C19 Vaccines are not for Immune Persons. Prophylaxis before C19 Vaccine? Mucosal Immunity?

healthcare,
C19 Vaccines were not formulated for people who have recovered from COVID-19

The clinical trials for the mRNA vaccines excluded participants who were seropositive for COVID-19. Thus, the trials safety and efficacy results are applicable only to individuals seronegative for COVID-19 antibodies. Seropositive persons already have antibodies to COVID-19 and are therefore likely immune.  Thus, they do not need the mRNA vaccine and they are likely to have stronger adverse effects from vaccination.

Based on the CDC’s own data, most people <65 who receive are now being vaccinated already have natural immunity.

Antiviral Prophylaxis with Vaccine?

2021-08-26. Vaccination decreases innate immunity for some time after the each shot. For COVID-19 in adults, this decrease in the innate immunity is likely compensated by the vaccine-elicited adaptive immunity. This compensation might become sufficiently effective as soon as 10 days after the first shot, although some estimates are longer.

COVID-19 vaccination is conducted in areas where the disease is present, and the person might be already infected in time of vaccination, or become infected within those 10 days. Notice that the vaccine elicited immunity is less effective against the Delta variant, and is likely to be even less effective against future variants. Continue reading C19 Vaccines are not for Immune Persons. Prophylaxis before C19 Vaccine? Mucosal Immunity? →

The Health Harms and Risks of Face Masks

healthcare, L2, preprint,

August 23, 2021, preprint, self-published Cochrane-style. F-Masks.PDF

The Health Harms and Risks of Face Masks

Leo Goldstein[1]

Introduction

In debates about the putative benefits of facemasks, the harms and risks receive very little consideration.

Originally, facemasks were proposed as a temporary measure. Also, people were expected to wear them only for short times. Now, face masks are being mandated, for undefined periods of time, and for many hours a day.  Very few studies of masks safety have been published since the beginning of masks wearing. The few studies that were published, and observational data shows very significant downsides of masks. That does not stop mask proponents from expanding the proposed mandates, not sparing even children.

Wearing facemasks might have been the first healthcare intervention in a half-century, introduced without any testing of its efficacy or safety. When proposing any new treatment or intervention, the top priority is to demonstrate safety; at least, to show that the risks are commensurate with its benefits. This was not done for facemasks. Continue reading The Health Harms and Risks of Face Masks →

Oronasal Hygiene with PVP-I for COVID19

healthcare, L2, preprint, ,

August 18, 2021, preprint.  PVPI.pdf

Oronasal Hygiene with PVP-I for COVID19

Leo Goldstein[1]

Bullet points
  • Mouth rinsing, gargling, and nasal irrigation with Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) is safe and effective for prophylaxis, early treatment, and prevention of transmission of COVID-19
  • PVP-I has been used for decades as a broad-spectrum antiseptic in dentistry and otolaryngology, so its use for COVID-19 is not re-purposing
  • PVP-I has been widely used in India to prevent nosocomial transmission of COVID-19
  • In clinical trials, PVP-I was up to 90% in prevention hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19
Abstract

Application of 0.5%-1.0% PVP-I solution to the nasal cavity, oral cavity, nasopharynx, and oropharynx, 2-4 times per day, is an excellent prophylaxis and adjuvant treatment of early COVID-19. Its use would also prevent or sharply decrease transmission of the virus from contagious persons. Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) is available over the counter.

This is the conclusion from the available literature, including physicians’ recommendations. Continue reading Oronasal Hygiene with PVP-I for COVID19 →

Proposed Protocol for Self-Immunization against COVID-19

healthcare, L2, preprint, , ,

There is an update/improvement: Low Risk Natural Immunization against COVID-19

Proposed Protocol for Self-Immunization against COVID-19

PREPRINT, August 12-15, 2021; v3.  PDF  (archived v2)

Leo Goldstein [1]

Abstract

Prophylactically taking a small, less than preventative, dose of Hydroxychloroquine can improve an individual’s odds against COVID-19 upon accidental exposure. This allows the individual to lead a normal life and acquire broad natural immunity through a mild infection. The infection should be detected and terminated by appropriate anti–SARS-COV-2 medicines as soon as possible to minimize asymptomatic spread by that individual.

This is the proposed hypothesis. It is accompanied by a sample regimen suitable for a clinical trial. Continue reading Proposed Protocol for Self-Immunization against COVID-19 →

Asymptomatic Spread by Vaccinated Persons

healthcare, L2, ,

Vaccinated persons present a higher coronavirus transmission risk than unvaccinated persons starting a few months from vaccination.

corrected

COVID-19 vaccines are injected intramuscularly and produce systemic immunity (Bleier, Ramanathan, and Lane 2021). They do not produce strong or long-lasting mucosal immunity (Tiboni, Casettari, and Illum 2021), which is another part of the natural immune response to infection, even an asymptomatic one. (Russell et al. 2020) provides a mucosal immunity review.

It was known from the start that the current COVID-19 vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity. Another known fact is that even in vaccinated persons, the coronavirus can infect mucosal surfaces of the upper respiratory tract for at least a short time, where it can grow and be shed before being neutralized by the systemic immunity. It seemed not a major factor at the start of the vaccines roll out. Nevertheless, it was predicted that the rise of vaccine resistant and more infectious variants would create the problem of asymptomatic shedding from vaccinated persons (Goldstein 2021).

This has happened and was confirmed by direct measurements (Chia et al. 2021). This study found that vaccinated persons have the same initial viral load as unvaccinated ones, as tested by nasal swab. In the same group, the vaccinated persons were three times more frequently asymptomatic than unvaccinated ones. When symptomatic, vaccinated persons had fewer symptoms than unvaccinated persons, thus making the disease harder to notice. Continue reading Asymptomatic Spread by Vaccinated Persons →

Bad Anti-HCQ Studies

corrupt academia, healthcare,

(2020, updated in August 2021) Physician reports on hundreds of successfully treated, high-risk patients are not anecdotal evidence, even if they are not published in peer reviewed papers. Treating such reports as scientific evidence is long overdue. When researchers publish on this topic, failure to properly cite these reports is bad scientific conduct. If issues or questions arise, researchers can contact the practicing physicians directly and ask for any additional information needed. Researchers may choose to dismiss these reports and explain their reasons for doing so, but they cannot simply ignore them. Stating that such reports do not exist is scientific fraud. Continue reading Bad Anti-HCQ Studies →

The Burden of Proof for Pandemic Treatment

american science, healthcare, L2,

This article was first published in TrialSiteNews behind a paywall.

We hear time and time again that one inexpensive COVID-19 treatment or another should not be used because there is not enough evidence for it. In hindsight, these arguments did not deserve serious consideration. For those who demand “evidence” behind a working treatment for a pandemic disease, no evidence would ever be enough.

Medical practice is like engineering in that both use science. I could make an analogy between the COVID-19 early antiviral treatment and airplanes 100 years ago. Opponents to airplanes would have had many more arguments against them than the opponents of ivermectin today. They would have made a long list of deadly airplane accidents, something that opponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 cannot do. They would have argued that the combustion engine is for cars, not for planes. Continue reading The Burden of Proof for Pandemic Treatment →

Fraud and Mistakes in Reviews of IVM and HCQ for C19

healthcare, L2, Wikipedia, ,

Cochrane, once respected organization producing systematic reviews of peer-reviewed medical literature, issued a cherry-picked and biased review of Ivermectin for COVID-19, claiming not enough evidence. It is debunked by C19___ as Outdated very biased cherry-picking retrospective meta analysis …

That reminds the Cochrane’s HCQ review, published on Feb. 12, 2021. It was a similar piece of junk science and scientific fraud. This said, it contains three non-obvious methodological mistakes behind such non-positive reviews of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin treatments for COVID-19, which some people might make unintentionally. Continue reading Fraud and Mistakes in Reviews of IVM and HCQ for C19 →