Category: Corona Virus

Researchers at the University of So Paulo (USP) in Brazil have demonstrated for the first time that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, can persist in sperm for up to 90 days post-hospital discharge and up to 110 days after initial infection, reducing semen quality.

These findings suggest that individuals planning to conceive should consider a quarantine period post-recovery.

Four years into the pandemic, it is established that SARS-CoV-2 can invade various human cells and tissues, including the reproductive system, using the testicles as a gateway.

Despite previous observations of the virus in testicles, its presence in semen was rarely detected through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis, which typically focuses on viral DNA.

To bridge this knowledge gap, the study employed real-time PCR and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to identify viral RNA in semen and spermatozoa donated by men recovering from COVID-19.

The samples, collected from 13 patients aged 21 to 50, revealed that the Covid virus was present in the sperm of 69.2% of the patients, indicating significant virus retention in sperm even after recovery.

We found that the sperm produced extracellular traps based on nuclear DNA, forming networks similar to those seen in the systemic inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2, said corresponding author Jorge Hallak, a professor at USP.

These traps, known as neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), are typically formed by white blood cells to immobilize and kill pathogens. However, hyperactive NETs can damage tissue throughout the organism.

TEM analysis revealed that sperm engage in a suicidal ETosis-like response, where they sacrifice themselves to contain the pathogen.

The finding that spermatozoa are part of the innate immune system and help defend the organism against attack by pathogens is unique in the literature and makes the study very important. It can be considered a scientific paradigm shift, Hallak said.

Traditionally, sperm are known for their roles in binding male and female gametes, fertilizing female gametes, promoting embryo development, and influencing the development of chronic diseases. This study adds a new function: participating in the innate immune response.

The findings have significant implications for assisted reproduction techniques, particularly intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), which involves injecting a single spermatozoon into an egg.

Hallak recommends postponing natural conception and assisted reproduction for at least six months after infection by SARS-CoV-2.

Hallak, who has been advocating for caution in reproduction protocols since the pandemic began, has conducted extensive research on the impact of COVID-19 on reproductive and sexual health.

His groups studies have highlighted the increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection and mortality in men, potentially due to the abundance of ACE2 receptors and TMPRSS2 in testes.

In previous studies, Hallaks group found a significant decrease in libido and sexual satisfaction among health workers during the pandemic.

The team also discovered that the testes are potential targets for SARS-CoV-2, causing subclinical epididymitis and severe testicular lesions associated with COVID-19.

Currently, Hallaks team, along with Professor Carlos Carvalho and other researchers at USP, are investigating the long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in over 700 patients as part of a Thematic Project funded by FAPESP.

COVID-19 can impact human reproductive health in several ways, though research is still ongoing to fully understand the extent and mechanisms.

Some studies suggest that COVID-19 can cause testicular damage in infected individuals, potentially due to viral entry into cells via ACE2 receptors, which are abundant in testicular tissue.

This could lead to reduced testosterone levels and impaired sperm production, though the evidence is still emerging and not definitive.

There have been reports of menstrual irregularities in women who have contracted COVID-19. These changes include alterations in menstrual cycle length, volume of menstrual flow, and increased menstrual pain.

The exact cause isnt well understood but could be related to the stress of illness, immune response, or other factors associated with the infection.

There is limited data on the direct impact of COVID-19 on fertility. Some concerns were initially raised about potential impacts due to illness and fever, which can affect sperm and egg quality temporarily.

However, there is no conclusive evidence yet that COVID-19 leads to long-term fertility issues.

Pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to pregnant women without COVID-19.

These risks include preterm birth and possibly other complications for both the mother and baby. However, vertical transmission (transmission from mother to baby during pregnancy) appears to be rare.

Further research is needed to better understand the full spectrum of COVID-19s impact on reproductive health across different populations.

The study is published in the journal Andrology.

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

Go here to see the original:

Covid virus can remain in sperm months after infection - Earth.com

Health Second Opinion

Share on Facebook Share on X Share by Email

Posted: 1 Hour Ago

This story is part of CBC Health's Second Opinion, a weeklyanalysis of health and medical science news emailed to subscribers on Saturday mornings. If you haven't subscribed yet, you can do that by clicking here .

A cursory glance at Canada's wastewater trends for COVID-19 reveals a messy, unpredictable picture: Viral loads ebb and flow all throughout the year, at different times, in different cities.

While SARS-CoV-2 is now a familiar threat, the virus isn't neatly seasonal. It still circulates year-round, humming in the background. And for the fifth year in a row, some scientists are bracing for the possibility of a small summer wave.

That reality might come as a surprise to anyone who hoped this virus would quickly join the typical colder-weather cold and flu season, offering a break from COVID infections over the warmer months. But we're not quite there yet.

"When you look at the other four coronaviruses the cause of 25 per cent of our common colds they do have this really stark seasonality," said infectious diseases specialist Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. "But we don't know how long it took for them to settle into that pattern."

SARS-CoV-2, on the other hand, is still in its infancy. And its spike protein, which allows the virus to penetrate our cells and cause infections, keeps mutating at a brisk pace.

"This is a virus that was never known to infect humans before 2019, so it's still a lot of evolutionary pressure, especially with the immunity that people have developed," Adalja said.

Close watchers of SARS-CoV-2's ongoing evolution are tracking several new variants, all growing more dominant in recent months.

The JN.1 group remains the dominant form of the virus in Canada, while KP.2 and KP.3 among the lineages nicknamed "FLiRT"by some scientists, after the technical names for specific genetic mutations and LB.1 are all showing signs of growth, Public Health Agency of Canada data shows (PHAC).

All of them are offshoots of Omicron, the variant that sparked a massive wave of infections midway through the pandemic. This still-circulating family of viruses remains more contagious than earlier forms, with spike protein mutations that help bypass the protection offered by vaccines or prior infections ensuring people can get reinfected over and over.

"We've had nothing but Omicron for about two years," said Adalja. "That lineage is still trying to find the optimal combination to infect people, and there's always going to be some evolution going on. It's still at a high enough pace that seasonality is not quite as predictable as people would like it to be."

While the results of nationwide tests suggest low circulation of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in recent weeks, SARS-CoV-2 levels rose over several weeks untillate May, says the most recent PHAC respiratory virus report.

WATCH | Seniors remain at higher risk of serious COVID infections:

Show more

The figures are murky, however, given limited COVID testing in the community and varying trends between regions. Roughly half of Canada's wastewater sites are showing no recent change in SARS-CoV-2 trends, for instance, while a quarter are showing drops and the other quarter are showing increases.

Still, ever-evolving versions of the virus could lead to increased infections in the months ahead, much like the pattern in previous Omicron years, said Dr. Zain Chagla, an infectious diseases specialist with McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

"We could start seeing early trickles of a wave towardthe late summer," he added.

U.S. medical experts are also warning of similar trends there, albeit with smaller expected infection counts than prior summer waves.

It's another reminder that COVID is here to stay. But with overall case counts and death rates dropping thanks in part to higher levels of immunity across the population it's easier to brush the virus aside.

The threat has certainly lessened since the early days of the pandemic, Chagla said.

Yet this virus keeps hospitalizing vulnerable people, even through the spring and summer months. Some older and immunocompromised individuals are dying, Chagla said, andpeople with established immunity through vaccination or prior infection do occasionally develop severe disease.

As late as 2023, one U.S. study found COVID remained more deadly than influenza. This virus continues to kill in Canada: 23 people here died of COVID in just one week in May, according to the latest PHAC data.

Given how contagious the virus is and how fast immunity against infection fades, Adalja stressed that higher-risk groups older adults, and those with other risk factors such as being overweight or pregnant should continue approaching COVID differentlythan someone who's at an average risk.

"Those people, it's very important for them to be up-to-date on their vaccinations," he said.

Public apathy toward thepathogen could complicate that.

Vaccine uptake has dropped off over the years, with fewer than two in 10 Canadians getting the most recent updated shots. And although age has always been a risk factor for severe COVID, only 53 per cent of adults aged 80 and up had their latest round, according to PHAC.

"That's the highest vulnerable group," said Chagla, "and you can't even convince more than half of them to be vaccinated."

For those who opt for additional shot, there's good news: COVID vaccines continue to be updated to better match circulating strains. This week, U.S. officials approved fall shots based on the JN.1 lineage, and Canada tends to be in lockstep with those decisions south of the border.

WATCH | How wastewatermonitoring helps track COVID:

Show more

But physician-epidemiologist Dr. Nitin Mohan, an assistant professor at Western University in London, Ont., said the lag between the emergence of new variants and the approval of matched vaccines remains a constant challenge. That means the world is always a step behind the evolution of SARS-CoV-2, allowing it to continually circulate and reinfect people more often than many older viruses.

"Hopefully we get to the point one day where we have vaccinations that prevent transmission," Mohan said. "I think that will be sort of the real game changer."

Until that day comes, he said it's anyone's guess how long it will take for SARS-CoV-2 to become more seasonal and predictable.

"I probably have a better guess of when the Leafs will win the Stanley Cup at this point."

Lauren Pelley Senior Health & Medical Reporter

Lauren Pelley covers health and medical science for CBC News, including the global spread of infectious diseases, Canadian health policy, pandemic preparedness, and the crucial intersection between human health and climate change. Two-time RNAO Media Award winner for in-depth health reporting in 2020 and 2022. Contact her at: lauren.pelley@cbc.ca

See original here:

4 years later, COVID remains a year-round threat. Here's why this virus isn't seasonal quite yet - CBC.ca

NEW DELHI: A recent study conducted by researchers at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam has called for thorough investigations into the potential side effects of Covid-1919 vaccines and their links to mortality rates. The study, published in BMJ Public Health, reports over three million excess deaths in Western countries during the first three years of the pandemic. According to the study, 3,098,456 excess deaths were recorded across 47 countries between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022. The breakdown of excess deaths is as follows: 2020: 1.03 million excess deaths. 2021: Over 1.25 million excess deaths, coinciding with the rollout of Covid-1919 vaccines. 2022: Over 808,000 excess deaths, even as Covid-19related restrictions were lifted. The researchers highlighted that "excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of containment measures and Covid-1919 vaccines." They described the figures as "unprecedented" and emphasized the need for policymakers to investigate the "underlying causes of persistent excess mortality." As per a Russia Today report, the study noted that adverse events following vaccination have been recorded in various official databases. These adverse events included ischaemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, brain haemorrhage, cardiovascular diseases, coagulation issues, gastrointestinal events, and fatal blood clotting. Despite vaccines being intended to protect against severe illness and death due to Covid-1919, medical professionals and vaccine recipients reported "serious injuries and deaths following vaccination." The researchers pointed out the challenges in differentiating the causes of excess mortality due to varying national statistics, different testing policies for Covid-1919, and disagreements on what qualifies as a Covid-1919 death. They stressed that, "during the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every Covid-1919 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and Covid-1919 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply." The World Health Organization (WHO) declared in May 2023 that Covid-1919 was no longer a global health emergency. However, Covid-1919 cases and related deaths continue to be reported globally, with the WHO tracking 36,014 cases in the week before May 19, showing a week-on-week rise of 2,336.

Go here to read the rest:

'Study suggests Covid vaccines may have contributed to excess deaths' - The Times of India

SINGAPORE Covid-19 mRNA vaccines may have contributed to the 3.1 million excess deaths that is, the number of deaths beyond what would be normal in 47 Western countries between 2020 and 2022, suggested an article in a journal.

But experts in Singapore disagreed with the article published on June 3 in the BMJ Public Health journal, one of more than 60 titles published by the British Medical Journal.

They said the piece was unbalanced and that correlation is not the same as causation. The Ministry of Health (MOH) said it is aware of the article.

Its spokesman told The Straits Times: MOH has studied excess deaths in Singapore from 2020 to 2022. Our studies showed that the excess deaths could be accounted for by deaths directly due to Covid-19, or due to underlying medical conditions which were made worse by Covid-19 infections.

The authors of the article three paediatric oncologists and an independent researcher, all from the Netherlands pointed out that in 2021, the year in which both containment measures and Covid-19 vaccines were used to address virus spread and infection, the highest number of excess deaths was reported.

In that year, excess deaths in the countries studied hit 1.26 million. The figure was 1.03 million in 2020, the year the pandemic started, and 808,392 in 2022, when most Covid-19 measures were lifted. Britain was the first to approve the mRNA vaccine, in December 2020.

The pandemic, from Jan 30, 2020, to May 5, 2023, accounted for seven million deaths.

The authors noted that investigations into worrying trends were not made public, such as the discovery of batch-dependent levels of toxicity in mRNA vaccines in Denmark, and the simultaneous onset of excess mortality and Covid-19 vaccination in Germany.

The article also said secondary analysis of clinical trials had shown that the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer had a 36 per cent higher risk of serious adverse events, while Moderna was at 6 per cent.

It said: These serious adverse events lead to either death, are life-threatening, require inpatient (prolongation of) hospitalisation, cause persistent/significant disability/incapacity, concern a congenital anomaly/birth defect or include a medically important event, according to medical judgment.

Most of these serious adverse events are common conditions like stroke and heart problems, the authors said. This commonality hinders clinical suspicion and consequently its detection as adverse vaccine reactions.

Professor Dale Fisher, a senior infectious diseases consultant at the National University Hospital (NUH), said most excess deaths were due to Covid-19 infection, including those that were not included as Covid-19 deaths.

He explained: The other major cause comes from other medical conditions that received inadequate attention from the health system. This happens especially when the system, especially its hospitals, is overwhelmed.

Beds are full, staff are unwell or burnt out. Patients can be afraid to even come to hospital.

Excess deaths from pre-existing cardiovascular disease, other respiratory diseases and dementia are well documented. Some services were closed and we saw tuberculosis and malaria programmes impacted in some countries.

Prof Fisher said theauthors over-emphasised the negative health impact of vaccines and social restrictions on the excess mortality rate.

While there were surely some deaths caused by vaccines, he said: The authors present their findings in an unbalanced way.

The restrictions and vaccines saved millions of lives and allowed the world to exit the pandemic earlier and more safely.

Professor Paul Tambyah, speaking in his capacity aspresident of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, said that if the authors hypothesis was correct, then the countries with the highest vaccination rates would also have the highest mortality rates.

But he noted: The countries with the highest excess mortality appear to have the lowest vaccination rates, while the countries with the lowest excess mortality have the highest vaccination rates, which seems to imply that there is no correlation between vaccination rates and excess mortality.

Read the original here:

Journal article suggesting Covid-19 vaccines contributed to excess deaths skewed: S'pore experts - The Straits Times

Youre reading The Checkup With Dr. Wen, a newsletter on how to navigate medical and public health challenges. Click here to get the full newsletter in your inbox, including answers to reader questions and a summary of new scientific research.

Pandemic-era social distancing guidelines have taken a beating this week. Critics have argued passionately that the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions recommendation to remain six feet apart was arbitrary, wrong and should never have been implemented.

I disagree. The guidance, like other public health recommendations, wasnt perfect. But it did help to reduce transmission and was an important point of reference at a time when people needed simple, easy-to-follow guidelines.

Anthony S. Fauci, who during the pandemic was the nations top infectious-diseases expert, endured the brunt of the criticism during a bruising congressional hearing on Monday. Questions zeroed in on testimony he gave during a closed-door session in January that the six-foot rule sort of just appeared and wasnt based on data. At times, the exchange devolved into personal attacks, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) repeatedly refusing to address Fauci as Dr. Fauci, saying his medical license should be revoked and that he belongs in prison.

Recall that, at the start of the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 was a novel coronavirus. Health officials knew little about it and assumed it behaved like other common respiratory viruses. Influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are among the viruses that are transmitted predominantly via small droplets expelled when someone coughs, sneezes and breathes. These particles can land on someones nose, mouth or eyes, or they can be inhaled by those in proximity. They can also land on surfaces and infect people who touch them.

Over time, scientists learned that the covid-19 virus and especially new variants of the pathogen was highly contagious. Studies demonstrated that it not only spread via droplets, but also by much smaller aerosol particles. Whereas droplets are heavier and quickly fall to the ground, aerosols can linger and be carried over longer distances.

Public health guidance eventually pivoted toward improving ventilation as an infection control measure, as aerosol experts had long advocated. Today, the science is pretty well settled that covid-19 can be transmitted via both droplets and aerosols.

Critics of the six-foot rule are right in some ways. With aerosol transmission, someone could become infected even if they are further than six feet away. And, as Fauci suggested in his testimony, there have been no randomized-controlled trials looking at six feet of distancing vs., for instance, the World Health Organizations more lenient recommendation of one meter, which is just over three feet.

But heres what the six-foot rule got right: Droplet transmission remains one of two dominant routes of spread. A rule that reduces droplet transmission wont curb all spread, but it can help protect people from the virus.

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasnt something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

This understanding is still correct. A large contact-tracing study published last year in Nature found that household contacts accounted for 6 percent of exposures to the covid-19, but 40 percent of transmissions. Most positive cases occurred after at least an hour of exposure, suggesting that prolonged close contact is of highest risk.

Another interesting study examined a cluster of covid cases on a 10-hour commercial flight with 217 passengers and crew. Of the 16 people who ended up testing positive, 12 were seated near the infected person. Seating proximity increased infection risk more than sevenfold.

As readers of the Checkup newsletter know, I often discussed the six-foot rule alongside two other ways to reduce transmission: being outdoors and masking. If the goal is to avoid covid, someone in an indoor crowded area should wear a high-quality mask, but its not necessary if they are outdoors or well-spaced from others. The six-foot rule provided a helpful starting point to help people decide what precautions they needed to take.

Dont get me wrong: I think its crucial for lawmakers to discuss whether workplaces and schools needed to impose six-foot separation rules And I would love to have more research on how much mitigation measures such as social distancing and masking reduced transmission. We also need data on their very real harms. Such information is necessary to guide policy decisions moving forward.

But none of this means people were misguided in keeping their distance from potentially infected people. It also does not mean that we should disregard social distancing as a mitigation measure against other contagious diseases. If, for example, the avian flu outbreak progresses to human-to-human transmission, we might need to bring back distancing to reduce droplet exposure.

And it definitely does not mean that Fauci somehow misled the public. Those viewing Mondays congressional testimony should ignore the partisan noise and focus on the calm responses from the physician-scientist who guided the country through a once-in-a-generation health crisis and continues to serve as the very model of a dedicated public servant.

See the article here:

Opinion | The Checkup With Dr. Wen: In defense of the 6-foot social distancing rule - The Washington Post

US News

By Emily Crane

Published June 6, 2024, 7:27 a.m. ET

COVID vaccines could have contributed to excess deaths in the US and other Western countries in the three years since the pandemic took hold, according to a new study that argues that world leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate the aftermath of the contagion.

Analyzing mortality data from 47 Western countries, scientists from the Netherlands Vrije Universiteit found that excess mortality has remained high since 2020 despite the widespread rollout of COVID vaccines and various containment measures.

The researchers said the trend raised serious concerns as they urged government leaders to thoroughly investigate the underlying causes of persistent excess mortality, according to the study published in BMJ Public Health.

Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well, the researchers wrote.

Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World, they continued.

The study found there had been more than 3 million excess deaths across the US, Europe and Australia since 2020.

Of those excess deaths, more than 1 million occurred in 2020 at the height of the pandemic, according to the study.

Those figures, however, remained high in the following years, with 1.2 million in 2021 and 800,000 in 2022, researchers added.

The death toll figures include fatalities directly linked to the virus, as well as indirect effects of the health strategies to address the virus spread and infection. The researchers added that serious side effects of the vaccines had been documented, including ischemic strokes, acute coronary syndromes and brain hemorrhages.

While the study does not establish a link between COVID vaccinations and excess mortality, it argues that more research is needed in order to help better dictate future health policy.

Consensus is also lacking in the medical community regarding concerns that mRNA vaccines might cause more harm than initially forecasted Despite these concerns, clinical trial data required to further investigate these associations are not shared with the public. Autopsies to confirm actual death causes are seldom done, it noted.

Governments may be unable to release their death data with detailed stratification by cause, although this information could help indicate whether COVID-19 infection, indirect effects of containment measures, COVID-19 vaccines or other overlooked factors play an underpinning role, it added.

Meanwhile, various studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccinations saved millions of lives throughout the pandemic.

The shots are estimated to have saved 14 million lives worldwide within their first year alone, according to Science Feedback.

There are many possible explanations for the remaining excess deaths that were not directly caused by COVID-19; however, the evidence is clear that the vaccines saved millions of lives and they are not associated with excess deaths, the non-profit organization said of the study, noting that the researchers didnt analyze the impact of vaccination, nor did it examine the relationship between mortality and vaccination status.

Jeffrey S Morris, Professor of Public Health and Preventative Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, questioned the study on X.

[T]his study does not accurately represent the existing understanding about sources of excess deaths, downplaying the COVID-19 deaths that are clearly the driving factor throughout 2020-2022, Morris wrote.

I am not sure why this article is classified as original research and not a narrative review or commentary. There is no primary data collection or original data analysis in this paper, he added.

More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID since the pandemic broke out, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During the pandemic, it was emphasized by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every Covid-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and Covid-19 vaccines. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply, the Vrije Universiteit researchers wrote in the study.

Vrije Universiteit ranks 150th out of more than 20,000 universities globally, according to the Center for World University Rankings.

Editors Note: An earlier version of this article did not reflect that the study did not analyze the impact of vaccination nor establish a link between mortality and vaccination status.

Load more...

https://nypost.com/2024/06/06/us-news/covid-vaccines-may-have-helped-fuel-rise-in-excess-deaths-since-pandemic-study/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Link:

Excess deaths since pandemic need to be 'thoroughly' investigated: study - New York Post

Hallelujah: The compelling evidence that COVID leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology finally made it into The New York Times.

The paper ran molecular biologist Alina Chans essay laying out the damning facts, and her mild comment that, for years, partisan politics have derailed the search for the truth about a catastrophe that has touched us all.

Just whose partisan politics did Chan have in mind? The Times doesnt say, but the omission sticks out like a COVID-inflamed lung.

After all, back in 2021, the Times lead COVID reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, not only dismissed the possibility the bug escaped from the Wuhan lab but suggested such claims were racist: Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots, she tweeted.

The Gray Lady itself aimed to suppress any suspicion COVID originated in a lab. Even before the pandemic fully erupted, it mocked Sen. Tom Cotton for merely wondering if a lab-leak was possible, calling the a fringe theory.

The Times wasnt the only one practicing partisan politics: CNN and MSNBC called lab-leak a debunked conspiracy theory. NPR (falsely) asserted, Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory of Pandemic Emergence.

Social-media companies outright censored lab-leak claims: Facebook banned a Post opinion column by Steven Mosher for speculating on the possibility.

As recently as Monday, an AP story bizarrely claimed many scientists believe the virus most likely emerged in nature and theres no new scientific information backing the lab-leak explanation.

Feeding the suppression drive were the very culprits behind the dangerous Wuhan research: Anthony Fauci, his National Institutes of Health boss Francis Collins, Peter Daszak at EcoHealth (which oversaw the research) and other researchers all of whom conspired to falsely claim the bug jumped naturally from an animal to humans.

In congressional testimony Monday, Fauci backtracked and weaseled his way around numerous troubling questions on his actions and assertions during the pandemic.

But for years, left-leaning outlets discredited anyone who dared to question the science or people like Fauci, who once claimed he was science.

Chan is certainly right to fault partisan politics for the long delay in facing these facts a tragic delay: Unraveling that mystery early mightve helped scientists better understand the bug itself, perhaps leading to a faster vaccine.

And early clarity couldve led to stronger efforts to push China to be cooperative and added pressure to end the risky research likely behind the virus creation.

Good on the Times for running Chans piece, but boo on it, along with others on the left, for putting those pernicious politics first.

See more here:

NYT writer blames the 'partisan politics' IT promoted for the lab leak coverup - New York Post

When Republican lawmakers on May 31 released a transcript from two days of closed-door interviews with the nations best-known infectious diseases expert, a portion of the transcript inspired a splashy headline.

"REVEALED: Dr. Anthony Fauci confesses he 'made up' covid rules including 6 feet social distancing and masking kids," read a June 2 headline in the Daily Mail, a British publication.

"Bombshell testimony from Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals he made up the six foot social distancing rule and other measures to 'protect' Americans from covid," the articles first paragraph read.

Screenshots of the Daily Mail headline soon went viral on social media and were shared by prominent conservatives, such as Charlie Kirk.

But the headline distorted what the transcript shows Fauci, formerly the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director and chief White House medical adviser, told members of the House Oversight Committees Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in the January meeting.

When Republicans on the subcommittee released a memo along with the transcript, they highlighted comments Fauci made about social distancing and masking children, but they did not say Fauci said he "made up" any rules.

What Fauci said about 6-foot social distancing

Starting on Page 183 of a 246-page transcript of Faucis second day of testimony, he said he was not aware of studies that supported the 6-foot social distancing guidelines that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention instituted early in the pandemic.

Committee Staff Director Mitch Benzine asked Fauci whether he recalled when discussions about a 6-foot threshold began.

"You know," Fauci replied, "I don't recall. It sort of just appeared. I don't recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever. It was just that 6-foot is "

"Did you see any studies that supported 6 feet?" Benzine asked.

"I was not aware of studies that in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do," Fauci said.

After some back and forth, Fauci said the decision was "empiric," which in medical terms means a determination based on experience rather than a precise understanding of the cause of something.

"I think it would fall under the category of empiric," Fauci said. "Just an empiric decision that wasn't based on data or even data that could be accomplished. But I'm thinking hard as I'm talking to you. I don't recall, like, a discussion of, Now, it's going to be it sort of just appeared, that 6 feet is going to be the distance."

What Fauci said about masking

Earlier in the hearing, Benzine and Fauci discussed masking for children. Starting on Page 135, the transcript shows Fauci did not say he "made up" masking rules, but that he didnt recall specific studies supporting masking for children. Fauci emphasized the role of another agency the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in making the masking guidelines. He also noted there were conflicting studies about maskings negative effects on children.

Here are two exchanges on the topic:

Benzine noted that the World Health Organization recommended against masking children and asked Fauci whether there was a "cost-benefit analysis done on the unintended consequences of masking kids versus the protection that it would give them?"

"Not to my knowledge," Fauci said.

Benzine then asked Fauci whether he felt masking children as young as 2 was necessary.

"I think it's context-dependent," Fauci responded. "It really depends on where you are. I think you were having a time like when you're having a tsunami of infections and you're desperately trying to protect people from getting infected and dying to the point where every one of our healthcare facilities are in danger of overrunning, you might want to do something that might seem - what's the right word? excessive, whereas under most other circumstances, you won't. And I believe the CDC felt at that time that that's what was needed given the dire I would say, the dire situation that we were in."

Later in the exchange, Benzine also asked Fauci whether he recalled reviewing any studies or data supporting masking for children.

"You know, I might have, Mitch," Fauci answered, "but I don't recall specifically that I did. I might have."

Benzine asked Fauci whether he followed any studies about masking and negative effects on children, such as on speech and learning loss.

"No," Fauci responded. "But I believe that there are a lot of conflicting studies, too, that there are those that say, Yes, there is an impact, and there are those that say there's not. I still think that's up in the air. I mean, I'm very sensitive to children. I have children and I have grandchildren. So, I don't want to have anything that would do to harm them. But I think that there was a conflicting discussion about the negative impact on speech and formation of the bones of the face and that, I think, was debunked pretty easily."

What Fauci said in his live testimony

Three days after the committee released Faucis transcript, Fauci appeared before the subcommittee and testified publicly, as had been planned before the transcripts release. During the hearing, Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., accused Republicans of sitting on the transcript for months and mischaracterizing some of Faucis statements. She asked whether he wanted to clear anything up publicly.

"One Im sure is going to come up later is the issue of the 6-foot distance," Fauci answered. "And I made the statement that it just appeared and that got taken like I dont know whats going on, it just appeared. It actually came from the CDC. The CDC was responsible for those kinds of guidelines for schools, not me."

He also clarified what he meant when he said he had not seen any studies that support the guideline.

"What I meant by no science behind it, is that there wasnt a controlled trial that said compare 6 foot with 3 feet with 10 feet," he said.

He said he thought the CDC used past studies about the spread of droplets to make that decision, before health officials realized the virus was spread through the air.

Rep. John Joyce, R-Pa., pressed Fauci about why he didnt challenge the CDC on the 6-foot guideline when it was clear the virus was aerosolized (meaning tiny virus particles that can get suspended in the air). Fauci said it was the CDCs decision to make and that it wasnt appropriate to publicly challenge a sister health organization.

At one point in the hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R.-Ga., held up an enlarged copy of the Daily Mail headline and said, "Mr. Fauci, you also represent the type of science where you confessed that you made up the COVID rules, including 6-feet social distancing and masking of children."

"I never said I made anything up," Fauci said.

"You admitted that you made up, that you made it up as you went," Greene said.

"I didn't say I made it up," Fauci said.

"So, are you saying this is fake news, Mr. Fauci?" Greene asked.

"I didn't say I made anything up," Fauci said.

"What did you say?" Greene asked.

"I said that it is not based in science and it just appeared," Fauci said.

A CDC spokesperson told PolitiFact that the 6-foot recommendation was based in part on 1955 research examining how respiratory droplets travel. That research was used because there was no other data for COVID-19, the spokesperson said. The guidance was updated Aug. 11, 2022, to no longer recommend 6-foot distancing because of widespread immunity and effective treatments, the spokesperson said.

The revelation about the 6-foot rule is not new. Dr. Robert Redfield, the CDC director in former President Donald Trumps administration testified before a House panel March 17, 2022, about early mitigation efforts.

"There was no magic around 6 feet. It's just historically that's what was used for other respiratory pathogens," Redfield said. "So, that really became the first piece."

Faucis live hearing also touched on mask mandates for children. Rep. Mike Cloud, R-Texas, asked whether there was scientific evidence supporting that guideline.

"There was no study that did masks on kids before," Fauci said. "You couldnt do the study. You had to respond to an epidemic that was killing 4(,000) to 5,000 Americans per day."

PolitiFact Staff Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

Read more:

Did Fauci say he 'made up' COVID-19 rules on social distancing, masks? Let's look at the transcript. - PolitiFact

CLAIM

Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

DETAILS

Misleading: The study by Mostert et al. did not include any findings to link vaccination with the trends in excess deaths. The overwhelming cause of excess deaths between 2020 and 2022 was due to COVID-19 itself. There are many possible explanations for the remaining excess deaths that were not directly caused by COVID-19; however, the evidence is clear that the vaccines saved millions of lives and they are not associated with excess deaths.

KEY TAKE AWAY

The COVID-19 vaccines are estimated to have saved 14 million lives worldwide within their first year. While there are extremely rare instances of heart inflammation and blood clots following vaccination, these risks are far outweighed by the lives saved. While excess deaths were observed from 2020 to 2022, the vast majority are due directly or indirectly to COVID-19 itself. The data that we have shows no association with the COVID-19 vaccines.

In June 2024, researchers from the Netherlands published a study in the journal BMJ Public Health looking at excess mortality across 47 countries from January 2020 to December 2022. They identified that excess deaths were high during this period[1].

In its coverage of this study, the Daily Telegraph published an article with the headline Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths. This article was widely shared online by people with a history of sharing misinformation, claiming that it was mainstream media recognition of the harms of COVID-19 vaccines. As this review will explain, the study provided no evidence that vaccines were responsible for these excess deaths and that the Telegraphs headline runs contrary to findings from previous studies, which showed that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives.

The BMJ, the publisher of the journal, issued a statement in response to what it described as misreporting of the research:

Various news outlets have claimed that this research implies a direct causal link between COVID-19 vaccination and mortality. This study does not establish any such link. The researchers looked only at trends in excess mortality over time, not its causes. While the researchers recognise that side effects are reported after vaccination, the research does not support the claim that vaccines are a major contributory factor to excess deaths since the start of the pandemic. Vaccines have, in fact, been instrumental in reducing the severe illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection.

The message of the research is that understanding overall excess mortality since the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial for future health policy, but that identifying specific causes is complex due to varying national data quality and reporting methods.

The study by Mostert et al. analyzed the excess deaths in 47 countries of the Western world (defined as countries in Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) from 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2022. Science Feedback requested a comment from the lead author of the study in response to the Daily Telegraph article.

The study used figures from the Our World in Data database to show that there were more than three million excess deaths in these countries during this period.

The study didnt analyze the impact of vaccination, nor did it examine the relationship between mortality and vaccination status. There is therefore no evidence from these findings to support the Telegraph headlines claim that vaccines may have contributed to excess deaths. This is known as the ecological fallacy, where observations on the wider population are used to make inferences about smaller groups within that population.

In fact, research has found higher mortality rates in unvaccinated people, even after adjusting for demographic factors[2].

Jeffrey S Morris, Professor of Public Health and Preventative Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote on X:

[T]his study does not accurately represent the existing understanding about sources of excess deaths, downplaying the COVID-19 deaths that are clearly the driving factor throughout 2020-2022, as I will show, and implicitly magnifying the potential role of vaccines beyond what is supported by the data.

Also, many popular media articles about this study, including the Telegraph article [] blatantly misrepresent the content of the paper.

They make it sound as if the paper was primarily about vaccines, which it is not, or provides evidence for vaccines being a potential driving factor, which it does not.

Morris also questioned the journals classification of the study as original research, as he said there is no primary data collection or original data analysis in this paper and that the remainder of the paper more closely resembled a commentary.

The Mostert et al. study referred to vaccines several times in its introduction and discussion, but the results did not include data that supported a link to excess deaths.

The authors claimed that Consensus is also lacking in the medical community regarding concerns that mRNA vaccines might cause more harm than initially forecasted. French studies suggest that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products requiring long-term stringent adverse events monitoring.To support these statements, the authors cited an article written by Hlne Banoun, a retired pharmacist-biologist, whose publications were previously used to support misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. Banoun is a member of the Independent Scientific Council, an anti-vaccine campaign group in France.

The study also cites several other research publications that were previously reviewed by fact-checkers for their role in the spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

The impact of the pandemic was felt in different ways at different times worldwide, which makes analyzing the causes of excess deaths complex. A 2023 analysis of excess deaths by Ioannidis et al. compared the characteristics of different countries to better understand the underlying factors[3]. The study found:

Excess deaths during 20202023 were strongly inversely correlated with per capita GDP, strongly correlated with proportion of population living in poverty and modestly correlated with income inequality.

In particular, it highlighted the U.S. as a striking case, with extremely high cumulative excess death rates despite high per capita GDP. This, the authors suggest, could be due to high income inequality and poverty.

The U.S. alone accounted for over 40% of the excess deaths included in the Mostert et al. study, and so dominates the trends in the figures. An analysis of excess deaths in the U.S. found that the vast majority were directly attributed to COVID-19[4]. This study further showed that official figures had undercounted the number of COVID-19 deaths, concluding that many excess deaths reported to non-COVID-19 natural causes during the first 30 mo of the pandemic in the United States were unrecognized COVID-19 deaths.

Figure 1 shows how the reported deaths deviated from the projected number of deaths for the U.S. As the study by Mostert et al. described, there was a large number of excess deaths from 2020 to 2022. These excess deaths appear to have reduced significantly since 2023.

Figure 1 Graph comparing numbers of deaths in the U.S. with projections based on previous years. From Our World in Data. Accessed 6 June 2024.

Figure 2 below shows how these trends in excess deaths in the U.S. closely overlap with confirmed COVID-19 deaths. This data is consistent with the view that COVID-19 was the direct cause of the vast majority of excess deaths.

Even in the periods where the COVID-19 confirmed deaths dont account for nearly all of the excess deaths, the timings of these peaks indicate that the excess deaths were likely linked to waves of disease outbreaks. This could be, for instance, due to unrecognized COVID-19 deaths, overstretched health services, or people avoiding seeking urgent medical care[4,5].

Figure 2 Graph of confirmed COVID-19 deaths and excess deaths in the United States from 2020 to 2023. Taken from Our World in Data, using data from The Economist. Accessed 6 June 2024.

There also may be long-term health implications for patients after having COVID-19. Studies of U.S. veterans and the U.K. population showed a higher risk of cardiovascular problems after COVID-19[6-8]. This included stroke, heart inflammation and blood clotting disorders, as well as an increased risk of death, which may have been an important contributor to excess death figures.

As explained in a previous Science Feedback review, studies have shown that higher vaccination rates correlate with lower excess mortality across countries and U.S. states[9,10]. This relationship can be seen in Figure 3 below.

While these correlations alone arent sufficient to claim that vaccines caused a lower number of excess deaths, this is precisely the opposite trend you would expect to see if vaccines were driving excess deaths, as claimed by the Telegraph.

Figure 3 Correlation of the cumulative excess mortality from January 2021 to October 2023 and the vaccine coverage by country. Excess mortality data was derived from The Economists excess mortality tracker. Vaccine coverage data was obtained from the site Our World in Data, which gathers data from health authorities across the world. Source: Phillipp Schellekens.

More detailed analysis by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that COVID-19 vaccines saved more than 1.4 million lives in Europe alone, according to a preprint study which has not yet been peer-reviewed[11]. This is more than the excess deaths that occurred in Europe in 2021-2022 based on calculations used in the study by Mostert et al. So, contrary to the Telegraphs claim that the COVID-19 vaccines fueled excess deaths, it appears that the vaccines more than halved the potential excess deaths (had the vaccines not been available) during the pandemic.

Another analysis estimated that COVID-19 vaccines prevented over 14 million deaths worldwide from the first rollout on 8 December 2020 until 8 December 2021[12].

As explained in a previous Science Feedback review, rare cases of heart inflammation cannot explain the observed excess deaths. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to an increased risk of heart inflammation, known as myocarditis. This is thought to happen in 2.7 cases per 100,000 people, and most people quickly recover following treatment[13]. Myocarditis predominantly affects young men, a group that has a very low mortality rateaccording to data from England, people aged 0 to 24 account for less than 1% of excess deaths. An extreme increase in the number of deaths among this group would be starkly present had myocarditis driven the observed excess deaths.

The available evidence shows that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives. Although many countries experienced excess deaths up to 2022, this total would have been far higher without the vaccine rollout. The widespread disruptions and long-term health impacts caused by the pandemic are likely to have contributed to the lingering trend of excess deaths even after the risk from COVID-19 receded.

Read the original:

COVID-19 vaccines lowered excess deaths during the pandemic, contrary to headline by the Daily Telegraph - Health Feedback

Katarzyna Bialasiewicz / iStock

Despite no evidence that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism, a quarter of US adults still think it does, and the false belief is fueling rising measles cases amid falling vaccination rates, finds a survey by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC).

"The persistent false belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism continues to be problematic, especially in light of the recent increase in measles cases," APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson, PhD, said in a centerpress release. "Our studies on vaccination consistently show that the belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism is associated not simply with reluctance to take the measles vaccine but with vaccine hesitancy in general."

In April 2024, APPC scientists surveyed more than 1,500 adults about measles transmission, symptoms, and vaccination recommendations for pregnant women.

In total, 24% of adults said that they don't believe the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, and another 3% weren't sure.

Nearly 6 in 10 participants understood that measles spreads through coughing, sneezing, and touching their face after contact with contaminated surfaces, while more than 1 in 5 (22%) incorrectly said it can be sexually contracted. Only 12% of respondents correctly indicated that an infected person can spread the measles virus for 4 days before a rash appears12% thought it was 1 week, and 55% weren't sure.

Only 1 in 10 knew that pregnant women shouldn't receive the measles vaccine because it contains a weakened live form of the virus and therefore may pose a risk to the fetus.

Fewer than 4 in 10 panelists correctly indicated that measles is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and only 1 in 10 knew that pregnant women shouldn't receive the measles vaccine because it contains a weakened live form of the virus and therefore may pose a risk to the fetus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends two doses of MMR vaccine for children, with the first dose at 12 to 15 months and the second dose at ages 4 to 6 years. It should also be given to women a month or more before they plan to become pregnant, if they weren't vaccinated as a child.

Here is the original post:

Excess death rates due to pandemic persisted in Western countries - University of Minnesota Twin Cities