NIH COVID-19 Autopsy Consortium Investigation: COVID-19 Infection Persists Throughout the Body & Brain

Daniel S. Chertow, a Principal Investigator and Head of the Emerging Pathogens Section at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center, known as “America’s Research Hospital,” and a team of colleagues known as the NIH COVID-19 Autopsy Consortium recently concluded and shared a study investigating unanswered questions about COVID-19. While SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19 triggers a myriad of pulmonary and extrapulmonary (outside the lungs) symptoms as well as potentially long COVID (ongoing symptoms from the disease involving cardiovascular, pulmonary, and neurological manifestations), this research collaborative understood that, to date, while autopsy investigations of the COVID-19 deceased verify SARS-CoV-2’s ability to infect multiple organs, data from organs outside of the lungs lack evidence of both virally-mediated injury or inflammation. A key quandary driving this investigational unit: “The paradox of extra-pulmonary infection without injury or inflammation” led to direct study topics for this investigation, including inquiring as to the nature and level of burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection within versus outside of the respiratory tract. As SARS-CoV-2 infects other parts of the body (other organs associated tissue) what cell types are affected and is this part of the infection and replication process? Does SARS-CoV-2 persist even in the absence of cellular injury and inflammation in the tissues outside of the lungs? Finally, is this pathogen called SARS-CoV-2 evolving as it spreads and persists in various areas of the body? Unfortunately, they offer proof that this novel coronavirus not only widely distributes among the study subject samples—even among those who were asymptomatic or mildly ill, but also makes its way to multiple anatomic sites, including the brain for up to 230 days or 7.5 months. Yet outside of the lungs, there is little to no inflammation. The NIH-led mission, according to the study authors, offers proof that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the human body for up to 82 months.

The group known as the COVID-19 Autopsy Consortium designed a protocol including an evaluation of tissues based on comprehensive autopsies on a diverse population of 44 persons who died due to COVID-19 up to 230 days past initial symptom onset. Their findings, yet to be peer-reviewed, were uploaded to Research Square. The study was made possible by financial and other contributions from the following:

Other support came from the following:

NIH Medical Research Scholars Program, a public-private partnership supported jointly by the NIH and contributions to the Foundation for the NIH from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Genentech, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "Cardiovascular" Channel

No spam - we promise

The Study Methods

To facilitate a more sensitive detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 gene targets in all tissue samples collected, the study team employed the use of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) in a bid to reveal SARS-CoV-2 cell-type specificity while validating the ddPCR findings.  

This included an “in situ hybridization (ISH) (a laboratory technique) broadly across sampled tissues.” Furthermore, the team employed the use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the hopes of validating cell-type specificity in the region of the human brain. Scientists are not fully aligned on the regional distribution of SARS-CoV-2 in the brain; nor on the cellular tropism of the infection—that is, how cells and tissues of the various organs and tissue (e.g., the brain) support growth and replication of SARS-CoV-2.

The study protocol delineated a series of pathways. For example, using the ddPCR as the team detected COVID-19 RNA in the tissue samples, they then undertook qRT-PCR to identify and measure subgenomic (sg) RNA, a test to suggest viral replication. In six of the deceased subjects, the team used high-throughput, single-genome amplification, and sequencing, known as HT-SGS to quantify not only the variety but also the “anatomic distribution of intra-individual SARS-CoV-2 variants (e.g., Beta, Delta, Omicron).

The study team categorized the various autopsy-based case of COVID-19 by “Early” (N=17), “mid” (n=13), or “late” (n=14) by illness day  (D) at the time of death measured as

Autopsy CategoryN#Illness Day time of deathEarly17≤D14Mid13D15-D30Late14≥D31, 117

The team segmented the results of this study analysis by the following categories:

  • Respiratory tract

  • Cardiovascular

  • Lymphoid

  • Gastrointestinal

  • Renal

  • Endocrine

  • Reproductive

  • Muscle

  • Skin

  • Adipose

  • Peripheral nerves

  • Brain

After performing 72 complete autopsies on 44 deceased COVID-19 patients the study team mapped and quantified the pathogen’s distribution, replication, and cell-type specificity across the decedent’s body including the brain due to acute infection for at least seven months from symptom onset.

What did they find?

The study team confirmed the widespread impact of COVID-19 on the human body. They report in their yet-to-be peer-reviewed findings published in Research Square that they detected the pathogen even in those decedents who only had asymptomatic to mild COVID-19. Moreover, and unfortunately, the NIH-led study team determined that SARS-CoV-2 will replicate in multiple lung-related and other tissues early in the viral infection.

Additionally, this novel coronavirus RNA manifests in multiple anatomic sites, including the brain for up to 230 days after the initial onset of COVID-19-associated symptoms. Noteworthy findings, as SARS-CoV-2 distributes or replicates across the body tissues, the scientists involved in the study report “a paucity of inflammation or direct viral cytopathology (study of disease at the cellular level) outside of the lungs.” The authors declare they offer proof of the pathogen’s ability to infect and persist for up to 82 months.

The study team declares this investigation produces proof that COVID-19 causes not only systemic infection but that it may persist in the individual for many months.

Lead Research/Investigator

Daniel S. Chertow, MD, MPH a Principal Investigator and Head of the Emerging Pathogens Section at the National Institutes of Health. Chertow also works with the Laboratory of Immunoregulation at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Corresponding Author

Note dozens of co-investigators from not only the NIH and various affiliated institutes but also several prominent academic medical centers and health organizations. 

Microchip implants that track your vaccination status are now being used in Sweden

A Swedish company called Epicenter has developed a novel microchip technology that is now being implanted into people’s skin in order to track their Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination” status.

While the Stockholm-based startup did not specifically develop the technology for this purpose, its “chief disruptor” Hannes Sjoblad says that the product, which is roughly the size of a grain of rice, was quickly and easily adapted to become a new type of “covid passport” that cannot be forged.

“Implants are a very versatile technology that can be used for many different things,” Sjoblad says about the chip. “Right now, it’s very convenient to have covid passports always accessible on your implant.”

The way it works is like this: A person gets the chip implanted in his hand (or forehead?). Near-field communication (NFC) devices are then used to scan the chip, detecting whether or not the person received his government-issued Fauci Flu shots.

Using this method, there is no need for a paper vaccine passport or anything else currently in use. All a person has to do is wave his implanted hand or scan his implanted forehead and voila: instant access to a sporting event or restaurant.

Revelation 13 warns about these implantable microchips

According to reports, some 6,000 Swedes already have the Epicenter chip inside their bodies. Because the chip can be programmed to also contain financial and other information, implanted Swedes are already using it to buy groceries, for instance, with the simple swipe of a hand.

The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more. Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store and help support this news site.

The implications of this disturbing new technology echo back to the words of the Apostle John who in Revelation 13:15-17 told the following prophecy:

“The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.”

“This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.”

Epicenter is already talking about using its microchips to store all kinds of other information, too, including building access codes, bus passes and gym memberships. Soon, every kind of information about a person will be stored on his chip, doing away with cash, credit cards, paper medical records and other documents and information.

Everything about a person will eventually be stored on his or her implantable microchip, in other words – and just to be clear, only those people with a microchip will be allowed to participate in society.

We are already seeing a foreshadowing of this with mask mandates (only those wearing a mask are allowed to enter the store) and vaccine passports (only those who show the paper CDC card are allowed to enter the store). Soon that will transform into needing a microchip.

“We are going down a very, very dangerous path,” warned one commenter at the Daily Wire. “One that will not be easy to reverse if we don’t stop it now.”

“We’re past that point,” responded another. “Things are going to get a lot worse.”

Another wrote that the Mark of the Beast will end up depriving people of medical care, employment, education, a driver’s license and even the “privilege” of simply leaving the house.

“Anyone who allows this in their bodies is surrendering their very lives,” this same person added.

Outpatient Treatments for COVID-19 Reviewed

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • From the start of the COVID pandemic, doctors were told they could not use any treatment that had not undergone randomized controlled trials. Most all clinical successes have been ignored and vehemently opposed

  • The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) was among the first to publish COVID treatment guidance. They have since developed protocols for prevention, early at-home treatment, in-hospital treatment and maintenance guidance for long-haul COVID syndrome that are updated as more becomes known

  • Corticosteroids can be an effective tool for reducing inflammation in general, but they appear particularly important for advanced COVID infection. Steroids should not be used early on, but can be lifesaving after you develop signs of lung dysfunction and increased oxygen requirement

  • Ivermectin has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties and is beneficial in all stages of COVID-19, from prevention to advanced illness

  • Other effective protocols include the AAPS protocol, Tess Laurie’s World Council for Health protocol and the America’s Frontline Doctors’ protocol

Dr. Pierre Kory is one of the leaders in the movement to provide early treatment for COVID infection. Kory is a critical care physician (ICU specialist), triple board certified in internal medicine, critical care and pulmonary medicine, and is part of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which was among the first to publish COVID treatment guidance.

Kory spent most of his career at the Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan, New York, where he helped run the intensive care unit. He also had a busy outpatient practice. About six years ago, he was recruited to the University of Wisconsin Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he led the critical care service. “When COVID hit, I was in a leadership position,” he says. “I resigned, because of the way they were handling the pandemic.”

Treatment Options Have Been Vehemently Opposed

University of Wisconsin Medical Center, like most hospitals across the U.S., insisted on providing supportive care only, and Kory refused to remain in a leadership position under those circumstances. Patients were, for the first time in modern medical history, told to just suffer at home until they were near death, then go to the hospital where they were placed on deadly ventilator treatment.

“I knew there was a variety of treatments that we could use [yet] we were using nothing,” he says. Doctors were even told to not use anticoagulants, even though blood clotting was “through the roof” in many patients. “You could draw blood and actually see the blood clotting very quickly in the tubes,” he says.

Since those early days, the disease seems to have changed considerably. We don’t see the high rates of blood clotting anymore, for example, which is good news.

But for some reason, from the very start, “they were literally telling us that we needed randomized controlled trials to do anything,” Kory says, and to this day, health authorities are refusing to acknowledge any treatment protocol outside of the incredibly dangerous experimental drug remdesivir, and the experimental COVID jabs.

“People were dying, [yet] all of my ideas were getting shouted down. My superiors were showing up [to my clinical meetings] and getting me to stand down, because I was entertaining the idea that we should do this, that and the other thing, and they didn't want anything to be done.

And so, I said, ‘I'm done.’ I resigned mid-April 2020. I then went to New York for five weeks and ran my old ICU in New York.”

The Importance of Steroids in the Treatment of COVID-19

In May 2020, Kory testified before the U.S. Senate, stressing how critical it was to use steroids during the hospital phase of this infection. At that time, he was still employed by the University of Wisconsin. His resignation date had not yet happened, and they “were livid that I was speaking in public, giving my opinion.”

This is remarkable, because when you’re an expert in a field, “you're actually responsible to share your insight and expertise,” Kory says. “Yet they were very unhappy that I was doing that.”

Seven weeks later, Kory was vindicated when the British Recovery trial results came out, showing the benefits of corticosteroids. Since then, steroids have become part of standard of care in the hospital phase.

Steroids are an effective tool for reducing inflammation in general, but they appear particularly important for advanced COVID infection. I had a close friend who contracted a very serious case of COVID-19 and kept worsening despite taking everything I suggested.

He knew Dr. Peter McCullough, so he texted him and was told to add prednisone and aspirin to his current regimen. As soon as he took the prednisone, he started getting better.

As explained by Kory, this is a common experience. Importantly, the evidence shows that when used early, during mild infection, corticosteroids do more harm than good. But once you are entering into moderate illness, as soon as you start to see lung dysfunction or the need for oxygen, steroids are critical and are clearly lifesaving.

Steroids Must Be Used at the Correct Time

One of the reasons for this is because SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers a very complex cascade of inflammation. More specifically, Kory says, severe COVID-19 is a macrophage activation syndrome. It’s the hyperinflammatory macrophages (a subtype of macrophages) that end up causing organ damage. So, you want to use medicines that either suppress their activity or repolarize them into hypoinflammatory macrophages.

The key is to use the steroids at the correct time — not too early and not too late, the "Goldilocks" window. There are no hard and fast rules for that, as each patient is different, but as a rule of thumb, do NOT use it until or unless you are seeing a significant worsening of symptoms to where breathing is getting more difficult.

Kory’s outpatient protocol includes prednisone on Day 7, 8 or 9, if you’re still going downhill. It is important to NOT use it early in the course of the illness as it will actually worsen the infection by increasing viral replication.

The suggested dosage is 1 milligram of prednisone or methylprednisolone per kilogram of bodyweight. When using methylprednisolone (Medrol) (which Kory prefers, in part because lung tissue concentrations are higher than prednisone), he divides it into two daily doses. Kory does not recommend the use of dexamethasone, as it doesn’t work as well for lung disease. Yet, most doctors in the U.S. use dexamethasone if they’re using steroids at all.

The dose may be increased depending on the severity and trajectory of the infection. “I probably will either double or triple the [dose] until I can get them stable,” he says.

“Once they're off oxygen, then I taper off [the steroid] over about a week to 10 days, sometimes shorter. Depends how long they were on oxygen. If they were on it for a short time, I do a fast taper; if they were on oxygen for a longer time, I'll do a slower taper. But I don't start fully tapering until they're off oxygen.”

Anticoagulants — When to Use Them

As mentioned earlier, while early COVID-19 cases often involved severe blood clotting, that feature of the infection appears to have receded. Even when clotting occurs, it’s typically much milder than what we saw in the beginning. Still, anticoagulants can be an important component in these cases.

“What I do with coagulation is, I generally follow the D dimer on admission. D dimer is a marker of endothelial injury and clotting. In patients with normal D dimers, I'll just do routine prophylaxis doses. If it's moderately elevated, I do moderate [doses] and if it's severely elevated, I'll do full dose anticoagulants,” Kory explains.

He typically uses an anticoagulant called Lovenox. Patients are also given full-dose aspirin, unless there’s a contraindication. I suspect fibrolytic enzymes like lumbrokinase and nattokinase, which help degrade fibrin, may be a better alternative to aspirin. N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) is another potential candidate. Kory is not convinced, however:

“We have used NAC in different disease models over the years. It’s a standard treatment for acetaminophen overdose, but not for pulmonary fibrosis. In pulmonary medicine, of which I'm an expert, we had decades where we studied NAC for that. None of those studies panned out. In sepsis, it didn't really pan out.

And so, for severe disease, we think it's an effective drug and it's a good antioxidant. I think it does have anticoagulation [effects], but our opinion is that it’s generally weak. So, for the hospital phase, we think it's too weak.”

Vitamin C

Another important component is intravenous vitamin C. While some university hospitals may carry IV vitamin C, most don’t but might be able to get it from another local hospital. Importantly, the vitamin C needs to be administered within the first six hours of admittance to the ICU in order to work, and it may be similar for COVID.

This is especially true for the relatively low doses recommended by the Math+ protocol of 1,500 mg or 1.5 grams. Many outpatient natural medicine physicians will use 25 grams to 50 grams of IV vitamin C, but most hospitals will not allow this high a dose, even though it is likely that higher doses will work if you missed the early treatment window (the first six hours). So pragmatic logistics is why the Math+ protocol uses relatively low doses.

One suggestion would be to call the hospital you’re thinking of using if you ever had to be admitted for COVID and ask if they have it. If not, you can ask your doctor to order it for you and bring it to the hospital, if you or a family member are admitted for COVID or sepsis. The key, of course, is having a doctor who is willing to use it. Some aren’t.

“You should’ve seen the resistance I got. At one point, I was the director of the main ICU at the University of Wisconsin and the data was so overwhelming, I said, ‘Hey, guys, can't we just start a protocol where we just give everybody on admission IV vitamin C? What's the downside?’

Everyone started talking about kidney stones and all of this nonsense, and we have so much data to show that doesn't happen in acute illness, or in IV formulations ... I feel like I live in a cartoon of medicine, because every time I discuss something with someone, they just don't believe anything works. Because if it worked, they would be doing it. It's bizarre.”

The FLCC Protocol

Sadly, the willful ignorance of many doctors is literally killing many COVID patients who could have, and should have, been saved. There’s just no doubt that protocols such as the one developed by the FLCC and the other groups listed below could have saved many, had it been widely implemented. Yet despite its success, many hospitals to this day do not use it.

“Our protocol is always evolving,” he notes. “We're not saying that this is the only way to treat it. This is how we decided to treat it. We reserve the right to deprioritize or change the dose, or substitute a new medicine.

We want to follow the data, the experience and the knowledge of this disease. That's No. 1. No. 2, all of our protocols are combination therapy protocols.

And by the way, that gives doctors fits. You know why? Because they want to know, how do you know that this is necessary? There are trials of each individual component showing that they're effective. We believe they're synergistic, but we're never going to do a trial to test every component on our protocols.

But there are a number of other protocols. The AAPS has a protocol.1 The World Council for Health,2 they have a number of options. So there are many doctors who might emphasize or de-emphasize a medicine on our protocol. And we do not pretend that ours is the only way. But we do put a lot of thought into it.

Most of our medicines are repurposed, so they're not novel. They're very well-known over decades, their safety profiles are well known, they tend to be generally low cost, and their mechanisms are well-known. A central medicine to all of our protocols — prevention, early treatment, hospital, and late phase like long-haul [syndrome] is ivermectin, for many reasons.”

Why Ivermectin?

As noted by Kory, ivermectin is a potent antiviral. “That's been demonstrated for 10 years now in the lab on a number of viruses,” he says. “They've shown that it interrupts replication of Zika, Dengue, West Nile, even HIV. And then the clinical studies are just overwhelming.” He continues:

“Can I just take one minute to say that if anyone wants to call ivermectin a controversial medicine, I just want to call out it is absolutely not controversial.

It is a medicine that is buried in corruption, and the corruption is in the suppressing of its efficacy. There are immense powers that do not want the efficacy of that drug to be known because, if it is known and becomes standard of care, it will obliterate the market for a number of novel pharmaceutical products.

When you look at the actions taken against ivermectin, it can only be understood that it's threatening something big and powerful, because boy has it been attacked [even though it’s been used in] 64 controlled trials, almost every single one of them showing benefit, many of them large benefits.

Yet they distort it to make it seem like it's controversial. It's absurd. We know it works. We know it from in vitro, in vivo animal studies, and case series.”

One of the first case series, from the Dominican Republic, was published in June 2020. They treated 3,300 consecutive emergency room COVID patients with ivermectin. Of those, only 16 went on to be hospitalized and one died. That’s pretty profound, considering these were severely ill individuals.

Importantly though, there is a dose-response relationship to the viral load. The Delta variant has been shown to produce viral loads that are 250 times higher than Alpha, and as Delta became predominant, breakthrough cases in the prevention protocol started happening.

“I'm one of them. I got COVID while I was taking it weekly,” Kory says. “Now we're doing it twice weekly. Is it the right dose? We're not sure. But we're seeing much fewer breakthroughs now on a higher dose. Could it be higher? Maybe. But, but we know it works as prevention.”

Higher doses of ivermectin are also used for treatment of Delta. In more advanced stages, the drug is useful thanks to its anti-inflammatory properties. Contrary to many other drugs, ivermectin is beneficial in all stages of the infection.

Vitamin D Optimization Is Crucial

Other components of the FLCC’s prevention and treatment protocols include products that have either antiviral or anti-inflammatory properties, or a combination thereof, such as melatonin, quercetin and zinc, and anticoagulants such as aspirin.

If you haven’t done so already, check your vitamin D blood level and if it’s below 40 ng/mL, start taking an oral supplement. Don’t wait until you’re sick.

Ideally, everyone would optimize their vitamin D level before ever needing treatment for COVID. If you haven’t done so already, check your vitamin D blood level and if it’s below 40 ng/mL, start taking an oral supplement. Don’t wait until you’re sick. The medical literature suggests population-wide vitamin D optimization, to a level above 40 ng/mL, could have reduced COVID morbidity and mortality by about 80%.

“No question,” Kory says. “In fact ... there was a study that came out, a huge database of patients, where they looked at patients who tested their vitamin D levels before they got ill. They estimated — and they did no fancy statistical modeling logistic regression — that at 50 ng/mL, there was zero mortality.

The federal government knows that vitamin D deficiency ... is ubiquitous in nursing homes [and minorities] ... So, that we didn't have a vitamin D protocol nationally is criminal. Literally, it's criminal.”

In the hospital treatment protocol, the FLCCC recommends using calcitriol, 0.5 micrograms on Day 1 and 0.25 mcg daily thereafter for six days. Calcitriol is the active form of vitamin D typically produced in your kidneys.

This is because merely taking regular oral vitamin D fails in acute conditions as it takes weeks to be metabolized to its active form. Calcitriol is the active form, so it will start to work immediately. One can also take the vitamin D, though, as eventually adequate blood levels will be reached and the calcitriol can be discontinued.

Why Men Do Worse than Women in COVID

As mentioned earlier, the protocol also includes a number of nutraceuticals, such as quercetin and zinc. Another drug that looks promising is fluvoxamine, an antidepressant. Kory says:

“The studies continue to pan out, and even clinically, some of my colleagues who incorporated ivermectin with fluvoxamine saw much less treatment failures. I rank it as highly effective, but it doesn't cure everybody. They saw an occasional treatment fail and they said it really disappeared once they use the combo.

For someone older or with more advanced disease, more comorbidities, obese patients, diabetics, I tend to throw the kitchen sink at those folks. I try to use as many elements in the protocol as I can. So there, I’ll add fluvoxamine.

The game changer now is antiandrogens. We use spironolactone, which is a potassium-sparing diuretic, at doses above 100 mg a day. It has potent antiandrogen properties, as well as dutasteride, a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, which also suppresses testosterone.

Androgens seem to be a huge potential driver of this illness, not only in terms of driving viral replication, but also in potentially aiding inflammation ... The trials on that are really, really potent ... so, we have an antiandrogen aspect. I've been using that on some of my older or more advanced disease patients. I'll add that on pretty quick.”

Home Treatment Recommendations for COVID

While it can be difficult to find a doctor who is willing to actually treat COVID-19 with the FLCCC protocol (or any other for that matter), many of those who are willing are making full use of telemedicine.

You can find a listing of doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website. There, you can also find downloadable PDFs in several languages for prevention and early at-home treatment, the in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. Three other protocols that have great success are:

This is a load of information to review, especially if you are fatigued and sick with COVID or have a family member struggling. So, I reviewed all the protocols and believe the FLCCC one is the easiest and most effective to follow. I’ve posted it below.

However, I’ve altered some of the dosages, and added a few more therapies that they have yet to include, such as:

Nebulize hydrogen peroxide 5 ml of 0.1% peroxide dissolved in 0.9% normal saline every hour or two. It’s best to use nebulizer that plugs into the wall, as these are more effective than battery operated ones.

Intravenous ozone administered by a trained ozone physician.

NAC 500 mg twice a day.

Make sure the honey is raw honey, not normal honey from the grocery store. Raw honey can be obtained online or at a health food store.

Fibrinolytic enzymes like lumbrokinase, serrapeptidase or nattokinase, two to four tablets, two to three times a day, on an empty stomach (one hour before or two hours after a meal). This will help break down any microclots.

Decrease zinc dose from 100 mg to 50 mg elemental zinc, but only for three days, then decrease to 15 mg elemental zinc.

Increased quercetin from 250 mg to 500 mg.

Change vitamin C to liposomal C 1,000 to 2,000 mg four to six times per day.

The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule

  • Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information

  • Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product; and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained

  • According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable

  • Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield

In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.

Mayer, board president of Children's Health Defense —California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)

Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer research.

In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.

“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn't know if I was ever going to get better.

I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.

It's literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.

I had encephalitis and encephalopathy ... digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.

I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”

The COVID Jab Tragedy

While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability

The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what's really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of ... These are the things they're guarding with their lives.

First of all, they need to guard the emergency ... so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They're also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you're injured by an EUA vaccine, you can't sue the manufacturer, you can't sue the person who gave it to you, you can't sue the institution where you got the shot.

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they'll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you're vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You'll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you're going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that's going to get you better if you're vaccine injured is natural treatments ...

That's the kind of treatment you're going to need, and that's not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it's a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they're paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.

If you can't work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don't know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation ... they don't pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.

That's been said to me a bunch of times by people who've been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA

In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it's a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well ... So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it's basically the same as an outright mandate.

It's illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that's medical segregation.

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn't either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet ... that's also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it's not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn't make it legal. It's all illegal ...

Now, they know full well that it's illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it's illegal. But what they're counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it's worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling

The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

This is the holy grail if you're a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children's schedule. ~ Alix Mayer

To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you're a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children's schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’

In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine.

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That's not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it's just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is 'purely informational.'

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it's purely informational. You cannot act on it. That's what the DOJ says. Again, it's not adjudicated, so it doesn't mean anything. It's an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA

There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn't just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks.

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.

The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market ... by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval

With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn't have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I'm doing this presentation because I'm going to explain what’s going on with that.

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that's the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.

There's all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It's all the same answer. No, no, no, no.

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it's ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it's ‘legally distinct.’

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not available in the United States. It's available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they're really scared of liability.

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it's approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.

Here's what they said; ‘We're deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That's a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children's vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That's why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed

This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it's also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They're not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn't have full approval and it's not on the market.

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we're still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they're not interchangeable.

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it's an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn't have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it's an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children's recommended schedule. That's how we know it's not fully approved and on the market.

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it's emergency use authorization. It doesn't say it's fully approved, because it's not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who've received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That's what's going on here.

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it's happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there's a problem with their vaccine and they don't declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it's not that big of a deal, but it's a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID ...

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they're going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate ...

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn't calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don't prevent transmission. They don't prevent cases. They don't prevent hospitalization or death.”

How You Can Help

Children’s Health Defense has sued the FDA over the approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine, when in fact they are getting an EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately, these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification.

They also have a couple dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to become a member on childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime membership.

“That really helps us with standing in our legal cases, because the more people we represent, the stronger our cases are,” Mayer says. If you're in California, you can join the local chapter at ca.childrenshealthdefense.org. You can also help by purchasing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.”

This book is an absolute must-read and you know people are enjoying it as it has been No. 1 on Amazon for the last month, which is very unusual for a book. It will likely be one of the top best sellers of the entire year. So, get your copy before Sen. Elizabeth Warren convinces Amazon to ban it!

Is the Pandemic Ending? South Africa Director General Health Ceases Quarantines & Contact Tracing Due to Less Severe Omicron Variant

An interesting letter from the Director General from the Republic of South Africa’s Health Department suggests the direction could be positive based on the less severe nature of the omicron variant of concern. Although this variant or super mutant appears far more transmissible all data thus far indicates a less severe pathogen.   Now a letter from South Africa’s top health authority, not widely reported in the West, suggests a move from pandemic to endemic stage. This is truly good news if the data findings persist. The news was recently tweeted by Dr. David Eli.

That’s right!  South Africa the doctor reports now “Ends contact tracing, quarantines and COVID-19 tests for asymptomatic people.”  He goes on “This is the correct decision”  assuming “the pandemic has ended and COVID is now endemic.”  Should all nations do the same?

What does the letter say?

TrialSite includes an attachment to the letter below.  In summary due to lessening severity of Omicron the Director General Health Dr. Sandile Buthelezi. Published a letter declaring that among other things containment strategies (e.g., lockdowns) aren’t appropriate moving forward!

Why? Because “mitigation is the only viable strategy, especially true of the newer, more infectious/transmissible variants like OMICRON.”  Also, the South African health head delineates the positive trending news including the following new knowledge about this variant of concern:

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "COVID-19" Channel

No spam - we promise

  • Higher proportion of asymptomatic cases

  • High degree of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread

  • Aerosol spread

  • Only a small proportion of cases are diagnosed

The authorities there are ceasing contract tracing efforts as well. They are ceasing quarantining to both vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts. Moreover, isolation rules are updated. The signals are promising.  But of course, as with everything during the COVID-19 the situation is subject to change and TrialSite will continue to provide the community objective, global updates.

HCQ as PrEP for COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Bundle of Studies Covering 7,616 Health Care Workers in India

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) most certainly isn’t a politically correct topic, yet several prominent physician-scientists continue to investigate the efficacy and safety in relation to COVID-19. Of course, the controversies around HCQ don’t need a summary but, suffice to say, the use of the anti-malarial drug continues in several nations while physicians continue to use it off-label in the United States.  Most recently, a previous contributor to the TrialSite, Dr. Raphael Stricker, an expert in infectious disease along with a Doctor of Nursing Melissa Fesler, both with the private practice called Union Square Medical Associates in San Francisco, California, conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the safety and efficacy covering a portfolio of studies in India. Does a standard HCQ pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) regimen in health care workers (HCWs) exposed to high-risk environments in India lower COVID-19 infection risk?

Drs. Stricker and Fesler’s meta-analysis results were recently published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Investigative Medicine. The two are scheduled to present at the forthcoming Western Medical Research Conference (WMRC) meeting in Carmel on January 20-22, 2022.

Using several resources, the two physicians embarked on an analysis to search for the answer to their question. They utilized the following sources:

  • PRISMA checklist

  • PubMed

  • Google Scholar

  • medRxiv

  • ResearchGate

What did the studies consist of?

Stricker and Fesler obtained eleven nonrandomized controlled trials of weekly HCQ PrEP involving 7,616 HCWs in India (3,489 treated, 4,127 controls). The HCQ PrEP regimen consisted of an 800mg loading dose in the first week, then 400mg weekly thereafter according to the guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research. SARS-CoV-2 infection was documented by seroconversion or positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The duo used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of infection across the studies. Summary of Results Sex distribution was available for nine studies and age distribution was available for eight studies.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "India" Channel

No spam - we promise

What about gender & age distribution?

The sex distribution was 58% male and 42% female, and the mean age was 33.1 ± 7.7 years. 

What were the participant HWS roles?

63% were involved in direct patient care (e.g., doctors and nurses) and another 37% offered support services (e.g., support staff, technicians, housekeeping staff, etc.).

How many of the studies included HCWs who used any HCQ PrEP?

11

What was the infection rate difference in the HCQ group?

The infection rate was significantly decreased (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37–0.83, p = 0.0040).

What about the other five studies that included HCWs administered at least six doses of weekly HCQ PrEP?

The infection rates were apparently reduced even more (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13-0.50, p < 0.0001).

Were any deaths reported in either the study drug or control group?

No.

How many adverse events (AEs)?

667

What were the AEs?

Adverse Event%Headache 8%Nausea7%Dyspepsia6%

Were any heart issues such as arrhythmias reported by the HCWs?

No. AEs were generally mild and well tolerated, as shown in one study where the HCQ discontinuation rate due to AEs was 4%.                                                                                               

What do the researchers recommend for the next steps?

Additional investigation into the use of HCQ PrEP for prevention against COVID-19

What are some limitations?

Meta-analysis offer benefits and challenges—the underlying reliability of the data must be vetted. A number of studies have shown HCQ not to be effective but some prominent studies have shown promise such as the Henry Ford study—however, that particular observational study was discounted by Dr. Anthony Fauci during a meeting with Congress.

Lead Research/Investigator

Over-the-Counter Compounds Found to Inhibit SARS-CoV-2

A pair of over-the-counter compounds—diphenhydramine and lactoferrin—have been found in preliminary tests to inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19, University of Florida Health researchers have discovered. The findings by David A. Ostrov, Ph.D, an immunologist and associate professor in the UF College of Medicine’s department of pathology, immunology, and laboratory medicine and his colleagues, are published in the journal Pathogens.

What are these compounds?

An antihistamine used to treat allergy, hay fever, and the common cold, Diphenhydramine goes by well-known brand names such as Benadryl or Nytol. While Lactoferrin (LF) is a multifunctional protein, part of the transferrin family, and is widely used in various secretious fluids such as milk, saliva, tears, and nasal secretions.

Dr. Ostrov went on the record, “We found out why certain drugs are active against the virus that causes COVID-19. Then, we found an antiviral combination that can be effective, economical, and has a long history of safety.”

Prospective Further Study

The findings, Ostrov said, are a first step in developing a formulation that could be used to accelerate COVID-19 recovery. It also raises the prospect of further study through an academic-corporate partnership for human clinical trials focused on COVID-19 prevention. Additional research into the compounds’ effectiveness for COVID-19 prevention is already underway in mouse models.

Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "SARS-CoV-2" Channel

No spam - we promise

Caution Against Self-Medicating

While the findings are encouraging, Ostrov cautions against self-medicating with either diphenhydramine or lactoferrin as a COVID-19 prevention or treatment. The type of lactoferrin used in the research differs slightly from the type that is commonly available to consumers, he noted. Lactoferrin is commonly used as a supplement to treat stomach and intestinal ulcers, among other uses.  The message to any reader–don’t try this at home. This combination was investigational and not meant for any use at this stage.