Satanic Capitalist

Published May 31, 2024

Any common face mask provides significant protection against the virus that causes COVID-19, but N95 masks are most effective at slashing the amount emitted by infected people, according to a University of Maryland-led study released Wednesday.

So-called “duckbill” N95 masks scored highest in the study, which measured the exhaled breath of participants who were tested both masked and unmasked to measure comparative outputs of SARS-CoV-2. The inexpensive masks, which have two head straps and a horizontal seam, captured 98% of exhaled virus, according to the study published in eBioMedicine.

The researchers also found that—in what might come as a surprise to many—cloth masks outperformed the specific brand of KN95 mask that was tested. Surgical masks brought up the rear in performance out of the four types, but even they blocked 70% of the virus, the tests showed. (To reflect the general public's use of masks, study volunteers were not fit-tested for their masks or trained how to properly wear them.)

“The research shows that any mask is much better than no mask, and an N95 is significantly better than the other options. That’s the No. 1 message,” says the study’s senior author, Donald Milton, a professor of environmental health and a global expert on how viruses spread through the air.

The article above didn't link to the study, so I found it, and it's open access!

Relative efficacy of masks and respirators as source control for viral aerosol shedding from people infected with SARS-CoV-2: a controlled human exhaled breath aerosol experimental study

The US News Media since 2022: "Covid's over! Drop the masks! What's the best way to cough on strangers? Heartwarming: Celebrity tells new mothers to use urine instead of MMR vaccine!"

The US News today:

Published June 5, 2024

‘I was incredibly strong and fit,” says Lucy Keighley. And she looks it, in the photo she is showing me, taken a few years ago. She is with her best friend, Lorna; they have just completed a 15-mile race on the North York Moors. “It was a brutal race,” she says. “But it was great. I was happy.” Today, although it’s quite dark in the room (she doesn’t get on well with bright light), I can see a tear rolling down her cheek. “I don’t know if I’m ever going to get back there.”

Lucy, 49, still runs – across the moors and along the coast – but only in her sleep. “I’m so light on my feet. I was never a light-footed runner in real life. But in my dreams I am so light, I can run so far, and it feels joyous.”

In reality, just walking up the stairs at her home in Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, has taken it out of her, given her a sheen of sweat and stolen her breath. Her breathing is always audible and sounds shallow. Sometimes, out of nowhere, she breaks into a fit of coughing.

Published May 20, 2024

Asad Khan first developed Covid-19 in late 2020. A pulmonologist in Manchester, England, Khan had spent most of the year working on packed hospital wards full of acutely ill Covid patients. After falling ill with the disease himself, Khan spent what he described as a dreadful month at home waiting for the symptoms to subside. But they never did. Instead, Khan fell into the grips of long Covid, a post-viral syndrome that can last months to years after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. By the following September, he was sequestered in a darkened room, wearing earplugs and a blindfold. Khan suffered from relentless nausea and couldn’t stand the presence of other people, even his own children. The symptoms were so intolerable, he said, that he would have taken drastic measures to end them.

Then Khan heard about an experimental treatment offered by Beate Jaeger, an internist in Germany. Jaeger’s approach drew from preliminary evidence connecting long Covid with microscopic blood clots that can potentially deprive tissues and organs of sufficient oxygen. To remove these so-called microclots, Jaeger was using a procedure called apheresis, whereby a patient’s blood is removed, filtered, and then returned to the body. Apheresis is typically used to treat certain blood disorders or cancers such as leukemia or lymphoma. To Khan, the blood-washing strategy made “physiological sense.” So, after taking a one-hour flight to Germany, Khan met with Jaeger at her clinic. Apheresis treatments can run in the thousands of dollars, and Khan’s first session was scheduled for the following day. But Jaeger “took one look at me,” Khan recalled, and said, ‘You’re having it today.’”

Associated study published May 2023

Key Points

Question  What symptoms are differentially present in SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals 6 months or more after infection compared with uninfected individuals, and what symptom-based criteria can be used to identify postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) cases?

Findings  In this analysis of data from 9764 participants in the RECOVER adult cohort, a prospective longitudinal cohort study, 37 symptoms across multiple pathophysiological domains were identified as present more often in SARS-CoV-2–infected participants at 6 months or more after infection compared with uninfected participants. A preliminary rule for identifying PASC was derived based on a composite symptom score.

Meaning  A framework for identifying PASC cases based on symptoms is a first step to defining PASC as a new condition. These findings require iterative refinement that further incorporates clinical features to arrive at actionable definitions of PASC.

Published Jan 27, 2024

The covid-is-just-a-cold myth has made its way deep into society.

I've certainly heard it from friends and family. 

You probably have too.

Some experts have pushed this line because the virus that causes covid - Sarscov2 - is a coronavirus, and some other coronaviruses cause colds.

This is an incredibly bad simplification. It is unscientific. It is dangerous. And it is doing real harm to people’s ability to understand what covid is and why they should do more to avoid it.

The science of this is so important, so I’ve decided to revise and update an article I wrote about this last summer, drawing on the latest research.

But before we get to the science.

I’ve said it many times before, and it bears repeating again and again: most people didn’t wake up one day and decide to think about covid like a cold. People didn’t go from being happy to isolate, test, mask, lock down, to being chill about coexisting with this virus.

The normalising process wasn’t organic, it was engineered.

Data Report - Daily Pandemic New

Published Feb 14, 2024

Results Also Suggest the Diabetes Risk Persists Across COVID-19 Variants, and That Upfront Vaccination May Help to Reduce Risk of Post-Infection Diabetes

Investigators in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai have confirmed that people who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for new-onset diabetes—the most significant contributor to cardiovascular disease.

“Our results validate early findings revealing a risk of developing Type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection and indicate that this risk has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” said Alan Kwan, MD, first and corresponding author of the study and a cardiovascular physician in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai.

The trend, Kwan says, is concerning because most people in the United States will eventually experience a COVID-19 infection. “This research study helps us understand—and better prepare for—the post-COVID-19 era of cardiovascular risk,” Kwan said.

The findings, published today in the journal JAMA Network Open, also suggest that the risk of Type 2 diabetes appears lower in individuals who were already vaccinated against COVID-19 by the time they were infected.

Published Feb 14, 2024

Results

The cohort of 23 709 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.4 [19.3] years) included 12 706 females (54%) and 10 981 males (46%) (22 patients of unknown sex) with 1 or more COVID infection. Rates of new-onset diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and benchmark diagnoses occurring in the 90 days after COVID-19 infection were higher than those before infection (Figure). The highest odds postinfection were for diabetes (2.35; 95% CI, 1.94-2.89; P < .001), followed by hypertension (1.54; 95% CI, 1.35-1.76; P < .001), benchmark diagnoses (1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.61; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P = .03). In adjusted multivariable models, risk of new-onset diabetes (vs benchmark) diagnosis occurring after vs before COVID-19 infection was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.24-2.02; P < .001); however, risks of hypertension and hyperlipidemia vs benchmark diagnoses were not (Table). Although the diabetes risk after infection was higher among unvaccinated (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.35-2.37; P < .001) than vaccinated (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64-1.77; P = .80) patients, the interaction term between vaccination status and diabetes diagnosis was not statistically significant (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.34-1.06; P = .08). There was no evidence of interaction by age, sex, or preexisting cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any model (Table).