Category: Covid-19

The COVID-19 virus can breach the retinal barrier and potentially damage the eye, according to new research published in April 2024 in PLOS Pathogens.

This finding is important as we increase our understanding of the long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Pawan Kumar Singh, Ph.D., an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, said in a news release. Earlier, researchers were primarily focused on the ocular surface exposure of the virus. However, our findings reveal that SARS-CoV-2 not only reaches the eye during systemic infection but induces a hyperinflammatory response in the retina and causes cell death in the blood-retinal barrier. The longer viral remnants remain in the eye, the risk of damage to the retina and visual function increases.

Previous research had shown that COVID-19 was able to infect various ocular tissues and fluids, but the mechanism was uncertain and some believed that COVID-19 could be disseminated through the ocular surface.

Singh and his colleagues at University of Missouri School of Medicine wanted to determine look at COVID-19 transmission through the eye and through inhalation to determine the impact on the eye. They conducted a study with mice that were infected with COVID-19 through either inhalation or directly into the cells lining the blood-retinal barrier.

They found that COVID-19 can infect the retina even when the virus doesnt enter through the surface of the eyes. Additionally, COVID-19 that was a result of nasal passage infection was able to infect the cells of the blood-retinal barrier.

COVID-19 not only infects the various parts of the eye via systemic exposure but also induces a hyperinflammatory immune and antiviral response in the retina, researchers wrote.

Long-term exposure to COVID-19 impact visual function of the mice. They found the spike protein caused microaneurysms, retinal atrophy, RPE mottling (spots of the retinal pigment), and vein occlusion in the retina (a blockage of the vein that drains from the retina).

But they also found that exposure of the retinal barrier to the COVID-19 virus did not cause a lung infection. Although we did not observe the spreading of the virus to systemic organs via ocular surface exposure, further studies on viral spread through the nasolacrimal duct are warranted, researchers wrote.

Singh noted in the news release that the goal now is to better understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms of how the COVID-19 virus breaches the blood-retinal barrier and better treat COVID-19 induced eye complications before a patients vision is compromised.

Immunocompromised patients or those with hypertension or diabetes may experience worse outcomes for COVID-19 associated ocular symptoms. For those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, we recommend you ask your ophthalmologist to check for signs of pathological changes to the retina, Singh said. Even those who were asymptomatic could suffer from damage in the eyes over time because of COVID-19 associated complications.

This research was supported through fundings from the University of Missouri and the National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute.

Read the rest here:

Study Finds COVID-19 May Damage Vision - Managed Healthcare Executive

Researchers who compared the ability of cloth and surgical masks and KN95 and N95 respirators to impede SARS-CoV-2 leakage into the environment show that the "duckbill" N95 won handily, stopping 98% of the virus that causes COVID-19.

A University of Maryland (UMD) research team, which published thefindings last week in eBioMedicine, collected breath samples from volunteers with community-acquired COVID-19 infections starting in May 2020.

"The highly transmissible nature of rapidly emerging Omicron variants in the setting of high rates of vaccination and prior infection underscores the critical role of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as wearing face masks, to reduce inhalation (airborne) transmission of the virus by reducing the amount of virus in the air," the study authors wrote.

Each volunteer provided two 30-minute breath samples on the same day, wearing a face covering for the first half of the session and then wearing no face covering for the other half. Some returned for a second session with other face coverings.

While providing breath samples, participants completed repeated vocalizations such as saying the alphabet, singing "Happy Birthday," and shouting. After completing a session while wearing a mask or respirator, they completed the same process while wearing no face covering.

Of the 44 volunteers, and 43% were women. Participants wearing a respirator with a nose clip were instructed to pinch it to fit their nose, and those wearing an N95 respirator were told to place one strap around their neck and the other atop their head. No other training was given, and fit-testing wasn't conducted to ensure a good fit on the face. Respirators, though, conform more tightly to the face than do cloth or surgical (medical) masks.

During the masked part of the sessions from June 2020 to December 2021, volunteers wore either their own mask (mostly cloth masks made with a wide variety of materials of sometimes unknown brands and sources) or a Kimberly-Clark Professional Kimtech M3 mask for their first research visit. If they returned for a second visit, they wore the other type of mask.

In December 2021, the researchers switched from testing cloth masks to Powecom KN95 respirators but also allowed volunteers to provide their own KN95s. Participants were randomly assigned to wear a surgical mask or KN95 in the masked part of their first research visit and the other option if they returned a second time.

In March 2022, inexpensive ACI 3120 Surgical N95 duckbill respirators from Armbrust USA were added to the testing mix. Volunteers were randomly assigned to wear either a surgical mask or a KN95 or N95 at their first visit until March 10, when the team stopped testing surgical masks. Starting on March 11, only N95s were tested.

The research team provided most surgical masks and KN95s and all N95 respirators, but some participants were able to use their own face coverings if study personnel deemed them well-fitted.

All masks and respirators reduced exhaled virus at least 70%, but the duckbill N95 reduced SARS-CoV-2 load 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97% to 99%) and performed significantly better than cloth or surgical masks or KN95s. Cloth masks impeded more virus than surgical masks and KN95s.

These results suggest that N95 respirators could be the standard of care in nursing homes and healthcare settings when respiratory viral infections are prevalent in the community and healthcare-associated transmission risk is elevated.

The study didn't test the face coverings as wearer protection against SARS-CoV-2 in the surrounding air.

"These results suggest that N95 respirators could be the standard of care in nursing homes and healthcare settings when respiratory viral infections are prevalent in the community and healthcare-associated transmission risk is elevated," the authors wrote.

Senior author Don Milton, MD, DrPH, professor of environmental health at the UMD School of Public Health,credits the N95's tight seal, powerful filter, and large air space for its success in blocking viral passage. "Our research shows definitively why it's so important to have non-pharmaceutical responses likewearing masks, and why we need studies like this to illuminate which masks are most effective," he said in a UMDnews release.

Milton said that poor KN95 performance may have been due to its stiffness and poor fit. And Lisa Brosseau, ScD, CIH, an expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and a CIDRAP research consultant, agrees that KN95 filter performance can vary widely.

"It's important not to generalize anything about KN95 respirators from data for a single model," she told CIDRAP News via email. Brosseau, who was not involved in the study, also said it's possible the breath-collection device used in the study didn't collect all emitted virus particles.

Visit link:

N95 respirator gets top billing in stopping SARS-CoV-2 viral leakage into the air - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

Study design and participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted on COPD inpatients infected by SARS-CoV-2 at Afzalipour Hospital, Kerman, Iran, from January to July 2022. According to reference [14], in people with COVID-19, the frequency of eosinopenia was 53%, with an error of d=0.3, p=0.05 and =0.05, the sample size was equal to 50 people using the sample size formula for a population. In order to improve the results, increase the statistical power of the test and the possibility of dropping samples, 100 people were examined. Then six patients declined to participate in study and four patients had left the hospital with satisfaction. After that, 49 and 41 people were allocated to non-eosinophilia and eosinophilia group. 11 people in non-eosinophilia group and 6 people in eosinophilia group were lost to follow-up. Finally, 73 people remained in the study (38 in non-eosinophilia and 35 in eosinophilia group) (Fig. 1).

The patients were selected by random sampling. The inclusion criteria were age 40 years and older, positive throat and nose reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19, history of COPD, and informed consent to enter the study. Also patients with clinical signs of pneumonia (i.e., fever, cough, and dyspnea) and SPO2 90% on room air were classified as non-severe cases and patients with clinical signs of pneumonia (i.e., fever, cough, and dyspnea) and at least one of the following signs were classified as severe cases: respiratory rate> 30 breaths/minute, severe respiratory distress, SpO2 < 90% on room air, shock, or other organ failures included in study. The exclusion criteria were known immunodeficiency (patients who used immunosuppressive drugs before the diagnosis of COVID-19), previous diagnosis or clinical symptoms consistent with asthma, cancer, oral corticosteroid use before hospitalization, and lack of cooperation or consent to participate in the study.

Immediately after positive PCR test, a 7-cc peripheral blood sample was taken from each hospitalized COPD patient infected by COVID-19 to test hematological parameters, including erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), white blood cells (WBC), lactate dehydrogenase(LDH), D-dimer, hemoglobin (HB), hematocrit (HCT), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), platelets (PLT), neutrophils (NEUT%) and lymphocytes (LYMPH%). Peripheral blood slides were stained using Giemsa staining to determine the eosinophil percentage. Oxygen saturation on admission and discharge days (SPO21 and SPO22, respectively) was measured by pulse oximetry when the patient did not receive oxygen therapy.

The patients demographic information, including age, gender, history of smoking and inhaling opium, past medical history, oxygen therapy methods, CT scan information, and treatment outcomes, was extracted from patients records.

Chest CT was performed using a Philips Diamond Select Brilliance CT scanner (made in the USA). The radiologists reported the CT scans, then an expert pulmonologist who was blinded to the patients laboratory results, read and reported all the CT scans based on the scoring of reference [19].

The severity of pulmonary involvement was determined based on chest CT severity score (CT-SS) (based on the degree of involvement of the lung lobes, 0%: 0 points, 125%: 1 point, 2650%: 2 points, 5175%: 3 points, and 76100%: 4 points). The CT-SS was the sum of the scores of the five lobes (range 020) [19].

According to the WHO disease severity classification, patients were divided into severe and non-severe COVID-19 groups. Patients with clinical signs of pneumonia (i.e., fever, cough, and dyspnea) and SPO2 90% on room air were classified as non-severe cases and patients with clinical signs of pneumonia (i.e., fever, cough, and dyspnea) and at least one of the following signs were classified as severe cases: respiratory rate> 30 breaths/minute, severe respiratory distress, SpO2 < 90% on room air, shock, or other organ failures [20].

Eosinophilia was defined as eosinophil levels 2% and non-eosinophilia as eosinophil levels< 2%.

This study has been approved by the ethics committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (Code: IR.KMU.AH.REC.1400.254). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Descriptive statistics (frequency, relative frequency, mean, and standard deviation), analytical statistics (chi-square test and independent t-test), and SPSS software version 20 were used to analyze the data. The significance level considered was P 0.05.

Visit link:

Eosinophils and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients - BMC Infectious ... - BMC Infectious Diseases

Specialty

Please choose I'm not a medical professional. Allergy and Immunology Anatomy Anesthesiology Biostatistics Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery Cardiology Critical Care Dentistry Dermatology Diabetes and Endocrinology Emergency Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health Family Medicine Forensic Medicine Gastroenterology General Practice Genetics Geriatrics Health Policy Hematology HIV/AIDS Hospital-based Medicine I'm not a medical professional. Infectious Disease Integrative/Complementary Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Medical Education and Simulation Medical Physics Medical Student Nephrology Neurological Surgery Neurology Nuclear Medicine Nutrition Obstetrics and Gynecology Occupational Health Oncology Ophthalmology Optometry Oral Medicine Orthopaedics Osteopathic Medicine Otolaryngology Pain Management Palliative Care Pathology Pediatrics Pediatric Surgery Pharmacology Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Plastic Surgery Podiatry Preventive Medicine Psychiatry Psychology Pulmonology Radiation Oncology Radiology Rheumatology Substance Use and Addiction Surgery Therapeutics Trauma Urology Miscellaneous

See the rest here:

Two Cases of Lung Abscess and Pleuritis in Severe COVID-19 Patients - Cureus

Research strands involving decades of work on a wide assortment of diseases collidedsuccessfullyrecently when news came out that an old vaccine against tuberculosis (TB) being tested for its potential utility in treating type 1 diabetes (T1D), was also effective in warding off COVID-19 infection. Authors reported their findings in iScience.1

The Bacillus Calmette-Gurin (BCG) vaccine has been given for about a century in most non-Western nations to children to prevent TB. For just about as long, scientists suspected that BCG could offer wider anti-infection protection, and as the years progressed, these off-target benefits began being considered more carefully and then more formally researched.2 For instance, in the 1980s, patients with bladder cancer began receiving BCG to boost their immune systems.

One research team began focusing on potential benefits to individuals with T1D. In 2012, the results of a proof-of-concept trial showing that BCG could help treat T1D were published.3

After the COVID-19 pandemic began, the same team decided to launch randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials to test the ability of BCG to ward off COVID-19 infection in their study participants with T1D. Results of their phase 2 trial showedalmost full protection against COVID-19 in the BCG group (92% vs placebo; P = .0036)

The phase 3 trial had 2 coprimary outcomes: to see if at-risk US adults with T1D were protected against COVID-19 and other viral, bacterial, and fungal diseases by taking multiple (5 or 6 over a 2-year period) doses of powerful Tokyo-strain BCG. The results, just published, show that those outcomes were both met, with significantly high levels of protection against COVID-19 (P = .023) and all infectious diseases (P < .0001).

Whats more, in this population, particularly vulnerable to infectious disease, it had been shown that no standard COVID-19 mRNA vaccine alone provided sufficient protection from COVID-19 (P = .43). Those vaccines also neither helped nor hindered the COVID-19 protection offered by BCG.

The time element. If BCG is so effective against COVID-19, why was it not heralded as a pandemic hero? When administered intradermally to adults who have never taken BCG before, it takes at least 2 years to achieve full protection for many off-target effects. The patients in the trials had already been taking BCG (or placebo) experimentally when the pandemic, and the COVID-19focused research, began.

Denise Faustman, MD, PhD | Image Credit: Mass General Research Institute

Given mRNA vaccinations lack of efficacy for those with T1D, an unmet need remains, especially as it relates to new and emerging SARS CoV-2 variants, the authors stated. As the pandemic continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see if we can work with the FDA to allow access to BCG vaccine for [patients with] T1D who appear to be particularly at risk for all infectious diseases, said senior author Denise Faustman, MD, PhD, in a statement.The BCG vaccine offers the prospect of near-lifelong protection against every variant of COVID-19, the flu, respiratory syncytial virus, and other infectious diseases.4

The authors pointed out that BCG is heralded as the safest vaccine in continuous use globally[and] is designated an essential medicine by the World Health Organization. Its a live but weakened version ofMycobacterium bovis, a bacterium related to M tuberculosis, which causes TB. The off-target effects in adults of BCG vaccination, explained the authors, are caused by changes in DNA methylation of genes of the innate and adaptive immune system and of metabolism pathways. Signaling pathways become rewired in a time frame that correlates with the slow but durable clinical improvements.

References

1. Khtreiber WM, Hostetter ER, Wolfe GE, et al. Late in the US pandemic, multi-dose BCG vaccines protect against COVID-19 and infectious diseases. iScience. Published online May 22, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109881

2. Keener AB. A repurposed TB vaccine shows early promise against diseases like diabetes and MS. Science News. June 2, 2021. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bcg-tb-vaccine-diseases-diabetes-multiple-sclerosis

3. Faustman DL, Wang L, Okubo Y, et al. Proof-of-concept, randomized, controlled clinical trial of Bacillus-Calmette-Guerin for treatment of long-term type 1 diabetes. PLosOne. 2012;7(8):e41756. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041756

4. Brown N. Century-old vaccine protects type 1 diabetics from infectious diseases. News release. Massachusetts General Hospital. May 23, 2024. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/century-old-vaccine-protects-type-1-diabetics#:~:text=BOSTONIn%20new%20research%20investigators,disease%20and%20other%20infectious%20diseases

Read the original post:

TB Vaccine Shows Protection Against COVID-19 in People With T1D - AJMC.com Managed Markets Network

Ameta-analysis of nine observational studies published late last week in the Journal of Infection shows that early use of oral antiviral drugs reduced the risk of long COVID, or post-COVID condition (PCC), by 23%, and Paxlovid may perform better than molnupiravir.

In total the nine studies included 866,066 patients, in which Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, or MMV-r) and molnupiravir were evaluated in eight and two studies, respectively.

While antivirals have been approved to use in the acute phase of illness to prevent progression to severe disease in at-risk populations, the potential use of the drugs as a way to prevent long COVID has drawn recent attention.

In the study, the patients were not hospitalized, and early use was defined as within 5 days of COVID-19 diagnosis for most studies and within 30 days of symptom onset in one study, and it was not mentioned in two studies.

Studies defined long COVID differently, with five measuring PCC outcomes as symptoms 30 days after diagnosis, and four defining the condition as symptoms persisting 90 days after diagnosis.

Overall early oral antiviral drugs reduced long-COVID risk 23% (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.88), regardless of age or sex.

Paxlovid and molnupiravir subgroups had RRs of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.88) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.94), respectivelyreductions of 24% and 12%compared to no antiviral drug treatment.

"Our mixed evidence comparing two oral antiviral drugs using a network meta-analysis suggests a possible benefit of NMV-r over molnupiravir in reducing PCC risk," the authors wrote.

Long COVID has emerged as a major feature of the COVID-19 landscape, with incidence rates estimated to be 10% to 30% and 50% to 70% among non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19 worldwide, the authors said.

The findings suggest that a broader use of antivirals may be considered to prevent long COVID. Current World Health Organization guidelines strongly recommend Paxlovid in patients at a moderate to high risk of hospitalization, or molnupiravir or remdesivir if Paxlovid is not available.

Though the protective mechanisms are not fully understood, the authors said lowering the rate of viral replication in patients likely plays a role in the antivirals' ability to lower the risk of long COVID. The condition is strongly associated with severe disease and hospitalization, and antivirals limit viral progression, they said.

Our study underscores the importance of timely antiviral intervention in mitigating the long-term repercussions of COVID-19.

"Our study underscores the importance of timely antiviral intervention in mitigating the long-term repercussions of COVID-19," the authors wrote.

Follow this link:

Early use of antivirals linked to reduced risk of long COVID - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

Dr. Antony Fauci (pictured 2022) appeared before a U.S. House committee Monday, during which he received intense grilling from Republicans. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI Dr. Anthony Fauci, former chief medical adviser to the president of United States, (pictured 2022) was the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases until 2022. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI Former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee hearing in 2022. On Monday in D.C., Fauci said the United States needs to better prepare for another pandemic. "I am still disappointed" about current plans, he said. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI

June 3 (UPI) -- Dr. Anthony Fauci, the face of the federal handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, appeared before a U.S. House committee Monday, during which he received intense grilling from Republicans, including a member who refused to call him doctor.

Fauci was the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases until 2022 after serving from 1984, including under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. He also was their top medical adviser.

Advertising

During the hearing on the COVID-19 pandemic response and the origins of the virus, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., refused to address Fauci as a doctor when questioning him about COVID-era rules and how much he has earned from pharmaceutical companies.

"Do you think that's appropriate? Do the American people deserve to be abused like that, Mr. Fauci?" Greene asked Fauci. "Because you're not a doctor, you're Mr. Fauci in my few minutes."

As he was about to answer, Greene said: "I don't need your answer."

Democratic members of the subcommittee issued "points of order" based on Greene's statements.

Greene said that Fauci "does not deserve to have a license."

And, she said: "You know what this committee should be doing? We should be recommending you to be prosecuted. We should be writing a criminal referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. You belong in prison, Dr. Fauci."

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, reprimanded Greene for refusing to recognize Fauci as a doctor.

Fauci faced other grilling from Republicans as Democrats defended his work as a scientist. During the event, House members mostly made statements and didn't offer much of an opportunity for Fauci to testify.

In January, Fauci appeared for 14 hours behind closed doors. Transcripts were released Monday.

On Monday, the House panel revealed emails that some Republicans believe were made by an NIH staffer regarding evading public records laws, including by not discussing controversial issues on government email.

In opening remarks, Fauci said, "To the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted official business via my personal email."

A U.S. intelligence analysis says there's insufficient evidence to prove the virus emerged at a wildlife market in Wuhan, China, or in a lab.

Fauci has maintained he was open to both stances.

"I have repeatedly stated that I have a completely open mind to either possibility and that if definitive evidence becomes available to validate or refute either theory, I will ready accept it," he said in an opening statement.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked about the NIAID grant awarded to a Chinese lab.

"Does that have anything to do with that downplaying of the lab leak theory?" Jordan said.

"No, nothing," Fauci said.

"Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory?" Jordan replied.

"Not on my part," Fauci said.

"Really?" Rep. Jordan asked. "I think most of the country would find that amazing."

Fauci said the United States needs to better prepare for another pandemic. "I am still disappointed" about plans, he said.

Florida Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who served as the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management early in the pandemic, said states weren't prepared.

Fauci agreed.

"I think one of the things that was really a problem with the response was the degree of divisiveness that we had in the country about a lack of a coherent response where we were having people, for reasons that had nothing to do with public health or science, refusing to adhere to public health intervention measures," Fauci said.

Moskowitz then described the divisiveness.

"Dr. Fauci, you talked about how, you know, we live in partisan times, a lot of misinformation. And you know, colleagues in this body said, you know, you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that that's happened to is your former boss," Moskowitz said. "But, you know, the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was, you know, we can use a disinfectant to do, like a cleaning or do light in the body or that, you know, China's working super hard. President Xi has got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out. Were you concerned? You know, what was your feeling at that time? Working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium?"

Fauci replied: "Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to tell the truth."

Fauci said he received threats.

"Everything from harassments from emails, texts, letters of myself, my wife, my three daughters," Fauci said. "There have been credible death threats leading to the arrest of two individuals -- and credible death threats means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And it's required my having protective services essentially all the time."

"It was my responsibility to tell the truth."

Ranking member Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., thanked Fauci for his testimony and for his decades of service to the nation in dealing with epidemics and pandemics.

"Over the past four years you have been personally targeted by extreme narratives of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. government's response to it," Ruiz said. "These extreme narratives have been the bedrock of this subcommittees Republican-led probe and have been undermined by what's been found through interviews and by thousands of documents that have been reviewed."

Wenstrup, the committee chairman talked about moving forward.

"I think what I'm most concerned about as we go forward as a country and from our agencies is that we an be trusted and that we are better in our messaging and talk about clarity," Wenstrup said.

Continued here:

U.S. House Republicans grill Dr. Anthony Fauci on COVID-19 origins, response - UPI News

Anthony Fauci

Doctor, who was head of infectious diseases unit during height of the pandemic, tells Congress he and his family still get harassed

Anthony Fauci, the former head of the US infectious diseases unit, has received credible death threats stemming from his time overseeing the nations fight against Covid-19, he has told Congress.

Fauci, who was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the height of attempts to halt the spread of the virus, told a hearing on Capitol Hill that the threats had continued until the present day, even though he retired in 2022.

He told a subcommittee of the House of Representatives oversight and accountability committee that they also included his wife and three daughters and meant he needed round-the-clock security protection.

There have been everything from harassments by emails, texts, letters to myself, my wife, my three daughters. There have been credible death threats, leading to the arrests of two individuals, Fauci said.

Credible death threats means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me, and its required my having protective services essentially all the time. It is very troublesome to me. It is much more troublesome because theyve involved my wife and my three daughters at these moments.

Asked by the Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan how he felt, Fauci, 83, seemed to visibly tremble with emotion before answering: Terrible.

When Dingell asked if he was still receiving threats, he replied: Yes, I do every time someone gets up and says, Im responsible for the death of people throughout the world, the threats go up.

Fauci was defended by Robert Garcia, a Democratic congressman from California, after he came under attack from Marjorie Taylor Greene, the firebrand far-right Georgia Republican, who refused to acknowledge his professional status as a doctor and assailed the pandemic measures he had advocated, such as masking and social distancing.

Do the American people deserve to be abused like that, Mr Fauci, because youre not a doctor, youre Mr Fauci, Taylor Greene said, before being interrupted on a point of order and told she had to refer to Fauci as a doctor.

Garcia apologised to Fauci about the questioning from Taylor Greene and other Republicans, saying: I am so sorry you just had to sit through that. That was completely irresponsible. This might be the most insane hearing Ive actually attended.

Garcia described Fauci who said in his opening statement that he wanted to address information and disinformation during the pandemic as an American hero.

Your team has done more to save lives than all 435 members of this body on both sides of the aisle, he said.

Posting on Twitter/X, Garcia, who told the hearing that both his parents had died in the pandemic, called Taylor Greene a national embarrassment.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

One-timeMonthlyAnnual

Other

Excerpt from:

Fauci describes credible death threats for overseeing US Covid-19 response - The Guardian US

Watch CBS News

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic, testified Monday before a Republican-led House panel investigating the origins of coronavirus and the federal government's response. CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion reports from Capitol Hill.

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.

See the rest here:

Fauci testifies before House panel on COVID-19 origins and federal response - CBS News

Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the architects behind the countrys response to the COVID-19 pandemic, found himself in the spotlight again Monday, distancing himself from the social distancing requirement and denying that he influenced research on the origins of the virus.

Fauci appeared before a House committee on Monday and was met with both praise and criticism from lawmakers. Lawmakers asked him about COVID-19-era policies from when he was a key player in the pandemic response.

Ahead of the hearing, lawmakers expressed concern over alleged misconduct of one of Faucis former advisers.

In a memo published in late May, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released an email from David Morens, former senior adviser to Fauci when he was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The email said, PS, i forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act). I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.

Fauci referenced the memo containing this email in his opening statement and said, Let me state for the record that to the best of my knowledge I have never conducted official business via my personal email.

Heres a closer look at what else Fauci said during the hearing.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked him if there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory. Fauci denied he tried to influence the discussion around the origins of the pandemic.

Studies have been published suggesting the virus originated from animals then spread to humans in China, while other reports show studies that say the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab. Fauci said Monday hes always kept an open mind on the origin.

Fauci said he had a conference call with around a dozen virologists from across the world to discuss whether the virus originated from animals then spread to humans, or if the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab.

Then, Fauci said, it was decided that several participants would more carefully examine the genomic sequence after this further examination. He said researchers published their papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The accusation being circulated that I influenced the scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false and simply preposterous, said Fauci adding he had no input into a paper published in 2020 that discussed the virus origins.

During his testimony, Fauci also said he didnt try to cover up the theory that the virus came from a lab.

I cannot account nor can anyone account for other things that might be going on in China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is, said Fauci.

During the hearing, lawmakers asked Fauci about COVID-19 regulations and policies involving masks, vaccines and social distancing. Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, asked Fauci about mask mandates for children under 5 years old.

There was no study that did masks on kids before. You couldnt do the study, said Fauci. You had to respond to an epidemic that was killing four to five thousand Americans a day.

Fauci said the 6-foot distancing rule came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and there was no controlled trial behind the recommendation.

The CDC was responsible for those kinds of guidelines for schools, not me, said Fauci. What I believe the CDC used for their reason to say 6 feet is that studies years ago showed that when youre dealing with droplets, which at the time that the CDC made that recommendation, it was felt that the transmission was primarily through droplet, not aerosol, which is incorrect because we know now aerosol does play a role.

When asked about whether or not he challenged the CDC on this recommendation, Fauci said it wouldnt be appropriate to publicly challenge the organization.

In addition to saying he wasnt responsible for the the social distancing regulation, Fauci defended closures of schools, businesses and churches by saying they were attempting to stop the tsunami of deaths that was occurring.

How long you kept them going is debatable, said Fauci.

As to whether or not vaccines prevented the spread of the virus, Fauci described the issue as complicated. Because in the beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect, not 100%, not a high effect, he said. They did prevent infection and subsequently obviously transmission.

Fauci said at the onset officials did not know that the durability of protection was limited with respect to infection and transmission. Whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization and deaths was more prolonged, he said. We did not know that in the beginning.

See the original post here:

Anthony Fauci discusses COVID-19 origins, masks and vaccines during hearing - Deseret News