Did Eric Clapton Once Unleash a Racist Rant Onstage? In late 2020, internet users highlighted a shocking episode from the legendary blues guitarist's past. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eric-clapton-racist-rant/ At a concert in 1976, Eric Clapton went on a racist rant, using deeply offensive racial slurs and calling for the deportation of non-whites from Britain. TRUE
His racist rant in 1976 was caused by the vaccine? Are you claiming a new vaccine side-effect is time travel?
British Heart Foundation Covid-19 spike protein binds to and changes cells in the heart Researchers from the University of Bristol have found that the spike protein binds to cells called pericytes which line the small vessels of the heart. This binding triggers a cascade of changes which disrupt normal cell function, and lead to the release of chemicals that cause inflammation. This happened even when the protein was no-longer attached to the virus. There is some previous evidence to suggest that the spike protein can remain in the blood stream after the virus has gone and travel far from the site of infection https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/n...otein-binds-to-and-changes-cells-in-the-heart
On the front lines, here's what the seven stages of severe COVID-19 look like https://www.yahoo.com/now/op-ed-front-lines-heres-100143715.html I’m a respiratory therapist. With the fourth wave of the pandemic in full swing, fueled by the highly contagious Delta variant, the trajectory of the patients I see, from admission to critical care, is all too familiar. When they’re vaccinated, their COVID-19 infections most likely end after Stage 1. If only that were the case for everyone. Get vaccinated. If you choose not to, here’s what to expect if you are hospitalized for a serious case of COVID-19. Stage 1. You’ve had debilitating symptoms for a few days, but now it is so hard to breathe that you come to the emergency room. Your oxygen saturation level tells us you need help, a supplemental flow of 1 to 4 liters of oxygen per minute. We admit you and start you on antivirals, steroids, anticoagulants or monoclonal antibodies. You’ll spend several days in the hospital feeling run-down, but if we can wean you off the oxygen, you’ll get discharged. You survive. Stage 2. It becomes harder and harder for you to breathe. “Like drowning," many patients describe the feeling. The bronchodilator treatments we give you provide little relief. Your oxygen requirements increase significantly, from 4 liters to 15 liters to 40 liters per minute. Little things, like relieving yourself or sitting up in bed, become too difficult for you to do on your own. Your oxygen saturation rapidly declines when you move about. We transfer you to the intensive care unit. Stage 3. You’re exhausted from hyperventilating to satisfy your body’s demand for air. We put you on noninvasive, “positive pressure” ventilation — a big, bulky face mask that must be Velcro’d tightly around your face so the machine can efficiently push pressure into your lungs to pop them open so you get enough of the oxygen it delivers. Stage 4. Your breathing becomes even more labored. We can tell you’re severely fatigued. An arterial blood draw confirms that the oxygen content in your blood is critically low. We prepare to intubate you. If you’re able to and if there’s time, we will suggest that you call your loved ones. This might be the last time they’ll hear your voice. We connect you to a ventilator. You are sedated and paralyzed, fed through a feeding tube, hooked to a Foley catheter and a rectal tube. We turn your limp body regularly, so you don’t develop pressure ulcers — bed sores. We bathe you and keep you clean. We flip you onto your stomach to allow for better oxygenation. We will try experimental therapeutics. Stage 5. Some patients survive Stage 4. Unfortunately, your oxygen levels and overall condition have not improved after several days on the ventilator. Your COVID-infested lungs need assistance and time to heal, something that an ECMO machine, which bypasses your lungs and oxygenates your blood, can provide. But alas, our community hospital doesn’t have that capability. If you’re stable enough, you will get transferred to another hospital for that therapy. Otherwise, we’ll continue treating you as best we can. We’re understaffed and overwhelmed, but we’ll always give you the best care we can. Stage 6. The pressure required to open your lungs is so high that air can leak into your chest cavity, so we insert tubes to clear it out. Your kidneys fail to filter the byproducts from the drugs we continuously give you. Despite diuretics, your entire body swells from fluid retention, and you require dialysis to help with your renal function. The long hospital stay and your depressed immune system make you susceptible to infections. A chest X-ray shows fluid accumulating in your lung sacs. A blood clot may show up, too. We can’t prevent these complications at this point; we treat them as they present. If your blood pressure drops critically, we will administer vasopressors to bring it up, but your heart may stop anyway. After several rounds of CPR, we’ll get your pulse and circulation back. But soon, your family will need to make a difficult decision. Stage 7: After several meetings with the palliative care team, your family decides to withdraw care. We extubate you, turning off the breathing machinery. We set up a final FaceTime call with your loved ones. As we work in your room, we hear crying and loving goodbyes. We cry, too, and we hold your hand until your last natural breath. I’ve been at this for 17 months now. It doesn’t get easier. My pandemic stories rarely end well.
Progress on the technology front... Covid breakthrough as air sensor created to detect virus in pubs, hospitals and offices A DEVICE that connects a quality air sensor to your smartphone could prove to be a groundbreaking tool in the fight against COVID-19. https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...iami-coronavirus-bars-restaurants-pubs-office
Progress on the treatment front... Pfizer gets moving on its anti-COVID-19 pill human trials https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/pfizer-coronavirus-pill-human-trials-protease-inhibitors/ The first participants have been dosed in a large Phase 2/3 trial testing a novel oral treatment designed to alleviate symptoms of COVID-19. The first results are expected by the end of this year. A simple, pill-based COVID-19 treatment that can be taken at home during the earliest stages of infection is perhaps the biggest missing link in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Over the past 18 months an incredible array of treatments have been developed, from prophylactic vaccines to monoclonal antibodies preventing serious disease. But while vaccines can help reduce a person’s risk of hospitalization or death, and other therapies can be administered while in hospital to prevent serious decline, there is a vital need for an effective oral treatment that can be taken at home in the very earliest stages of disease. A number of anti-COVID-19 pills are currently in development, but Pfizer’s candidate is one of the first oral antivirals designed specifically to target SARS-CoV-2 to reach advanced human trial stages. Called PF-07321332, the drug is in a class of antiviral agents known as protease inhibitors. Proteases are enzymes crucial to viral replication mechanisms and protease inhibitors have previously been developed to treat HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. “Protease inhibitors, like PF-07321332, are designed to block the activity of the main protease enzyme that the coronavirus needs to replicate,” Pfizer explains in a recent statement. “Co-administration with a low dose of ritonavir is expected to help slow the metabolism, or breakdown, of PF-07321332 in order for it to remain in the body for longer periods of time at higher concentrations, thereby working continuously to help combat the virus. Ritonavir has previously been used in combination with other antivirals to similarly inhibit metabolism.” Two double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trials are currently underway testing the oral PF-07321332/ritonavir combination. The first trial commenced in July looking at whether a course of the drug administered to those at high-risk of severe COVID-19 would reduce rates of hospitalization and death. Over the next few months 3,000 people are expected to be enrolled. The second trial commenced in late August and is investigating the effects of the drug on individuals at a low-risk of severe COVID-19. Unlike the other trial, which is focusing on preventing hospitalization and death, here the researchers are looking at whether PF-07321332 shortens the duration and severity of COVID-19 symptoms in generally healthy adults. This trial is planning to enroll 1,140 participants. The at-home treatment begins within three days of COVID-19 symptoms appearing and involves taking a pill every 12 hours for five days. Pfizer expects preliminary results for PF-07321332 by the end of the year.
Progress on the technology front for air filtration for schools... COVID-19 spurred investment in air filtration for schools—but it’s not an instant fix A simple ‘plug-and-play’ approach will not address the complicated reality of aerosol exposures in densely occupied classrooms. https://www.fastcompany.com/9067188...ration-for-schools-but-its-not-an-instant-fix The COVID-19 pandemic has brought increased attention to indoor air quality and the effect that ventilation has on reducing disease transmission in indoor spaces. A recent infrastructure survey reported that of the nearly 100,000 operating public school buildings across the U.S., more than a third have an immediate need for upgrades to the ventilation systems that help control indoor air quality and the spread of “aerosols.” Aerosol is the term used to describe the millions of microscopic particles that float in air – both indoors and out. People constantly inhale and exhale aerosols, some of which include allergens, particles from automobile exhaust, wildfire ash and microbes. Our University of Colorado environmental engineering team has been studying the microbiological components of indoor air, called “bioaerosols,” for more than 25 years. We have surveyed the ventilation systems of hundreds of K-12 classrooms, health care facilities, and restaurants. And we have provided facilities managers with affordable plans to improve indoor air quality. Our own work as well as others’ has found that many classrooms are unfortunately poorly ventilated, and that better ventilation can reduce student absences due to illness – both during a pandemic and more normal times. After surveying the installation of air filtration systems over the past year, we found that they can significantly improve air quality in classrooms by lowering aerosol levels, which in turn lowers COVID-19 transmission risk. But effective installation is key. A new age of filtration As the pandemic continues to highlight the need for better ventilation and indoor air quality, many academic institutions, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and professional building science societies have been promoting better building-management practices to improve school ventilation. Some building scientists have called for bringing the ventilation conditions in schools up to the levels prescribed for medical clinics. Unfortunately, the infrastructure investments required for that level of upgrade are well out of practical reach for many public buildings: Between 2008 and 2017 alone, state capital funding for schools was cut by $20 billion, or 31%. In the absence of funding for major building upgrades, simple in-room filtration technologies have been installed in some schools to improve ventilation in classrooms where many students spend their days in close quarters. However, these filters have only been deployed in a small fraction of public schools across the country. This technology, called high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, was born in the aerospace industry more than 50 years ago. HEPA filtration has been proved to efficiently remove microscopic airborne particles – including respiratory viruses – from air in higher occupancy spaces like classrooms. Over the past few years, a new generation of HEPA filters has emerged from the U.S. commercial sector. These filters are more compatible with educational settings and less intrusive than their research-grade counterparts that are commonly used in the aerospace and pharmaceutical sectors, where “clean rooms” are needed. These latest models include improvements like multidirectional intake, reduced noise, lower power requirements, better durability and relatively small footprints. HEPA filters have also become more widely used over the past couple of decades in homes in response to the recognition of rising asthma rates among children. But until the COVID-19 pandemic, they were rarely used in public school settings. Bringing fresher air to classrooms Over the 2021 spring academic semester, our team installed hundreds of new HEPA filters in public elementary classrooms in Denver, Colorado, the largest metropolitan school district in the Mountain West. These upgrades were possible due to a recent industry-university cooperative effort between the University of Colorado, the Intel foundation and the Carrier Corporation, a multinational ventilation equipment company. Together, these organizations contributed more than $500,000 for large-scale ventilation assessments, HEPA filter installations and other air quality improvements for Denver-area schools. A yet-unpublished poll of teachers in many of those classrooms overwhelmingly reported that this new generation of HEPA filters were welcome and easy to accommodate in their classrooms. But like all engineering solutions, air filter effectiveness depends on proper installation. Our team’s field studies demonstrate that a simple “plug-and-play” approach will not address the complicated reality of aerosol exposures in densely occupied classrooms. In many situations, we have found HEPA filters that were undersized and placed inappropriately – such as facing a wall or in a remote corner – and sometimes not even turned on. Networks of HEPA filters need to be thoughtfully installed, and the process must take into consideration other factors such as existing ventilation system performance, ceiling height, desk layouts and the presence or absence of ceiling fans. HEPA filters can only work up to their full potential if schools have the right number of them, they are the appropriate size and are placed in optimal positions. The best HEPA filter installations consider details like student seating charts, high traffic areas and other variables based on student behaviors. Fortunately, building facility managers and custodial staff can be trained, with modest time investment, to install, operate and maintain HEPA filters in classrooms, with minimal distraction to teachers. Air quality improvements are an investment in health and education A 2020 review on indoor air quality strategies estimates that an individual HEPA filter, sized for elementary school classrooms with average energy use, costs about $361. This is consistent with our team’s experience in the Denver Public Schools system, where we typically installed at least two units per classroom at a cost of less than $800 per room. We estimate that this is roughly equal to the cost of one extra textbook per student over an academic year. In our opinion, that is well worth the potential improvement in indoor air quality in classrooms. In-room HEPA filtration is a long-term investment that supplements existing ventilation systems. And though COVID-19 was the impetus for the installation of many HEPA filters, they are effective for far more than just reducing exposures to airborne viruses. Well-maintained and properly functioning filtration systems also reduce exposure to wildfire ash that can penetrate buildings, as well as allergens and other unwanted particles like automobile exhaust, tire detritus and construction dust. But even the best indoor HEPA filtration cannot guarantee protection from airborne respiratory threats in schools. HEPA filters are effective only as part of an integrated approach. Ultimately, masks, distancing and reducing the number of students packed into tight spaces will determine how well students are protected from COVID-19. HEPA filters are the modern analogy of “seat-belts” for indoor air quality in the age of COVID-19. If fitted correctly, they can only help lower the exposures to COVID-19 and other aerosols that students experience during their school days. Mark Thomas Hernandez, S. J. Archuleta Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
There have been 154 retracted COVID studies. The damage may already be done https://fortune.com/2021/09/02/retract-covid-papers-the-capsule/ If a COVID study is retracted from a medical journal, does it make a sound—or at the very least seep into the public consciousness the way the now-pulled research originally did? It's a rhetorical question (public awareness of study findings tend to stop at a retraction's edge, unfortunately). But I ask it because as of September 1, Retraction Watch has tagged 154 retracted COVID-19 papers. And if longstanding evidence is any indication, very few of them will receive the level of traditional and social media play after they've been discredited than they did prior to an academic rebuke. That's especially relevant to COVID containment efforts as the public health campaign against the coronavirus has been plagued by misinformation, whether on testing, treatments, vaccines, or even the origins of the virus itself. But even people who aren't part of the tin foil hat crowd may buy into a study that carries an illusory sheen of prestige in the pages of a medical journal. And if you glance at the spectrum of studies tagged by Retraction Watch, which range from those promoting the use of the unproven horse and livestock parasite-fighter ivermectin for coronavirus to those supporting some of the more bizarre conspiracies about 5G networks giving people COVID, that's a serious problem during a pandemic which has yet to crest. There are all sorts of reasons these various studies were retracted. Some didn't receive proper informed consent from patients who were unknowingly used for such research; others just didn't have verifiable or robust datasets to support sweeping claims such as hydroxychloroquine's and ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID. Science is a process, and mistakes happen along the way. This is why academic peer review and watchdog policies such as medical journal retractions exist in the first place. The trouble lay in what happens (or doesn't happen) next. "Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention," write Stanford School of Medicine researchers in a paper published this past May. There's some nuance here. For instance, a retracted article may actually get some public attention if the big news event driving it is the retraction itself. Nearly 60% of retracted articles received most of their attention after retraction, according to the Stanford researchers. But things are a bit different (and harmful) when it comes to the most problematic studies. "However, this is not the case for the popular articles, which by the nature of being popular may also be the ones most likely to spread misinformation," according to the authors. "These articles tend to receive 2.5 times the amount of attention received by their retraction after adjusting for attention received because of retraction." As it turns out, some scientific bells simply can't be unrung.
@gwb-trading @wrbtrader Brazil don't give a shit about covid. But....but...the unvaxxed in the US will be the cause of all the variants. That is pure political propaganda that is pure nonsense.