• Take 30 seconds to register your free account to access deals, post topics, and view exclusive content!

    Register Today

    Join the largest Oakley Forum on the web!

🦘Cacatman's Personal Coronavirus COVID-19 Update Thread

Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated
Unvaccinated Americans have died at 11 times the rate of those fully vaccinated since the delta variant became the dominant strain, indicate surveillance data gathered over the summer by the US Centers for Disease Control.

Vaccinated people were 10 times less likely to be admitted to hospital and five times less likely to be infected than unvaccinated people, found one study that tracked adults across 13 states and cities.1
 
IVF and COVID-19 Vaccination
COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with adverse outcomes in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to a retrospective single-center study.

Additionally, COVID vaccination was not tied to other IVF or pregnancy outcomes, such as the number of eggs retrieved, mature oocytes retrieved, or rates of early pregnancy loss, the researchers found.

Jennifer Kawwass, MD, medical director of Emory Reproductive Center in Atlanta, stated that "the coronavirus disease itself is much more likely to impact fertility, particularly among men in the short term, than the vaccine."
 
How vaccines have helped 9 transmissible diseases
screenshot_313.png

 
Treatment - Ivermectin
May be helpful in reducing mortality in those with severe pulmonary symptoms

15/12/20
Prospective randomised blinded trials - Gold standard for investigating.
Ivermectin has only had retrospective/anecdotal trials. Some evidence it may help BUT NOT STRONG. MORE TRIALS need to be done.

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic​

  • No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
  • No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
  • A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo (median time to resolution of symptoms, 10 vs 12 days; hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07).

Meaning The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand effects on other clinically relevant outcomes.

Proponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 have long been talking about an expected review and meta-analysis led by Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool.
These results were finally published this week in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, and they're positive -- but they haven't escaped criticism, and most researchers still want results from a randomized controlled trial.
The review and meta-analysis was conducted as part of the International Ivermectin Project Team from December 2020 to May 2021. Ivermectin proponents said Hill was conducting the analysis for the WHO, but Hill recently told MedPage Today the analysis was supported by Fort Worth, Texas-based Rainwater Charitable Foundation, and not WHO.

Hill and colleagues assessed 24 randomized trials totaling 3,328 patients that involved some type of control, whether it was standard of care or another therapy. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 400 participants. Eight of the studies had been published, nine were preprints, six were unpublished results shared for the analysis, and one was reported on a trial registry website.
In the 11 trials (totaling 2,127 patients) that focused on moderate or severe infection, there was a 56% reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.77, P=0.004), with 3% of patients on ivermectin dying compared with 9% of controls.
But the researchers noted that the total number of deaths was small (128) and there was no difference between ivermectin and controls in the subgroup with severe disease. As for moderate disease, they reported a 70% improvement in survival with ivermectin (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15-0.58, P=0.0004).
Use of ivermectin was also associated with a reduction in time to recovery of 1.58 days compared with controls (95% CI -2.8 to -0.35, P=0.01) and with a shorter duration of hospitalization (-4.27 days, 95% CI -8.6 to -0.06, P=0.05).

Summary of studies to date...

Debunking ivermania

Best overview for Ivermectin
There is a vast disinformation campaign about COVID-19, public health interventions to slow its spread, and especially vaccines. Back when the pandemic was new, hydroxychloroquine was promoted as a treatment in part because if there were a highly effective treatment for COVID-19 advocates could argue that masks, social distancing, and “lockdowns”—and even vaccines—were unnecessary. As the evidence finally convincingly showed that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, the same antimaskers and antivaxxers pivoted to ivermectin. Again, I suspect that there’s a reason why the FLCCC and BIRD Groups always included Elgazzar 2020 in their meta-analyses, just as I suspect that this latest clickbait “review” prominently features this same study, despite flaws and bias that were obvious even before the analysis that led it to be retracted. Basically, this review article is part of this disinformation campaign.

Strictly regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 leads to a 90%
reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate, in a dose-response manner: definitive results
of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled 223,128 population from
a city-wide program in Southern Brazi (preprint)

The overseers of the preprint server SocArXiv have withdrawn a paper which claims that treating Covid patients with ivermectin dramatically reduces their odds of hospitalization, calling the work “misleading” and “part of an unethical program by the government of Mexico City to dispense hundreds of thousands of doses of an inappropriate medication to people who were sick with COVID-19.
 
Last edited:

Smartphone COVID test is as accurate as PCR test

A smartphone-based test uses a third technique, called loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). It works similarly to PCR in that it tests for viral genetic material by amplifying its RNA.

With an app called “Bacticount” and a test kit, users can combine their saliva with a reactive solution, which identifies viral RNA in the sample. Then the sample is placed in a cardboard box in front of an LED light.

Just by pointing the smartphone’s camera at the LEDs, users can see whether the sample is COVID-19 positive. The light will turn red with a positive result, reports Gizmodo.
 
3 Exposures to the spike protein protects against omicron
They found that a total of 3 exposures to the viral spike protein allows the body to produce a high quality and high quantity of virus neutralizing antibodies that vigorously bind to the spike protein, even neutralizing Omicron. These high-quality antibodies were found in triple-vaccinated people, people who recovered from COVID-19 and then received 2 vaccine doses, and double-vaccinated people who had a breakthrough infection.

 
Exercise increases antibody response to COVID-19
Exercise increases antibody response to COVID-19 and Influenza vaccines.

Exercise performed after COVID-19 vaccine does not increase side effects.

Interferon-α may contribute to exercise-induced enhancement of vaccine response.
 
Treatment - Monoclonal Antibodies
At this point, there is no convincing data that designed monoclonal antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2 improve meaningful outcomes in covid-19 patients, either alone or in a "cocktail" of antibodies. As mentioned, the idea of treating established covid-19 patients with monoclonal antibodies may itself be a flawed paradigm as even patients with early disease are likely to have already generated sufficient antibodies (as seen in the REGN-CoV2 study) that adding more to the body intravenously is like adding salt to an ocean. Additionally, we don't know the effect of monoclonal antibody infusions on vaccine efficacy. Despite emergency authorization for bamlavinimab and the Regeneron cocktail, at this time, these treatments should only be given in the setting of a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to evaluate outcomes that patients would notice. The BLAZE-2 trial currently underway is investigating the use of monoclonal antibodies for prophylaxis. This effort may be more promising, though vaccines are likely to be far more effective in this role.

The monoclonal-antibody drug — VIR-7831 — reduced death or hospitalization by 85% compared with a placebo in a clinical trial.
A separate in vitro study showed the drug remains effective against new coronavirus variants identified in the U.K., South Africa and Brazil, they added.

The panel now recommends a combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV; Regeneron) for patients with non-severe COVID-19 at high risk for hospitalization and patients with severe or critical COVID-19 who are seronegative.

Two clinical trials suggest that specific antibody treatments can prevent deaths and hospitalizations among people with mild or moderate COVID-19 — particularly those who are at high risk of developing severe disease.

One study found that an antibody against the coronavirus developed by Vir Biotechnology in San Francisco, California, and GSK, headquartered in London, reduced the chances of hospitalization or death among participants by 85%. In another trial, a cocktail of two antibodies — bamlanivimab and etesevimab, both made by Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana — cut the risk of hospitalization and death by 87%.

Sotrovimab failed to neutralize BA.2 in lab experiments. “This new finding shows that no presently approved or authorized monoclonal antibody therapy could adequately cover” BA.2

But Vir Biotechnology, which developed sotrovimab with GlaxoSmithKline, said its research indicated that BA.2 was not resistant to the therapy.
 
Back
Top