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.

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.

Moreover, Shakespeare witnessed numerous waves of the plague, with the disease taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of Europeans in his lifetime. With each plague outbreak in England, rulers banned mass gatherings, including London theater performances.

From 1603 to 1613, when Shakespeare’s powers as a writer peaked, the Globe and other London theatres were closed for a remarkable 78 months or over 60 percent of the time.

“Pursue him to his house, and pluck him thence:
Lest his infection, being of catching nature,
Spread further.”

Coriolanus Act 3, Scene 1

What is the New COVID Variant Arcturus (XBB.1.16)?

Arcturus, also known as XBB.1.16, is a subvariant of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. It was first identified in India in January 2023 and has since been detected in over 30 countries.

Arcturus is thought to be more transmissible than previous variants of Omicron, but there is no evidence that it is more severe.

Many of the symptoms of Arcturus are similar to those of other variants of COVID-19. They may include fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle aches, headache, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, and loss of taste or smell.

Some people may experience gastrointestinal symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

But there is one atypical symptom associated with the Arcturus: Itchy eyes. Dr. Matthew Binnicker, director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory at Mayo Clinic (USA), offers:

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients. This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

Is Arcturus Especially Dangerous?

While COVID-19 rates in the U.S. are relatively low and are declining, the World Health Organization (WHO) is keeping an eye on a new COVID-19 variant.

The WHO has listed the omicron subvariant XBB.1.16, known as “Arcturus,” as a variant under monitoring since March 22. Experts say this variant has a higher transmissibility rate than previous strains but doesn’t appear more dangerous.

“He shall not breathe infection in this air” — Henry VI Part 2, Act 3, Scene 2

The New COVID Variant (Arcturus) management

There is no specific treatment for Arcturus, but the same treatments that are effective against other variants of COVID-19 may also be effective against Arcturus. These treatments include:

• Vaccination. The COVID-19 vaccines prevent serious illness, hospitalization, and death from Arcturus.
• Paxlovid. Paxlovid is an antiviral medication that is effective against Arcturus. It is recommended for people at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19.
• Monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies are a type of antibody that can be given to people who are at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19. They are not as effective as Paxlovid, but they may be an option for people who cannot take Paxlovid.

“The miserable have no other medicine, but only Hope.” — Measure for Measure, Act 3, Scene 1

The best way to protect yourself from Arcturus is to get vaccinated and boosted. You should also wear a mask in public indoor settings, practice social distancing, and wash your hands frequently.

Although COVID-19 rates in the U.S. are relatively low, health experts recommend people remain continue to use risk-reducing tactics, including the following:

• Wash your hands frequently.
• Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
• Stay home if you feel sick or have any symptoms of COVID-19.

I hope you learned something about the COVID variant with the epic name.

The post The New COVID Variant — A Striking Symptom You Should Know About appeared first on Medika Life.

COVID-19 re-infection re-infection risk is relatively low, but not zero. Studies suggest that people who have had COVID-19 may have some level of immunity to the virus, at least for a certain period. However, this immunity may not be long-lasting and may vary depending on a person’s age, overall health, and other factors.

The risk of re-infection also depends on the prevalence of the virus in a person’s community and their level of exposure to it. If someone is exposed to the virus again, their immune system may be able to recognize and fight off the virus more quickly, potentially resulting in milder symptoms.

Several studies have reported cases of COVID-19 re-infection, although these cases appear relatively rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that re-infection with COVID-19 is uncommon within 90 days of the initial infection.

However, it is still important to follow public health guidelines to prevent the spread of the virus, even if you have previously been infected. Mitigation strategies include wearing a mask, practicing physical distancing, and getting vaccinated when a vaccine is available to you.

Let’s explore the most comprehensive data compiled to analyze national immunity protection against the virus. The researchers recently published their findings in The Lancet.

“I didn’t expect to recover from my second operation but since I did, I consider that I’m living on borrowed time. Every day that dawns is a gift to me and I take it in that way. I accept it gratefully without looking beyond it. I completely forget my physical suffering and all the unpleasantness of my present condition and I think only of the joy of seeing the sun rise once more and of being able to work a little bit, even under difficult conditions.”
― Henri Matisse

Covid-19 infection and future risk reduction

Researchers analyzed 65 studies from 19 countries. Let’s get right to the bottom-line conclusion of the study authors:

[The] meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for (COVID-19) ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants but were substantially lower for the Omicron BA.1 variant. A Covid infection provided some protection against re-infection from the original (ancestral), alpha, and delta variants. While the risk reduction diminished over time, it remained at 79 percent at 40 weeks.

Protection against re-infection by the Omicron BA.1 variant diminished more quickly, reaching 36 percent at 40 weeks.

Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained 78.6 percent at 40 weeks (around ten months).

The report notes that protection against re-infection by the Omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36 percent over that same 40-week period.

Covid infection and future severe infection

What about severe infection? Having an infection protects against severe infections from future infections. More specifically, the protection was 90.2 percent for the original, alpha, and delta variants and 88.9 percent for Omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks (about ten months).

As protection appears to wane over time, even individuals with natural immunity will likely still need an annual COVID booster shot to maximize risk reduction for severe illness.

The post Got Covid? How Long Do You Have Protection After Catching the Virus? appeared first on Medika Life.

Despite knowing what we know, groups continue to publish on questions that will not necessarily translate toward more meaningful clinical solutions. Recently, a group published another article, following up on a previous article on roughly the same topic, showing yet again that ivermectin does not help COVID-19 (Source). While exploring topics towards finding solutions is essential, especially if they could translate to saved or improved lives, when should we stop asking questions that we have already gathered fairly comprehensive answers to? While the abundance of misinformation necessitates continued public engagement, why not rely on our extensive, already-collected information? Is the extra financial investment worth it?

While such articles are often delayed from when they are submitted to a journal, meaning publications are not necessarily timely when they come out, I hope that fewer and fewer articles investigate such topics moving forward. If we have robust and reproducible findings, there is little need to continue proving it is believable if experts already feel that way. Due to misinformation campaigns, we will not convince everyone that ivermectin, among other “cures,” does not help COVID. We can move forward and emphasize topics that will translate toward greater clinical care improvements versus engaging naysayers who will not be satisfied with our answers, no matter how many ways we provide information.

The post COVID-19 Trials: Why Are We Asking Questions We Know Answers To? appeared first on Medika Life.

When President Joe Biden received a COVID-19 infection diagnosis, he almost immediately began an oral treatment of the anti-viral Paxlovid. Four days after he completed the Paxlovid regimen, the U.S. President tested positive for COVID. Again.

Biden’s case is a high-profile example of the “Paxlovid rebound.” Reports suggest that a minority of those receiving the anti-viral drug will suffer from a re-emergence of the infection.

Today we explore the remarkable drug Paxlovid before turning to a new report suggesting we were wrong. The drug now appears not associated with a higher probability of COVID-19 re-infection.

“O Rose, thou art sick.
The invisible worm
That flies in the night
In the howling storm

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy,
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.”
― William Blake, Songs of Experience

What is Paxlovid?

Paxlovid is an anti-viral medication used to treat COVID-19. Its active ingredients are nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, which work together to stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus from replicating in the body.

Paxlovid is designed to be taken orally and is typically prescribed to people with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of developing severe illness. The high-risk group can include older individuals, unvaccinated individuals, or other medical conditions ranging from cancer to diabetes.

The drug is not for people who are already hospitalized or require oxygen therapy. Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2021 and is available by prescription from healthcare providers.

Two of the three pills target COVID virus-specific enzymes and suppress viral replication. The third pill is ritonavir, a drug first developed to help treat HIV/AIDS, which boosts the level of the first medications by slowing their breakdown in the body.

Writing in Scientific American, Davey Smith, the head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California, San Diego, observes the following:

“Everything that we’ve done for COVID came out of the HIV playbook, just flat out. That includes the development of vaccines, the development of treatments, how we did the testing, how we did epidemiology.”

Paxlovid is quite effective at reducing severe disease. The initial clinical trials showed the drug cut COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths by 89 percent compared to those who received a placebo pill.

What is Paxlovid rebound?

“Paxlovid rebound” is not a term that is commonly used for the medication Paxlovid. Viral rebound, however, is a potential concern with any anti-viral medication used to treat a viral infection, including COVID-19.

The United States Centers for Disease Control defines Paxlovid rebound as when an individual who, after receiving a full five-day treatment course, has a re-emergence of COVID symptoms or tests positive after an initial negative test.

With this definition, one can have COVID without symptoms, symptoms without virus, or virus with symptoms. The term “rebound” is not particularly accurate, as in virology, a “rebound” means a re-emergence of measurable amounts of a virus.

Viral rebound occurs when the level of the virus in the body increases after being undetectable or reduced by medication. This phenomenon can happen if one stops the medication too soon, if the dose is not strong enough, or if the virus develops resistance.

In the case of Paxlovid, it is important to take the medication as directed by a healthcare provider to reduce the risk of viral rebound.

How common is Paxlovid “rebound?”

The groundbreaking Pfizer clinical trial reported that one to two percent of those receiving Paxlovid tested positive for COVID after the anti-viral course — the illnesses rebounded.

Note that those rebound numbers did not appear statistically different from those who received a placebo.

Despite the growing use of Paxlovid in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID infection, many case reports have described symptom relapse or re-positive test results shortly after initial recovery or a negative test after a standard five-day treatment program.

Viral burden rebound in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving oral anti-virals in Hong Kong…

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, multiple drugs have been repurposed or developed for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2…

www.thelancet.com

A retrospective review of Mayo Clinic patients reported that about one percent of Paxlovid users rebounded, consistent with the Pfizer clinical trial findings.

In May last year, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health advisory in response to growing worries about the rebound phenomenon. Most cases appeared to be among those with mild illness; additional treatment was usually unnecessary.

The CDC recommends early initiation of Paxlovid for those at high risk of suffering from severe COVID-19.

Paxlovid rebound — New data

Researchers performed a retrospective analysis of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 in Hong Kong. They observed the subjects from February to July 2022 during the omicron BA.2.2 variant wave.

They included adult patients admitted three days before or after a positive COVID-19 test, gathered from Hospital Authority of Hong Kong records. No patients were oxygen-dependent at baseline.

They included adult patients admitted three days before or after a positive COVID-19 test, selected from medical records held by the Hospital Authority of Hong King. No patients were oxygen-dependent at baseline.

Here are the study results:

Those receiving anti-viral agents (such as the drugs contained in Paxlovid) had a similar viral burden rebound rate (five to seven percent) as the control group members (seven percent).

Groups more likely to suffer from a viral burden rebound included the following:

• Immunocompromised patients. They had a higher chance of viral burden rebound, regardless of the anti-viral approach (nirmatrelvir–ritonavir – 7.4 times higher risk; molnupiravir – 3 times higher risk).
• Younger patients (18 to 65). The odds appeared to be 3.1 times higher.
• Patients on steroids had a three to 7.5 times higher risk of a rebound.
• Vaccinated individuals appeared much more likely to experience a rebound than unvaccinated individuals (odds ratio for the latter 0.16).

Viral rebound rates appeared similar between patients with anti-viral treatment and those not receiving an anti-viral agent. Note that the viral burden rebound was not associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

My take — Paxlovid for Covid-19: Were We Wrong About Rebound Infection?

While Paxlovid is not a cure for COVID-19, it remains a powerful tool for managing COVID-19 for those at higher risk of severe illness. I often heard that more people in the field were getting rebound than the initial trials suggested.

If your healthcare provider recommends the anti-viral drug, please take it as directed and continue to follow other COVID-19 mitigation strategies (including masking and social distancing).

Viral burden rebound in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving oral anti-virals in Hong Kong…

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, multiple drugs have been repurposed or developed for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2…

www.thelancet.com

As scientists continue to learn more about Paxlovid rebound, all the doctors Scientific American spoke with emphasized that they will continue to prescribe Paxlovid to their patients who need it. “We can still use Paxlovid effectively,” Barczak says. “And we can protect one another by masking and testing and isolating when rebound happens.”

The post Paxlovid for Covid-19: Was I Wrong About Rebound Infection? appeared first on Medika Life.

In summary, those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease. This increased risk has a genetic basis.

What is macular degeneration?

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is an eye condition that can worsen over time. AMD is the leading cause of severe, permanent vision loss in older individuals.

The macula wears down in AMD. The retina is the nerve tissue — at the back of the eye — that senses light.

AMD occurs when the small central portion of your retina, the macula, wears down. The retina is the nerve tissue that senses light and is at the back of your eye.

Below are fundus photographs of the right eye (top image) and left eye (bottom image), seen from the front so that the left in each image is to the person’s right. The gaze is on the camera, so the macula is in the center of the image in each picture. The optic disc is towards the nose.

Because AMD occurs with increasing age, it is often called age-related macular degeneration. While AMD doesn’t usually cause blindness, it might cause severe visual loss.

Another macular degeneration form (Stargardt disease or juvenile macular degeneration) affects children and young adults.

COVID-19 and macular degeneration

Scientists have discovered a genetic link between COVID-19 infection and age-related macular degeneration.

COVID-19 and AMD are associated with variations in the PDGFB gene. This gene has a role in new blood vessel formation (and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur with age-related macular degeneration).

Researchers analyzed genetic data from over 16,000 individuals with age-related macular degeneration, more than 50,000 people with COVID, and control groups. Here is Boston Univerity researcher Lindsay Farrer, Ph.D., chief of biomedical genetics, speaking in a news release:

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis.”

Prior research showed that those with AMD have a 1.25 times increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21 percent) or obesity (13 percent), according to the current researchers.

Reducing your AMD risk

I want to end with something actionable. How can you reduce your risk of getting age-related macular degeneration? The US Centers for Disease Control offers some tips:

• Tell your eye doctor about your family history.
• Get regular eye exams.
• Don’t smoke.
• Have a good cholesterol level

The Age-Related Disease Studies found that getting certain vitamins and minerals every day may slow the progression of the disease from the early or middle stages to the later stages. Specifically, combinations of the following vitamins can reduce the risk of late AMD by one quarter (25 percent):

• Vitamin C
• Vitamin E
• Beta-carotene
• Zinc
• Copper

Green, leafy vegetables contain large amounts of many of these vitamins. For those with AMD progression to later stages, therapeutic interventions may include laser treatment or injections.

The post Vision and COVID-19 appeared first on Medika Life.