Archive for the ‘research’ Category

COVID Spreads Through Floors & Walls. COVID, Masks, & Shots Cause Low Oxygen & Blood Clotting So Why Are People Still Wearing Masks?

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/12/22-0666_article

Volume 28, Number 12—December 2022

Probable Aerosol Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through Floors and Walls of Quarantine Hotel, Taiwan, 2021

Hsin-Yi Wei, Cheng-Ping Chang, Ming-Tsan Liu, Jung-Jung Mu, Yu-Ju Lin, Yu-Tung Dai, and Chia-ping Su
Author affiliations: Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei, Taiwan (H.-Y. Wei, M.-T. Liu, J.-J. Mu, Y.-J. Lin, C.-p. Su); Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan (C.-P. Chang, Y.-T. Dai)

Abstract

We investigated a cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a quarantine hotel in Taiwan in December 2021. The cluster involved 3 case patients who lived in nonadjacent rooms on different floors. They had no direct contact during their stay. By direct exploration of the space above the room ceilings, we found residual tunnels, wall defects, and truncated pipes between their rooms. We conducted a simplified tracer-gas experiment to assess the interconnection between rooms. Aerosol transmission through structural defects in floors and walls in this poorly ventilated hotel was the most likely route of virus transmission. This event demonstrates the high transmissibility of Omicron variants, even across rooms and floors, through structural defects. Our findings emphasize the importance of ventilation and integrity of building structure in quarantine facilities.

_________________

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/why-spike-protein-causes-abnormal-blood-clots-200-symptoms

Why Spike Protein Causes Abnormal, Foot-Long Blood Clots, 200 Symptoms

In this two-part paper, we aim to give an overview on COVID-19 related abnormal blood clots, how they form, how to detect them early, and how they’re being treated
 
Nov 5 2022
 
Excerpts:
 
Physicians have summarized a list of unusual clinical observations of COVID-19 including but not limited to severely hypoxic (low oxygen) patients despite relatively normal lung compliance upon examination, thrombotic complications, and consistent autopsy findings of blood clots (thrombi) in the microcirculation of the lung.

Spike Proteins trigger the clotting cascade

Spike Protein dysregulates RAAS, and competitively inhibits the bindings of antithrombin and heparin cofactor II, worsening the clotting

Spike Proteins directly disrupt the clot dissolving mechanism

Spike Proteins form amyloid-Like substance

The experimental COVID gene-therapy injections contain the spike protein and have caused clotting

Since blood vessels are in all our organs, clotting in the vessels would explain the wide range of symptoms experienced

(See link for article)

___________________

**Comment**

Not to be Captain Obvious, but hopefully the knowledge that COVID can pass through floors and walls and consists of a spike protein that causes low oxygen and breathlessness, clearly shows the worthlessness and indeed danger of mask usage since masks also cause hypoxia.

An eleven month old just DIED from mask asphyxiation in Taiwan.

Don’t get me wrong. There are times to wear a mask for short periods of time, like when you are restoring furniture and kicking up saw dust when using a sander, or when you are dealing with scary chemicals that could damage your lungs. Please, by all means, wear a mask when you are participating in such endeavors!

However, if you still are under the false belief that a mask can stop a virus smaller than the pores in the mask, you are following pseudoscience and propaganda. Throw those suckers away and breathe. Deeply.

What the study should have emphasized is the fact you can not stop viruses. Period. They simply must run their course through a population. What you can productively do is make yourself a tougher target by taking appropriate action for creating a healthy immune system. You can also be prepared with safe, effective, cheap treatments to take early on, should you become ill.

Corrupt public health has made this quite difficult if not impossible by censoring, banning, and maligning anything that competes with their lucrative, vested interests with Big Pharma. These corrupt public health agencies have successfully frightened the public into taking an expensive, experimental, ineffective, and a dangerous gene therapy shot they own half the patent on.

For more on masks:

For more on how to protect against and treat COVID:

Live free and breathe deeply.

Meningoencephalitis Due to Borrelia Miyamotoi

https://danielcameronmd.com/meningoencephalitis-borrelia-miyamotoi/

Meningoencephalitis due to Borrelia miyamotoi

Meningoencephalitis-Borrelia-miyamotoi
In their case report, Gandhi and colleagues, describe an immunocompetent patient who developed acute-onset, progressive encephalopathy due to an infection with Borrelia miyamotoi.

By Dr. Daniel Cameron

A 73-year-old man was admitted to the hospital with a 16-day history of confusion and intermittent headaches. He was an avid gardener and reportedly had tick bites in the past but none that he noticed in the weeks prior to his symptoms.

Initially, he developed “right-sided facial droop and associated numbness, confusion, and word-finding difficulties,” the authors write in the article “Borrelia miyamotoi Meningoencephalitis in an Immunocompetent Patient.”¹

His symptoms, which had improved, were attributed to a mini-stroke.

However, “Over the next 2 weeks, he continued to feel numbness in his right face and developed worsening confusion, intermittent headaches, and excessive fatigue; he was afebrile throughout this time.”¹

The patient tested positive for Lyme disease by EIA but negative by Western blot.

He was “empirically treated with intravenous ceftriaxone for treatment of presumed Lyme meningoencephalitis, and his mental status rapidly improved,” the authors write.

READ MORE: What is Borrelia miyamotoi?

When repeat testing for Lyme disease was negative by Western blot, clinicians considered another tick-borne infection – Borrelia miyamotoi.

The man tested positive for B. miyamotoi and made a “nearly full neurological recovery with only residual intermittent right facial numbness” after anti-Borrelia antibiotic treatment.

The authors conclude:

  • “Our case therefore highlights the need to include B. miyamotoi disease in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with acute onset, progressive encephalopathy with culture-negative CSF in B. miyamotoi–endemic regions, not just those who are immunocompromised.”
  • “Our case highlights the importance of considering B. miyamotoi in clinically suspicious cases of meningoencephalitis, including when B. burgdorferi EIA results are positive but the WB is negative.”

Study: IFR Estimates in Non-elderly Populations Lower Than Previous Calculations & Risk of Dying From COVID Was Always “Miniscule”Regardless of Age

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies

Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Cathrine Axfors, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Alexandre Apostolatos, John P.A. Ioannidis

ABSTRACT

The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. In systematic searches in SeroTracker and PubMed (protocol: https://osf.io/xvupr), we identified 40 eligible national seroprevalence studies covering 38 countries with pre-vaccination seroprevalence data. For 29 countries (24 high-income, 5 others), publicly available age-stratified COVID-19 death data and age-stratified seroprevalence information were available and were included in the primary analysis.

  • The IFRs had a median of 0.035% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.013 – 0.056%) for the 0-59 years old population
  • 0.095% (IQR 0.036 – 0.125%,) for the 0-69 years old
  • The median IFR was:
    • 0.0003% at 0-19 years
    • 0.003% at 20-29 years
    • 0.011% at 30-39 years
    • 0.035% at 40-49 years
    • 0.129% at 50-59 years
    • 0.501% at 60-69 years

Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032% for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082% for 0-69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested. Large differences did exist between countries and may reflect differences in comorbidities and other factors. These estimates provide a baseline from which to fathom further IFR declines with the widespread use of vaccination, prior infections, and evolution of new variants.

Highlights *Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years.

*The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.

*At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.

*These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested.

For more:  https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2022/October/PDF/mortality-risk-covid-pdf.pdf  Excerpt:

  • Polls taken in 2020 and 2021 revealed Americans were wildly confused and misinformed about their true risk of dying from COVID
  • Based on a new preprint analysis by professor John Ioannidis, there’s no reason for anyone to live in fear anymore, regardless of your age, as your risk of dying from COVID is — and always was — minuscule across the board
  • Before the COVID jabs were rolled out:
    • if you were 19 or younger, your risk of dying of COVID was 0.0003%; only 3 per 1 million infected with COVID at this age ended up dying
    • Between ages 60 and 69, the infection fatality rate was 0.501%, i.e., 1 out of 200 infected died
  • Emerging evidence suggests the shots are causing immune deficiency in some people, thereby actually raising their risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the now-milder strains
  • The real-world risk of dying from COVID-19 based on published data from the Irish census bureau and the central statistics office for 2020 and 2021 is as follows:
    • for people under 70, the death rate was 0.014%
    • under 50 years of age, it was 0.002%, which equates to a 1 in 50,000 risk, or about the same as dying from fire or smoke inhalation
    • under 25 years of age, the mortality rate was 0.00018%, or 1 in 500,000 risk of dying from COVID

Despite this reality which was stated early on by those who dared to defy the accepted narrative, Harvard has mandated the new COVID booster, threatening to hold enrollment if students don’t comply.  Many places still require masking which has been proven to not only be dangerous, but utterly futile as a new study shows viral aerosols likely spread through the floors and walls.  A porous mask doesn’t stand a chance.

Could Prescribed Fire Reduce Ticks & Their Diseases? Answer: YES, Once Again

https://www.lymedisease.org/prescribed-fire-reduce-ticks/

Could prescribed fire reduce ticks and their diseases?

By Chuck Gill, Penn State

Oct. 24, 2022

Prescribed fire — a tool increasingly used by forest managers and landowners to combat invasive species, improve wildlife habitat and restore ecosystem health — also could play a role in reducing the abundance of ticks and the transmission of disease pathogens they carry, according to a team of scientists.

For a recently published paper, the researchers reviewed the scientific literature on the effects of fire on forest composition and structure and its influence on ticks and their wildlife hosts.

They concluded that prescribed burning can help restore forest habitats to a state less favorable to several species of disease-carrying ticks and could be an effective management tactic for reducing their populations. READ MORE

________________

**Comment**

This should be a no-brainer.  I’m continually amazed with the lack of common sense in research.  Seems all that matters is continuing the machinery (money and power grabs) of research.

The question to ask is, now that this information continues to be proven, will anyone do it?  How many years will it take before this effective practice will once again be permitted?

For more:

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Lyme/MSIDS Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

https://www.lymedisease.org/mylymedata-clinician-lyme-survey-report/

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

By Lyme Policy Wonk

9/29/22

Previous studies have shown that patients who have persistent or chronic Lyme disease (PLD/ CLD) have a hard time obtaining the medical care they need to get well (Johnson 2011). A new study has found that clinicians who treat this population face significant challenges in providing patients care that is local, timely, and affordable (Johnson 2022).

Between September 23 and December 1, 2021, LymeDisease.org conducted a survey of U.S. clinicians who treat PLD/CLD patients. One hundred and fifty-five clinicians from 30 states responded to the survey and 45 provided comments in the open text survey item. The results of this survey were published this week: Access to Care in Lyme Disease: Clinician Barriers to Providing Care. The primary goal of this survey was to identify the difficulties that clinicians face when caring for patients with PLD/CLD.

We are pleased to present the Clinician Barriers to Providing Care Chartbook summarizing key points from the published study.

2022 MyLymeData Chartbook

Download Your full color

2022 MyLymeData Chart Book

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

Download Now

The CDC estimates that 476,000 cases of Lyme disease occur annually (Kugeler 2021). Even when diagnosed and treated early, up to 44% of patients fail treatment, with only 56% considered to have returned to health (Aucott 2022). In later disease, treatment failure rates are higher. Lyme disease patients who remain ill after antibiotic treatment are regarded as having persistent or chronic Lyme disease. These patients may have been diagnosed early or late.

Chronic Lyme disease definition

Clinicians who treat PLD/CLD

Clinicians treating patients with PLD/CLD have developed significant clinical expertise. Most clinicians (55%) are  medical doctors (MD) or doctors of osteopathy (DO); the remainder are naturopaths with prescription privileges (15%), nurse practitioners (12%) or physician assistants (6%).

Over half of the clinicians (56%) have treated more than 500 patients and 38% have treated more than 1000 patients. Most (57%) dedicate more than half of their practice treating Lyme disease. Almost all (98%) have taken continued medical education for Lyme disease treatment. Eighty-nine percent belong to the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) and most belong to other medical societies as well.

How many patients have you treated with Lyme disease?

Why Clinicians Who Treat Chronic Lyme Disease Find it Difficult to Provide Care

Despite their considerable expertise, clinicians report that providing care to PLD/CLD patients is challenging. In particular, the complexity of the care provided and the time it takes to provide that care make it difficult for clinicians to provide care using the traditional insurance-based healthcare model. This increases the cost of care provided to patients and makes it difficult for patients to pay for the care that can be given.

Why treating Lyme disease is hard

The complexity of care needed requires longer clinician visits than treatment for other conditions. For example, 25% of clinicians said their first consultations took more than two hours, and 44% said their follow-up visits took between one and two hours.

Clinicians reported that the length of healthcare visits for PLD/CLD coupled with the additional insurance administrative burdens and reimbursement payment issues make it hard for care to be given under a traditional insurance-based model, which typically relies on clinicians seeing a high volume of patients for short office visits. As one clinician explained:

“The most difficult problem is the cost of providing this amount of complex care on a cash basis. To really review hundreds of records, spend time with the patient and do a proper workup, takes hours. I’d like to see more support for patients and clinicians who choose to help this set of patients.”

As a result of these challenges, most PLD/CLD providers do not accept insurance:

  • 74% do not participate in insurance networks
  • 76% do not directly bill insurers
  • 77% do not participate in Medicare, Medicaid, or other government supported plans

Another reason the insurance model of providing care does not work for PLD/CLD is that the risk of legal or regulatory action by medical boards, insurance companies, and other organizations is heightened for clinicians who accept insurance. Three-quarters of the clinicians who answered the survey say that they have been professionally stigmatized. More than a third (39%) report that they have been threatened with actions by medical boards, insurance companies, or hospital quality improvement committees.

One clinician commented:

“While my patients are generally very supportive, some of my colleagues have stopped speaking to me and I worry about the medico-legal repercussions of what I do.”

39 percent reported to medical board

Another said:

“I used to practice in a state where physicians who treat complex patients, including people with chronic Lyme, were specifically targeted by health insurance companies for medical board complaints and other attacks ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HELPED PATIENTS OTHER DOCTORS GAVE UP ON. Eventually I elected to move to [a state] where there is less interruption of care and more protection of vulnerable patients from predatory insurance entities.”

One way clinicians can avoid targeting by insurance companies and other groups is by opting out of insurance networks, Medicare, and Medicaid. Clinicians who are stigmatized or don’t participate in insurance networks have fewer chances to share office space and overhead costs. This increases the cost of providing care. Treating PLD/CLD also imposed additional insurance related burdens that increase the cost of providing care exist even for clinicians who do not participate in insurance networks. These include prior authorization of medications (77%), insurance denials (71%), and other insurance-related problems (49%).

When clinicians do not participate in insurance networks, the economic burden of shouldering the cost of care is shifted to patients. This makes care more expensive for patients who have to pay for care out-of-pocket. It doesn’t come as a surprise then that 75% of clinicians say that a central problem in their practice is the patients’ inability to pay out of pocket costs. One clinician commented:

“I knew that at some point I would be forced to stop taking insurance and move forward on a cash pay only basis. Looking at the numbers, taking commercial insurance for these patients just doesn’t make any sense. I believe that the main issue that causes many of these patients to be without access to care is the amount they need to spend on their practitioners plus the out of pocket costs for out of network testing, labs, and treatment. For most of these patients that is anywhere from $10 to $20K per year. It is a huge burden.”

Essentially, the insurance model of providing healthcare is broken for patients with PLD/CLD. Not only does this increase the costs of providing care for providers and shift the cost burden to patients, it also means that patients can’t get care from their regular provider, must obtain care from places that don’t take their insurance, and need to navigate a complex healthcare maze to even find the care they need. Patient surveys published previously also identify the high cost of out-of-pocket care (Johnson 2011).

In addition, previous surveys have found that patients incur substantial diagnostic delays, misdiagnosis, see many clinicians before being diagnosed, and travel significant distances to receive care (Johnson 2011, 2014, 2020). To obtain care, 49% of patients report traveling more than 50 miles; 31% report traveling 100 miles or more for care (Johnson 2011). Because obtaining care can be expensive, inconvenient, and interfere with work responsibilities, many patients may choose not to get care at all (Johnson 2022).

Clinicians here reported that patients with PLD/CLD often had to wait a long time for their first appointments, and that many of their patients traveled from outside their state of practice to obtain care. These factors point to a supply/demand crisis in the treatment of PLD/CLD. There are simply not enough clinicians to supply the amount of care required by patients to get well. The challenges identified by clinicians here—a broken insurance model of care, professional stigma, and heightened liability exposure—also discourage other clinicians from providing care to people with PLD/CLD.

Not enough Lyme disease clinicians

Why Early Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis is Important

To address the supply/demand crises, it is important to reduce the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD. This requires early diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians identified inadequate physician education about tick borne diseases, false negative lab tests, and misdiagnosis as key causes of delayed diagnosis.

Delayed Lyme disease diagnosis

Nearly three quarters of patients report having initially been misdiagnosed. Misdiagnosis is often caused by the lack of education of other clinicians about tick-borne diseases (Johnson 2011, 2018). In a case series of people who might have had early Lyme disease but didn’t have a rash, 54% of Lyme disease patients who didn’t have a rash were given the wrong diagnosis (Aucott 2009). Because of this, misdiagnosis should be seen as a major risk factor for PLD/CLD.

Conclusion

The challenges identified here related to insurance and professional stigma make it hard to keep and hire clinicians who can care for the rapidly growing number of people with PLD/CLD, which is currently estimated to be slightly less than 2 million cases (Delong 2019). They also make care more costly for patients. Diagnostic delays and misdiagnosis increase the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD, exacerbating the supply/demand problem.

As Lyme disease cases rise, the demand for PLD/CLD providers will rise. The limited number of educated practitioners and the expanding number of PLD/CLD patients have created a substantial supply and demand imbalance that must be addressed.

Resolving the supply/demand imbalance is vital for PLD/CLD patients to become healthy. To do this we must:

  • improve clinician education to prevent diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis
  • retain and recruit more clinicians to address the supply demand crises by reducing professional stigma and recognizing that divergent treatment approaches exist in PLD/CLD
  • develop insurance reimbursement models that take into account the complexity of care and the time it takes to provide care.

Failing to address these issues will leave patients unable to access or afford the care that they need.

If you are a patient who is not enrolled in MyLymeData,  please enroll today. If you are a researcher who wants to collaborate with us, please contact me directly.

The MyLymeData Viz Blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk

MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research
About MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research

MyLymeData is one of the largest patient-driven registries in the nation, with over 17,000 patients enrolled. It was created by patients, is run by patients and will address the issues that Lyme disease patients care about. MyLymeData Viz provides the community with results from MyLymeData. If you are enrolled in MyLymeData, we thank you for providing the data that will accelerate the pace of research in Lyme disease. If you are not enrolled, please enroll today.

For more: