CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
(fair use applies)


Trump's former CDC director makes bombshell COVID claim that 'there is a real possibility' virus was born in North Carolina
By STEPHEN M. LEPORE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
Published: 23:10 EST, 17 November 2024 | Updated: 23:32 EST, 17 November 2024

A former director of the CDC under Donald Trump says he believes COVID-19 may have been born in a North Carolina laboratory as part of a secret biodefense program.

Robert Redfield has previously been a proponent of the 'lab leak' theory which posits the disease came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

Now Redfield - a frequent critic of Dr. Anthony Fauci - says that the disease may have origins in the Tar Heel State.

Appearing on the Third Opinion podcast, Redfield flat out stated that COVID-19 was 'intentionally engineered as a part of a biodefense program.'

He now argues that China did not necessarily create the virus and did the best that they could once 'they realized they had a problem.

However, he calls the United States' role in the development of the virus 'substantial.'

He claims that the American government holds responsibility for funding research into the NIH, USAID and the Department of Defense.

He then calls out researcher Dr. Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, whom he calls 'the scientific mastermind' behind all of this.

'I think he probably helped create some of the original viral lines, but I can’t prove that. But he was very involved,' he said.

When pressed on whether the virus was 'actually developed here' and that the Chinese may have been wrongfully accused of developing the virus, Redfield doubles down.

'Well, I don’t know if they were framed, but I think there is a real possibility that the virus’s birthplace was Chapel Hill,' Redfield said, naming the hometown of the University of North Carolina.

DailyMail.com has reached out to Dr. Baric for comment.

The virus is believed to have originated in bats, but debate is currently raging over whether it leaked from the Wuhan lab - and whether it was modified by Chinese scientists to become more contagious beforehand.

Redfield, who was CDC director under the Trump administration, has in the past said Fauci was 'holding on tightly' to the theory that the virus evolved naturally, before likening the White House COVID tsar to a 'dog with a bone.'

And in 2021, he slammed the 'highly compromised' World Health Organization for not cracking down on China at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for letting its communist government dictate the terms of the WHO probe into the origins of COVID.

Donald Trump and his supporters were widely derided for sharing the same theory when he was president.

Redfield, who doesn't believe the virus was intentionally leaked by China, said COVID-19's ability to spread rapidly from human-to-human was unlike other coronaviruses such as SARS.

Redfield said he was 'disappointed' there was a lack of openness within the scientific community early on to investigate both hypotheses.

Some scientists, the media and academics long heaped scorn on the lab leak hypothesis, insisting that it was a fringe conspiracy theory and even racist after Donald Trump embraced the idea.

New evidence, including reports of three workers at the Wuhan lab who fell seriously ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, has forced a sober reassessment among doubters.

Redfield went on to say that it was a 'critical error' to treat COVID-19 the same as SARS in January and February last year.

'By calling it SARS-like, we mounted a public health response that was mirrored off SARS. The problem is, COVID is nothing like SARS,' Redfield said, adding that response was 'flawed'.

Redfield acknowledged that he should have pushed harder for the CDC to be allowed into the Wuhan lab when the virus first emerged and said the World Health Organization was compromised by China.

'I think they were highly compromised. Clearly they were incapable of compelling China to adhere to the treaty agreements they have on global health,' Redfield said.
What was the name of that lady Chinese doctor and her husband Huber either sent home or deported early on I think in 2019 who had been working on the Covid virus at that college in North Carolina?
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
(fair use applies)


Long COVID and Exercise Intolerance Unveiled by Yale Researchers
Nikhil Prasad Fact checked by:Thailand Medical News Team
Nov 19, 2024

Exercise intolerance is a troubling problem for many living with long COVID, a condition officially known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Researchers from Yale School of Medicine recently published a groundbreaking study shedding light on why even mild physical activity can feel like an uphill battle for long COVID patients. The findings provide insights into the physiological and metabolic impairments causing these symptoms, paving the way for better treatments.

This Medical News report explains the research in simple terms, highlighting the study's methodology and findings to make the science accessible to everyone. It offers a clear perspective on how long COVID affects exercise tolerance and what future research might mean for patients.

Understanding the Study
The study involved 47 long COVID patients who underwent invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing (iCPET). This advanced testing measures oxygen use and metabolic changes in the body during exercise. By comparing data from mild versus severe initial COVID-19 infections, the team uncovered key insights into the body’s response to physical exertion.

Among the study’s participants, eight had been hospitalized for severe COVID-19, while the remaining 39 experienced milder cases. Despite differences in initial illness severity, all participants reported significant and unexplained exercise limitations.


Key Findings: What’s Happening in the Body?
-Reduced Oxygen Use in Muscles

Long COVID patients exhibited reduced peak oxygen extraction (EO2) during exercise, suggesting their muscles struggle to use oxygen effectively. This problem was more pronounced in those who had severe initial COVID infections. However, cardiac output (the amount of blood the heart pumps) was within normal ranges, indicating that the issue lies with the muscles rather than the heart.

-Switch to Anaerobic Energy
When oxygen-dependent energy production falls short, the body relies on anaerobic metabolism, a less efficient backup system. The researchers observed that long COVID patients began using this backup system at lower exercise intensities, even during everyday activities like climbing stairs.

-Metabolic Changes and Potential Biomarkers
The team performed detailed metabolomic analysis, examining blood samples for signs of how the body’s metabolism shifts during exercise. They found increased levels of succinate and inosine, metabolites linked to energy production. Elevated succinate, in particular, correlated with worse exercise tolerance, suggesting it could serve as a biomarker to identify long COVID severity.

-Impaired Energy Production
Long COVID patients showed reduced capacity to produce energy through both aerobic and anaerobic pathways. This dual impairment leaves patients with limited ability to sustain physical activity, leading to quicker fatigue.


What These Findings Mean
The study highlights that long COVID’s impact on exercise tolerance stems from a mix of impaired oxygen use and altered metabolic pathways. This combination results in an early reliance on anaerobic energy production, which is less efficient and contributes to fatigue. The researchers suggest that targeting these metabolic dysfunctions could offer new ways to treat long COVID symptoms.

For example, therapies aimed at improving mitochondrial function (the part of the cell responsible for energy production) or enhancing the purine nucleotide cycle (which supports energy generation during high-intensity exercise) might help patients recover their ability to exercise comfortably.


Moving Forward: Hope for Treatment
While this study provides significant insights, it’s just the beginning. The researchers plan to expand their work to include larger groups and healthy control participants to refine their findings. They also hope to explore new treatments based on the metabolic impairments identified in their study.

For long COVID patients, these findings offer hope. Identifying biomarkers like succinate and understanding the role of purine metabolism opens doors to targeted therapies that could restore energy levels and improve quality of life.


Conclusion: A Step Toward Recovery
Exercise intolerance is a major barrier for many people living with long COVID, but understanding its root causes marks a critical step toward finding solutions. This Yale-led study offers valuable insights into the physiological and metabolic changes driving these symptoms, emphasizing the importance of oxygen and energy production in recovery. By uncovering potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets, the research team has laid the groundwork for future innovations in long COVID treatment.

The study findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal: Pulmonary Circulation.

Which goes to show, once again, that both the virus, and its supposed cure – the shot – attack the blood itself.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Research Points to COVID’s ‘Long Tail’ on School Graduation Rates
Linda Jacobson - The74
Tue, November 19, 2024 at 11:30 AM UTC

The majority of states, 26, saw declines in high school graduation rates following the pandemic, new research shows.

In 2020, for example, 10 states had graduation rates of 90% or higher, but only five did in 2022, according to Tuesday’s analysis from the Grad Partnership, a network of nonprofits working to improve student outcomes.

But the report suggests that the full impact of COVID school closures on graduation rates has yet to be realized. This year’s seniors, for example, were seventh graders when the pandemic hit in March, 2020 and likely spent much of eighth grade learning remotely or in a cycle of on-again, off-again in-person learning.

That’s why the pandemic’s effects on graduation rates and college enrollment could have a “long tail,” the report says.

“Graduating from high school is a long process,” said Robert Balfanz, director of the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University, which supports the Grad Partnership. “It’s the younger kids that may be more impacted.”

The pandemic disturbed a trend of rising graduation rates that began in 2011, driven largely by gains among minorities. But an overall increase following the pandemic was due to state and local efforts to minimize the impact of the COVID emergency rather than actual educational improvement, Balfanz said.

State and local decisions to relax grading policies, accept late work and drop exit exam requirements gave the appearance that more students were meeting expectations. That’s why additional information, like whether ninth graders have earned enough credits to advance to 10th grade, chronic absenteeism data and the rates of students taking advanced courses have become increasingly valuable indicators of whether students are on track.

Meanwhile, states and districts varied widely on how deeply COVID affected families, how long schools were closed and whether they were equipped to respond to the crisis.

“We know some schools took extraordinary efforts to make sure their seniors graduated,” Balfanz said. “Others may not have had that capacity.”

Some students lacked stable Wi-Fi at home or had to go to work when parents were sick, while other families had the resources to hire tutors and form pods or attended schools that reopened in the fall of 2020.

Ohio saw the largest increase in rates between 2019 and 2022 — from 82% to 86.2%, while New Jersey saw the greatest decline, from 90.6% to 85.2%. But actions in two large states — California and New York — actually pushed the national rate to an all-time high, from 85.8% in 2019 to 86.6%.

Both states waived graduation requirements, like required courses and exams, for students. Meanwhile, New Jersey’s stricter definition of on-time graduation for students with disabilities likely contributed to the drop, the report said.

At the district level, rates varied widely. Of the nearly 7,000 districts included in the analysis, about a third saw higher graduation rates in 2022 than in 2019, while roughly the same percentage saw a decline. Rates were stable in about 38% of districts.

But the data, Balfanz said, suggests that districts should start as soon as students enter high school to make sure they’re making progress toward graduation.

As part of their state accountability systems, six states currently monitor whether ninth graders are having a successful first year in high school. Data from five of those states — Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon and Washington — shows significantly fewer students were on track in 2021-22 than in 2018-19.

“These students may bear more of the brunt of the pandemic’s impact on high school graduation rates than students who experienced the pandemic as 10th and 11th graders,” the report said.

Chronic absenteeism, which remains above 25% in some states, is also tougher to get under control at the high school level than in earlier grades and is “the wild card for a prolonged period of pandemic impacts on educational attainment,” the report said.


‘Hybrid and weird’

Adam Larsen, assistant superintendent of the Oregon Community School District in Illinois, west of Chicago, remembers how much students who were seventh graders when schools shut down struggled in their freshman year.

“That eighth grade year was hybrid and weird. We had social distancing and no vaccine,” he said. “Socially, they just didn’t mature. Freshman year tried to be normal, and they weren’t ready for normal.”

The Oregon district also offers an afterschool mentoring program, called Hawks Take Flight, designed to prevent students from falling so far behind, because of absenteeism or missing work, that they can’t graduate on time.

At the weekly sessions, students talk about what’s getting in their way. If they meet their goals for the week, they earn prizes.

“Our graduation rate has been high and remains high because of the amount of support that we put in there,” Larsen said. “We have made it impossibly hard for students to fail unless they’ve chosen to fail.”
‘Make the diploma meaningful’

The way districts used their $190 billion in pandemic relief money also determined whether students received enough help to keep up with their work.

Diman Regional Vocational Technical High School, in Fall River, Massachusetts, near the border with Rhode Island, hired virtual tutors, conducted home visits and “looked at the crisis as an opportunity to use funds to support students,” said Andrew Rebello, who was principal at the school until this past August.

In 2021, without any diploma expectations waived, the school hit a record 98% graduation rate. Massachusetts, however, just changed those expectations. In the general election, voters decided to scrap the requirement that students pass exams in English, science and math in order to graduate.

The vote is a sign that the shift toward waiving high-stakes tests wasn’t limited to the pandemic.

Harry Felder, executive director of FairTest, which advocates against standardized testing, celebrated the outcome. “Parents, educators and policymakers realize that these tests fail as drivers of education that our young people need to thrive in the modern world.” he said in a press release.

But Rebello, now assistant superintendent in another district, said he thinks the state needs to add a different requirement to “make the diploma meaningful.”

The growing backlash against high-stakes testing also creates the opportunity for a fresh “conversation about what really matters for high school graduation rates,” Balfanz said.

While some research shows that getting good grades and taking rigorous courses might be greater predictors of success in college than a single test score, there are also concerns that grades no longer reflect subject mastery.

“This is a huge debate,” Balfanz said. “But, post-pandemic, we do need to revise what we expect of our kids.”
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Younger patients more affected by neurologic manifestations of long COVID
by Elana Gotkine
November 22, 2024

Younger and middle-aged patients seem to be disproportionately affected by neurologic manifestations of postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (Neuro-PASC), according to a study published online Nov. 22 in the Annals of Neurology.

Natasha A. Choudhury, M.D., from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study of the first consecutive 200 posthospitalization Neuro-PASC and 1,100 nonhospitalized Neuro-PASC (NNP) patients assessed at a Neuro-COVID-19 clinic between May 2020 and March 2023. Patients were divided into age groups: younger, middle-aged, and older (18 to 44, 45 to 64, and 65-plus years, respectively).

The researchers found that significant age-related differences in the frequencies of comorbidities and abnormal neurologic findings demonstrated higher prevalence in older patients. Conversely, significant age-related differences in Neuro-PASC symptoms, indicating lower prevalence and symptom burden in older individuals, were seen at 10 months from COVID-19 onset.

In the NNP group, there were significant age-related differences observed in subjective impression of fatigue and sleep disturbance, corresponding with higher impairment in quality of life for younger patients. In NNP patients, significant age-related differences were seen in objective executive function and working memory, with the worst performance seen in younger patients.

"The impact of this condition causing disproportionate morbidity and disability in younger adults in their prime, who provide much of the workforce, productivity, and innovation in our society, may lead to critical issues of increased health care system burden, mental health crisis, socio-cultural deterioration, and economic recession," the authors write.

More information: Natasha A. Choudhury et al. Neurologic Manifestations of Long COVID Disproportionately Affect Young and Middle-Age Adults, Annals of Neurology (2024). DOI: 10.1002/ana.27128, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.27128
Journal information: Annals of Neurology
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Microscopic, single-cell differences found in the lungs of COVID-19 patients in Malawi

by University of Glasgow
November 20, 2024


microscopic-single-cel.jpg

Study overview, overview of our cohort and comparator cohorts and histological lesion comparison with other cohorts. Credit: Nature Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03354-3


Microscopic, single-cell differences found in the lungs of COVID-19 patients in Malawi demonstrate the value and importance of cutting-edge infectious disease research in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The new study—the first of its kind in a Sub-Saharan population—is published in Nature Medicine and reveals previously unobserved differences in the inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in patients who live in Malawi, compared to those who live in Western countries. Scientists believe these differences in response to the virus may be linked to both genetic and environmental factors, highlighting the importance of a global approach to infectious disease research.

Led by the University of Glasgow in collaboration with Malawian scientists at the Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome program and Kamuzu University of Health Sciences and an international research team, the study is the first to carry out single-cell tests in lung samples in any Sub-Saharan population.

To carry out the study, the team undertook a series of postmortem investigations in fatal lung disease patients, with and without COVID-19, in the early stages of the pandemic (2020-21). Seeking to understand how the disease had impacted people in Malawi, the team performed single-cell tests on lung and nasal tissues as well as on blood samples, alongside using imaging mass cytometry—a state-of-the-art imaging technology.

Data from the study showed that broadly, the majority of pathological changes in the lung and some immunological responses in COVID-19 in Malawian patients had similarities to other non-African groups. Researchers say these findings are reassuring, indicating that infection with COVID-19 is not an entirely different disease process when comparing these different patient populations—indicating the likely effectiveness of broad anti-inflammatory treatments like steroids in Malawian patients.

However, looking in more detail at a cellular level, the research team also found marked differences in the Malawian samples compared with other global data, with potential implications for more targeted treatments—indicating that some treatments, which have been fairly widely used, may not be effective in Malawian patients.

The researchers believe both genetic and environmental factors, including lifetime exposure to other locally endemic pathogens such as TB and malaria, may be behind some of the differences in cell responses to the disease. The team say their findings highlight the vital importance of carrying out cutting-edge research across different countries and regions of the world, in order to ensure a fuller picture of human health.

Dr. Christopher Moxon, lead author of the paper from the University of Glasgow, said, "It is great to see the results come together of this major multi-disciplinary team effort. The work had social, logistical as well as technical challenges and it was only through bringing together local and international experts in these areas that this study was possible. Our team has shown that we can apply some of the most cutting-edge techniques in a center in sub–Saharan Africa and produce results with important translational implications. This lays exciting foundations for the future."

James Nyirenda, first author on the paper who carried out the research while at the Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome program and Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, said, "Our study highlights the need for investing in advanced discovery research in low-income regions. This is not just about scientific innovation; it's also about bringing equal benefits of scientific innovation to under-represented countries for equity.

"By uncovering unique immune responses to COVID-19 in Malawi, our study highlights how targeted immunological research can lead to more effective, accessible treatments for populations that might otherwise be overlooked."

More information: James Nyirenda et al, Spatially resolved single-cell atlas unveils a distinct cellular signature of fatal lung COVID-19 in a Malawian population, Nature Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03354-3
Journal information: Nature Medicine
Provided by University of Glasgow
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


New FOIA Emails: NIH Silenced Own Expert on Covid Origin
Jeff Carlson & Hans Mahncke
Nov 22, 2024

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is hiring a new chief for their virology section. That the federal government should not be hiring anyone, especially not senior staff, during the lame-duck period is self-evident. But what is in many ways even more notable about this appointment is that it reveals that the NIH has a virology section. One certainly could not have guessed this based on the people trotted out by Anthony Fauci during the pandemic, all of whom were from outside the NIH. Curiously, there has been no interest whatsoever from the media as to why that might be, especially since, as we can now all see, the NIH has its own virology branch.

This latest revelation aligns perfectly with newly released emails from January 2021, which gives us an insight into how NIH leadership was not only censoring critical voices in academia, such as that of Jay Bhattacharya, President-elect Trump’s likely pick as new NIH head, but also actively censoring its own experts. In one email, obtained last week by Jimmy Tobias after a years-long Freedom of Information Act battle, Carrie Wolinetz, the senior advisor to the director of the NIH, demanded outright censorship of an in-house NIH expert.

The expert, David Resnick, who works in the NIH’s bioethics section, co-authored a paper discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of gain-of-function experiments. This worried Wolinetz because it might have prompted questions about the origin of Covid and the potential role the NIH may have played in the virus's creation:
“I have some global concerns with the notion that an NIH employee would be providing what amount to critiques of HHS policy that is implemented by NIH, or suggestions that contradict messaging by NIH leadership.”
The “HHS policy” which Wolinetz felt compelled to protect from any criticism, according to her own email, was based on a blog post by her superior, the then head of the NIH, Francis Collins. In his blog post, dated March 26, 2020, Collins expressed his strong opposition to the lab leak theory, which he called “outrageous.” The sole basis for Collins' post was the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper, published just a few days earlier. Collins failed to acknowledge that he, along with Fauci, played a significant role in orchestrating the publication of this fraudulent paper, which explicitly aimed to promote the natural origin theory while discrediting the lab leak theory. Wolinetz's justification for silencing a prominent colleague was so flimsy that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from her actions is that she was helping Collins and Fauci to cover up their involvement in seeding the pandemic, which included outsourcing gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Notably, Wolinetz’s email had only one recipient: Lawrence Tabak, the then principal deputy director of the NIH, who would soon become the acting director, a position he held until 2023. In his reply, Tabak agreed to meet Wolinetz to talk about silencing Resnik.

Even more notably, it took another three and a half years years for Resnik to finally publish his article in July 2024, by which time the NIH's deceitful natural origin narrative had largely collapsed. In the published article Resnik stated:
“the idea that a biosafety lapse at the WIV—or some other laboratory for that matter—could have caused the COVID-19 pandemic is a very real possibility that has significant bioethical and public policy implications.”
It is no wonder that NIH leadership was so eager to silence him.

The implications of Wolinetz’s actions are significant. She pervasively infringed upon academic freedom, as well as on Resnik’s First Amendment rights. Typically, the media experiences a total meltdown when there is even just a suggestion that a government scientist has been silenced; in this instance, we have airtight evidence that this actually occurred. However, since the scientist in question may have made remarks that could be interpreted as mildly critical of Collins and Fauci, the media has completely overlooked the story.

There are additional implications to consider, and this brings us back to the NIH's recruitment of a new chief virologist. The broader issue, which goes directly to the heart of the Covid origin cover-up, is that despite receiving in excess $60 billion annually from taxpayers and employing over 20,000 staff—many of whom are highly compensated scientists—Collins and Fauci completely disregarded their in-house experts regarding the origins of Covid. Instead, they brought in several conflicted scientists whose careers were entirely dependent on funding from Fauci.

The scientists were subsequently tasked with writing the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper, along with other actions to further the cover-up, such as promoting the false natural origin narrative in the media. Not coincidentally, two of the scientists brought in by Fauci and Collins, Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry, had previously worked in a lab in Kenema, Sierra Leone, which is suspected to be the origin of the Ebola outbreak in 2014. Their expertise in covering up suspected lab leaks may explain why they were chosen. Notably, Andersen had no prior experience with coronaviruses.
These external scientists, employed by Fauci to obscure the true origin of Covid, later collectively received over $50 million in grant allocations from Fauci. Andersen, the lead author of the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper, had an $8.9 million grant awaiting approval on Fauci's desk as he was tasked with leading the cover-up.

As a general proposition, we were already aware that NIH’s own scientists had been excluded from the Covid origin issue. This was evident because the only names that consistently appeared in connection with Fauci and Covid’s origin were those of his hand-picked group of conflicted scientists, who relied on his financial support. However, the full extent of this exclusion was not revealed until the latest batch of emails was obtained. As is often the case in matters of government corruption, particularly regarding the cover-up of Covid's origins, the truth is even worse than we initially believed. Rather than merely ignoring or neglecting internal scientists, they were actively silenced by the director's office.

It cannot be overstated that, although the silencing of Resnik is a serious issue, it is likely just one of many such cases—for which we happen to have obtained incriminating emails. Who else has been silenced? How toxic must the work culture at the NIH be if no one, including Resnik himself, has spoken up?

This entire episode further underscores the urgent need for a total overhaul of the NIH, or perhaps even its complete dissolution. Instead of being dedicated to scientific advancement, the $60 billion organization has become a hub of politics, cover-ups, and corruption. The new Trump administration cannot arrive soon enough.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Trump picks Jay Bhattacharya, who backed COVID herd immunity, to lead National Institutes of Health
Carla K. Johnson
Wed, November 27, 2024 at 2:20 AM UTC

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a critic of pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates, to lead the National Institutes of Health, the nation's leading medical research agency.

Trump, in a statement Tuesday evening, said Bhattacharya, a 56-year-old physician and professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, will work in cooperation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, "to direct the Nation’s Medical Research, and to make important discoveries that will improve Health, and save lives.”

“Together, Jay and RFK Jr. will restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research as they examine the underlying causes of, and solutions to, America’s biggest Health challenges, including our Crisis of Chronic Illness and Disease," he wrote.

The decision to choose Bhattacharya for the post is yet another reminder of the ongoing impact of the COVID pandemic on the politics on public health.

Bhattacharya was one of three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 open letter maintaining that lockdowns were causing irreparable harm.

The document — which came before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and during the first Trump administration — promoted “herd immunity,” the idea that people at low risk should live normally while building up immunity to COVID-19 through infection. Protection should focus instead on people at higher risk, the document said.

“I think the lockdowns were the single biggest public health mistake,” Bhattacharya said in March 2021 during a panel discussion convened by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The Great Barrington Declaration was embraced by some in the first Trump administration, even as it was widely denounced by disease experts. Then- NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called it dangerous and “not mainstream science.”

His nomination would need to be approved by the Senate.

Trump on Tuesday also announced that Jim O’Neill, a former HHS official, will serve as deputy secretary of the sprawling agency. Trump said O’Neill “will oversee all operations and improve Management, Transparency, and Accountability to, Make America Healthy Again,” the president-elect announced.

O’Neill is the only one of Trump’s health picks so far who brings previous experience working inside the bureaucracy to the job. Trump’s previous choices to lead public health agencies — including Kennedy, Dr. Mehmet Oz for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator and Dr. Marty Makary for Food and Drug Administration commissioner — have all been Washington outsiders who are vowing to shake up the agencies.

Bhattacharya, who faced restrictions on social media platforms because of his views, was also a plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri, a Supreme Court case contending that federal officials improperly suppressed conservative views on social media as part of their efforts to combat misinformation. The Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration in that case.

After Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, he invited Bhattacharya to the company's headquarters to learn more about how his views had been restricted on the platform, which Musk renamed X. More recently, Bhattacharya has posted on X about scientists leaving the site and joining the alternative site Bluesky, mocking Bluesky as "their own little echo chamber.”

Bhattacharya has argued that vaccine mandates that barred unvaccinated people from activities and workplaces undermined Americans' trust in the public health system.

He is a former research fellow at the Hoover Institution and an economist at the RAND Corporation.

The National Institutes of Health falls under HHS, which Trump has nominated Kennedy to oversee. The NIH's $48 billion budget funds medical research on vaccines, cancer and other diseases through competitive grants to researchers at institutions across the nation. The agency also conducts its own research with thousands of scientists working at NIH labs in Bethesda, Maryland.

Among advances that were supported by NIH money are a medication for opioid addiction, a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, many new cancer drugs and the speedy development of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Meet the medical contrarians picked to lead health agencies under Trump and Kennedy
Mike Stobbe, Amanda Seitz, Carla K. Johnson, Matthew Perrone and Erica Hunzinger
November 27, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has assembled a team of medical contrarians and health care critics to fulfill an agenda aimed at remaking how the federal government oversees medicines, health programs and nutrition.

On Tuesday night, Trump nominated Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health, tapping an opponent of pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates to lead the nation’s top medical research agency. He is the latest in a string of Trump nominees who were critics of COVID-19 health measures.

Bhattacharya and the other nominees are expected to play pivotal roles in implementing Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s sprawling “Make America Healthy Again,” agenda, which calls for removing thousands of additives from U.S. foods, rooting out conflicts of interest at agencies and incentivizing healthier foods in school lunches and other nutrition programs. Trump nominated Kennedy to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH and other federal health agencies.

The new health priorities bear little resemblance to those of Trump’s first term, which focused on cutting regulations for food, drug and agriculture companies.

“You’re hearing a very different tune as we head into this new Trump administration,” said Gabby Headrick, a nutrition researcher at George Washington University’s school of public health. “It’s important that we all proceed with caution and remember some of the public health losses we saw the first time.”

Trump’s nominees don’t have experience running large bureaucratic agencies, but they know how to talk about health on TV.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pick Dr. Mehmet Oz hosted a talk show for 13 years and is a well-known wellness and lifestyle influencer. The pick for the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Marty Makary, and for surgeon general, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, had been frequent Fox News contributors.

Some of them have ties to Florida like many of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees: Dave Weldon, the pick for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, represented the state in Congress for 14 years.

Here’s a look at how the nominees may carry out Kennedy’s plans to “reorganize” agencies, which have an overall $1.7 trillion budget, employ 80,000 scientists, researchers, doctors and other officials:


National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health, with a $48 billion budget, funds medical research through grants to scientists across the nation and conducts its own research.

Bhattacharya, a health economist and physician at Stanford University, was one of three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 letter maintaining that lockdowns were causing irreparable harm.

The document — which came before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines — promoted “herd immunity,” the idea that people at low risk should live normally while building up immunity to COVID-19 through infection. Protection should focus instead on people at higher risk, the document said.

“I think the lockdowns were the single biggest public health mistake,” Bhattacharya said in March 2021 during a panel discussion convened by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The Great Barrington Declaration was embraced by some in the first Trump administration, even as it was widely denounced by disease experts. Then- NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called it dangerous and “not mainstream science.”

His nomination would need to be approved by the Senate.

Kennedy has said he would pause NIH’s drug development and infectious disease research and shift its focus to chronic diseases. He also would like to keep NIH funding from researchers with conflicts of interest. In 2017, he said the agency wasn’t doing enough research into the role of vaccines in autism — an idea that has long been debunked.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Atlanta-based CDC, with a $9.2 billion core budget, is charged with protecting Americans from disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Kennedy has long attacked vaccines and criticized the CDC, repeatedly alleging corruption at the agency. He said on a 2023 podcast that there is “no vaccine that is safe and effective,” and urged people to resist the CDC’s guidelines about if and when kids should get vaccinated. The World Health Organization estimates that vaccines have saved more than 150 million lives over the past 50 years, and that 100 million of them were infants.

Decades ago, Kennedy found common ground with Weldon, who served in the Army and worked as an internal medicine doctor before he represented a central Florida congressional district from 1995 to 2009.

Starting in the early 2000s, Weldon had a prominent part in a debate about whether there was a relationship between a vaccine preservative called thimerosal and autism. He was a founding member of the Congressional Autism Caucus and tried to ban thimerosal from all vaccines.

Since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated flu vaccine. Meanwhile, study after study found no evidence that thimerosal caused autism.

Weldon’s congressional voting record suggests he may go along with Republican efforts to downsize the CDC, including to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which works on topics like drownings, drug overdoses and shooting deaths.


Food and Drug Administration

Kennedy has been extremely critical of the FDA, which has 18,000 employees and is responsible for the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs, vaccines and other medical products, as well as overseeing cosmetics, electronic cigarettes and most foods.

Makary, Trump’s pick to run the FDA, is a professor at Johns Hopkins University, a trained surgeon and a cancer specialist. He is closely aligned with Kennedy on several topics.

Makary has decried the overprescribing of drugs, the use of pesticides on foods and the influence of pharmaceutical and insurance companies over doctors and government regulators.

Kennedy has suggested he’ll clear out “entire” FDA departments and also recently threatened to fire FDA employees for “aggressive suppression” of a host of unsubstantiated products and therapies, including stem cells, raw milk, psychedelics and discredited COVID-era treatments like hydroxychloroquine.

Makary’s contrarian views during COVID-19 included questioning the need for COVID-19 vaccine boosters in young kids.


Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services

The agency provides health care coverage for more than 160 million people through Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, and also sets Medicare payment rates for hospitals, doctors and other providers. With a $1.1 trillion budget and more than 6,000 employees, Oz has a massive agency to run if confirmed — and an agency that Kennedy hasn’t talked about much.

While Trump tried to scrap the Affordable Care Act in his first term, Kennedy has not taken aim at it yet.

The Biden administration on Tuesday revealed a new plan to force Medicare and Medicaid to cover weight-loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound for many Americans who are obese. Kennedy has opposed the idea, saying government-sponsored insurance programs should instead expand coverage of healthier foods and gym memberships.

Trump said during his campaign that he would protect Medicare, which provides insurance for older Americans. Oz has endorsed expanding Medicare Advantage — a privately run version of Medicare that is popular but also a source of widespread fraud.


Surgeon general

Kennedy doesn’t appear to have said much publicly about what he’d like to see from the surgeon general.

The nation’s top doctor has little administrative power but can influence what counts as a public health danger and what to do about it — suggesting things like warning labels for products and issuing advisories. The current surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, declared gun violence as a public health crisis in June.

Trump’s pick, Nesheiwat, is employed as a New York City medical director with CityMD, a group of urgent care facilities. She also has appeared on Fox News and other TV shows, authored a book on the “transformative power of prayer” in her medical career and endorses a brand of vitamin supplements.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


The COVID Cover-Up: 19 Questions We MUST Answer
Justin Hart
Nov 20, 2024

So here's the deal - remember when "experts" kept telling us what to do during COVID? Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong. We're talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work (spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories).

Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies. He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It's time to set the record straight.

Did he get anything right?
  • Origin of the disease—wrong
  • Transmission—wrong
  • Asymptomatic spread—wrong
  • PCR testing—wrong
  • Fatality rate—wrong
  • Lockdowns—wrong
  • Community triggers—wrong
  • Business closures—wrong
  • School closures—wrong
  • Quarantining the healthy—wrong
  • Impact on youth—wrong
  • Hospital overload—wrong
  • Plexiglass barriers—wrong
  • Social distancing—wrong
  • Outdoor spread—wrong
  • Masks—wrong
  • Variant impact—wrong
  • Natural immunity—wrong
  • Vaccine efficacy—wrong
  • Vaccine injury—wrong

Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it's not just Monday morning quarterbacking - they've got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn't exist), data proving schools could've stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn't the brilliant strategy they claimed.

Listen, I'm not here to say "I told you so" (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don't learn from how badly our "experts" messed up, we're just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don't think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking.

Let's break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up - this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history.

These are the questions WE want answered!


TRANSMISSION
  1. Why did officials insist on surface transmission protocols when evidence showed primarily respiratory spread?
  2. Why weren't hospitals evaluating transmission patterns early to inform policy?
  3. Why did the CDC not conduct studies on actual transmission patterns in schools and workplaces?
  4. Why was outdoor transmission overemphasized despite minimal evidence?
  5. Why weren't transmission studies prioritized to guide evidence-based policies?
ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD
  1. What evidence supported the claim that asymptomatic spread was a major driver?
  2. Why did health officials emphasize asymptomatic spread without solid data?
  3. Why were resources wasted testing asymptomatic people when they could have focused on symptomatic cases?
  4. How did the emphasis on asymptomatic spread affect public trust when evidence didn't support it?
  5. What data actually existed on true asymptomatic (vs presymptomatic) transmission rates?
PCR TESTING
  1. Why did the CDC insist on developing its own test rather than using WHO's?
  2. Why weren't cycle threshold values standardized or reported?
  3. Why did labs use cycle thresholds up to 40 when this led to false positives?
  4. Why wasn't PCR testing prioritized for high-risk populations early on?
  5. How did high cycle thresholds affect case counts and policy decisions?
FATALITY RATE
  1. Why were infection fatality rates not properly stratified by age from the beginning?
  2. Why were deaths "with COVID" vs "from COVID" not distinguished?
  3. How did inflated fatality rates affect public perception and policy?
  4. Why weren't accurate age-stratified fatality rates clearly communicated?
  5. How did misrepresenting fatality rates affect public trust?
LOCKDOWNS
  1. Why were lockdowns implemented without cost-benefit analysis?
  2. Why were lockdown harms (mental health, delayed medical care, etc.) ignored?
  3. What evidence supported the effectiveness of lockdowns?
  4. Why weren't less restrictive focused protection measures tried first?
  5. How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown policies?
  6. Why weren't regional/seasonal factors considered in lockdown decisions?
COMMUNITY TRIGGERS
  1. Why were arbitrary case numbers used to trigger restrictions?
  2. Why weren't hospital capacity metrics prioritized over case counts?
  3. How were community trigger thresholds determined?
  4. Why weren't triggers adjusted based on actual risk levels?
  5. Why weren't clear exit criteria established for restrictions?
BUSINESS CLOSURES
  1. What evidence supported closing small businesses while keeping large retailers open?
  2. Why weren't occupancy limits tried before full closures?
  3. How many businesses were unnecessarily destroyed?
  4. Why weren't economic impacts weighed against minimal health benefits?
  5. What data supported effectiveness of business closures?
SCHOOL CLOSURES
  1. Why were schools closed despite early evidence of low risk to children?
  2. Why did the US ignore data from European schools that stayed open?
  3. Why weren't the developmental/educational harms to children considered?
  4. How did school closures affect mental health and suicide rates in youth?
  5. Why weren't teachers unions' influence on closure decisions examined?
  6. What evidence supported claims that schools were major transmission vectors?
QUARANTINING THE HEALTHY
  1. Why was mass quarantine implemented without precedent or evidence?
  2. Why weren't focused protection measures tried instead?
  3. What was the cost-benefit analysis of quarantining low-risk groups?
  4. How did mass quarantine affect mental health?
  5. Why weren't vulnerable populations prioritized instead?
IMPACT ON YOUTH
  1. Why weren't developmental impacts on children considered?
  2. How did isolation affect mental health and suicide rates?
  3. What were the educational losses from remote learning?
  4. Why weren't sports/activities preserved for youth wellbeing?
  5. How did masks/distancing affect social development?
  6. What were the impacts on college students' mental health and development?
HOSPITAL OVERLOAD
  1. Why weren't early treatment protocols developed to prevent hospitalizations?
  2. Why were field hospitals built but never used?
  3. How did "flattening the curve" messaging affect hospital preparations?
  4. Why weren't at-risk populations protected to prevent hospitalizations?
  5. What was the actual vs projected hospital capacity usage?
PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS
  1. What evidence supported effectiveness of barriers?
  2. Why weren't airflow patterns considered?
  3. How did barriers affect ventilation?
  4. What was the cost-benefit of barrier installation?
  5. Why weren't barrier recommendations updated when shown ineffective?
SOCIAL DISTANCING
  1. What evidence supported 6-foot distancing?
  2. Why wasn't distancing adjusted based on ventilation/masks/context?
  3. How did arbitrary distance rules affect businesses/schools?
  4. Why wasn't 3-foot distancing considered adequate earlier?
  5. What research supported outdoor distancing requirements?
OUTDOOR SPREAD
  1. Why were outdoor gatherings restricted despite minimal transmission risk?
  2. Why were beaches/parks closed?
  3. Why weren't outdoor activities encouraged as safer alternatives?
  4. How did outdoor restrictions affect mental/physical health?
  5. What evidence supported masks outdoors?
MASKS
  1. Why were mask mandates implemented without RCT evidence?
  2. Why weren't potential harms of masking children considered?
  3. Why were cloth masks promoted despite ineffectiveness?
  4. How did masks affect learning/development in children?
  5. Why weren't mask policies updated when studies showed limited benefit?
  6. Why was natural immunity discounted in mask policies?
VARIANT IMPACT
  1. Why were variants used to justify continued restrictions?
  2. How did variant fears affect vaccine confidence?
  3. Why weren't policies adjusted for milder variants?
  4. How did variant messaging affect public trust?
  5. Why weren't seasonal patterns considered in variant projections?
NATURAL IMMUNITY
  1. Why was natural immunity ignored in policy decisions?
  2. Why were recovered people required to vaccinate?
  3. Why wasn't natural immunity studied more thoroughly?
  4. How did dismissing natural immunity affect public trust?
  5. Why were natural immunity studies from other countries ignored?
VACCINE EFFICACY
  1. Why were initial efficacy claims not properly qualified?
  2. Why wasn't waning efficacy communicated earlier?
  3. How did overselling efficacy affect public trust?
  4. Why weren't breakthrough cases tracked properly?
  5. Why were boosters promoted without clear evidence of benefit?
VACCINE INJURY
  1. Why weren't adverse events properly tracked/investigated?
  2. Why were vaccine injuries downplayed or dismissed?
  3. How did VAERS data interpretation affect public trust?
  4. Why weren't age-stratified risk-benefit analyses conducted?
  5. Why weren't early warning signals investigated more thoroughly?
  6. How did dismissing injuries affect vaccine confidence?
We have a LOT of work to do and THANKFULLY we may have people in charge who are willing to ask these questions!
 

Zoner

Veteran Member
(fair use applies)


Meet the medical contrarians picked to lead health agencies under Trump and Kennedy
Mike Stobbe, Amanda Seitz, Carla K. Johnson, Matthew Perrone and Erica Hunzinger
November 27, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has assembled a team of medical contrarians and health care critics to fulfill an agenda aimed at remaking how the federal government oversees medicines, health programs and nutrition.

On Tuesday night, Trump nominated Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health, tapping an opponent of pandemic lockdowns and vaccine mandates to lead the nation’s top medical research agency. He is the latest in a string of Trump nominees who were critics of COVID-19 health measures.

Bhattacharya and the other nominees are expected to play pivotal roles in implementing Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s sprawling “Make America Healthy Again,” agenda, which calls for removing thousands of additives from U.S. foods, rooting out conflicts of interest at agencies and incentivizing healthier foods in school lunches and other nutrition programs. Trump nominated Kennedy to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH and other federal health agencies.

The new health priorities bear little resemblance to those of Trump’s first term, which focused on cutting regulations for food, drug and agriculture companies.

“You’re hearing a very different tune as we head into this new Trump administration,” said Gabby Headrick, a nutrition researcher at George Washington University’s school of public health. “It’s important that we all proceed with caution and remember some of the public health losses we saw the first time.”

Trump’s nominees don’t have experience running large bureaucratic agencies, but they know how to talk about health on TV.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pick Dr. Mehmet Oz hosted a talk show for 13 years and is a well-known wellness and lifestyle influencer. The pick for the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Marty Makary, and for surgeon general, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, had been frequent Fox News contributors.

Some of them have ties to Florida like many of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees: Dave Weldon, the pick for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, represented the state in Congress for 14 years.

Here’s a look at how the nominees may carry out Kennedy’s plans to “reorganize” agencies, which have an overall $1.7 trillion budget, employ 80,000 scientists, researchers, doctors and other officials:


National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health, with a $48 billion budget, funds medical research through grants to scientists across the nation and conducts its own research.

Bhattacharya, a health economist and physician at Stanford University, was one of three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 letter maintaining that lockdowns were causing irreparable harm.

The document — which came before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines — promoted “herd immunity,” the idea that people at low risk should live normally while building up immunity to COVID-19 through infection. Protection should focus instead on people at higher risk, the document said.

“I think the lockdowns were the single biggest public health mistake,” Bhattacharya said in March 2021 during a panel discussion convened by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The Great Barrington Declaration was embraced by some in the first Trump administration, even as it was widely denounced by disease experts. Then- NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called it dangerous and “not mainstream science.”

His nomination would need to be approved by the Senate.

Kennedy has said he would pause NIH’s drug development and infectious disease research and shift its focus to chronic diseases. He also would like to keep NIH funding from researchers with conflicts of interest. In 2017, he said the agency wasn’t doing enough research into the role of vaccines in autism — an idea that has long been debunked.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Atlanta-based CDC, with a $9.2 billion core budget, is charged with protecting Americans from disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Kennedy has long attacked vaccines and criticized the CDC, repeatedly alleging corruption at the agency. He said on a 2023 podcast that there is “no vaccine that is safe and effective,” and urged people to resist the CDC’s guidelines about if and when kids should get vaccinated. The World Health Organization estimates that vaccines have saved more than 150 million lives over the past 50 years, and that 100 million of them were infants.

Decades ago, Kennedy found common ground with Weldon, who served in the Army and worked as an internal medicine doctor before he represented a central Florida congressional district from 1995 to 2009.

Starting in the early 2000s, Weldon had a prominent part in a debate about whether there was a relationship between a vaccine preservative called thimerosal and autism. He was a founding member of the Congressional Autism Caucus and tried to ban thimerosal from all vaccines.

Since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children 6 years or younger have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts, with the exception of inactivated flu vaccine. Meanwhile, study after study found no evidence that thimerosal caused autism.

Weldon’s congressional voting record suggests he may go along with Republican efforts to downsize the CDC, including to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which works on topics like drownings, drug overdoses and shooting deaths.


Food and Drug Administration

Kennedy has been extremely critical of the FDA, which has 18,000 employees and is responsible for the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs, vaccines and other medical products, as well as overseeing cosmetics, electronic cigarettes and most foods.

Makary, Trump’s pick to run the FDA, is a professor at Johns Hopkins University, a trained surgeon and a cancer specialist. He is closely aligned with Kennedy on several topics.

Makary has decried the overprescribing of drugs, the use of pesticides on foods and the influence of pharmaceutical and insurance companies over doctors and government regulators.

Kennedy has suggested he’ll clear out “entire” FDA departments and also recently threatened to fire FDA employees for “aggressive suppression” of a host of unsubstantiated products and therapies, including stem cells, raw milk, psychedelics and discredited COVID-era treatments like hydroxychloroquine.

Makary’s contrarian views during COVID-19 included questioning the need for COVID-19 vaccine boosters in young kids.


Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services

The agency provides health care coverage for more than 160 million people through Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, and also sets Medicare payment rates for hospitals, doctors and other providers. With a $1.1 trillion budget and more than 6,000 employees, Oz has a massive agency to run if confirmed — and an agency that Kennedy hasn’t talked about much.

While Trump tried to scrap the Affordable Care Act in his first term, Kennedy has not taken aim at it yet.

The Biden administration on Tuesday revealed a new plan to force Medicare and Medicaid to cover weight-loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound for many Americans who are obese. Kennedy has opposed the idea, saying government-sponsored insurance programs should instead expand coverage of healthier foods and gym memberships.

Trump said during his campaign that he would protect Medicare, which provides insurance for older Americans. Oz has endorsed expanding Medicare Advantage — a privately run version of Medicare that is popular but also a source of widespread fraud.


Surgeon general

Kennedy doesn’t appear to have said much publicly about what he’d like to see from the surgeon general.

The nation’s top doctor has little administrative power but can influence what counts as a public health danger and what to do about it — suggesting things like warning labels for products and issuing advisories. The current surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, declared gun violence as a public health crisis in June.

Trump’s pick, Nesheiwat, is employed as a New York City medical director with CityMD, a group of urgent care facilities. She also has appeared on Fox News and other TV shows, authored a book on the “transformative power of prayer” in her medical career and endorses a brand of vitamin supplements.
Well, I like Kenndey and Bhattacharya. Hopefully, Kennedy will have long talks with all of these health appointees and they can learn the truth about Big Pharma and their poisonous vaccines, medicines and drugs. As long as they give us the freedom to choose ... that's all I ask. But I'm expecting a BIG education of the public at large through RFK Jr.
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Genetic clues explain why children develop rare post-COVID condition
by Ryan O'Hare, Imperial College London
November 25, 2024


genetic-clues-explain.jpg

Proposed role of BTNL8 in MIS-C. Credit: Journal of Experimental Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1084/jem.20240699


Scientists have uncovered genetic variants that help to explain why some children with mild COVID-19 go on to develop a severe inflammatory condition weeks after their infection.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, severe SARS-CoV-2 infections in children and infants were rare. But an estimated 1 in 10,000 children went on to develop multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), presenting with a range of symptoms including rash, swelling and nausea and vomiting.

Now, an international team of researchers led by Imperial College London has identified a gene that may explain why some children were at greater risk of developing this rare condition. The study is published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine.

In an analysis including more than 150 cases of MIS-C from Europe and the United States, they found that rare variations of a gene that helps regulate the lining of the gut made children four-times more likely to develop systemic inflammation and an array of symptoms.

According to the researchers, understanding the genetic basis of MIS-C provides new insights into how the condition develops, who is at risk, and how patients and those with related conditions might be better treated.

Senior author Dr. Vanessa Sancho-Shimizu, from the Department of Infectious Disease at Imperial College London and The Francis Crick Institute, said, "MIS-C was a very worrying condition for children and their families as well as the clinical teams treating them. Thankfully, the majority of patients recovered, but the underlying mechanisms that drive this condition have been difficult to pin down.

"Working with colleagues around the world, we've been able to pinpoint rare genetic variants that we think are likely driving the systemic inflammation we've seen, making children more susceptible to MIS-C. We hope these findings will not only enable us to better understand the condition but to improve how we care for children with these types of conditions."

Genetic analysis

During the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested children were generally at very low risk of severe disease. But reports emerged of a new condition that affected a small proportion of children several weeks after their infection with SARS-CoV-2.

These children generally had mild or no symptoms at the time of their initial infection. But within six weeks they went on to develop a range of symptoms, including abdominal pains and vomiting, fever, rash and more. Clinicians initially reported the symptoms as resembling Kawasaki disease, but it was found to be a new condition call MIS-C .

In the latest analysis, 154 patients aged 0–19 with MIS-C were recruited in Europe and through a research center in the United States, with blood samples used to sequence patients' genomes. Researchers then developed a technique to search for genetic variants that might be associated with the condition.

Dr. Evangelos Bellos, first author of the paper and a Research Fellow in Imperial's Department of Infectious Disease, said, "Our new computational technique, which we call burdenMC, gives us the power to identify links between genes and diseases that were previously elusive. It is particularly useful for shedding light on small, diverse groups of patients with rare conditions such as MIS-C."

Using this approach, the researchers found that small changes in one gene, called BTNL8, were a common factor in children with the condition. Typically, this gene helps to regulate the immune cells in the gut lining, but in patients with MIS-C, rare variants of BTNL8 are believed to have made the gut more sensitive to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and increased inflammation throughout the body, leading to an array of symptoms.

The team worked with the Immunosurveillance Laboratory at the Crick, led by Professor Adrian Hayday, that first identified a function for BTNL8 in the human gut as a regulator of localized T-cells that seemed to contribute to maintaining gut barrier integrity.

Professor Adrian Hayday, Principal Group Leader at the Crick and Professor of Immunobiology at King's College London, said, "The discoveries implicating BTNL8 were wholly unexpected, and potentially offer entirely new insights into mechanisms that ordinarily prevent virus infections from leading to life-threatening disease."

Compared with matched healthy controls, patients with rare BTNL8 variants had a four-fold increase in the risk of developing MIS-C symptoms. The analysis also found that children with European and Hispanic ancestry were more likely to have the variants, and so were at greater risk of the condition.

The researchers say they are now working on understanding the exact mechanisms by which these rare variants promote MIS-C. They are also exploring if the gut also plays an important role in the development of other similar childhood inflammatory conditions like Kawasaki disease.

More information: Evangelos Bellos et al, Heterozygous BTNL8 variants in individuals with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), Journal of Experimental Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1084/jem.20240699
Journal information: Journal of Experimental Medicine
Provided by Imperial College London
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Air pollution linked to longer duration of long-COVID symptoms
by Barcelona Institute for Global Health
November 27, 2024

Exposure to air pollutants (PM2.5 and PM10) is associated with an increased risk of persistent long-COVID symptoms, partly due to its impact on the severity of the acute infection.

This is the main conclusion of a study led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), a center supported by "la Caixa" Foundation, in collaboration with the Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute (IGTP), and published in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Long-COVID is a heterogeneous condition in which symptoms like fatigue, breathlessness, and cognitive issues persist for months after a COVID-19 infection and cannot be explained by other diagnoses. The real burden of long-COVID remains unclear, but millions of people are estimated to be affected worldwide. Its risk factors are also not well understood, since even people with mild or no symptoms during acute infection can develop long-COVID.

"We previously found that air pollution exposure is linked to a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a lower vaccine response, but there are very few studies on long-COVID and the environment," explains Manolis Kogevinas, ISGlobal researcher and senior author of the study.

In this study, he and his colleagues investigated whether air pollution and other environmental exposures such as noise, artificial light at night, and green spaces, were associated with the risk- or persistence- of Long-COVID.

The study followed over 2,800 adults of the COVICAT cohort, aged 40–65 years living in Catalonia who during the pandemic completed three online questionnaires (2020, 2021, 2023).

These surveys collected information on COVID-19 infections, vaccination status, health status, and sociodemographic data. Researchers estimated residential exposure to noise, particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, green spaces, and light at night for each participant.


Long-COVID risk factors


The analysis showed that one in four people who contracted COVID-19 experienced lingering symptoms for three months or more, with 5% experiencing persistent symptoms for two years or more. Women, individuals with lower education levels, those with prior chronic conditions, and those who had severe COVID-19 were at highest risk of long-COVID.

Vaccination, on the other hand, made a positive difference: only 15% of vaccinated participants developed long-COVID compared to 46% of unvaccinated ones.


Air pollution and persistent long-COVID

Exposure to particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) in the air was associated with a slight increase in the risk of persistent long-COVID (i.e. people who reported long-COVID in 2021 and whose symptoms were still present the last week before the 2023 interview).

The risk of persistent long-COVID increased linearly with greater exposure to particulate matter in the air. In contrast, factors such as nearby green spaces or traffic noise showed little impact on long-COVID.

The researchers note that while air pollution may not directly cause long-COVID, it could increase the severity of the initial infection, which, in turn, raises the risk of long COVID.

"This hypothesis is supported by the association between particulate matter and the most severe and persistent cases of long-COVID, but not with all cases of long-COVID," says Apolline Saucy, first author of the study.

Further research is needed to break down the different types of long-term symptoms and get a more detailed picture of how environmental factors might play a role.

"This type of study is particularly relevant as more people continue to recover from COVID-19 and deal with its potential long-term effects," says Kogevinas.

More information: Saucy A, et al. Environmental exposures and Long-COVID in a Prospective Population-Based Study in Catalonia (COVICAT study), Environmental Health Perspectives (2024). DOI: 10.1289/EHP15377
Journal information: Environmental Health Perspectives
Provided by Barcelona Institute for Global Health
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


New Wearable Device Eases Long COVID Pain and Fatigue
By University of California - Los Angeles Health Sciences
November 28, 20241

Researchers report that the wearable TENS system provided “immediate, on-demand relief.”

A study co-led by researchers from UCLA and Baylor College of Medicine suggests that a wearable device for electrical nerve stimulation may help alleviate persistent pain and fatigue associated with long COVID.

Long-COVID, a complex and lingering condition following COVID-19 recovery, affects approximately 1 in 13 adults in the U.S. Symptoms such as widespread pain, fatigue, and muscle weakness often continue to disrupt daily activities, including walking and basic tasks.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed Nature Scientific Reports, focused on a wearable Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) device, which uses low-voltage electrical currents to reduce pain, fatigue, and mobility issues associated with long COVID.


Broader Potential Applications

The project was co-led by Dr. Bijan Najafi, research director of the Center for Advanced Surgical & Interventional Technology at UCLA Health and co-director of NSF IUCRC Center to Stream HealthCare in Place (C2SHIP), who said the device could have wider applications.

“While this study focused on managing pain and fatigue caused by long COVID, it may also have potential applications for addressing similar symptoms in individuals with other respiratory diseases, those who have experienced extended ICU stays and developed post-hospitalization weaknesses, and conditions involving chronic fatigue and pain, such as fibromyalgia or chemotherapy-related side effects,” Najafi said. “But further studies are needed to confirm these potential uses.”

In the study, 25 participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, and gait difficulties were assigned either a high-dose (active) TENS device or a low-dose (placebo) device. Both groups used the TENS device for three to five hours daily over a four-week period.

Researchers measured participants’ pain levels, fatigue, and walking performance before and after the therapy period. Findings indicated that the high-dose TENS group experienced notable improvements in pain relief (26.1% more relief compared to placebo) and walking ability (8% during fast walking), suggesting that wearable TENS therapy may help reduce long COVID’s impact on daily life.

The high-dose TENS group also reported a slightly higher perceived benefit (71.2%) compared to the low-dose group (61.4%), underscoring the potential of wearable TENS technology to support long COVID recovery.


Importance of Wearable Technology


One factor in the study’s success was likely the high rate of daily device usage, Najafi said. The wearable nature of the TENS device allowed participants to use it seamlessly throughout the day, without disrupting their routines.

“This wearable TENS system offered immediate, on-demand relief from pain and fatigue, making it easy to integrate into daily activities,” Najafi said.

He also cautioned that more research is needed. This study provides some hope for finding an effective, non-invasive solution for managing lingering COVID-19 symptoms that continue to affect millions,” he said. “But our sample size was limited, so further research is needed to confirm these findings.”

Reference: “Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for fibromyalgia-like syndrome in patients with Long-COVID: a pilot randomized clinical trial” by Alejandro Zulbaran-Rojas, Rasha O. Bara, Myeounggon Lee, Miguel Bargas-Ochoa, Tina Phan, Manuel Pacheco, Areli Flores Camargo, Syed Murtaza Kazmi, Mohammad Dehghan Rouzi, Dipaben Modi, Fidaa Shaib and Bijan Najafi, 8 November 2024, Scientific Reports.
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78651-5

Study co-authors are Alejandro Zulbaran-Rojas, Rasha Bara, Myeounggon Lee, Miguel Bargas-Ochoa, Tina Phan, Manuel Pacheco, Areli Flores Camargo, Syed Murtaza Kazmi, Mohammad Dehghan Rouzi, Dipaben Modi, and Fidaa Shaib of Baylor College of Medicine.

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC), specifically from the Center to Stream HealthCare in Place (C2SHIP), with award numbers NSF 2052514 and C2SHIP Y01-BCM-008. There was also in-kind support provided by Neurometrix Inc., which manufactured the Quell® TENS device.
 

Shadow

Swift, Silent,...Sleepy
At the same time that he is saying that the fed government mandated the vax for commercial pilots the FAA regulations prohibit a commercial pilot from taking any drug that is not approved. Emergency use is not approval. Once a drug is approved commercial pilots are not allowed to take it for a year after the approval.

This whole thing has been screwed up from the beginning. So much so that intentional harm is the only logical explanation.

Shadow
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)


Long COVID appears to be driven by 'long infection.' Here's what the science says
by Brendan Crabb, Gabriela Khoury and Michelle Scoullar, The Conversation
November 29, 2024

Around 5%–10% of people with COVID infections go on to experience long COVID, with symptoms lasting three months or more.

Researchers have proposed several biological mechanisms to explain long COVID. However, in a perspective article published in the latest Medical Journal of Australia, we argue that much, if not all, long COVID appears to be driven by the virus itself persisting in the body.

Since relatively early in the pandemic, there has been a recognition that in some people, SARS-CoV-2—or at least remnants of the virus—could stay in various tissues and organs for extended periods. This theory is known as "viral persistence."

While the long-term presence of residual viral fragments in some people's bodies is now well established, what remains less certain is whether the live virus itself, not just old bits of virus, is lingering—and if so, whether this is what causes long COVID. This distinction is crucial because the live virus can be targeted by specific antiviral approaches in ways that "dead" viral fragments cannot.

Viral persistence has two significant implications:
  1. When it occurs in some highly immunocompromised people, it is thought to be the source of new and substantially different-looking variants, such as JN.1
  2. It has the potential to continue to cause symptoms in many people in the wider population long beyond the acute illness. In other words, long COVID could be caused by a long infection.

What does the research say?


While there remains no single study that confirms that persistent virus is the cause of long COVID, collectively several recent key papers make a compelling case.

In February, a study in Nature found a high number of people with mild COVID symptoms had extended periods of shedding the genetic material of the virus, so-called viral RNA, from their respiratory tract. Those with persistent shedding of this viral RNA—which almost certainly represents the presence of live virus—were at higher risk of long COVID.

Other key papers detected replicating viral RNA and proteins in blood fluid of patients years after their initial infection, a sign that the virus is likely replicating for long periods in some hidden reservoirs in the body, perhaps including blood cells.

Another study detected viral RNA in ten different tissue sites and blood samples 1–4 months after acute infection. This study found the risk of long COVID (measured four months following infection) was higher in those with persistently positive viral RNA.

The same study also gave clues about where in the body the persisting virus resides. The gastrointestinal tract is one site of considerable interest as a long-term viral hideout.

Earlier this week, further evidence of persistent virus increasing likelihood of long COVID has been published as part of the RECOVER initiative, a collaborative research project that aims to address the impacts of long COVID.

However, formal proof that virus capable of replicating can last for years in the body remains elusive. This is because isolating the live virus from reservoirs inside the body where the virus "hides" is technically challenging.

In its absence, we and other scientists argue the cumulative evidence is now sufficiently compelling to galvanize action.


What needs to happen next?

The obvious response to this is to fast-track trials of known antivirals for prevention and cure of long COVID.

This should include more left-field therapies such as the diabetes drug metformin. This has possible dual benefits in the context of long COVID:
  • its antiviral properties, which have demonstrated surprising efficacy against long COVID
  • as a potential therapeutic in treating impairments related to fatigue.
However, another major thrust should be the development of new drugs and the establishment of clinical trial platforms for rapid testing.

Science has uncovered exciting therapeutic options. But translating these into forms usable in the clinic is a large hurdle that requires support and investment from governments.


Demystify and preventing long COVID

The notion of "long infection" as a contributor or even the driver of long COVID is a powerful message. It could help demystify the condition in the eyes of the wider community and increase awareness among the general public as well as medical professionals.

It should help raise awareness in the community of the importance of reducing rates of re-infection. It is not just your first infection, but each subsequent COVID infection carries a risk of long COVID.

Long COVID is common and isn't restricted to those at high risk of severe acute disease but affects all age groups. In one study, the highest impact was in those aged 30 to 49 years.

So, for now, we all need to reduce our exposure to the virus with the tools available, a combination of:
  • clean indoor air approaches. In its simplest form, this means being conscious of the importance of well-ventilated indoor spaces, opening the windows and improving airflow as COVID spreads through air. More sophisticated ways of ensuring indoor air is safe involve monitoring quality and filtering air in spaces that cannot be easily naturally ventilated
  • using high-quality masks (that are well-fitting and don't let air in easily, such as N95-type masks) in settings where you don't have confidence of the quality of the indoor air and/or that are crowded
  • testing, so you know when you're positive. Then, if you're eligible, you can get treatment. And you can be vigilant about protecting those around you with masks, staying at home where possible, and ventilating spaces
  • staying up to date with COVID booster doses. Vaccines reduce long COVID and other post-COVID complications.
Hopefully one day there will be better treatments and even a cure for long COVID. But in the meantime, increased awareness of the biomedical basis of long COVID should prompt clinicians to take patients more seriously as they attempt to access the treatments and services that already exist.
Journal information: Nature
 
Top