Erica Hayes, 40, has not felt healthy since November 2020 when she first fell ill with covid.

Hayes is too sick to work, so she has spent much of the last four years sitting on her beige couch, often curled up under an electric blanket.

“My blood flow now sucks, so my hands and my feet are freezing. Even if I’m sweating, my toes are cold,” said Hayes, who lives in Western Pennsylvania. She misses feeling well enough to play with her 9-year-old son or attend her 17-year-old son’s baseball games.

Along with claiming the lives of 1.2 million Americans, the covid-19 pandemic has been described as a mass disabling event. Hayes is one of millions of Americans who suffer from long covid. Depending on the patient, the condition can rob someone of energy, scramble the autonomic nervous system, or fog their memory, among many other symptoms.

In addition to the brain fog and chronic fatigue, Hayes’ constellation of symptoms includes frequent hives and migraines. Also, her tongue is constantly swollen and dry.

“I’ve had multiple doctors look at it and tell me they don’t know what’s going on,” Hayes said about her tongue. 

Estimates of prevalence range considerably, depending on how researchers define long covid in a given study, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts it at 17 million adults.

Despite long covid’s vast reach, the federal government’s investment in researching the disease — to the tune of $1.15 billion as of December — has so far failed to bring any new treatments to market. 

This disappoints and angers the patient community, who say the National Institutes of Health should focus on ways to stop their suffering instead of simply trying to understand why they’re suffering.

“It’s unconscionable that more than four years since this began, we still don’t have one FDA-approved drug,” said Meighan Stone, executive director of the Long COVID Campaign, a patient-led advocacy organization. Stone was among several people with long covid who spoke at a workshop hosted by the NIH in September where patients, clinicians, and researchers discussed their priorities and frustrations around the agency’s approach to long-covid research.

Some doctors and researchers are also critical of the agency’s research initiative, called RECOVER, or Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery. Without clinical trials, physicians specializing in treating long covid must rely on hunches to guide their clinical decisions, said Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development with the VA St Louis Healthcare System.

“What [RECOVER] lacks, really, is clarity of vision and clarity of purpose,” said Al-Aly, saying he agrees that the NIH has had enough time and money to produce more meaningful progress.

Now the NIH is starting to determine how to allocate an additional $662 million of funding for long-covid research, $300 million of which is earmarked for clinical trials. These funds will be allocated over the next four years.

At the end of October, RECOVER issued a request for clinical trial ideas that look at potential therapies, including medications, saying its goal is “to work rapidly, collaboratively, and transparently to advance treatments for Long COVID.”

This turn suggests the NIH has begun to respond to patients. This has stirred cautious optimism among those who say that the agency’s approach to long covid has lacked urgency in the search for effective treatments.

Stone calls this $300 million a down payment. She warns it’s going to take a lot more money to help people like Hayes regain some degree of health.

“There really is a burden to make up this lost time now,” Stone said.

The NIH told KFF Health News and NPR via email that it recognizes the urgency in finding treatments. But to do that, there needs to be an understanding of the biological mechanisms that are making people sick, which is difficult to do with post-infectious conditions.

That’s why it has funded research into how long covid affects lung function, or trying to understand why only some people are afflicted with the condition.

Good Science Takes Time

In December 2020, Congress appropriated $1.15 billion for the NIH to launch RECOVER, raising hopes in the long-covid patient community.

Then-NIH Director Francis Collins explained that RECOVER’s goal was to better understand long covid as a disease and that clinical trials of potential treatments would come later.

According to RECOVER’s website, it has funded eight clinical trials to test the safety and effectiveness of an experimental treatment or intervention. Just one of those trials has published results.

On the other hand, RECOVER has supported more than 200 observational studies, such as research on how long covid affects pulmonary function and on which symptoms are most common. And the initiative has funded more than 40 pathobiology studies, which focus on the basic cellular and molecular mechanisms of long covid.

RECOVER’s website says this research has led to crucial insights on the risk factors for developing long covid and on understanding how the disease interacts with preexisting conditions.

It notes that observational studies are important in helping scientists to design and launch evidence-based clinical trials.

Good science takes time, said Leora Horwitz, the co-principal investigator for the RECOVER-Adult Observational Cohort at New York University. And long covid is an “exceedingly complicated” illness that appears to affect nearly every organ system, she said. 

This makes it more difficult to study than many other diseases. Because long covid harms the body in so many ways, with widely variable symptoms, it’s harder to identify precise targets for treatment.

“I also will remind you that we’re only three, four years into this pandemic for most people,” Horwitz said. “We’ve been spending much more money than this, yearly, for 30, 40 years on other conditions.”

NYU received nearly $470 million of RECOVER funds in 2021, which the institution is using to spearhead the collection of data and biospecimens from up to 40,000 patients. Horwitz said nearly 30,000 are enrolled so far.

This vast repository, Horwitz said, supports ongoing observational research, allowing scientists to understand what is happening biologically to people who don’t recover after an initial infection — and that will help determine which clinical trials for treatments are worth undertaking.

“Simply trying treatments because they are available without any evidence about whether or why they may be effective reduces the likelihood of successful trials and may put patients at risk of harm,” she said.

Delayed Hopes or Incremental Progress?

The NIH told KFF Health News and NPR that patients and caregivers have been central to RECOVER from the beginning, “playing critical roles in designing studies and clinical trials, responding to surveys, serving on governance and publication groups, and guiding the initiative.”

But the consensus from patient advocacy groups is that RECOVER should have done more to prioritize clinical trials from the outset. Patients also say RECOVER leadership ignored their priorities and experiences when determining which studies to fund.

RECOVER has scored some gains, said JD Davids, co-director of Long COVID Justice. This includes findings on differences in long covid between adults and kids.

But Davids said the NIH shouldn’t have named the initiative “RECOVER,” since it wasn’t designed as a streamlined effort to develop treatments.

“The name’s a little cruel and misleading,” he said.

RECOVER’s initial allocation of $1.15 billion probably wasn’t enough to develop a new medication to treat long covid, said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Healthcare Transformation Institute.

But, he said,  the results of preliminary clinical trials could have spurred pharmaceutical companies to fund more studies on drug development and test how existing drugs influence a patient’s immune response.

Emanuel is one of the authors of a March 2022 covid roadmap report. He notes that RECOVER’s lack of focus on new treatments was a problem. “Only 15% of the budget is for clinical studies. That is a failure in itself — a failure of having the right priorities,” he told KFF Health News and NPR via email.

And though the NYU biobank has been impactful, Emanuel said there needs to be more focus on how existing drugs influence immune response.

He said some clinical trials that RECOVER has funded are “ridiculous,” because they’ve focused on symptom amelioration, for example to study the benefits of over-the-counter medication to improve sleep. Other studies looked at non-pharmacological interventions, such as exercise and “brain training” to help with cognitive fog.

People with long covid say this type of clinical research contributes to what many describe as the “gaslighting” they experience from doctors, who sometimes blame a patient’s symptoms on anxiety or depression, rather than acknowledging long covid as a real illness with a physiological basis.

“I’m just disgusted,” said long-covid patient Hayes. “You wouldn’t tell somebody with diabetes to breathe through it.”

Chimére L. Sweeney, director and founder of the Black Long Covid Experience, said she’s even taken breaks from seeking treatment after getting fed up with being told that her symptoms were due to her diet or mental health.

“You’re at the whim of somebody who may not even understand the spectrum of long covid,” Sweeney said.

Insurance Battles Over Experimental Treatments

Since there are still no long-covid treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration, anything a physician prescribes is classified as either experimental — for unproven treatments — or an off-label use of a drug approved for other conditions. This means patients can struggle to get insurance to cover prescriptions.

Michael Brode, medical director for UT Health Austin’s Post-COVID-19 Program — said he writes many appeal letters. And some people pay for their own treatment.

For example, intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, low-dose naltrexone, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy are all promising treatments, he said.

For hyperbaric oxygen, two small, randomized controlled studies show improvements for the chronic fatigue and brain fog that often plague long-covid patients. The theory is that higher oxygen concentration and increased air pressure can help heal tissues that were damaged during a covid infection.

However, the out-of-pocket cost for a series of sessions in a hyperbaric chamber can run as much as $8,000, Brode said.

“Am I going to look a patient in the eye and say, ‘You need to spend that money for an unproven treatment’?” he said. “I don’t want to hype up a treatment that is still experimental. But I also don’t want to hide it.”

There’s a host of pharmaceuticals that have promising off-label uses for long covid, said microbiologist Amy Proal, president and chief scientific officer at the Massachusetts-based PolyBio Research Foundation. For instance, she’s collaborating on a clinical study that repurposes two HIV drugs to treat long covid.

Proal said research on treatments can move forward based on what’s already understood about the disease. For instance, she said that scientists have evidence — partly due to RECOVER research — that some patients continue to harbor small amounts of viral material after a covid infection. She has not received RECOVER funds but is researching antivirals.

But to vet a range of possible treatments for the millions suffering now — and to develop new drugs specifically targeting long covid — clinical trials are needed. And that requires money.

Hayes said she would definitely volunteer for an experimental drug trial. For now, though, “in order to not be absolutely miserable,” she said she focuses on what she can do, like having dinner with her family.

At the same time, Hayes doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life on a beige couch. 

RECOVER’s deadline to submit research proposals for potential long-covid treatments is Feb. 1.

The post Long-Covid Patients Are Frustrated That Federal Research Hasn’t Found New Treatments appeared first on Medika Life.

As parents you’ve been force fed a barrage of carefully scripted “justifications” for these vaccines and in case anyone considered an independent thought, legislation would simply be updated to include new vaccines, essentially removing your choice. In all States in the US a child cannot enter school without having complied with a vaccination schedule. Can you object? Yes, but only in certain states, and usually only on religious grounds. States like California are mandatory, no matter your objection.

The health impacts of the mandated 16 vaccines (spread over 72 doses, before the age of 18) have never enjoyed close scrutiny. What we do know for certain is that older adults (50+) who benefited from far fewer vaccines (3 on average), have far more resilient immune systems when compared to a 20 or 30 year old. Our immune system benefits from each challenge it receives, learning and growing stronger. By preventing many non-fatal infections through an expanded immunization agenda, we actively restrict our immune system from developing properly.

In short, we are producing weaker and less resilient human beings, one’s that are more prone to disease and more likely to develop chronic conditions.

Shockingly, a pre-licensing placebo-controlled safety study is not required in the US for the licensing of a vaccine. Don’t, however, take my word for it. THE HHS confirmed this in response to a written inquiry in 2018, the reply coming from Melinda Wharton, MD, MPH, then Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office. The question is shown below;

Please explain how HHS justifies licensing any pediatric vaccine without first
conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions is
compared between the subject group and a control group receiving an inert
placebo?

Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required. In some cases, inclusion of placebo control groups is considered unethical. Even in the absence of a placebo, control groups can be useful in evaluating whether the incidence of a specific observed adverse event exceeds that which would be expected without administration of the new vaccine. Serious adverse events are always carefully evaluated by FDA to determine potential association with vaccination regardless of their rate of incidence in the control group. In cases where an active control is used, the adverse event profile of that control group is usually known and the findings of the study are reviewed in the context of that knowledge.

Decades of indoctrination and conditioning have convinced us that science never lies and that we cannot question anything produced by the scientific community. Science does not lie, not in a pure, unadulterated form. What we are bombarded with on a daily basis is, however, not any form of science any ethical professional would dare to claim. It is business, abetted by regulatory bodies and governments, masquerading behind and appropriating science, which is then twisted to suit the purposes of the companies benefiting from it.

Truth has become an outdated, antiquated word in the modern world of medical science.

You may ask, what this has to do with RFK, Jr., vaccines, and the medical fraternity?

You’ve recently participated in a global medical experiment with completely unknown consequences, at least none that are yet glaringly apparent, aside from a global increase in cancers, heart conditions and a litany of other other medical conditions, many of which can prove fatal. COVID “vaccines” were administered globally to billions of individuals. You may be one.

Almost all of your doctors and medical professionals, with a few exceptions, encouraged you to take these treatments. The billing that they were approved for broad use was misleading and the manner in which approval was obtained left much to be desired. These treatments were experimental, not adequately tested, and couldn’t remotely be called definitively safe. Why would your trusted healthcare providers do this?

Indoctrination is trusting a system of which they are the product. It no longer exists to foster only the best interest of the patients but rather leaves open the possibility of conflict of interest around “patient care or profit.” Most doctors didn’t even think to question the safety of the “miraculous Covid cure.”

A Global Pandemic

At the end of 2019, the world was exposed to a global contagion we were told was deadly, and much like influenza, in some instances it was. The source of the contagion has yet to be established, but facts seem to point at a Chinese research facility, a topic you can read more about here. Covid was to become a household word over the next two years, one that would dictate movement, work, schooling, and every other normal aspect of our lives as countries closed their borders, curfews were installed, and almost every aspect of our day-to-day life was dictated by our elected governments.

Two months after the outbreak, a miraculous breakthrough was announced: a vaccine! Based on a new technology, mRNA, the vaccine promised to reduce transmission and offer protection. We waited with bated breath, and in late November 2020, the vaccine was released for public use. After months of confinement, travel restrictions, working from home, and avoiding elderly members of our families, we sighed a global sigh of relief.

That sigh proved to be a little pre-emptive. Suddenly, taking the vaccine was no longer a matter of choice. It became mandated, and in many countries governments hid behind cloaks of restrictions rather than coming out and publicly mandating the Covid vaccine. Work, school and access to food and housing were subject to individuals being vaccinated. As I sit and type this, I still cannot believe how dystopian it sounds.

Billions had the vaccine administered, many not though choice, but through coercion. No vaccine, no work, no school, no food, and no access to rented property. In countries like Australia people refusing the vaccine, anti-vaxers, as they were quickly labeled, were even put into interment camps.

A Closer Look Behind mRNA and Pfizer and Moderna’s “Vaccines”

Why would people have refused to be injected with the Covid “vaccines” if they promised to protect you and reduce transmission? It turns out not everyone can be classified as a sheep. Questions were asked right from the outset of the announcement of the release of the vaccines.

It takes anywhere between six to 10 years to bring a vaccine to market. The reason for this is that the vaccine requires lengthy trials to prove safety. We know from experience that side effects can take years to manifest. Bringing a product to market in nine months raised huge flags.

We now know that some companies involved in producing what they loosely termed a “vaccine” to take advantage of market protection (in particular, Modena and BioNTech/and Pfizer) obscured data and omitted certain tests in the clinical trials of their Covid treatments. Tests that would have disclosed the reality of their treatments’ ability to integrate with our DNA, use of the SV-40 enhancer (a known link to cancer) in their treatments in levels far exceeding acceptable levels (clear clinical evidence of this vector has been found in the vaccines despite their continued denial) and effecting a bait and switch with the release of their final product, altered from the original provided for testing.

——–

——

Essentially, and we can debate why until time provides answers, these companies, in a global outbreak orchestrated by unknown players and enforced by your governments, forced an essentially untested, new type of gene therapy (not a vaccine) down your global throats, the full consequences of which have yet to become apparent. This quote is from an expert in the field of genomics (Kevin McKernan, who headed up the global genome project) on the mRNA vaccines.

These gene therapies are an attempt to centralize control over this evolutionary process, where they can mandate mRNA injections into billions of people and play SimCity on the evolutionary process and the human trajectory. They are entirely incapable of doing this and it is a disastrous idea. The hubris of authoritarians is an extinction level risk for humankind and needs to be dis-intermediated swiftly.

I have linked to a few articles in the paragraphs abovefor those with an interest in genomics, viruses, and vaccines. Two years ago, this article would have been labelled as anti-vaxer and dismissed. I sincerely hope we’ve moved beyond that point and that science is able to reclaim its integrity. This brings us back to RFK Jr. and America’s co-opted health care system.

The Perfect Pharma Salesman is…

Your doctor, of course. When you present yourself for medical assistance, you are in fact, facing a representative of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors will argue vehemently against this, but the fact remains, their universities, courses, curricula, and anything relating to their degrees and the educations they receive is regulated by pharma. Doctors are the public face of a multi-billion dollar marketing scheme and pharma are the beneficiaries.

A doctor is indoctrinated from the first day they step into a class.

Little wonder then they would play along with the farce of the Covid “vaccines”, knowing full well mRNA was a new and as yet unproven delivery method (previously restricted to testing on end-of-life patients) for what was an untested and unsafe treatment. Established beliefs and conditioning often fly in the face of logic and common sense. Little wonder they played along. Indoctrination is a powerful tool.

This indoctrination extends to every aspect of modern medicine, including the ridiculous number of times your child (if you’re a US citizen) is vaccinated by the time they reach the age of 18. Don’t believe me? Read this advice from the CDC, and do make a note of how many times Pfizer and Moderna’s names appear (the same companies that just experimented on you). The question this begs, is why would we suddenly be vaccinating our children so heavily, so frequently, and with a such a dizzying array of shots.

H.R.5546 – National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

The United States (in a moment of madness or more likely, successful lobbying) indemnified pharma companies to protect them against any possible legal claims arising from the use of a vaccine in children. In effect, this became a “get out of jail free” card that led directly to the frenzied development of “vaccines” for every imaginable disease under the sun. Once again, doctors were at the forefront of selling these treatments to their patients.

If you’ve been indoctrinated into the faith, it is sacrilege to question your god. In modern medicine, it is tantamount to self destruction. This indoctrination is the main obstacle Kennedy faces. Pharma’s influence permeates every level of modern healthcare, from politics to regulatory authorities such as the CDC and NIH and on, down to the doctors and nurses, the real face of modern medicine.

While many label Kennedy as anti-vaccine and a conspiracy theorist, this is simply a ruse to discredit him and evade examining the real and pertinent concerns he raises relating to the state of American healthcare. He has come up with an incredibly simple and elegant solution to the vaccine question.

Burning the “Get Out of Jail Free” Card

Remove the immunity enjoyed by pharma for childhood and other vaccines and sit back and wait to see how many pharma companies have actual faith in the products they are retailing. Expect to see the number of vaccinations your child currently endures reduced dramatically. Why? Simply because these products do carry risks, severe or otherwise, that have been obscured by companies in their haste to get a product to market. Make hay while the sun shines, as the expression goes, only in this instance it was profit rather than sunshine. Profit that was protected by the US government. Until now.

The topic of vaccines is an especially sensitive one, confounded by multiple factors when it should actually be governed by one simple question. Is the vaccine safe for your child? The truth is, we cannot be sure, except in the instance of mRNA based shots now touted for the market. These are fraught with hidden dangers and Kennedy’s removal of the blanket indemnity for these so called “vaccines” which are actually gene therapies, will no doubt result in their removal from the market.

The reason we cannot be sure is that the clinical trial system is as broken as the rest of healthcare, and is subject to the same manipulation and lobbying influences the rest of the healthcare system endures. Manipulation and subversion of data is common practice, the two most glaring public examples being the latest additions to the vaccine stable, namely Pfizer and Moderna’s Covid treatments.

Kennedy simply wants the truth to out. He wants to ensure your children are enjoying the protection they deserve and that the individuals playing medical roulette with their health are held to account. Convincing the devout (your doctors) of his intentions may be an insurmountable obstacle, unless we can bundle the lot on a donkey on the road to Damascus.

***

[Always consult with your physician to determine medical advice and direction. This article does not intend to suggest you should or should not receive vaccines according to a recommended schedule. It does recommend that you study peer-review science and ask informed questions.]

The post Kennedy’s Biggest Challenge Isn’t Vaccines, It’s Medical Indoctrination appeared first on Medika Life.

The FDA has approved an updated covid shot for everyone 6 months old and up, which renews a now-annual quandary for Americans: Get the shot now, with the latest covid outbreak sweeping the country, or hold it in reserve for the winter wave?

ABOut the partnership

Healthbeat is a newsroom partnership between KFF Health News and Civic News Company that produces reporting on public health and the systems of prevention that communities rely on to stay healthy. 

The new vaccine should provide some protection to everyone. But many healthy people who have already been vaccinated or have immunity because they’ve been exposed to covid enough times may want to wait a few months.

Covid has become commonplace. For some, it’s a minor illness with few symptoms. Others are laid up with fever, cough, and fatigue for days or weeks. A much smaller group — mostly older or chronically ill people — suffer hospitalization or death.

It’s important for those in high-risk groups to get vaccinated, but vaccine protection wanes after a few months. Those who run to get the new vaccine may be more likely to fall ill this winter when the next wave hits, said William Schaffner, an infectious disease professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

On the other hand, by late fall the major variants may have changed, rendering the vaccine less effective, said Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine official, at a briefing Aug. 23. He urged everyone eligible to get immunized, noting that the risk of long covid is greater in the un- and undervaccinated.

Of course, if last year’s covid vaccine rollout is any guide, few Americans will heed his advice, even though this summer’s surge has been unusually intense, with levels of the covid virus in wastewater suggesting infections are as widespread as they were in the winter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now looks to wastewater as fewer people are reporting test results to health authorities. The wastewater data shows the epidemic is worst in Western and Southern states. In New York, for example, levels are considered “high” — compared with “very high” in Georgia.

Hospitalizations and deaths due to covid have trended up, too. But unlike infections, these rates are nowhere near those seen in winter surges, or in summers past. More than 2,000 people died of covid in July — a high number but a small fraction of the at least 25,700 covid deaths in July 2020.

Partial immunity built up through vaccines and prior infections deserves credit for this relief. A new study suggests that current variants may be less virulent — in the study, one of the recent variants did not kill mice exposed to it, unlike most earlier covid variants.

Public health officials note that even with more cases this summer, people seem to be managing their sickness at home. “We did see a little rise in the number of cases, but it didn’t have a significant impact in terms of hospitalizations and emergency room visits,” said Manisha Juthani, public health commissioner of Connecticut, at a news briefing Aug. 21.

Unlike influenza or traditional cold viruses, covid seems to thrive outside the cold months, when germy schoolkids, dry air, and indoor activities are thought to enable the spread of air- and saliva-borne viruses. No one is exactly sure why.

“Covid is still very transmissible, very new, and people congregate inside in air-conditioned rooms during the summer,” said John Moore, a virologist and professor at Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medicine.

Or “maybe covid is more tolerant of humidity or other environmental conditions in the summer,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Because viruses evolve as they infect people, the CDC has recommended updated covid vaccines each year. Last fall’s booster was designed to target the omicron variant circulating in 2023. This year, mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer and the protein-based vaccine from Novavax — which has yet to be approved by the FDA — target a more recent omicron variant, JN.1.

The FDA determined that the mRNA vaccines strongly protected people from severe disease and death — and would do so even though earlier variants of JN.1 are now being overtaken by others.

Public interest in covid vaccines has waned, with only 1 in 5 adults getting vaccinated since last September, compared with about 80% who got the first dose. New Yorkers have been slightly above the national vaccination rate, while in Georgia only about 17% got the latest shot.

Vaccine uptake is lower in states where the majority voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and among those who have less money and education, less health care access, or less time off from work. These groups are also more likely to be hospitalized or die of the disease, according to a 2023 study in The Lancet.

While the newly formulated vaccines are better targeted at the circulating covid variants, uninsured and underinsured Americans may have to rush if they hope to get one for free. A CDC program that provided boosters to 1.5 million people over the last year ran out of money and is ending Aug. 31.

The agency drummed up $62 million in unspent funds to pay state and local health departments to provide the new shots to those not covered by insurance. But “that may not go very far” if the vaccine costs the agency around $86 a dose, as it did last year, said Kelly Moore, CEO of Immunize.org, which advocates for vaccination.

People who pay out-of-pocket at pharmacies face higher prices: CVS plans to sell the updated vaccine for $201.99, said Amy Thibault, a spokesperson for the company.

“Price can be a barrier, access can be a barrier” to vaccination, said David Scales, an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Without an access program that provides vaccines to uninsured adults, “we’ll see disparities in health outcomes and disproportionate outbreaks in the working poor, who can ill afford to take off work,” Kelly Moore said.

New York State has about $1 million to fill the gaps when the CDC’s program ends, said Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health. That will buy around 12,500 doses for uninsured and underinsured adults, she said. There are roughly one million uninsured people in the state.

CDC and FDA experts last year decided to promote annual fall vaccination against covid and influenza along with a one-time respiratory syncytial virus shot for some groups.

It would be impractical for the vaccine-makers to change the covid vaccine’s recipe twice every year, and offering the three vaccines during one or two health care visits appears to be the best way to increase uptake of all of them, said Schaffner, who consults for the CDC’s policy-setting Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At its next meeting, in October, the committee is likely to urge vulnerable people to get a second dose of the same covid vaccine in the spring, for protection against the next summer wave, he said.

If you’re in a vulnerable population and waiting to get vaccinated until closer to the holiday season, Schaffner said, it makes sense to wear a mask and avoid big crowds, and to get a test if you think you have covid. If positive, people in these groups should seek medical attention since the antiviral pill Paxlovid might ameliorate their symptoms and keep them out of the hospital.

As for conscientious others who feel they may be sick and don’t want to spread the covid virus, the best advice is to get a single test and, if positive, try to isolate for a few days and then wear a mask for several days while avoiding crowded rooms. Repeat testing after a positive result is pointless, since viral particles in the nose may remain for days without signifying a risk of infecting others, Schaffner said.

The Health and Human Services Department is making four free covid tests available to anyone who requests them starting in late September through covidtest.gov, said Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response, at the Aug. 23 briefing.

The government is focusing its fall vaccine advocacy campaign — which it’s calling “Risk Less. Do More.” — on older people and nursing home residents, said HHS spokesperson Jeff Nesbit.

Not everyone may really need a fall covid booster, but “it’s not wrong to give people options,” John Moore said. “The 20-year-old athlete is less at risk than the 70-year-old overweight dude. It’s as simple as that.”

******

KFF Health News correspondent Amy Maxmen contributed to this report. Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. This article was updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on Sept. 5, 2024, to correct the name of the Department of Health and Human Services’ fall vaccine advocacy campaign.

The post The New Covid Vaccine Is Out. Why You Might Not Want To Rush To Get It appeared first on Medika Life.

As a scientist, I question the efficacy of paper surgical masks in preventing the transmission of COVID-19, as my hospital reintroduced a mandate for healthcare providers to wear them.

Although many debate the effectiveness of paper masks, I am more interested in the evidence supporting wearing one rather than the politics surrounding masking.

Mixed Feelings

I remember wearing a paper surgical mask during a particularly busy shift at the hospital last winter.

As I moved from one patient’s room to another, I couldn’t help but notice the discomfort caused by the mask’s straps constantly tugging at my ears.

Despite the inconvenience, I also couldn’t ignore the sense of protection and responsibility that came with wearing it.

I work in cancer medicine, after all.

It’s a strange juxtaposition — the physical discomfort versus the mental reassurance.

Moreover, my patients prefer to see my face.

Moments like these make me reflect on the true effectiveness of these masks and whether they are truly making a difference in preventing the transmission of viruses.

Overview

While we adopted widespread mask use as a public health measure, the evidence supporting their effectiveness remains contested.

Observational studies (and even some randomized controlled trials) suggest a benefit, but there is no high-level, conclusive evidence that masks reduce COVID-19 transmission.

You may be surprised to hear this doctor admit that.

Today, I want to examine a recent study that hails the effectiveness of masking.

The big reveal: We need more rigorous investigations to determine the precise role of paper surgical masks in mitigating the spread of the virus.

A New Study

Atle Freithem and colleagues report the results of a pragmatic randomized control trial in the British Medical Journal:

Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces.

www.bmj.com.

The take-home message is this:

Wearing a surgical mask for two weeks during the winter of 2023 reduced the spread of self-reported viral illness.

This research proves that paper masks work, right?

Study Details

Purpose: This study aimed to see if wearing a surgical mask in public places like stores, streets, and public transport for two weeks could protect people from getting sick with respiratory infections like colds or the flu.

How the study worked: Researchers randomly divided almost 4,700 adults in Norway into two groups. They told one group of participants to wear surgical masks in public for two weeks while asking the other group not to.

What researchers examined: The scientists were mainly interested in whether people got sick with respiratory infections. They also looked at whether people reported getting COVID-19 or had it confirmed by a doctor.

Important note: The investigators did not tell subjects to wear masks at home or work, only when in public.

Study Results

Here are the study results:

Over the study period, about 9 percent of those who wore masks reported cold or flu-like symptoms, compared to 12 percent of those who didn’t.

This finding suggests that wearing masks might slightly lower your chances of contracting a respiratory infection.

My Take

First, kudos to the researchers for completing a practical, randomized clinical trial evaluating paper mask effectiveness.

We can do randomized clinical trials in the COVID-19 realm.

Second, the study does not prove that paper masks reduce COVID-19 transmission.

Many people believe masks are effective, and this study didn’t use a placebo or fake mask to account for that belief.

The results may reflect that people feel better because they wear a mask rather than a mask that prevents illness.

We Need Studies With Objective Measures

I hope we get a study that uses objective measures of infection.

I wish the authors had used regular virus tests or blood tests checking for COVID-19 antibodies.

And mandated mask wearing for more than a couple of weeks.

The study, as conducted, tells us that people wearing masks reported fewer illnesses, not that they were actually sick less often or felt better overall.

While the study didn’t find a benefit in confirmed COVID-19 cases, it might not have been large enough to detect a small difference.

Bottom Line

This study does not prove masks reduce COVID-19 transmission; the study’s primary endpoint was self-reported illness.

After so much trumpeting of the value of paper masks to reduce COVID-19 contagiousness, we still need high-level evidence to convince me.

Per my hospital’s mandate, I will continue to don my paper mask faithfully in designated places in my workplace.

But am I better off donning a mask year after year for a virus that has diminished in lethality for healthy individuals like me?

If I had a big upcoming event, I would wear an N-95 mask.

Many counterfeit N-95 and K-95 masks are out there, and many don’t fit them properly.

But that is another story.

Do you regularly wear a paper surgical mask? What motivates you to do so?

Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use.

This report describes face mask or respirator effectiveness in helping protect against COVID-19 infection.

www.cdc.gov.

The post Do Surgical Masks Protect You Against COVID? appeared first on Medika Life.

First, the guidance itself removes a specific reference to COVID-19 and groups it together with other respiratory viruses, such as influenza and RSV. This, in and of itself, is a significant change. And the new guidance says that if you do not have a fever for 24 hours and are feeling better, you do not have to isolate for five days and can continue normal activities.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a big deal. In many settings, especially in healthcare settings, if one or more staff members have to isolate at home for five days if they test positive for Covid, this can cause significant staffing difficulties. Now, the CDC finally recognizes that common sense needs to prevail.

That common sense includes the fact that, if you are sick, you need to stay home. This is true whether it is the flu, Covid, RSV, or any other illness. Once you’re feeling better, then you can resume normal activities.

Now, it is true that Covid can spread to other people even if the carrier does not have any symptoms. And so, again, common sense needs to prevail: if you are around people who are at high risk for severe illness with Covid, you should wear a mask around them. And, when you are sick, you should stay away from them completely. This is proper “virus etiquette” that more of us need to develop. It is the same as coughing or sneezing into one’s elbow.

The reason I am so excited about this change is because, today, the COVID-19 virus is a completely different pathogen. In the very beginning, COVID-19 caused severe illness in a great number of people. In the United States, it killed over 1 million people. That is a lot. I myself came down with COVID-19 in November 2020, and I have never had a viral illness like that one. It was unlike anything I have ever experienced. Now, however, for many people, COVID-19 is simply a bad cold.

It has been several months, if not years, that I have seen a life-threatening case of Covid ARDS in my ICU. Recently, I had a patient who tested positive for Covid and had severe lung infiltrates. It turns out that those were due to severe heart failure and not Covid. In fact, many of the patients we see in the hospital with Covid have other conditions that brought them in, and the Covid was simply a bystander.

That said, this does not mean that Covid cannot cause severe illness at all. The elderly, the frail and weak, and those with compromised immune systems are still at high risk for life-threatening illness, even with the current variant of Covid. They, of course, need to remain vigilant and careful. And those of us who are not at high-risk need to be cognizant of this and, again, have proper virus etiquette.

All of this having been said, this is a great change. I disagree with the those who say that this new guidance will make people dismiss Covid as a significant disease. People have already moved beyond Covid, and this is because the COVID-19 of 2024 is substantially different than the COVID-19 of 2020. This is reality, and I am very happy that the CDC has finally acknowledged this reality.

Listen to the podcast episode about this article.

The post It’s About Time: CDC Changes COVID Isolation Guidelines appeared first on Medika Life.

Does even light physical activity hurt people with post-exertional malaise (with symptoms such as fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and challenges with body temperature regulation)?

I was lucky; my COVID-19 infection was virtually asymptomatic. I slept ten hours, something I never do. So I tested.

Others are less fortunate.

In 2022, seven percent of adults had Long COVID. Women (8.5 percent) were more likely than men (5.2 percent) to ever have Long COVID-19, and women (4.4 percent) were also more likely than men (2.3 percent) to currently have Long COVID.

Long COVID-19

Long COVID, a perplexing phenomenon characterized by the persistence of symptoms for weeks, months, or even years after recovering from COVID-19, continues to baffle medical professionals and researchers.

Those who suffer from it experience a wide range of symptoms, including fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and challenges with body temperature regulation.

Many people believe that exercise could worsen long COVID and cause harm.

Today’s goals

However, a recent study published in the British Medical Journal has shown that exercise may be a key player in long COVID recovery.

In this article, I will explore the findings of this study and provide insight into how exercise can improve the health-related quality of life for individuals experiencing long-term effects of COVID.

Post-exertional malaise (PEM)

Post-exertional malaise refers to worsening symptoms after even minor physical or mental exertion.

This phenomenon typically intensifies 12 to 48 hours post-activity, lingering for days or weeks.

Would exercise worsen COVID-19-related fatigue?

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Unlike many fatiguing diseases, where patients often find relief after exercise, those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome face a different reality.

Even the slightest exertion can trigger Post-exertional Malaise (PEM), exacerbating their symptoms instead of providing relief.

Managing PEM involves adopting activity management strategies, commonly known as pacing.

The objective is to prevent flare-ups and avoid relapses by maintaining a delicate balance between rest and activity.

New study

A recent study published in the British Medical Journal has provided the first evidence-based recommendation for self-reported long COVID: exercise.

The research, titled “Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial,” focused on individuals recently discharged from the hospital after experiencing COVID-19.

Study objectives

The goal of the REGAIN trial (Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support after COVID-19 InfectioN) was to assess the effectiveness of an eight-week, organized online supervised group program focused on physical and mental health rehabilitation.

The objective was to determine whether this structured intervention could enhance the health-related quality of life in adults experiencing long Covid-19 compared to standard care.

Exercise intervention

These participants reported ongoing damage from COVID-19, commonly known as self-reported long COVID-19.

Researchers randomly assigned study subjects to an 8-week group exercise program or a single check-in session, with the main measure being their quality of life.

Exercise details

The REGAIN internet-based exercise and behavioral support intervention comprised an initial individual consultation with a skilled practitioner.

Eight online group exercise sessions and six group support sessions were conducted over eight weeks.

Additionally, participants could avail themselves of an online repository containing on-demand exercises and support videos.

Results

Despite failing to achieve full participation from everyone, the study showed significant improvements.

In the intervention group, 47% of participants (141 individuals) fully adhered to the program, 39 percent (117 individuals) partially adhered, and 13 percent (40 individuals) did not receive the intervention.

Even with varying levels of engagement, positive outcomes were still evident.

Compared to standard care, the exercise intervention improved health-related quality of life, particularly in areas such as depression, fatigue, and pain interference.

My take

These positive effects were sustained at the 12-month mark, suggesting that exercise can play a crucial role in the recovery of individuals experiencing long-term effects of COVID.

Researchers are testing the exercise and counseling intervention in a randomized controlled trial.

Got long-COVID-19? Please check in with a valued healthcare provider before embarking on physical activity.

The post Exercise Emerges as Key Player in Long COVID Recovery: Game-Changing Findings appeared first on Medika Life.

The vaccines mostly showed safe results, but the study confirmed some rare side effects. For example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine showed a slightly higher risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome and a type of blood clot in the brain known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. However, these risks were not seen with mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna.

The study also found that heart inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) was more likely after Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but this was extremely rare. Interestingly, there was a higher-than-expected occurrence of a brain condition called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, but this was based on a very small number of cases.

This large-scale study is crucial in identifying rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Although there were some variations in the data due to different healthcare systems and study methods across countries, the overall findings are reassuring. They confirm that the known risks of COVID-19 vaccines are very rare and that the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Continuous monitoring and analysis of real-world data are important as vaccination programs continue worldwide.

The post Understanding the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: Insights from a Major International Study appeared first on Medika Life.

The scale of our collective progress can be measured against a timeline of vaccine milestones. The polio vaccine brought hope to millions of families from America to Zambia. Up until the mid-Twentieth Century, few could imagine the eradication of smallpox, but a global vaccination campaign against the disease starting in the 1960s ushered in an era of new possibilities for billions. And the roll-out over the past week of the first-ever approved malaria vaccine may mark another landmark: the moment when children across Africa have been given hope in the form of a tool that can help them escape a plague that kills 500,000 of them each year.

A future where malaria is eliminated as a public health threat in the African continent may remain out of reach for the immediate future, but that shouldn’t stop us from working to fulfil our dreams of a malaria-free Africa. As it has with other diseases, the introduction of a new vaccine has the potential to catalyze innovation and create new opportunities for economic growth.

If the malaria vaccines enter the immunization schedule of most African countries over the next year, as planned, the steady stride of the region’s economic power may accelerate. When more children survive past their 5^th birthday and the strain on health systems is reduced, that’s not only intrinsically valuable, it’s a good thing for economic growth.

Healthy children fuel healthy economies

With the coming decades expected to see the ascendance of several African markets as global economic players, malaria vaccination could be a catalyst to sustained development in the region. This serves as a benefit for nations around the world, including the U.S.

Yet, one of the most immediate ways to derail Africa’s economic potential is to hamper the very immunization programs that have delivered the most impressive returns on health investments, both in Africa and globally. That’s what is on the line later this year when Gavi, the alliance responsible for financing the delivery of more than 19 different vaccines to low-and-middle-income countries, is set to have its funding reauthorized by the U.S. and several other governments.

Gavi has written the playbook for creating an investment-driven approach to providing emerging markets with the immunization infrastructure they need to thrive. In the 24 years since its founding, the alliance has vaccinated half of the world’s children. That alone is a remarkable achievement, but the alliance has matched humanitarian outcomes with powerful financial results: Its model has proven so successful that $1 of investment in Gavi yields $54 in health savings among its beneficiary countries. Peer-reviewed research has shown a strong link between child survival rates from vaccine-preventable diseases and GDP growth.

As investments of U.S. taxpayer funds go, few if any can rival the return that Gavi brings for the roughly $300 million committed to it by the American government each year. Looking beyond the direct impact on lives saved – nearly 18 million children and counting – global immunization programs supported by Gavi have strengthened health systems in many of the most vulnerable countries of the world. These are the very places where deadly disease outbreaks have the greatest chance of growing undetected until they are uncontainable.

Continuing support for routine immunization is essential

Gavi funding helps protect Americans by blunting the relentless pace of viruses and bacteria to evolve beyond our control. Better immunization against known threats, more sophisticated early-detection systems in disease hot zones, new vaccine manufacturing capacity closer to the likely sources of outbreaks, and hospital systems that are less burdened by increasingly preventable maladies like malaria – these are the building blocks that Gavi has helped put in place to foster a healthier future for all of us.

At a time when disinformation further erodes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting public health and the spread of disease is supercharged by climate change, the value of Gavi’s time-tested model deserves to be acknowledged through funding replenishment later this year. This would send an unmistakable message to the world that we can still fulfill the hopes and dreams of billions of people by providing the lifesaving vaccines they need to have a shot at a more prosperous, peaceful future.

The post A Gateway to Growth in Africa appeared first on Medika Life.

According to a Current Population Survey of Americans, there were less than 15 million people in the United States aged 18 to 64 who had some form of handicap at the beginning of the year 2020. By September 2023, that number had risen to almost 16.5 million. And nearly two-thirds of those adding to the total had previously unreported restrictions on their cognitive abilities.

A prime factor in the increase in people with a cognitive disability appears to be COVID-19, and while the vast majority of people who contract it make full recoveries, some people who contract the virus continue to experience symptoms months or even years after the initial infection. The puzzle for scientists is what is causing this brain fog of cognitive impairment and what might be done to remediate it.

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., symptoms continuing for at least 4 weeks after infection), also known as protracted COVID, include fatigue and cognitive impairment, along with other enduring neuropsychiatric (e.g., depression) and physical (e.g., dyspnea) manifestations. Working memory fluctuations would appear to be most distressing and may account for increased applications for disability. Note: Disability requires the three factors of maintaining pace, persistence, and concentration (aka PPC), and the memory impairment shown in COVID patients would increase the likelihood of receiving benefits.

For one thing, rigorous data on the incidence of the illness appears to be lacking and we do not know how many people have COVID or how many are suffering its long-lasting effects. As of December 2021, the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus illness around the world had risen to almost 275 million. However, numerous models suggest that the true number of cases is three to twenty-four times higher than the number of confirmed cases.

Researchers have proposed numerous reasons for the changes in cognition and general well-being, including viral persistence, chronic inflammation, hypercoagulability, and autonomic dysfunction. One new hypothesis is being offered for a reduction in a vital neurotransmitter, serotonin. However, most of the work is being evaluated with mouse models.

Certain structures or pathways can lead to changes in memory. One is a drop in serotonin, which can stop the vagus nerve from working properly, which in turn affects how the hippocampus responds and stores memories. The hippocampus is the brain structure most involved in memory consolidation, so anything that interferes with its functioning could result in a change in memory formation and retrieval.

For now, all we know is that there are multiple factors involved in brain fog and fatigue after being infected with the virus for COVID. There are also many physical organ systems that are also affected, so this is a virus, seemingly, unlike others scientists have encountered in the past.

The post The “Fog” Of COVID Is Disturbing and Striking the Young and Old appeared first on Medika Life.

I always get my vaccinations in my left arm. Not because I anticipated the intriguing new study results.

Rather, I sleep on my right side and don’t want the discomfort associated with vaccination on my compressed arm.

Before we examine sidedness and vaccinations, I must share that winter has begun in Seattle. I define the season as dark and rainy.

Chilled-looking people walking along the riverside, the snow beginning, faintly, to pile up on the roofs of cars, the bare trees shaking their heads left and right, dry leaves tossing in the wind. The silver of the metal window sash sparkled coldly. Soon after, I heard sensei call, “Mikage! Are you awake? It’s snowing, look! It’s snowing!” “I’m coming!” I called out, standing up. I got dressed to begin another day. Over and over, we begin again. — Banana Yoshimoto

Arm-Sidedness and COVID Vaccination

I read the title of a recent article and thought, “Really?” But as you will see, there is a logic to the finding. Here’s the title:

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

In other words, individuals may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm.

The Study

German researchers examined health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and a subsequent booster shot. None had a history of COVID-19 infection.

They measured the antibody levels of the subjects two weeks after the second shot.

Here are the surprising results:

The number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm.

Scientists found killer T cells in 67 percent of cases when both shots entered the same arm. This number compares to 43 percent of cases with different arms.

My Take

Same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells providing the immune response are in nearby (underarm) lymph nodes.

There may be a more vigorous immune response if the immune cells in the nearby nodes are restimulated in the same location.

Since this study does not represent high-level evidence, we need more studies to validate the results. Moreover, we don’t know if the findings apply to other vaccines, including the flu.

Still, I will continue to get my vaccinations in my left arm. I sleep on my right side, so it is for the best.

The post Is Getting COVID Shots in the Same Arm Better? appeared first on Medika Life.