https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2024/01/426906/study-finds-paxlovid-treatment-does-not-reduce-risk-long-covid#:~:text=A%20team%20of%20researchers%20from,their%20first%20COVID%2D19%20infection

Study Finds Paxlovid Treatment Does Not Reduce Risk of Long COVID

UCSF Researchers also find higher than expected COVID rebound after treatment with Paxlovid

A team of researchers from UC San Francisco has found that Paxlovid did not reduce the risk of developing long COVID for vaccinated, non-hospitalized individuals during their first COVID-19 infection. They also found that a higher proportion of individuals than previously reported experience rebounds after taking Paxlovid.

The study appears Jan. 4, 2024, in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Paxlovid treatment for acute COVID-19 has been shown to be effective for high-risk unvaccinated individuals. But the effect of the treatment on long COVID risk, including whether it protects vaccinated people from getting long COVID, has been less clear.

The research team selected a group of vaccinated people from the UCSF Covid-19 Citizen Science study who had reported their first positive test for COVID-19 between March and August of 2022 and who were not hospitalized. Some of these participants reported taking oral Paxlovid treatment during the acute phase of their COVID infection, while others did not. In December of 2022, they were invited to answer a follow-up survey with questions about long COVID, COVID rebound symptoms and how long they continued to test positive.

Researchers found the two groups were similar. About 16% of those treated with Paxlovid had long COVID symptoms compared to 14% of those who were not treated. Commonly reported symptoms included fatigue, shortness of breath, confusion, headache, and altered taste and smell. Those who took Paxlovid and then went on to develop long COVID reported as many long COVID symptoms as those who were not treated with Paxlovid. A small percentage of people developed severe long COVID, and those who had received Paxlovid were just as likely to have severe Long COVID symptoms as those who did not.

Among individuals who experienced symptomatic improvement during Paxlovid treatment, 21% reported rebound symptoms. And among those with rebound, 10.8% reported one or more long COVID symptoms. For those who did not rebound, 8.3% reported at least one long COVID symptom. For participants who repeated antigen testing after testing negative and completing treatment, 25.7% reported rebound test positivity. In total, 26.1% reported rebound symptoms or test positivity.

“We found a higher proportion with clinical rebound than previously reported but did not identify an effect of post-treatment rebound on long COVID symptoms,” said study first author Matthew Durstenfeld, MD, MAS, a cardiologist and UCSF assistant professor of Medicine. “Our finding that Paxlovid treatment during acute infection is not associated with lower odds of long COVID surprised us, but it is consistent with two other rigorously conducted studies finding no difference in post-COVID conditions between 4 and 6 months after infection.”

The authors note that the study may have been impacted by limitations arising from its observational nature with researchers relying on patient self-reporting of treatment and Long COVID symptoms.

Authors: Other UCSF authors include Michael J. Peluso, Feng Lin, Noah D. Peyser, Carmen Isasi, Thomas W. Carton, Timothy J. Henrich, Steven G. Deeks, Jeffrey E. Olgin, Mark J. Pletcher, Alexis L. Beatty, Gregory M. Marcus, Priscilla Y. Hsue

Funding: This work (Eureka Research Platform) was supported by NIH/NIBIB 3U2CEB021881-05S1. The COVID-19 Citizen Science Study is supported by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract COVID-2020C2-10761 and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contract INV-017206. Dr. Durstenfeld is supported by NIH/NHLBI grant K12HL143961.

About UCSF Health: UCSF Health is recognized worldwide for its innovative patient care, reflecting the latest medical knowledge, advanced technologies and pioneering research. It includes the flagship UCSF Medical Center, which is a top-ranked specialty hospital, as well as UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, with campuses in San Francisco and Oakland, Langley Porter Psychiatric Hospital and Clinics, UCSF Benioff Children’s Physicians and the UCSF Faculty Practice. These hospitals serve as the academic medical center of the University of California, San Francisco, which is world-renowned for its graduate-level health sciences education and biomedical research. UCSF Health has affiliations with hospitals and health organizations throughout the Bay Area. Visit www.ucsfhealth.org. Follow UCSF Health on Facebook or on Twitter.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240105160547.htm

Researchers identify why cancer immunotherapy can cause colitis

Researchers at the University of Michigan Health Rogel Cancer Center have identified a mechanism that causes severe gastrointestinal problems with immune-based cancer treatment.

They also found a way to deliver immunotherapy's cancer-killing impact without the unwelcome side effect.

The findings are published in Science.

"This is a good example of how understanding a mechanism helps you to develop an alternative therapy that's more beneficial. Once we identified the mechanism causing the colitis, we could then develop ways to overcome this problem and prevent colitis while preserving the anti-tumor effect," said senior study author Gabriel Nunez, M.D., Paul de Kruif Professor of Pathology at Michigan Medicine.

Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment for several types of cancer.

But immune checkpoint inhibitors can also cause severe side effects, including colitis, which is inflammation in the digestive tract.

Colitis can cause severe gastrointestinal discomfort, and some patients will discontinue their cancer treatment because of it.

The problem facing researchers was that while patients were developing colitis, the laboratory mice were not.

So researchers couldn't study what was causing this side effect.

To get past this, the Rogel team, led by first author Bernard C. Lo, Ph.D., created a new mouse model, injecting microbiota from wild-caught mice into the traditional mouse model.

In this model, the mice did develop colitis after administration of antibodies used for tumor immunotherapy.

Now, researchers could trace back the mechanism to see what was causing this reaction.

In fact, colitis developed because of the composition of the gut microbiota, which caused immune T cells to be hyper-activated while regulatory T cells that put the brakes on T cell activation were deleted in the gut.

This was happening within a specific domain of the immune checkpoint antibodies.

Researchers then removed that domain, which they found still resulted in a strong anti-tumor response but without inducing colitis.

"Previously, there were some data that suggested the presence of certain bacteria correlated with response to therapy. But it was not proven that microbiota were critical to develop colitis. This work for the first time shows that microbiota are essential to develop colitis from immune checkpoint inhibition," Nunez said.

To follow up what they saw in mice, researchers reanalyzed previously reported data from studies of human cells from patients treated with immune checkpoint antibodies, which reinforced the role of regulatory T cells in inducing colitis.

The antibody they used to stop the colitis was developed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

The Rogel team plans additional studies to further understand the mechanisms causing colitis and seeks clinical partners to move this knowledge to a clinical trial.

Additional authors are Ilona Kryczek, Jiali Yu, Linda Vatan, Roberta Caruso, Masanori Matsumoto, Yosuke Sato, Michael H. Shaw, Naohiro Inohara, Yuying Xie, Yu Leo Lei and Weiping Zou.

Funding for this work is from National Institutes of Health grants R01 DK121504, R01 DK095782, R01 DE026728, R01 DE030691, P30 CA046592; Takeda Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Canadian Institutes of Health, Crohn's and Colitis Foundation, National Science Foundation grant IOS-2107215.

This work was supported by these Rogel Cancer Center Shared Resources: Single Cell Spatial Analysis, Tissue and Molecular Pathology

>>20194935

there are people, regardless of party or lack there of, that know you fuckers are.

>>20194935

>>20195209

>>20195219

>Jews. My grandma told…

You either accept the truth of what your ancestors and seniors told you about them, or the lies (((they))) told you about your ancestors…

shit ain't that hard, Craig.

>>20195288

the power of the word… new worlds can be spoken into being.

Gen 1:1-31

Adverse Events Following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination in Adolescents: A Norwegian Nationwide Register-Based StudymedRxiv

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.12.13.23299926v1

Abstract

Background Vaccination of older adolescents against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started in the spring of 2021 and continued with younger adolescents throughout the summer and fall. We assessed risks of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in adolescents aged 12–19 years following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine in Norway.

Materials and Methods The study sample included 496,432 adolescents born in 2002–2009, residing in Norway, and unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 at the beginning of the age-specific waves of vaccination in 2021. The exposures under study were first- and second-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations vs. no dose. We applied Poisson regression and self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of 17 preselected outcomes, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects using predefined post-vaccination risk windows.

Results Most outcome-specific numbers of cases were low. There were no statistically significant associations between first-dose vaccination and any of the outcomes. In the main Poisson regression, second-dose vaccination was associated with increased risks of anaphylactic reaction (adjusted IRR [aIRR]: 10.05; 95% CI: 1.22–82.74), lymphadenopathy (aIRR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.46–3.72), and myocarditis and pericarditis (aIRR: 5.27; 95% CI: 1.98–14.05). We also observed increased incidence of acute appendicitis outside the 14-day risk window. When expanding the risk window to 42 days in a post-hoc analysis, there was increased incidence of acute appendicitis following both first-dose vaccination (aIRR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.09–1.78) and second-dose vaccination (aIRR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.07–1.91). Results of the SCCS analysis were similar to the Poisson regression.

Conclusions In general, potential AEFI were rare among adolescents. We found increased risks of anaphylactic reaction, lymphadenopathy, and myocarditis and pericarditis following second-dose vaccination. There were also indications of increased acute appendicitis risk when applying longer risk windows.

Competing Interest Statement

OEK and PLDR reports participation in research projects funded by Novo Nordisk, LEO Pharma and Bristol-Myers Squibb, all regulator-mandated phase IV studies, all with funds paid to their institution (no personal fees) and with no relation to the work reported in this paper. HLG reports previous participation in research projects and clinical trials funded by Novo Nordisk, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, all related to diabetes and paid to her previous institution Oslo University Hospital (no personal fees). She has received a lecture fee from Sanofi-Aventis (2018). All other authors report no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

https://twitter.com/WashburneAlex/status/1743677070226403524

Alex Washburne

@WashburneAlex

Fauci had countless occasions to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, both under oath and at the pulpit.

For years, and continuing to this day, Fauci has chosen to lie despite clear evidence that what he said was not true.

Quote

Alex Washburne

@WashburneAlex

·

2h

One of the primary collaborators on the 2018 grant to make a virus like SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan was Ralph Baric.

Fauci met with Ralph Baric for hours in early 2020 to discuss chimeras & the lab origin of SARS2.

In a 2022 deposition, Fauci "did not recall" ever meeting Baric. twitter.com/WashburneAlex/…

Show more

10:53 AM · Jan 6, 2024

Alex Washburne

@WashburneAlex

One of the primary collaborators on the 2018 grant to make a virus like SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan was Ralph Baric.

Fauci met with Ralph Baric for hours in early 2020 to discuss chimeras & the lab origin of SARS2.

In a 2022 deposition, Fauci "did not recall" ever meeting Baric.

Alex Washburne

@WashburneAlex

Yet, when

@RandPaul

asked Dr. Fauci whether NIAID funded gain of function research in Wuhan, Dr. Fauci denied.

Even when politely asked to correct the record, Dr. Fauci became combative and maintained his denial.

Dr. Fauci lied under oath. A system of laws prosecutes perjurers.

Quote

Richard H. Ebright

@R_H_Ebright

·

3h

"U.S. Right to Know obtained the emails in a FOIA lawsuit against the NIH."

"Together with other emails obtained through FOIA, the email demonstrates the awareness of Fauci and his top aides of the novel coronavirus research underway at the pandemic’s epicenter." twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/st…

·

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1735499808176026038

Bill Ackman

@BillAckman

An update on

@MIT

Chairman Gorenberg and his wife's non-profit, http://Parity.org.

This evening an email was forwarded to me from a friend who is an MIT alum which was intended to clarify MIT's involvement in http://Parity.org. The forwarded email said the following:

"I read the recent posting by Bill Ackman on “MIT’s” donations to http://parity.org as indicated by the MIT 990PF.

The entirety of those donations were directed by Mark through the donor advised fund Mark created at MIT using his personal financial resources.

Other than the noted donations, MIT does not have a financial relationship with http://Parity.org nor has MIT invested in it.

https://giving.mit.edu/donor-advised-funds

I think the record should be set straight."

I am writing this post to set the record straight with the benefit of this new information.

I was incorrect in my original post that the source of the funding was the MIT Corporation. Rather, the funds that have been used to support Mr. Gorenberg's wife's non-profit, http://Parity.org, were not from MIT's endowment or its corporate resources.

This was also confirmed in a Forbes article which appeared earlier today:

https://forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/12/14/university-donors-lawmakers-target-dei-how-antisemitism-concerns-have-expanded-into-gop-culture-wars/?sh=22bafff3585b

in which the reporter writes:

p1

>>20195400

"MIT told Forbes the donation to http://Parity.Org came directly from Gorenberg through a donor advised fund."

It turns out that in 2018, MIT formed its own donor advised fund, the MIT DAF. Mr. Gorenberg and his wife are named in the press release for the MIT DAF's launch:

https://technologyreview.com/2018/08/22/140799/mark-gorenberg-76-and-cathrin-stickney/

Donor Advised Funds DAF are 501(c)(3) entities that allow donors to contribute cash and/or appreciated securities and obtain an immediate tax deduction. The funds are invested by the DAF and grow tax free until the donor elects to make a donation. The donor retains the right to advise the DAF as to where the ultimate donations are made, subject to some important caveats.

From the IRS website: https://irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/donor-advised-funds:

"Generally, a donor advised fund is a separately identified fund or account that is maintained and operated by a section 501(c)(3) organization, which is called a sponsoring organization. Each account is composed of contributions made by individual donors. Once the donor makes the contribution, the organization has legal control over it. However, the donor, or the donor's representative, retains advisory privileges with respect to the distribution of funds and the investment of assets in the account."

There are, however, important caveats according to the IRS https://irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/donor-advised-funds:

p2

>>20195401

"The IRS is aware of a number of organizations that appeared to have abused the basic concepts underlying donor-advised funds. These organizations, promoted as donor-advised funds, appear to be established for the purpose of generating questionable charitable deductions, and providing impermissible economic benefits to donors and their families (including tax-sheltered investment income for the donors) and management fees for promoters."

In this case, the Chairman of MIT made a donation to the MIT DAF, which in turn funneled the money to http://Parity.org, the Founder, CEO, and CFO of which is his wife, and where Gorenberg serves as treasurer.

DAFs are only permitted to give to legitimate charities that don't afford a personal benefit to the individual or family of the individual who donated to the DAF.

http://Parity.org received IRS approval to be a public charity, a community trust, in 2017. Had Mr. Gorenberg made his donation directly to http://Parity.org instead of via the MIT DAF, http://Parity.org would not have been able to sustain its status as a public charity because Mr. Gorenberg is http://Parity.org's only donor. Public charities are required to have diversified donor bases, i.e., they must raise at least one-third of their funding from the general public.

Why is http://Parity.org's status as a public charity important to Mr. Gorenberg?

The answer is that the amount of the deduction one can receive for a gift of cash to a public charity is double a 60% rather than a 30% deduction what you can deduct in a gift to a private foundation.

You can also offset a substantially greater amount of your adjustable gross income when giving to a public charity, 50% of AGI, rather than 30% in a gift to a private foundation.

DAFs are required to do careful due diligence on the charities they give to. They must make sure that the non-profit serves a legitimate charitable purpose, and that no personal benefit is being received by the donor to the DAF who directed the donation to the non-profit.

According to the MIT DAF website, the donor recommended grants "will be reviewed by the MIT Distribution Committee." I could not find any information about the Distribution Committee or its membership on MIT's website.

p3

>>20195413

It does not appear that the MIT Distribution Committee did proper due diligence on http://Parity.org, and/or received adequate disclosure. Alternatively, the MIT DAF made special exceptions for Chairman Gorenberg in donating to http://Parity.org.

As I explained in yesterday evening's post, http://Parity.org has only one full-time employee, Mr. Gorenberg's wife; it has never raised funds from anyone other than DAFs affiliated with Mr. Gorenberg; and it has never generated any revenues from its various DEI products and services. As importantly, it is not clear what charitable purpose http://Parity.org serves.

The IRS is particularly concerned about the abuse of DAFs, and therefore imposes severe penalties for abusive transactions:

"Examinations of these arrangements may result in the following Service actions in appropriate cases:

disallow deductions for charitable contributions under Internal Revenue Code section 170 for payments to the fund;

impose section 4966 excise taxes on sponsoring organizations and managers of donor-advised funds;

impose section 4958 excise taxes on donors or managers of donor advised funds; and/or (d) deny or revoke the charity's 501(c)(3) exemption."

In other words, if the IRS found that the MIT DAF improperly donated to http://Parity.org:

(1) the MIT DAF could lose its tax exemption,

(2) the DAF and the MIT Corporation, as sponsor and manager of the DAF, could become subject to excise taxes, and

(3) the deductions Mr. Gorenberg took in connection with the donations to the MIT DAF could be disallowed, and he could incur severe excise tax penalties.

As a general matter, the tax rules do not allow you to do indirectly what you are not permitted to do directly, and that is what appears to have happened here.

As MIT told Forbes: "the donation to http://Parity.Org came directly from Gorenberg through a donor advised fund." [Emphasis added.]

Even MIT's understanding which it shared with Forbes is consistent with the facts which emerged upon my examination of these transactions. The MIT DAF was used as a conduit for Chairman Gorenberg to make a donation to his wife's charity that he could not have made directly. This enabled him to receive twice as large a tax deduction, 60% vs. 30%, and to shelter a greater percentage of his adjusted gross income, up to 50% of AGI versus 30%.

p4

>>20195415

So the facts are not exactly as I understood them when I learned of them yesterday, but the substance is just as bad.

MIT's reputation and the tax status of the MIT DAF have been put at serious risk by its Chairman who received a inappropriate personal benefit by using the DAF to achieve substantial tax benefits for himself. And the MIT DAF is at risk of losing its tax exempt status and incurring severe excise tax penalties as a result.

Why would the MIT DAF make a donation to a questionable charity that was affiliated with its Chairman?

The MIT DAF Distribution Committee was either very sloppy, and/or it received inadequate disclosure about http://Parity.org, or the Chairman used his apparent authority to cause the MIT DAF to consummate a transaction that would not have been approved in the ordinary course.

The funds went to a non-profit which promotes DEI ideology, which I have come to learn is not in society's best interests.

As a recent donor to MIT, and one, who up until very recently, was considering substantial additional donations to MIT (To that end, Ed Boyden of MIT's MediaLab made a very impressive presentation on neuroscience at our

@PershingSqFdn

board meeting just this week), I find all of the above very disturbing.

5 of 5

0:12 / 2:37:34

•

David Goggins

David Goggins: How to Build Immense Inner Strength

Andrew Huberman

5 days ago

2:30