Capitol Hill Blue Forums Science and Technology Health, Medicine & the healing Sciences Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?

I'm wondering about the hairdresser/biker/mayor...

That ol' butch queen?

Obviously a lunatic of many talents. Oh, and a free thinker too!

This is pretty worrying and VERY under-reported:
Covid-19 Heart Damage in Young Athletes



These were all young college student athletes in excellent health before suffering asymptomatic or mild cases of Covid-19. 15% of the total scanned had myocarditis and 30.8 % showed signs of prior heart injury. That's almost 46% of young people who have now had injury to their future athletic endeavors.

Humans are over-engineered so to speak, for everyday activities. We are the species that can run down any prey until it is exhausted, even if it takes days. So our lungs and hearts still make us able to run marathons and such. Usually, the only time we call on that reserve capacity is in athletic events. But sustaining this kind of injury at an early age does not bode well for heart and lung problems when we get older.

Its kinda interesting. I just googled "long haulers" and its moved up in interest quite a lot. I have a check on what's happening by doing searches that have been posted in the last 24 hours and "long haulers" is now one of the winners.

Now hospitals are starting to setup clinics for them. New York has been opening new clinics to help them for over a month. Everybody is saying that nobody really knows how long long haulers are going to be dealing with the results of infection. Lung and heart problems are probably forever. I am not surprised about the college athletes and have fully expected that some professional athletes will not be professional after infection as well. My own thought is that "long haulers" is an appropriate term to use as their problems are going to be life long lasting and its going to effect our healthcare system, and whatever the politicians come up in the future, big time as we are talking about millions with covid-19 problems after they had it and survived.

I just keep on wondering about the Trump true believers and how many of them are going to have to get infected, and either die or have misery results for the rest of their lives before they can actually bring themselves to say, right out loud, that Covid-19 is NOT a hoax. Until that time we are going to have to live with it as they will just keep infecting each other, and others, I guess, to make some kind of point?

On the bright side...they seldom mingle with liberals or people of color, so mostly they'll keep it among themselves.

There is a very good YouTube post from DrBeen interviewing Paul Marik, the doctor behind the MATH+ protocol and major figure in sepsis therapy. It has a lot of information I have been posting about for a long time, about the "natural history" so to speak of Covid-19. How it's really two different diseases, that each needs to be treated differently. Timing is critical: Give antivirals too late and they do nothing or harm the patient. Give steroids too early, and they make the viral infection last longer. Give steroids too late, or the wrong steroids, or stop them too soon, and some people turn into long-haulers.

He has some advice for long-haulers about how to treat their unregulated immune systems, and how to avoid it to begin with. It would be nice if every doctor treating Covid-19 would watch this video. He has real data to back up everything he has to say.

Interesting new information: Somebody asked Dr. Fauci how much Vitamin D3 he is taking every day. He replied "6000 iu per day", which is actually higher than I have been recommending. The USRDA is 600 iu per day, but is just enough to prevent rickets, which ignores the last 20 years of research that shows Vitamin D interacts with every immune system cell.

New paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests universal mask wearing as a form of variolation. This comes from the centuries-old practice of inoculating people with just a bit of smallpox pus, so they get a mild or asymptomatic case and immunity. Not something anybody would do on purpose with SARS-COV2, but since you have to go food shopping, or to an essential job, you might as well give it a try by wearing a mask all the time when out.

Some have suggested we can end vaccine trials early because of good results:

Efficacy is not the real issue: Most of the vaccines will probably work, because they are based on the spike protein with the RNA sequence published by the Chinese. The real issue is safety. Once people are immunized, how will their immune system react to another exposure? In the case of the toxic shock tampon staph bacteria, menstruating women gained natural immunity during one period and then the next month their immune systems went completely haywire. Most of them developed an autoimmune disease like lupus or MS.

So far two people in the Oxford trial have developed a spinal symptom that is often a part of MS. What happens months later when the vaccinated people are exposed again? This is why Phase III trials take a long time. If you stop it based only on efficacy, you can miss long-term safety problems. It would be horrible if we end up with 30,000 people who are doomed to lupus or MS upon later virus exposure.

Interesting article published in Lancet: Vitamin D for COVID-19: a case to answer?

Discusses the merits of Vitamin D as a tool against Covid-19. Then near the end they call for random blind trials giving 400 - 1000 iu of Vitamin D to the drug arm and none to the control arm. That level of intake will raise most people's 25-hydroxy D blood level by 4 to 10 ng/ml. 30 ng/ml is considered "sufficient" and 40-50 ng/ml is recommended by the American Endocrine Society.

Those trial are certain to "prove" Vitamin D does not protect people from Covid-19, because that low a level of Vitamin D protects nobody from anything but rickets. I don't know what's wrong with these authors. This is like giving 1/10th the usual dose of dexamethasone to people and then saying it doesn't help. And I don't know why Lancet would publish it.

The one random blind Vitamin D drug trial we have that showed it was 25 TIMES as good at keeping patients from needing the ICU used the much higher dose of Vitamin D. A dose that would give most people about the same blood levels as 5000 iu/day.

I have seen this same problem in trial after trial: RECOVERY in the UK gave patients toxic overdoses of hydroxychloroquine, and then stopped the trial because it was harming them. Same thing for a trial in Brazil. Heart problems because they were using something like a 20 fold overdose of chloroquine.

Can all of these researchers not read the literature and do simple math?