood clotting disorders.
• 38 reports of seizures.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Aug. 5, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

• 13,364 adverse events, including 620 rated as serious and 22 reported deaths.
• 45 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis.
• 64 reports of blood clotting disorders.
• 169 reports of seizures.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Aug. 5, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

• 32,945 adverse events, including 4,189 rated as serious and 118 reported deaths.
  According to the CDC, “VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.”
• 268 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 94% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
• 1,304 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 650 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
• 298 reports of blood clotting disorders with 275 cases attributed to Pfizer.
• 26 cases of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with all cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

[continued in next 2 posts - post 1 of 3]

[continued from post above and continued below - post 2 of 3]


VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Aug. 5, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

• 20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
• 55% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
• The average age of death was 73.
• As of Aug. 5, 12,010 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines, including 4,801 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
• Of the 16,124 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 75% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 23% to Moderna and 4% to J&J.
• 2,881 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 66% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 20% to Moderna and 17% to J&J.
• 9,884 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
• 4,663 reports of myocardial infarction.
• 42,180 reports of blood-clotting disorders in the U.S. Of those, 28,921 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 9,445 reports to Moderna and 3,754 reports to J&J.
• 23,535 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 17,890 cases attributed to Pfizer, 5,226 cases to Moderna and 399 cases to J&J.
• 64 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with 51 cases attributed to Pfizer, 12 cases to Moderna and 1 case to J&J.
• 493 cases of POTS with 375 cases attributed to Pfizer, 109 cases to Moderna and 21 cases to J&J.

New CDC COVID guidance ditches distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated

The CDC on Thursday issued sweeping new recommendations as part of the agency’s efforts to overhaul its COVID-19 guidance.

“This guidance acknowledges that the pandemic is not over, but also helps us move to a point where COVID-19 no longer severely disrupts our daily lives,” the CDC’s Greta Massetti said in a press release.

Here are the biggest changes to the CDC’s guidance:

• Unvaccinated people now have the same guidance as vaccinated people.
• Those who are exposed to the virus are no longer required to quarantine regardless of vaccination status.
• Students may stay in class even if they’ve been exposed to COVID-19.
• Six-foot social distancing is no longer recommended.
• Contact tracing and routine surveillance testing of symptomatic people are no longer recommended in most ettings.

According to The New York Times, the CDC has been working for months on the new guidance which builds on previous guidance issued in February that reduced isolation times for those who get COVID-19.

The agency said it is making changes to its guidance now because “vaccination and prior infections have granted many Americans some degree of protection against the virus, and treatments, vaccines and boosters are available to reduce the risk of severe illness.”

According to The National Law Review:

“The CDC’s focus on individual responsibility, the removal of distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the removal of quarantine recommendations and the discussion of mask wearing as an individual responsibility are good news for employers who are considering relaxing COVID-19 workplace requirements.

“This likely will not be the last we hear from the CDC on this topic. Indeed, the CDC stated that it intends to issue more specific guidance for settings such as healthcare, congregate living, and travel.”

Pfizer vaccine efficacy in teens wanes 27 days after second dose

A study published Aug. 8 in The Lancet showed the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine against symptomatic infection among adolescents “rapidly declined over time,” waning from just 27 days after the second dose.

Researchers analyzed data from 503,776 COVID-19 tests of 2,948,538 adolescents — ages 12-17 — in Brazil from Sept. 2, 2021, to April 19, 2022, and 127,168 tests of 404,673 adolescents in Scotland from Aug. 6, 2021, to April 19, 2022.

The study showed vaccine efficacy began to decline 27 days after the second dose for both countries, plummeting to 5.9% (95% CI 2.2–9.4) in Brazil and dropping to 50.6% (95% CI 42.7–57.4) in Scotland at 98 days after adolescents received the second dose.

While protection against symptomatic COVID-19 dropped dramatically in both countries less than one month after the second dose, protection against severe illness — defined as hospitalization or death within 28 days — remained above 80% in Brazil from 28 days to 98 days and beyond.

The authors sought to assess protection against severe illness in Scotland but were unable to do so because so few cases of severe COVID-19 in adolescents in Scotland were reported during the time of the study.

The authors concluded that “two doses are insufficient to sustain protection against symptomatic disease” in adolescents and recommended more research be done on the need for booster doses.

‘Stunning’ link between Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis in teens, study shows

A preprint study conducted during Thailand’s national COVID-19 vaccination campaign showed what one physician described as a “stunning” association between myocarditis and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The study analyzed 301 participants ages 13-18 who were healthy and without abnormal symptoms after receiving their first vaccine dose. Participants with a history of cardiomyopathy, tuberculous pericarditis or constrictive pericarditis and severe allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that 18% of the 301 teens analyzed had an abnormal electrocardiogram, or EKG after receiving their second dose of Pfizer, 3.5% of males developed myopericarditis or subclinical myocarditis, two were hospitalized and one was admitted to the ICU for heart problems.

Cardiovascular adverse events observed during the study included tachycardia (7.64%), shortness of breath (6.64%), palpitation (4.32%), chest pain (4.32%) and hypertension (3.99%).

Fifty-four adolescents had abnormal electrocardiograms after vaccination, three patients had minimal pericardial effusion with findings compatible with subacute myopericarditis and six patients experienced mitral valve prolapse.

All patients were male and had abnormal electrocardiograms, particularly sinus tachycardia. Researchers said the clinical course was mild in all cases.

[continued in next post]

[continued from post above and post above that - part 3 of 3]

Military using ‘Comirnaty’ vaccine produced at facility not approved by FDA

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) service member alleged the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is administering COVID-19 vaccines from vials of Pfizer’s Comirnaty-labeled vaccines that are not produced in a facility approved by the FDA.

Lt. Chad R. Coppin, in a July 30 declaration submitted to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) under penalty of perjury, detailed his personal investigation into the availability and origin of Comirnaty-labeled COVID-19 vaccine vials at U.S. military facilities.

Coppin relayed his concerns in an interview with The Defender, as did Holly Freincle, the wife of a U.S. military service member stationed at Fort Detrick, Maryland, who corroborated Coppin’s claims that Comirnaty-labeled vaccine vials are appearing at military service facilities.

Until now, the DOD has claimed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, administered under Emergency Use Authorization, is “interchangeable” with the fully licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine — which until recently, was said to be unavailable at military facilities.

In his July 30 declaration, Coppin, who has served with the USCG since March 2002, reported that after a long period of unavailability, the “Comirnaty” vaccine began to appear at U.S. military facilities in June.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU_jvsRa5YA
Symptomatic covid plummets
20 min 58 sec
Aug 12, 2022
Dr. John Campbell

Covid infections plummet Link to report from Uganda, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOBlG... Covid infections plummet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYH8l... R = 0.8 Cases, + 120,946 Prevalence, 2,232,757 Down, all age groups, all UK regions Past 2 weeks, down 46% Prevalence, 1 in 26, down from 1 in 16 https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data UK official data https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk Case numbers, irrelevant (down 23.7% on the week) Hospital admissions, 6,697 over past week (Down 14.9% on the week) Deaths, 827 over past week (deaths within 28 days of a positive test) (Down 22.9% on the week) List of covid (mostly BA.5) symptoms Sore throat, 57% Headache, 47% Cough, no phlegm 41% Blocked nose, 37% Runny nose, 36% Cough with phlegm, 35% Hoarse, 34% Sneezing, 28% Fatigue, 28% Muscle pains 25% Dizzy, 18% Swollen neck glands, 14% Fever, 13% Altered smell, 13% Sore eyes, 13% Chest pain / tightness, 11% Hot flushes, 11% Chills or shivers, 10% Loss of smell, 9% Some get recurrence of symptoms a few weeks after the initial symptoms United states, covid https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-... Daily new cases 103,614 (Down 13.8% on the week) Wastewater Surveillance SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in wastewater Over 1,000 testing sites Most of the country, moderate to high levels About half of sites reporting Currently seeing some of the highest levels since December 1, 2021 Sites reporting an increase, 41% Variant nowcast https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-trac... BA.5 88.8% BA.4 5.3% BA.4.6 5.1% BA.2.12.1 0.8% BA.2 0% BA.1s 0% Delta 0% Others 0% BA.2.75 not listed New Hospital Admissions, daily average 6,003 (Down 2.6% on the week) Deaths The current 7-day daily average, 400 (Down 6.7% on the week) Official death number 1,030,777 Poliomyelitis, New York, D of H https://www.health.ny.gov/press/relea... Polio, early June wastewater samples Seven positive samples (Rockland and Orange County) genetically linked to case of paralytic polio in Rockland County Transmission of a polio virus that can cause paralysis and potential community spread, underscoring the urgency of every New York adult and child getting immunized, especially those in the greater New York metropolitan area.

(fair use applies)


Hair Loss and Sexual Dysfunction Join Fatigue and Brain Fog in List of Long COVID Symptoms
By University of Birmingham
August 12, 2022

Health records from 2.4 million people in the UK suggest that 61 symptoms part of wider Long Covid experience, and that certain key demographic groups more at risk.

Long Covid sufferers have experienced a wider set of symptoms than previously thought, new research has found. These symptoms include hair loss and sexual dysfunction.

A new study found that patients with a primary care record of infection with the virus that causes Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) reported 62 symptoms much more frequently 12 weeks after initial infection than those who hadn’t contracted the virus. The report was published in the journal Nature Medicine on July 25, 2022.

Anonymized electronic health records of 2.4 million people in the UK were analyzed by researchers from the University of Birmingham alongside a team of clinicians and researchers across England. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation. The data taken between January 2020 and April 2021 comprised 486,149 people with prior infection, and 1.9 million people with no indication of coronavirus infection after matching for other clinical diagnoses.


Using only non-hospitalized patients, the research team was able to identify three categories of distinct symptoms reported by people with persistent health problems after infection.

Patterns of symptoms tended to be grouped into respiratory issues, mental health and cognitive problems, and then a broader range of symptoms. While the most common symptoms include anosmia (loss of sense of smell), chest pain, shortness of breath, and fever; other commonly reported symptoms include:

• nausea and vomiting,
• fever,
• erectile dysfunction,
• bowel incontinence,
• anhedonia (lack of enjoyment),
• limb swelling

Dr. Shamil Haroon, Associate Clinical Professor in Public Health at the University of Birmingham is the senior author on the study. Dr. Haroon said:

“This research validates what patients have been telling clinicians and policymakers throughout the pandemic, that the symptoms of Long Covid are extremely broad and cannot be fully accounted for by other factors such as lifestyle risk factors or chronic health conditions.”

“The symptoms we identified should help clinicians and clinical guideline developers to improve the assessment of patients with long-term effects from Covid-19, and to subsequently consider how this symptom burden can be best managed.”

Patient partner and co-author of this study Jennifer Camaradou said:

“This study is instrumental in creating and adding further value to understanding the complexity and pathology of long COVID. It highlights the degree and diversity of expression of symptoms between different clusters. Patients with pre-existing health conditions will also welcome the additional analysis on risk factors.”

People at increased risk

As well as identifying a wider set of symptoms, the researchers also found key demographic groups and behaviors which put people at increased risk of developing Long Covid.

The study indicates that females, younger people; or belonging to a black, mixed or other ethnic group are at greater risk of developing Long Covid. Additionally, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, people who are overweight or obese, smokers, as well as the presence of a wide range of health conditions were associated with reporting persistent symptoms.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, Research Fellow at the Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham and lead author of the paper said:

“Our data analyses of risk factors are of particular interest because it helps us to consider what could potentially be causing or contributing to Long Covid. We already know that certain modifiable traits such as smoking and obesity put people at increased risk of various diseases and conditions, including Long Covid. However, others such as biological sex and ethnicity also appear to be important.

“Women are for example more likely to experience autoimmune diseases. Seeing the increased likelihood of women having Long Covid in our study increases our interest in investigating whether autoimmunity or other causes may explain the increased risk in women. These observations will help to further narrow the focus on factors to investigate that may be causing these persistent symptoms after an infection, and how we can help patients who are experiencing them.”

Patient records for 2.3 million people enabled the research team to capture post-SARS-CoV-2 infections at a unique point in the global pandemic. The study focuses on the first phase of the pandemic in the UK between January 2020 and April 2021 and provided the scientists with an opportunity to compare significant numbers of people who had coronavirus infections alongside a control group of uninfected people.

The interdisciplinary team included epidemiologists, clinicians, data scientists, statisticians, and patients to decode electronic health records to capture persistent symptoms experienced after infection accurately.

Dr. Shamil Haroon said:

“The results are both a testament to the opportunities that these public health datasets provide, and to the power of collaborative work to provide much needed evidence around the experiences of many people who have been affected by persistent symptoms after infection with the coronavirus.

“I hope our research will also further validate the voices of patients and involvement groups and provide an approach to support healthcare responses to new and emerging diseases.”

Reference: “Symptoms and risk factors for long COVID in non-hospitalized adults” by Anuradhaa Subramanian, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, Sarah Hughes, Puja Myles, Tim Williams, Krishna M. Gokhale, Tom Taverner, Joht Singh Chandan, Kirsty Brown, Nikita Simms-Williams, Anoop D. Shah, Megha Singh, Farah Kidy, Kelvin Okoth, Richard Hotham, Nasir Bashir, Neil Cockburn, Siang Ing Lee, Grace M. Turner, Georgios V. Gkoutos, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Christel McMullan, Alastair K. Denniston, Elizabeth Sapey, Janet M. Lord, David C. Wraith, Edward Leggett, Clare Iles, Tom Marshall, Malcolm J. Price, Steven Marwaha, Elin Haf Davies, Louise J. Jackson, Karen L. Matthews, Jenny Camaradou, Melanie Calvert and Shamil Haroon, 25 July 2022, Nature Medicine.

DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01909-w

(fair use applies)


Increased health care use among patients after COVID-19
by Kaiser Permanente
August 12, 2022

A study led by Kaiser Permanente in Southern California of patients from eight health care organizations across the United States showed that COVID-19 was associated with a 4% increase in use of health care services over the six months after initial infection. The study was published August 8, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Some people who were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 continued to experience effects from the infection, known as post-COVID conditions or long COVID, long after symptoms of the acute infection had subsided. This study showed that the greatest increase in encounters for these patients was in virtual visits, followed by emergency department visits.

"This study showed us that, in terms of the number of follow-up visits, a substantial amount of health care utilization occurs in the six months following the acute stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which highlights the potential for COVID-19 to exert an ongoing demand on health care organizations," said Sara Y. Tartof, Ph.D., a lead author who is an epidemiologist with the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation and a faculty member of the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, both in Pasadena.

"A 4% increase in encounters applied across a large population is a large number of visits associated with substantial cost. The absolute number is big. In this case, it was over 27,000 extra encounters among the eight health care organizations included in this study."

Tartof added: "On a broader scale, this study will help health care organizations develop their long-term strategic plans to meet patients' needs following COVID-19 infection."

This study included patients of all ages from eight large integrated health care organizations across the United States who completed a COVID-19 diagnostic test between March 1 and November 1, 2020. Patients were matched on age, sex, race, ethnicity, site, and date of COVID-19 test, and were followed for six months. The final matched study group consisted of 127,859 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and 127,859 patients who tested negative.

• Overall coronavirus infection was associated with a 4% increase in health care use over six months, predominantly for virtual encounters, followed by emergency department visits.
• COVID-19-associated health care encounters for 18 conditions remained elevated six months from the acute stage of illness, with the largest increase in COVID-19-related utilization including:
  • lingering COVID-19
  • alopecia, also known as hair loss
  • bronchitis
  • pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis
  • difficulty breathing
• In total, extra health care use associated with the effects of COVID-19 infection consisted of 212.9 additional encounters per 1,000 patients with COVID-19.
• The study is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies of post-COVID utilization among children under age 17.
• COVID-19-positive children experienced increased health care use over six months for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis; irregular heartbeat; difficulty breathing; and ear, nose, and throat disorders.

"With complete data from all care settings across large integrated health care organizations, this study represents one of the largest and most comprehensive studies of post-COVID conditions to date," said Debbie Malden, DPhil, a lead author who is an epidemiologist with the Department of Research & Evaluation and an Epidemic Intelligence Service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This study was conducted within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a research collaboration led by the CDC that combines electronic health record databases to conduct large epidemiological studies. The eight sites that contributed data were Kaiser Permanente Southern California (lead site), Denver Health, HealthPartners Institute, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute.

(fair use applies)


Nationwide study shows rise in pregnancy-related complications during COVID-19 pandemic
by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
August 12, 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented stressors on the U.S. health care system and resulted in decreased access to routine, in-person prenatal care and reproductive health services, less monitoring of potential pregnancy-related complications, and avoidance of care by patients and clinicians trying to limit COVID-19 exposure. How the pandemic affected pregnancy outcomes—particularly among people with low incomes and people of minoritized racial and ethnic groups—is unknown, and few empirical studies examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on obstetric outcomes at the national level.

In a paper published in JAMA Network Open, physician-scientists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health assessed how pregnancy-related complications and obstetric outcomes changed during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic. Looking at the relative changes in mode of delivery, rates of premature births and mortality outcomes before compared to during the pandemic, the team found increased odds of maternal death during delivery hospitalization, cardiovascular disorders and obstetric hemorrhage during the pandemic.

"We found a small but statistically significant increase in maternal death during hospitalization for childbirth and pregnancy-related complications during the pandemic, which is alarming," said first author Rose L. Molina, MD, MPH, an obstetrician-gynecologist and director of the OBGYN Diversity, Inclusion, and Advocacy Committee at BIDMC. "Our work demonstrates how the overall disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic impact the health of pregnant people."  Molina and colleagues analyzed data from more than 1.6 million pregnant patients who gave birth in 463 U.S. hospitals in the 14 months prior to the advent of COVID-19 and during the first 14 months of the pandemic. There were no statistically significant differences in the two groups' demographic characteristics, including age, race and ethnicity, insurance types and co-morbidities.

Consistent with reports from the U.S. Census Bureau, the team saw a 5.2% reduction in total live births during the pandemic period. Their analysis also revealed maternal death during delivery hospitalization increased from 5.17 deaths per 100,000 pregnant patients prior to the pandemic to 8.69 deaths per 100,000 pregnant patients during the pandemic, a small but statistically significant increase. They also saw increases in the odds of developing hypertensive disorders and hemorrhage. Molina and colleagues suggest the concerning increase in poor outcomes demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected obstetric care and pregnancy-related outcomes.

"While hospital-based obstetric care remained an essential service during the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient prenatal care experienced substantial disruptions, and much routine prenatal care was done virtually," said Molina, who is also an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School. "It is possible that these disruptions and limitations in monitoring via telehealth may have contributed to the slight worsening of pregnancy-related hypertension. Additionally, increased rates of hypertensive disorders may be due to heightened stress provoked by the pandemic."

The research team also saw shortened stays in the hospital, particularly after cesarean births during the pandemic as obstetric teams and patients attempted to minimize the spread of infection. The team also saw a decline in sepsis rates during the pandemic, likely the result of enhanced hand hygiene and masking due to COVID-19. Molina and colleagues further observed that rates of preterm (or premature) births and modes of delivery (vaginal, cesarean or forceps/vacuum assisted) remained stable. The well-documented racial and ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes persisted but did not worsen during the pandemic in this dataset.

"While obstetric operations mobilized to adapt to rapidly changing clinical guidance and maintain essential services, the experience of care was dramatically different—especially with respect to restrictive visitation policies which limited social support during a particularly anxiety-provoking hospitalization," Molina said. "As the nation continues to face ongoing surges, it will be important to mitigate further pandemic-related disruptions on obstetric care and pregnancy outcomes."

(fair use applies)


COVID-19 vaccination rates lower among adults with vision, hearing disability
August 12, 2022

COVID-19 vaccine initiation is lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities compared with adults without disabilities, according to a study published online Aug. 11 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Kea Turner, Ph.D., from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, and colleagues estimated the prevalence and factors of COVID-19 vaccination among U.S. adults with vision or hearing disabilities. The analysis included 916,085 adults participating in the U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey (April 2021 through March 2022).

The researchers found that adults with serious difficulty seeing and blindness had lower vaccination rates versus adults with little to no vision impairment. Similarly, adults with serious difficulty hearing and deafness were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination versus adults with little to no hearing impairment. In an adjusted analysis, adults with blindness or deafness were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination versus adults with little to no vision or hearing impairment.

"The findings suggest that, compared with adults without vision or hearing impairment, COVID-19 vaccination rates were lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities, and additional research may be needed to monitor COVID-19 vaccination disparities among this population," the authors write.

(fair use applies)


Researchers discover that people with blood-related cancers have a higher chance of COVID breakthrough infections
by University of Kansas
August 12, 2022

Individuals with blood-related cancers are more likely to experience a COVID-19 infection even after being vaccinated, a University of Kansas Cancer Center study has found.

Researchers of the study, published in the Journal of Hematology & Oncology, discovered that patients with blood-related cancers, such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, are 1.6 times more likely than other cancer patients to have breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Additionally, researchers found that patients who were receiving anti-cancer therapy at the time they were vaccinated for COVID-19 were 2.7 times as likely to have breakthrough infections resulting in COVID-19, regardless of what type of cancer they were fighting. Anti-cancer therapies include chemotherapy, immunotherapy and radiation.

Anthony Rooney, M.D., is a fellow in the Department of Hematology and Oncology at KU Medical Center, under the mentorship of Qamar Khan, M.D., professor of medical oncology. Rooney said this breakthrough-infection study provides valuable information for cancer patients, their family and friends.

"These patients and their loved ones should be sure to talk to their oncologists about strategies to prevent infection, including vaccination, avoidance of high-risk activities and accessing currently available pre-exposure preventative therapies," Rooney said. One such pre-exposure therapy is the drug combination packaged under the name of Evusheld. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provided emergency authorization of Evusheld for anyone who may not be able to mount an adequate defense against of SARS-CoV-2.

Impact of the study

Rooney said numerous studies have been done to find out just how much more susceptible cancer patients are to SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections than the general population. What makes this study important is its findings regarding patients with blood-related cancers, also known as hematologic malignancies, which are defined by the cancer's start in the blood or blood-producing tissues.

This particular study did not compare vaccinated blood cancer patients with the general population, but Rooney pointed to a recent study in Washington state that examined breakout infections in the general population during the same period as KU Medical Center's study. The Washington study reported a breakthrough rate of only 0.02% of vaccinated individuals. Blood cancer patients studied as part of the KU Medical Center inquiry had a breakthrough rate of 1.1%.

The two percentages seem dramatically different, but Rooney cautioned against direct comparison, since COVID-19 affects geographic areas differently, even if the regions are measured at the same time. Also, the direct comparison doesn't account for human behavior within the populations. "Cancer patients may be more cautious or more likely to practice social distancing than other populations," Rooney said.

Why blood cancers?

Figuring out why blood-related cancers have a higher rate of COVID breakthrough infection than other cancers was not the focus of the study either, but Rooney said he can hypothesize. Blood-related cancers hit the immune system harder than other types of cancers because "they are often cancers of the immune cells themselves," he said.

"As such, patients with blood-related cancers are often not able to mount as robust of a response to vaccination and may not have the same degree of protection after receiving vaccines," Rooney said.

Another reason might be the type of treatments used in these types of cancers, which can suppress the immune system even more than other cancers' methods of treatment, he added.

Timeliness of the information

The researchers were able to produce study results quickly in part because they had access to a special database already in existence. Instead of having to poll cancer patients individually and then analyze the results, researchers requested information from the University of Kansas Cancer Center Curated Cancer Clinical Outcomes Database, also known as C3OD.

David Streeter, director of cancer informatics for The University of Kansas Cancer Center and a co-author on the study, gathered and quantified information from cancer patients and maintained these statistics in C3OD with a team of informatics specialists.

"It is our belief that as a small, agile team, we were first to provide COVID cancer-specific data to our organization," Streeter said. "Using the power of C3OD, we were able to provide very specific data that (otherwise) could not have been abstracted without it or in the time required."

Rooney, too, gave credit to C3OD and the informatics team. "With the help of our C3OD team, we were able to quickly identify our vaccinated patient population and obtain the information we needed to study breakthrough infections in this group of patients," he said.

C3OD was originally created to match cancer patients to suitable clinical trials, and it has since become a valuable resource for researchers at the KU Cancer Center.

"Today's clinical trial landscape includes trials with increasing complexity and decreasing patient treatment windows. Both aspects require a solution that can abstract data quickly, that is accurate, and that can curate complex data in such a way that makes it searchable and consumable," Streeter said. "It is our belief that there must be technological intervention to provide solutions to these problems within the cancer research and analytics domains."

The researchers are hoping the results of this study can provide a starting point for the medical community to improve institutional practices in reducing the risk for infection in the vulnerable cancer population.

"Understanding the rate of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and the outcomes of cancer patients who develop breakthrough infections is critical to make sure that we can properly counsel our patients about the risks of developing infection," Rooney said.

(fair use applies)


Modeling quantifies the potential benefits of mask wearing against omicron
by Burnet Institute
August 12, 2022

The latest Burnet Institute modeling for the Victorian Government has demonstrated the benefits of mask-wearing, by showing that increased mask uptake in Victoria could reduce the duration of epidemic peaks and increased the rate of decline afterwards.

Depending on uptake, use of masks between July and October this year could lead to a reduction in cumulative infections and hospital admissions by up to about 20% and deaths by up to 14%.

Burnet Institute Head of Modeling and Biostatistics, Dr. Nick Scott said that the modeling—undertaken in July 2022—is clear in reflecting the benefits of wearing masks, especially indoors.

"Increased mask uptake in indoor settings led to reduced infections, hospital admissions and deaths in the model, so the message is that masks can reduce the duration of the peak and increase the rate of decline," Dr. Scott said. "The model showed the more masks, the more impact on downstream outcomes."

The modeling also suggests that many infections of the omicron BA.4/BA.5 variants may be going undiagnosed or unreported.

Dr. Scott said the modeling from 22 July was used to look backward and help interpret the data by testing theories that could potentially explain the early and significant increase in hospitalizations.

Whereas previously case numbers and hospital numbers tended to rise and fall together, hospital numbers spiked while case numbers steadily increased.

"The BA.4 and BA.5 variants are highly immune-evasive, meaning that they get around vaccine or exposure immunity, and we always expected there to be a BA.4/BA.5 epidemic wave, given what had been observed overseas," Dr. Scott said.

"But hospitalizations increased more sharply than anticipated and we think that one of the reasons is that there was a lot of infections in the community that either hadn't been diagnosed or hadn't been reported.

"We also think that increased or changed mixing patterns during the school holiday period, timed with the increase in the BA.4/BA.5 variants, may have contributed to that—but more data is required."

(fair use applies)

Survival benefit seen with triple therapy for severe COVID-19
August 12, 2022

For patients with severe COVID-19 requiring high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), triple therapy of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and baricitinib is associated with significant survival benefit compared with dual therapy, according to a study published online July 6 in the Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology.

Dallis Q. Ngo, D.O., from Saint Peter's University Hospital in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and colleagues examined the benefits of triple therapy of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and baricitinib compared to dual therapy of dexamethasone with remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on HFNC. Data were included for 191 patients with severe COVID-19, of whom 81 received triple therapy.

The researchers identified a significant survival benefit for patients receiving triple therapy. There was a trend toward less requirement of mechanical ventilation for patients receiving triple versus dual therapy. No significant change was seen in length of stay (mean, 13.74 versus 13.31 days) or in days on HFNC (mean, 8.95 versus 7.28 days) between the groups.

"Patients with severe COVID-19 requiring high-flow oxygen derive a significant survival benefit when treated with a triple therapy combination of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and baricitinib, in comparison to a combination of dexamethasone and remdesivir," the authors write. "This is the first study focused on COVID-19 patients requiring high-flow oxygen to successfully demonstrate this finding."

(fair use applies)


Protection against COVID-19: Experience is not always an advantage for the immune response
by Kiel University
August 12, 2022

People who have often been infected by common cold viruses—which also belong to the coronaviruses—are not better protected against COVID-19, neither after infection with SARS-CoV-2 nor after vaccination. "We already showed in 2020 that earlier exposure to common cold viruses does not provide protection against COVID-19. In a follow-up study, we have now been able to show that this is also not beneficial for the quality of the vaccine response," explains Professor Petra Bacher from the Institute of Immunology at Kiel University (CAU) and the University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel.

Together with Professor Alexander Scheffold, Head of the Institute of Immunology, and colleagues from the Cluster of Excellence "Precision Medicine in Chronic Inflammation" (PMI) in Kiel, the immunologist analyzed blood samples from healthy people before and after they received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The results of the study have now been published in Immunity. "A good immune response comes from the naïve T cell repertoire. Pre-existing memory T cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 rather have a negative effect," note the researchers. This could explain why the immune response in the elderly is often worse after infection or vaccination.

What makes a good vaccine response?

T cells, more precisely T helper cells, are the central organizers of immune responses. Each T cell recognizes a specific pathogen via its "T cell receptor." Naive T cells have not yet had any contact with a pathogen. During an infection or vaccination, only the pathogen-specific T cells are activated and can transform into memory cells. These memory cells provide a rapid immune reaction upon repeated contact with the pathogen—the principle of vaccination. However, also in the blood of people who are neither vaccinated nor have been infected, memory cells can be found that can react to SARS-CoV-2 but that originate from infections with other pathogens. This is a phenomenon called cross-reactivity, which was previously thought to be protective.

"We wondered whether memory cells that have already reacted to a pathogen similar to SARS-CoV-2, such as a cold virus, actually improved the response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Or whether it is more important to have many naive cells against SARS-CoV-2 that could adapt specifically to the new pathogen. This is typically the case in young people, who usually cope well with infections and vaccinations," explains Professor Bacher, who received the Dorothea Erxleben Female Investigator Award 2021 from the Cluster of Excellence PMI and invested the prize money in this project.

For the current study, the blood of 50 healthy individuals was analyzed before they received the corona vaccination and several weeks after the first and second vaccinations. Previous infection with COVID-19 was excluded. Using a special technique called antigen-reactive T-cell enrichment, it is possible to analyze very specifically those cells that react to the vaccine.

"We sort out the cells that react to SARS-CoV-2 because only they determine the immune response. By analyzing the T cell receptor, an identifier of an individual T cell and its progeny, we can then determine whether the cells came from the naive repertoire or from the memory repertoire," says Bacher. The results of this analysis were correlated to the quality of the vaccine response.

Vaccination success not so good in the elderly

According to Professor Bacher, the result of the study was that "pre-existing memory T cells do not contribute to a high-quality immune response. Rather the opposite. A very good immune response comes from the naive repertoire." Participants over 80 years showed an overall weaker vaccine response. In their cases, the vaccination resulted in only a slight increase of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. "We showed that in the eldery, the few naive T cells that remain, can no longer be activated as well. But also the strong presence of pre-existing memory cells does not contribute positively to the vaccine response in the elderly."

This defect in older people's immune systems can be alleviated with further booster vaccinations, but it cannot be fully compensated. Despite vaccination, very old people remain a vulnerable group. "We need to be aware that there is still a group that is at risk. This affects mainly the elderly, whose immune systems cannot cope well with this 'new' pathogen. But also among young people there are some with poor vaccination response. This is also evident from the fact that, despite being vaccinated, serious cases are still occurring," adds Alexander Scheffold.

Vaccination protection: Antibody values alone are not conclusive

How well and how long the vaccination protects against SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases can still not be reliably determined by blood tests. The measurement of specific antibodies against the pathogen is not conclusive because we do not know yet at what level sufficient immune protection is given. "There are no clear thresholds in the immune system. Which factor is decisive can vary from person to person. Overall, many parameters contribute to protection against infection, in addition to antibodies, in particular the T cells," says Bacher.

However, the T cell analyses used in this study are still far too complex for clinical application. There is still a lot to be invested in research and development before we can determine these organizers of the immune response in everyday clinical practice, and not just for SARS-CoV-2. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has clearly demonstrated the need for this.

(fair use applies)


CDC loosens COVID guidelines
With remarks on the current COVID climate.
Modern Discontent
15 hr ago


Yesterday the CDC has loosened its COVID guidelines and provided a more “streamlined” approach:



From cdc.gov. Click the above headline for a link to the article.

Streamlined is kind of a funny word coming from the CDC. They aren’t quite known for being transparent and having a way with words. For example, let’s take a look at these new “streamlined” guidelines. A quick warning for possible squinting (I wanted to fit all of the guidelines):



Note that there’s a remark about wearing a high quality mask, yet makes no mention of what constitutes a “high quality mask”. Also, irrespective of the severity of symptoms it should probably be emphasized that those who are ill should reduce how often they go out- that’s something we should have learned and adopted from COVID, rather than having people with the cold or flu showing up at the office. Why not just tell people to stay home until their symptoms go away?

I’ll let other people pick away at the more inconsistent or incoherent guidelines if they can find additional ones.

All of this comes at a strange time. It was only a few weeks ago that we were warned that Ba.4/Ba.5 would be the death of all of us. And let me remind you, this came from both sides who have pointed fingers at one another arguing that it’s either the vaccinated or unvaccinated driving this new wave. Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that we all didn’t have a hand in stoking fear and paranoia.

Regardless, why provide this messaging now? Why tell people that we’re going to have a “summer of death” so to speak, only to come out with such guidelines.

Just last week it was reported that Dr. Fauci warned people that they should get boosters or “you’re going to get into trouble” based on, of course, a new variant of concerned labeled Ba.4.6.


From fortune.com. Click on the above headline for a link to the article.

Reading this article wouldn’t inspire any argument in favor of normalcy. On the contrary, it just seems like more reasons to be cared. Winter is coming after all (screw fall I suppose!):


But probably the most striking quote was this one, which really contradicts this idea that we should return to normalcy:

Contrast the above remark from 4-dose, 2-course Fauci with this comment from the CDC:


To be fair, Fauci isn’t explicitly saying contradictory remarks, and he somewhat acknowledges that we can’t lock down, although I can’t help but state that I don’t trust much of what comes from Fauci’s mouth. The same goes for the CDC as well.

But I think the most pertinent comment was the one above, suggesting that as much “boosting” has been pushed there haven’t been as many people striving to get boosters as we would have imagined. Remember that there were concerns from the likes of Moderna in regards to having to waste their vaccines because people did not want any more?


From euroweeklynews.com. Once again, click on the headline above for a link.

Add in the fact that there were comments about people being “exhausted”, and something tells me that there’s a feeling in the air that most people are fed up with COVID.

In December I wrote a piece in response to a BMJ article titled, The end of the pandemic will not be televised, in which the authors (including one Peter Doshi) have suggested that much of what we are seeing is a consequence of modernity in which we are constantly inundated by the media while also having the privilege of ordering groceries from home; unlike our elders from years prior:


I made reference to a scene from a Treehouse of Horror episode from The Simpsons in which mascots came to life and were defeated by a jingle telling people to “just don’t look”.

The media feeds off of the attention that we give it. When we give them our time and focus, we feed stories and reports that weaken our spirits, fill us with fear and anxiety, and leas us into a dangerous codependent relationship that just pushes us further into negative thoughts and delusions.

When we stop paying attention, we stop giving them power.

Right now, there’s plenty of people who are probably just tired of hearing about COVID-on both sides. It doesn’t grab the same attention as it once did in certain circles. It’s ironically fallen out of season, no longer the “current thing”.

There was Ukraine to help with that, and as of recently the raid (or “raid” as some in the media has called it) on Trump’s estate as well as the idea that we aren’t really in a recession (as long as we change the definition of recession).

Maybe that’s why this was the perfect time to release some new guidelines while people are distracted with other goings on. Divert attention to the new “current thing” so that they can keep driving up their ratings. COVID’s out, midterms are in!

Referring back to the BMJ article, read the perspectives from David Robertson and Peter Doshi in regards to how our attention on COVID can drive the pandemic, and how it loses power when we stop feeding into the media’s eye-grabbing headlines:


These same points could be made in regards to any “current thing”. Its significance is recursive- the media presents things to us in a manner that’s intended to give it meaning, and when we pay attention we validate its meaning and existence, thus furthering its meaning and significance. Life has meaning, and we should be careful in giving life to those things that may wish to take hold of our mental faculties.

[continued next post]

[continued from post above]

A few candid remarks

So you may be wondering what this post was initially about. I intended to start this off by just noting that the CDC has changed their guidelines with a bit of pontification as to why it happened.

However, there’s been quite a few things that have been weighing on me these past few months, mostly revolving around Substack and the kind of atmosphere that has been emerging.

I’ve scurried around and looked at comment sections in other people’s posts, and I’ve been rather dismayed at the sort of comments I’ve seen.

People commenting that they don’t know what they are reading (i.e. they don’t understand the science behind some posts) but know that they’re supposed to be scared based on what was presented. I’ve seen other comments from people stating that they need to lay off of Substack for their own sanity because of all of the doomer posts.

These sorts of comments always struck a nerve in me. How can people not understand what they are reading, yet understand they’re supposed to react emotionally to said posts? Shouldn’t comprehension precede reaction?

And if constantly perusing Substack weighs heavily on one’s mental health, then why keep engaging? It’s sort of like an addict drawn to his/her vice even though he/she knows it’s not good for him/her.

There just feels to be an air of negativity all around Substack- or at least around these parts. I can’t help but notice this as the months moved on. Now that Substack has a “Recommendations” feature for its Inbox, I just feel that the negativity and morose energy will just be exacerbated even further. Such a feature are the same techniques utilized by social media to give us things it thinks we want, only most of those things are likely to stoke more unease and anxiety.

Now, I’m aware that these recommendations are based on who I am subscribed to, and in some ways is a reflection of the company that we keep. But that kind of proves the point even further, in that it’s hard to really find any posts indicating something positive or lighthearted around our circles. In the past few weeks I’ve seen posts about people suddenly dying, or allusions that suggest that all of these recent events are due to vaccines. It adds to previous remarks that vaccinated individuals are spewing spike proteins even though the evidence is scarce at best.

All of this has made me rather leery, such that many of these people who may have started off well-intentioned may also be using those same tactics that utilized by the media to grab readers. If they provide exaggerated or possibly unsubstantiated headlines that evoke an emotional response, they are likely to get more viewers, and those viewers may end up turning into paid subscribers.

And I know this for a fact- the metrics don’t lie. My post popular post was one about Molnupiravir and possible carcinogenic effects, although I never argued that Molnupiravir will cause cancer. Instead, I argued that not enough research has been done to substantiate the claim that Molnupiravir is safe and not carcinogenic, but that doesn’t stop people from reading into that and instead saying it will cause cancer even though that wasn’t my initial argument.

Last I checked, that post had over 50,000 views- a stark contrast to the view counts from my other posts. And that’s generally how it goes. My post on the FDA’s guidelines for NAC received a few hundred more views compared to my posts on exercise, even though I’d consider the exercise posts to be rather informative and scientific- things people can use in their own lives and provides some perspective for their own health.

I suppose that’s how the game is played to an extent, but at the same time I’m concerned at how many people are willing to play along rather than view from the sidelines and act on their own accord.

Much of this has led people such as Stephanie Brail to make similar remarks about the fear porn that has appeared on Substack:


Because of this I want to say one thing- make sure that you are control of your own thoughts and mental faculties. Make sure your thoughts are your own and not something you repeat without giving them second thoughts. Be careful of falling into groupthink and following personality figures from any side- there are fear merchants everywhere that may try to prey on you by telling you that “we’re all doomed” or that this is some “final warning” before everything goes to hell.

Make sure that you have some understanding of what you are reading. And if you don’t, reach out to publishers and ask them questions. Use Substack as a place of learning rather than another social media venue to get clapbacks and likes.

Likes are ephemeral; wisdom is perennial.

Be curious, seek out insights, and ask pertinent questions rather than clapback comments that only serve to get likes. Don’t be afraid to provide criticisms if they are rational and provide further discourse. In fact, we should expect more good-faith criticisms, especially from people on “our side”.

And if you all of this feels like too much or you need to stay away for some time, you absolutely should! Listen to your intuition, and if you are tired of being inundated with negativity there’s no reason you can’t take a break. Social media and the internet have become its own plague on modernity. Don’t feel the need to engage if it makes you feel worse in the end.

I’ve written a few posts because of these specific issues, and I encourage people to read those:

Reasons for taking a break from the online world

• Part I: Introduction and the Infodemic Era
• Part II: Living in a (Para)Social World
• Part III: Burning Out and Embracing the Outdoors

Like always, there’s plenty more to say on the matter. I may decide to post an open-thread this weekend asking you all about your thoughts on Substack’s current meta and how you use Substack, just to get some insights on how you as a reader/publisher perceive Substack.

But in the meantime I’d like to hear your thoughts and opinions. And try to remember to take some time this weekend and do things that are meaningful, no matter how little that thing may be.

Not everything has to be about COVID. Not everything has to be about politics. But in this modern age make sure to make a few things about yourself, and take care of yourself before you worry about other things.

(fair use applies)


WOW!!! CDC Completely Reverses Course. IT’S OVER!
By Chris Martenson on
Friday, August 12th, 2022

And, just like that, it was over.

This is HUGE news folks. In bureaucrat speak, this is a near-complete cave-in to the actual facts:

• No symptoms? No problem.
• Vaccinated or unvaccinated? Same guidance.
• Exposed? No need to even quarantine.
• Students exposed? They can stay in class, what the hell, right?

If you managed to maintain your integrity through this awful period of time, congratulations! You are one of the rock stars of this story. You are a solid individual who has courage and stood firm and tall when it mattered most.

As for the people who didn’t, some can be forgiven. But many cannot.

Those who could have and “should” have known better? The doctors who failed to utilize known and proven early treatments to save lives? The public health authorities that locked people down and forced masks onto children’s faces without a shred of supporting science to back those decisions? Medical hospital administrators who took the monetary bait and forced patients onto toxic and deadly regimens of Remdesivir and ventilators (again, without any supporting evidence!). The NIH treatment panel that still – to this day – does not recommend vitamin D, or any of the other actual safe and effective early treatments?

Sorry, not sorry, those people need to suffer real and lasting public consequences. Some doctors should lose their licenses. Some bureaucrats need to lose their jobs while others need to go to trial.

I feel most acutely for those who got caught up and suffered terribly as a result. I feel truly awful for all the people prevented from being at a loved one’s passing, or who ,as a condition of continued employment, were coerced into getting Covid jabs they neither wanted nor needed.

There are far too many tragic cases out there. Far too many young lives were lost and continue to be lost. I am angry that it happened and at the petty, ignorant bureaucrats who forced it to happen. “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” is a thing now, and the attempts to normalize it by the press have left me thinking that those companies and journalists who engaged in this ought to be barred for life from ever being in the business again.

Here are a few out of many such candidates:



One prominent case of an avoidable tragedy was that of 17-year-old Sean Hartman:



There are thousands and thousands of similar and tragic cases. Too many.

All along the way, I have been saying the same thing as Drs. McCullough, Malone, Urso, Kory, Marik, Rose, and Steve Kirsch among many others; the Covid vaccines should never have been put into every possible person.

There should have been an age and risk stratification approach. Only some people should have gotten them, but never into healthy children. Never.

The demonization of even simple and entirely appropriate questioning was horrific and continues on to this day, as I outlined in a recent video on “Fact Checkers” wherein I covered a truly horrific New York Times article by Sheera Frenkel. In it, Ms. Frenkel went overboard on hyperbolic, emotionally-laden verbiage in a brazen attempt to mischaracterize any questioning by parents as being entirely due to misinformation, conspiracy theories, and a black-and-white stance as “anti-vaxers.”

Well, if hesitant parents are anti-vaxers, then we have to say that those folks are in the vast majority (and rightly so) while it is Ms. Frenkel and the New York Times who are in a tiny minority that is horribly out of alignment with the data.


How it ever came to be that “the Left” became the biggest cheerleaders of court-proven corrupt pharma companies is for the psychologists and social scientists to unravel. Maybe we could include some ethicists and prosecutors as well.

Early Treatments

More importantly and tellingly in this sad saga, early treatments should have been discovered and wisely used, as they were in many other countries.

The simple fact that the pair of charts displayed below weren’t ever a healthy and vigorous topic of discussion speaks volumes about just how bad the corruption really was.



For more than a year, Uttar Pradesh has been kicking the ass of every western nation in dealing with Covid and they did it with simple, effective early treatment packages that looked like this:



The kit included:

• Ivermectin
• Azithromycin (Z-pac)
• Doxycycline
• Zinc
• Vitamins D & C

It’s plain as day that this approach worked and worked very well, not just at keeping deaths down, but cases too. With fewer cases that were less serious, it’s a pretty safe bet that they managed to keep long Covid down as well.

Dr. Pierre Kory recently penned an exquisitely good piece on exactly how Uttar Pradesh accomplished their astonishing feat. It all began with a leader who was unafraid to begin by rooting out corruption:

1. Close contacts of COVID-19 patients
   1. Health care workers
      1. General care of COVID-19 patients

[continued next post]

[continued from post above]

So, why didn’t the western countries somehow manage to notice the incredible success of Uttar Pradesh? I say it’s because they didn’t want to. It was willful and malignant and evil. Fauci (as a placeholder for every corrupt and conflicted health professional) preferred the power, the money, and the fame that came from a long crisis. These conflicted people thought nothing of killing and harming more people preferring instead to keep the crisis in play as long as possible.

We suffered as long as we did, and so many people died, because our governments don’t care about their own people. Because big media doesn’t care about their fellow citizens. Because corporations, and especially pharma companies, don’t care about people. They care more about money, control, and power than they do anything else.

That is my firm and blunt assessment. These people cannot be reformed. They are damaged goods. The institutions cannot be reformed, they must be dismantled and begun anew. The corporations cannot be salvaged, they must be disincorporated and their stock and bondholders made to suffer great losses so that next time capital asks a few more questions.

The Great Walk-Back

So why is the CDC walking back their “guidance” at this time? I don’t know, but there aren’t any new studies of which I am aware that would have decisively shifted the balance one way or the other.

Instead, I think it was the Danish government making it illegal to administer vaccines to minors (<18 years of age) after finally noticing that the risk-reward ratio was not favorable.



It’s going to become very difficult for the CDC to maintain any integrity at all if some western health agencies begin to state the obvious while the CDC continues to advise that its own citizens sacrifice their children and selves to the Covid vaccine machine.

While that remains their advice – stupidly – it won’t for long is my guess. Bureaucracies have to walk things back in stages.

And then there’s an increasing number of countries openly noticing that their all-cause mortality numbers are far too high and they are beginning to investigate:



When approximately 4,000 too many people die in a three-week span, that’s very uncomfortable and eventually, people notice. And, when they do, oh boy, look out!

Or, maybe it’s simply that the CDC has read the latest polls and realized that the Democrats are going to lose their majorities and are trying to get in front of the investigations the Republicans are sure to launch as soon as they can?

Whatever the reason, it’s too little and too late. The CDC has forever lost my trust and everybody who works there bears responsibility for what transpired, some more than others, of course.

Conclusion

It’s over folks. Pack it up! The great Covid pandemic is over. As I predicted in December of 2021, Omicron was the end of Covid, it just took far too long, and far too many additional lives for that reality to sink in.

I predict it will be many more months before Canada, New Zealand and Australia finally awaken from their authoritarian nightmares, but that too will happen. Hopefully with extreme consequences for Trudeau, Morrison, Arden, Andrews, Ms. Freeland, and countless other bureaucratic minarets.

To help heal from this disaster, we need to be as welcoming as possible to those who finally wake up and want to be re-included as good-standing members of The Remnant. Of course, they will be on probation forever as a result, but welcome they will be.

More immediately, I call for a global apology to the vaccine injured and their loved ones who were horribly gaslit by the medical establishment. They deserve our support, and they shall get it.

And for everyone who stood strong, you are my lifelong friends and I salute each and every one of you!

Your Faithful Information Scout,

Dr. Chris Martenson

(fair use applies)


MONKEYPOX warning!: spread of MPV is now particularly expanding in countries with elevated COVID-19 vaccine coverage rates; we argue there is link between the type of population immunity in high C-19
vaxxed nations & the subsequent expansion of monkeypox virus; so far, predominantly in GAY & bisexuals when there is tearing/trauma to skin/mucosa (anal sex)
Dr. Paul Alexander
8 hr ago

WARNING: using a live, attenuated, non-replication competent vaccine is dangerous if we continued this path.
‘Due to the current advanced stage of the evolutionary pathway of the COVID-19 pandemic in highly COVID-19 vaccinated nations, monkeypox virus (MPV) is likely to evolve more infectious/ pathogenic variants.

We argue that public health authorities in several highly COVID-19 vaccinated nations have now started rolling out MPV vaccination campaigns. MPV vaccination in the ‘at risk’ groups (men-who-have-sex-with -men (MSM)) typically use live attenuated (weakened), non-replicating smallpox vaccines. Although these vaccines are much less problematic in terms of vaccine-induced side effects (they have even been approved for use in immunocompromised or immunodeficient people), they can only prevent orthopox (including smallpox) disease, and do not prevent productive infection.

As the type of protection conferred by these vaccines is solely based on the induction of antigen-specific, virus neutralizing antibodies (Abs), MPV vaccination programs using this type of vaccine will inevitably (more than likely) expedite and facilitate adaptive evolution of MPV and hence, further promote dominant circulation of more infectious immune escape variants. Exactly what has occurred with the COVID-19 virus variants using a sub-optimal non-neutralizing vaccine and vaccinal antibodies (placing the spike antigen under natural selection pressure).

As a result, even small-scale deployment of live but attenuated, non-replicating orthopox vaccines targeted at preventing disease in vulnerable individuals (MSM) are highly problematic in that they have the potential to rapidly turn highly COVID-19 vaccinated populations into a human reservoir for asymptomatic transmission of more infectious MPV variants to poorly COVID-19 vaccinated populations that are immunologically naïve to orthopoxvirus.

Viral transmission from these reservoirs is therefore at risk of igniting multi-country epidemics in poorly COVID-19 vaccinated countries while increasing the risk of ADEI and ADED (antibody dependent enhancement of infection and disease) of disease in young COVID-19 unvaccinated children and individuals at high risk of exposure to MPV (due to risky behavior) living in highly COVID-19 vaccinated countries.

SOURCE: Geert VB, ‘Vaccination of vulnerable groups against monkeypox virus (MPV) in a highly C-19 vaccinated population will drive adaptive evolution of MPV and ignite multi-country epidemics in poorly C-19 vaccinated countries’.

(fair use applies)


The White House privately demanded Twitter ban me months before the company did so
Federal officials targeted me specifically; when they met with Twitter in April 2021, "they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson"
Alex Berenson
20 hr ago

Biden Administration officials asked Twitter to ban me because of my tweets questioning the Covid vaccines, even as company employees believed I had followed Twitter’s rules, internal Twitter communications reveal.

In a White House meeting in April 2021, four months before Twitter suspended my account, the company faced “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” a Twitter employee wrote.

The employee recounted the meeting discussion afterwards on Twitter’s internal Slack messaging system. The message, and others, make clear that top federal officials targeted me specifically, potentially violating my basic First Amendment right to free speech.

The First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Twitter. But if the companies are acting on behalf of the federal government they can become “state actors” that must allow free speech and debate, just as the government does.

Previous efforts to file state action lawsuits against the government and social media companies for working together to ban users have failed. Courts have universally held that people who have been banned have not shown the specific demands from government officials that are necessary to support state action claims.

In my case, though, federal officials appear to have gone far beyond generically encouraging Twitter to support Covid vaccines or discourage “misinformation” (i.e. information that the government does not like).

Instead, top officials targeted me personally.

Andrew Slavitt, senior advisor to President Biden’s Covid response team, complained specifically about me, according to a Twitter employee in another Slack conversation discussing the White House meeting.

“They really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” the employee wrote. “Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz [visualization] that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.”

According to an interview he gave to the Washington Post in June 2021, Slavitt worked directly with the most powerful officials in the federal government, including Ron Klain, President Biden’s chief of staff, and Biden himself.

The Slack conversations also show the pressure Twitter employees felt internally to respond to the government’s questions about whether the company was doing enough to suppress “misinformation” about Covid and the vaccines. An employee writes that the questions at the meeting were “pointed” but “mercifully, we had answers.”

—

(From Twitter’s internal Slack channel)


—


—

At the time, employees said internally they did not believe I had broken the company’s rules. “I’ve taken a pretty close look at his account and I don’t think any of it’s violative,” an employee wrote on the Slack conversation a few minutes after the "really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off.”

But the pressure on Twitter to take action against me and other mRNA vaccine skeptics steadily increased after that April meeting, and especially in July and August, as the government began to consider the unprecedented step of mandating Covid vaccines for adults.

On July 16, 2021, President Biden complained publicly that social media companies were “killing people” by encouraging vaccine hesitancy. A few hours after Biden’s comment, Twitter suspended my account for the first time.

On August 28, 2021, barely four months after the meeting, Twitter banned me - for a tweet that it has now acknowledged “should not have led to my suspension.”

I obtained the message and other documents related to Twitter’s censorship of me as part of my lawsuit against Twitter over my August 2021 ban. I filed the suit in federal court in San Francisco in December 2021. Twitter and I settled it last month, when Twitter restored my account and acknowledged it had erred in banning me.

The documents contain other revelations, including emails showing that other reporters asked Twitter to take action against me; I will report on those in the future.

More messages, emails, and internal documents are expected.

(fair use applies)

bending the first amendment past breaking
state sponsored extortion of media as policy and praxis
el gato malo
16 hr ago


the first amendment is a simple, powerful thing. and the message is clear: “congress shall make no law.”

what is unfortunate in this structure is how the government has changed in a manner the framers did not anticipate. we have become a government not with a weak executive branch facing mostly outward but one with an exceedingly powerful one facing mostly in. we are, in our domestic lives, affected FAR less by congress than by the ever expanding alphabet soup of agencies that have grown like bureaucratic slime mold to cover nearly every aspect of every action and activity.

and this mesh of regulation and influence subverts the intent of the first amendment badly.

private companies should be free to make their own choices about speech, publication, amplification, etc. i really, truly believe this and that any other path or practice leads to greater mischief. it is always worse to have the state tell you what you can and cannot say and a free market will always route around the limitations created by individual actors within it. that’s what markets do. it’s as inevitable as sunrise.

but what breaks this and forces behavior into unified channels of suppression is state intervention to ensure that markets are not free and in a world as webbed by bureaucratic stricture as ours, this intervention need not be direct. it may easily be indirect and this starts to look like state sponsored extortion.


these are the predations of mobsters and the invitations into fascist and totalitarian style systems where no media entity that speaks against the party can ever feel safe. they are hectored and hounded, excluded and suppressed. meanwhile, those who “join the team” get advanced and advantaged.

this is de facto state sponsored media with subterfuge and cutouts.

and this deniability is rapidly coming unraveled.

the government is getting caught with its greasy fingers in media pie after media pie and it is getting set to do MUCH worse.

this has not been social media fact checkers choosing to push covid narratives. this has been state actors telling them what the narratives should be and whipping them into line. and it is WAY past blatant.

here’s a fun little missive from nick clegg, the president of global affairs' at facebook parent co “meta” (and also, wait for it, a former UK deputy PM for the liberal democrats) to vivek murthy, the US surgeon general.

(gained by FOIA request)

it’s clearly both collaborative and suppressive.



it’s facebook, working in conjunction with multiple federal health officials to “remove the disinfo dozen” and shadowbanning people by making them “more difficult to find.” they are also getting out in front of “misinformation trends” to suppress them.

this is not independent action from meta.

this is specific, deliberate, and iterative cooperation to suppress speech at the behest of the government.

and this means our government is, if not breaking the law and violating the constitution, certainly flouting its intent.
and this is way past editorial discretion.

the state should not be the media and the media should not be the state. the separation of the fourth estate from government is vital to the survival of anything like an informed populace.

and make no mistake: this practice is widespread, touches everything, and reaches right up to and includes the highest levels of government.

it’s one sided and takes specific aim at specific people.

look what happened to berenson:


white house senior advisor for covid response andy slavitt called him out by name to be kicked off the platform. and twitter was clearly worried about pleasing him.

“mercifully, we had the answers” is not the statement of a peer, it’s the statement of a subordinate.



i wonder what other names these people were calling out? (and continue to call)

i got banned even earlier and alex and i showed up on a number of the same graphs like this linkage chart of “anti-maksers” from the hilarious MIT hit piece on us.



i do not know to this day why i was decatformed. they never said a word to me. i was never warned, never cautioned, and never suspended prior. just one and done, gone forever, no explanation given and no query responded to. what i do know is that they had been playing merry hell with me prior on shadowbanning. and i know that it started after one simple thing changed:

my completely non-objectionable model showing the US covid waves as a seasonal expression that varied by and was highly consistent within climate regions got re-tweeted by then president trump.

this data came straight from the CDC.

and my account was never the same.

it got downmodded, shadowbanned, and endlessly bot-mobbed.

i was a marked gato.

because that’s what they do. i didn’t elicit it. there was no cabal. to this day, i have no idea why trump re-tweeted that. certainly, no one asked me. first i heard of it was when i logged in and had like 30,000 notifications.

but now you’re on the enemies list. and that is that.

and that leads one place in the end:



how many top doctors, researchers, and political pundits have seen the same?

and that is worrying because the bluebird is at it again and we know that they are far from impartial and we we know that it’s all political. the democratic party tells them whom to attack and they do it. this is weaponized media. this is propaganda. and it’s coming for the election.

again.



this is ominous, orwellian stuff.



see, now this is a bit hard to swallow from the folks who:

1. amplified hillary claims that trump colluded with russians and stole the 2016 election based on fake documents propagated by US federal agencies and candidates to influence and “undermine public confidence” in not just an election but an entire presidency lock, stock, and phony baloney impeachment show trial.
2. suppressed heavily discussion of meddling with the 2020 election calling it “dangerous insurrection” and “conspiracy theory” despite widespread evidence of serious shenanigans
3. and meddled in the election themselves by suppressing discussion of the infamous “hunter laptop” even going so far as to kick the new york post off their platform for reporting 100% accurate information about rampant corruption and influence peddling from the president’s son and the kickbacks to the big guy himself. twitter and other social media sites smeared it as disinformation. it wasn’t.

these are the people who are claiming to safeguard the coming election and they are bought, paid for, and partisan.
they plan to get ahead of narratives to shape and suppress them.



and the same people who pushed this and cancelled and throttled those who disagreed



are going to decide “what is reputable news from reputable sources.”



when even the sources themselves cannot keep their stories straight.



this is not about true or false.

it’s not about right or wrong or changing facts and science.

it’s about friends and enemies in the quest for power.

nothing more, nothing less.

this is one party seeking to create a one party state through one party media.

it’s message adulteration, speech suppression, and a flouting of the intent of the first amendment.

i’m honestly not sure if anything can fix this with the system as is.

how many new modalities will they come for, how many alternatives will be shuttered, suppressed, and cowed?
this was my first substack:


and i stand by it. there is no real, lasting defense against this apart from placing social media beyond the reach of government or even people. we must build open systems controlled by no one. we must wrest the power of our data and our attention from the curators of walled gardens and place it into the hands of the people. we must render the very idea of censorship anachronistic because if we do not, censorship is poised to render the idea of an open and honest public square extinct.

we cannot “legal” our way into this. that’s just adding more rules to a system whose chief defect is that it is too heavily controlled and controllable. it just digs us deeper into the same hole and prevents the emergence of that which can extract us.

we must take discourse for ourselves or they will take it from us.

and you are not going to like what that looks like.

.

Without reading every single post, I “was” wondering if you guys would have something relevant regarding the CDC abrupt end to Covid restrictions.

It’s all…..rather strange, isn’t it. I can’t quite put my finger on it.
I’m baffled, quite frankly.
And not in a good way either.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/898153945721339904/O****PfR_bigger.jpg


Disclose.tv
@disclosetv
1

NEW - U.S. CDC appears to have deleted the statement that the "mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body" from their website.

psychgirl said:

Without reading every single post, I “was” wondering if you guys would have something relevant regarding the CDC abrupt end to Covid restrictions.

It’s all…..rather strange, isn’t it. I can’t quite put my finger on it.
I’m baffled, quite frankly.
And not in a good way either.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I have a few thoughts but I’m just not sure right now. It has caught me by surprise tbh. New variants and rising death counts....make this highly suspicious.

“Conclusion

It’s over folks. Pack it up! The great Covid pandemic is over. As I predicted in December of 2021, Omicron was the end of Covid, it just took far too long, and far too many additional lives for that reality to sink in.”


I have followed Dr. Chris Martinson ever since Covid began. It was his scientific background and logical understanding of what was going on that kept me from getting vaccinated among other things. But he was the primary voice leading me through this pandemic.

Now he says that Omnicron is the final stage of the Covid pandemic. That is completely opposite of what Geert has been saying.

With this newsletter I know I have cognitive dissonance. The two top guys that I trust are in full disagreement.

I side with Geert here and sadly believe Dr. Martinson is missing it.

So his reasoning for why the CDC came out with this news is that he believes they think it’s over too. I just don’t believe that they believe that.

i’m really surprised at his conclusion here.

So why I think the CDC may be trying to reverse itself.

There are an overwhelming number of parents not vaccinating their children and many more are refusing to get booster shots because they see that the news is getting out over vaccine injuries. They have bigger plans ahead and they need to maintain whatever trust they still have with the media and a herd of people that will do whatever they want. They say that there is a current major move against vaccines because of all the injuries and deaths that the vaccines have caused and they would like to move on fearing lawsuits and a total breech of trust.

Or they really do believe Omnicron is the final stage of Covid as Martinson believes.

It’s
A mess. I can’t figure it out.

Zoner said:

So why I think the CDC may be trying to reverse itself.

There are an overwhelming number of parents not vaccinating their children and many more are refusing to get booster shots because they see that the news is getting out over vaccine injuries. They have bigger plans ahead and they need to maintain whatever trust they still have with the media and a herd of people that will do whatever they want. They say that there is a current major move against vaccines because of all the injuries and deaths that the vaccines have caused and they would like to move on fearing lawsuits and a total breech of trust.

Or they really do believe Omnicron is the final stage of Covid as Martinson believes.

Click to expand...

There ya go.

Tristan said:

There ya go.

Click to expand...

Or it could really mean they see Dr. Phillips’ Deltacron lethal tsunami wave coming and so they are relaxing standards to increase deaths. Very evil if true. But very possible with this evil crew.