Data Packet - Centers For Disease Control And Prevention: Fill & Download for Free

I think “Maximization of Utility would be the BEST Tool of Poverty Reduction”Assumption:The utility comes from share and consumption of a product, and is equal to each otherScenario -1A market has:Quantity of product = QPrice = PBuyers = 4 (N1, N2, N3, N4 )Within those four buyers none have the ability to buy the product but N1. N1 consumes the total without sharing:Total utility = share + consumption= 0 + 100= 100Scenario -2If N1 wants to share equally with N2 and N2 is inspired by N1 and wants to share equally of product with N3 and this process continues to N4 then:Total Utility = utility (consumption + sharing)= 100 + (n-1) x d n = 4,=100 + (4-1)50 d =50= 100 + 150= 250If N1 consumes the total product by himself then all rest 3 would be in hunger, and that means they won’t get anything. But by this sharing process they will get at least some portion.If we can prevent bad consumption, or don’t waste money for any unnecessary things and instead share this with those needy people, who cannot meet their basic human needs, then it is possible to maximize utility positively.In each packet of cigarettes, there are clear warnings that smoking causes disease. Because of smoking, each and every organ of the human body, can be affected by disease. This risk of disease due to smoking increases day by day. About 16 million people of USA are suffering from diseases related to smoking. Disease caused by smoking includes, diabetes, lung diseases including COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), emphysema, chronic bronchitis, heart diseases, stroke, asthma and cancer. In addition, smoking causes tuberculosis and increases the risk of eye-related disease. Smoking is also responsible for erectile dysfunction [1].The worldwide death rate due to tobacco is 6 million. If this rate continues, then in 2030 this rate will reach 8 million people. [2].More than 80 thousand people die every year in the USA, as a result of smoking. In addition, 42 thousand people die because of second-hand smoke. This means that, among every 5 persons, one dies because of smoking. So, every day 1300 peoples are dying due to smoking. [1] Smokers generally die 10 years earlier than non-smokers [3]. If the smoking trends in the USA continuing at current rates, then, 5.6 million of younger Americans who are below 18 years today, will have died before reaching the US average life expectancy.In 2012, an amount of $9.17 billion was spent for the advertisement or promotion of cigarettes. That means each day, more than $25 million, or an amount of more than $1 million per hour, was spent on cigarette marketing [4]. The total economic loss to the USA due to smoking, was more than 300 billion in 2012. The largest component of this economic loss was the $170 billion spent on medical care for adult smokers. [5] Along with the cost of medical care, a $156 billion, annual productivity loss occurs, due to premature death of smokers and the results of second-hand smoke. [1]Every day more than 3200 people below the age of 18 years are addicted to smoking. More than 2100 occasional smokers become daily smokers each day [1]. Every 7 out of 10 smokers want to break this bad habit and 4 out of 10 try to stop smoking [1]. In 2012, approximately 1 million people in the USA were able to quit smoking and started to improve their health. [6].From the above data, we see that every year economic cost of smoking in the USA is approximately 300 billion dollars. Moreover, according to one report in 2011, discussed above, 4 out of 10 smokers are expected try to stop smoking. If this percentage can actually stop smoking, the result would be a 120 billion reduction in economic cost impact.We can contribute to our economy in various ways by increasing demand of any necessary elements or needs. Positive contributions are achieved by creating more demand for rice, wheat, or any other necessary products; essential products that will not cause harm to individuals nor the environment. If one person consumes one cigarette, this means, that person is creating more incentive for the production of more cigarettes. Here is one example to help understand this concept. One person consumes one cigarette. When that person buys the cigarette from any shop, the shopkeepers will take some profit (very little). From the rest of the purchase money, the shopkeepers buy more stock; knowing that there is a continuous demand for this product. The cigarette purchase creates more opportunity for more production of this harmful product which has both a health effect and an environmental impact. Instead, if all were involved in buying and selling any healthful product, that healthful activity could help save our environment, and improve the economy.As seen from the above data, an amount of $120 billion of a country’s economy can be moved to beneficial needs, and people can become healthier. Here is one more example is included for assessing the multiplier effect of that $120 billion. If USA donates that $120 billion to Africa, that amount is generally spent for health cost, African people can use that money for their beneficial needs. Those are generally poor people and they need food to eat not any unnecessary needs such as a cigarette. This money will flow in the market and the multiplier effect will be created. Multiplier effect of that money is generally same. From one side it is positive and from another side it is negative. If we estimate the multiplier effect of $120 billion it will be $300 (if marginal propensity to consume = .6) total.In the same way, in the European Union, the cost of smoking was $607.072 billion in 2009 [7] if 40% people here also try to stop smoking then $242.83 billion will be the saved amount and multiplier effect is $607.075 billion.Then total savings from USA and EU is = ($120 + $242.83) billion= $362.83 billionAccording to World Bank report. There is an estimate of 185 countries per capita income. We see the last ranked countries per capita income, which indicates the poorest countries. The rank and per capita income of the poorest countries are given below.Here we see that total population is 395,059,219 and their average income is $969.30. If we distribute those $362.83 billion to these 10 countries equally, then each person would receive an amount off $918.42.From the estimation data above, it is clear that people in the USA and EU spend an amount of money in health costs due to smoking, that is 0.95 times higher than people’s per capita income of the people living in the poorest countries.The international poverty line has just been raised to $1.90 a day (World Bank, 2015).If we apply the $1.90 a day (World Bank, 2015), estimate and distribute $918.42 to each person, then a person in the poorest countries can continue their livelihood for more than 483 days.This is more than one year; and we can remove poverty from all countries. Our 1st target would be the country where per capita income is lowest. Poverty could be effectively eliminated, if the money from health cost savings of 40%, could be distributed to those low-income countries. The distribution, however, comes with two conditions. One condition is the beneficiaries should not produce any harmful drugs or tobacco-related products with the money. The 2nd condition is to encourage them to produce agricultural products that are necessary for the local food supply. If this improvement cycle continues for a period of 10 years, then it will be seen that there will no poverty to those underdeveloped countries, because every year USA and EU donate their 40% money to those low-income countries.Reference:1.US Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health,17.2.World Health Organization. (2011). WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2011: warning about the dangers of tobacco. Geneva: World Health Organization.3.Jha, P., Ramasundarahettige, C., Landsman, V., Rostron, B., Thun, M., Anderson, R. N., ... & Peto, R. (2013). 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine,368(4), 341-350.4.Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Federal Trade Commission cigarette report for 2009 and 2010. Washington, DC.5.Xu, X., Bishop, E. E., Kennedy, S. M., Simpson, S. A., & Pechacek, T. F. (2015). Annual healthcare spending attributable to cigarette smoking: an update. American journal of preventive medicine, 48(3), 326-333.6.McAfee, T., Davis, K. C., Alexander, R. L., Pechacek, T. F., & Bunnell, R. (2013). Effect of the first federally funded US antismoking national media campaign. The Lancet, 382(9909), 2003-2011.7.SANCO, D. (2009). A study on liability and the health costs of smoking.Final report, dicembre.

At the risk of appearing glib and then the response not taken seriously, there are two components in this response to the question regarding “most promising treatments in development for HIV”. Clearly this will be a debatable point. But first and foremost and without a doubt in my assessment whatsoever, the most promising treatments are those that have been, and continue to be established from the point of view of those being served. Positive affirmation treatment for every person who seeks out assistance, while living with an HIV impact upon their lives is a critical component for the client’s well being. Treatment of any type, should only be considered promising, when those treatments are made available equally to all human beings. That is inclusive of every U.S. state and only when we all work to bring those treatment strategies to anyone who needs them world wide. The most promising treatments are implemented when they support every individual equally and only when made available to everyone on equal standing. Promising treatments in development must have had every type of judgement addressed and eliminated from their implementation. Behavior that stems from judgement should no longer be tolerated when they are displayed toward the seropositive. This holds especially true when judgement comes from within the ranks of the HIV/AIDS support community, and then judgement is experienced again by every level of every government entity which involve themselves with services, policy or budget over resources that are directed to this community. The promising treatments in development place human lives and human dignity as their top priority. Only when programs are designed and implemented from the viewpoint of the client served, where everyone is provided fair and compassionate responses to their issues in an equal fashion, will the conditions be possible for those programs and policies covering healthcare, medication, legal standing and financial turmoil begin to be fully addressed. Those programs can become promising treatment once the implementation of the services they provide are reconsidered. It is incumbent upon every government and public/private partnerships that all services are offered without bias or discrimination, equally across the board. Bias and discrimination are impediments for the seropositive and only when both are reduced will all of those affected within the community seek out and persist with medical care. Every promising treatment must also work toward eliminating HIV criminalization completely. Every interaction with those individuals who are HIV positive, and those who may be HIV positive, deserve the promise of treatment which is free of all discrimination and possible stigma, and contains the promise and pledge that all healthcare and pharmaceutical treatment will no longer induce financial ruin or limit independence.A mobilization of resources over the previous 25 years, has delivered a significant and visible positive result coming out of the fight against HIV, and the victory of the living will sit down for dinner tonight with the rest of their family. The relentless destruction of human life brought about from HIV disease has slowed significantly. And, right now while in this otherwise looking lull in activity occurs, scientific study continues to churn out data. One data point of particular importance is what a small subject group has recently revealed. While on combination antiretroviral treatment (cART, ART), the individual person who is HIV seropositive is no longer a risk for transmission while he/she is under cART. Additionally, using existing testing and treatment tools, a pathway is defined that can halt the otherwise continuing spread of HIV worldwide. The only thing lacking is the will of leaders and citizens around the world to invest in this pathway.A small study group has shown where at a minimum of 97% of the time, transmission of HIV does not occur through sexual contact between a serodiscordant couple, where the partners are heterosexual, a committed couple, and the HIV positive spouse is adherent to a cART regimen. The current mission of treatment for all people is to continue to maintain control over HIV while it resides within an individual. This control is maintained at a level that is tolerable for human life to progress in an equal fashion with a seronegative peer. In this way, a subject seropositive individual is considered to have a chronic and manageable condition.in the U.S. and in all of the prosperous nations; treatment, viral containment and ending viral transmission are possible. But the three do not hold true universally and really, they do not hold true for enough of the individuals here in the U.S. either. For even when a strict regimen of the current formulation of drugs that make up cART regimen are available and followed, adverse drug affects and multi drug resistance develop in HIV. Resistance happens at a rate of 5% to 15% of the time for those people a cART regimen . The group of people who experience drug resistence, will continue to need newly developed antiretroviral (ARV) drugs. As recently as June 2016 a version of tenofovir , tenofovir alafenamide, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the utilization as a replacement product for the extensively deployed tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Both drugs are metabolized by the body to the prodrug tenofovir diphosphate. The new formulation allows for higher concentrations of tenofovir diphosphate measurable in peripheral blood cells, that could not be achieved with the disoproxil fumarate formulation prior to an unacceptable toxic level. The alafenamide formulation also reduces the negative affects on bone density and adverse kidney function that were seen by those using tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. This is one new drug in the arsenal of cART for HIV treatment, it is also approved by the FDA for the treatment of chronic Hepatitis B. The manufacturer enjoys 10 years of protected status from competitive replication by generic manufacture by way of U.S. patent, and legal enforcement of that protection by the U.S. Judicial system. It is an indication by Big Pharma, with backing demonstrated by the approval from the FDA; there is money to be made in the business of ARV medications and the current ARV medications in the marketplace are not enough. It is saying loud and clear that ARV drugs in the pipeline nearing approval, and future drugs that are under investigation, will be a protected source of revenue for the manufacturer for a decade. Big Pharma has the process of continued treatment on their side to generate capital over ten years, when a drug effectively contributes to the control of HIV disease progression. Plus, Big Pharma know from decades of experience how to utilize the patent system to maximize profit.Pharmaceutical products are available within the marketplace of prosperous nations to protect anyone from an HIV infection that might occur from high risk exposure events.The first method is through the use of an ARV regimen called Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP). PrEP helps the immune system resist HIV seroconversion and is used by those who otherwise would be likely to seroconvert from sexual contact. PrEP is a once daily ARV regimen that continues indefinitely until this level of protection is no longer needed, or desired by the patient.Second, for the individual who has experienced a specific and individual high risk event, there is Post-exposure Prophylaxis (PeP). PeP is also an ARV drug regimen. PeP must begin shortly after (within 72 hours) of when a likely high exposure event occurred. The ARV treatment under PeP lasts for 28 days. These two regimen that provide protection from HIV seroconversion use a single strategy incorporating integrase and nucleotide/nucleoside reverse transcriptase enzyme disruption.Both therapies are used to limit the effective quantity of enzymes that are required for reverse transcription of viral RNA into HIV DNA and/or integration of HIV DNA with human DNA. Without those enzymes being in supply, HIV is rendered inert and seroconversion is avoided. This enzyme characteristic that alters function of HIV is the cornerstone principle with which viral suppression is achieved through cART for HIV positive individuals who are in treatment.jThe combination therapy regimens of three or more ARV drugs are only available to those who have sufficient means. These drugs are very, very expensive. That is two “very’s” there in case you didn’t catch it. Depending upon the point of view, some will say it should even be three “very’s”. A typical first line cART regimen utilizing an integrase inhibitor taken by an HIV positive American, requires an annual cost of ARV drugs between $25,000 and $30,000. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the highest incidence rates of seroconversion occur for adults between the ages of 20-34 and that age range accounts for nearly half of the HIV seroconversion diagnosis in a year, about 22,000 people annually, as reported in the CDC HIV Surveillance Report vol26, 2014. The average life expectancy at birth for a man living today and born in 1995 is 76 years. If he seroconverted at age 25 and began cART that year, he will be taking those medications for 51 years and the cost for medication alone is expected to exceed $1.4million over his lifetime. These three different applications of various ARV regimen can therefore only be available to those who live in prosperous nations, and to those within those prosperous nations who can afford to pay for them. Some countries provide healthcare with citizenship and their costs will be lower over all. For citizens in prosperous countries that do not provide healthcare, they will have to locate resources to to assist with paying the cost of their ARV treatment, on their own. Payment could be made out of pocket, which is clearly an unlikely scenario. Cost associated with ARV treatment for those who have prescription insurance, may have assistance with coverage to pay for ARV drugs. The cost for PrEP today, is most likely left uncovered by typical employer sponsored insurance that is available to that employer from the marketplace. Lastly, payment for ARV drugs is available to those who qualify for government assistance that pays for the entire cost of the ARV drugs. If a person is covered under a government healthcare program such as Medicaid or Medicare, ARV drugs are also covered. But the “means” in this discussion are not limited to the financial variety. Healthcare means also play a role in the acquisition of ARV drugs. A person must rely upon the support that is gained, or lost, because of their physicians knowledge. In this case, most primary care doctors in the U.S. are ignorant to the existence and/or appropriate application of ARV treatment options.The variables that exist in a hypothetical equation, one that would result in an HIV cure, are likely to also be very costly. That equation will take time before its variables are identified and it already contains a very large number of variables from which possible choices may be selected. Then those choices undergo investigation and are evaluated for their efficacy before this cure could be sold as treatment. The correct combination of variables that need to selected to achieve a cure under this equation are simply staggering.“Strategies to achieve a cure for HIV-1 infection can be broadly classified into three categories: eradication cure (elimination of all viral reservoirs), functional cure (immune control without reservoir eradication), or a hybrid cure (reservoir reduction with improved immune control). The many HIV-1 cure strategies being investigated include modification of host cells to resist HIV-1, engineered T cells to eliminate HIV-infected cells, broadly HIV-1 neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, and therapeutic vaccination, but the ‘kick and kill’ strategy to expose latent HIV-1 with latency reversing agents (LRAs) and kill the exposed cells through immune effector functions is currently the most actively pursued. It is unknown, however, whether LRAs can deplete viral reservoirs in vivo or whether current LRAs are sufficiently safe for clinical use.” Anthony R Cillo and John W Mellors, Division of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, March 2016.The possibilities for each cure strategy have all held initial promise. Promise for that possible cure and because they continue to reveal invaluable scientific data, in the mean time. Data in this discussion are applied to HIV-1, but in the real world, those data are also applied to many cancers and other autoimmune disease such as type 1 Diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. These data will also influence an outcome for treatment of HIV-2 which is the predominate variety of HIV that is prevalent in African nations. Research conclusions being drawn and papers being released now, in Spring and Summer 2016, are illuminating discoveries for more than one of these cure strategies. Recent research released in 2016, has shown that it is possible for HIV DNA, that was already integrated into the DNA genome of a CD4 T cell, to be surgically carved out of that human DNA. The technique also makes HIV naive CD4 T cells resistant to HIV infection. However in May 2016, the first results using this gene carving technique lack luster and have revealed once again the resulting story that HIV mutates very quickly. Initial investigation using this type of gene-therapy reveals an amazing speed in mutation that HIV can undergo. The specific mutation in this instance provides HIV with resistance to the gene-therapy protocol in 8-10 days after the therapy begins to work. Mutation is a classic strategy established long ago by mother nature and it is used all too well in the case of HIV.The most promising line of research into halting the spread of pandemic HIV, in addition to the tools that exist today, involve the creation of a preventive vaccine for the seronegative population. The implementation tasks for developing a preventive vaccine are visible and available, with an imminent solution forming on the horizon of this research. It is only a matter of time before methodology is refined and efficacy is achieved, through exploiting a weakness in the process of HIV replication. Recently released reports, along with those yet to be released, are National Institute of Health sponsored research findings where NIH states;“vaccines are being designed for broad coverage. Computer-aided design of mosaic immunogens, incorporating many epitopes from the entire genome or from conserved regions aim to induce CD8+ T cells to kill virus-infected cells or inhibit virus replication, while trimeric envelope proteins or synthetic mimics aim to induce broadly reactive neutralizing antibodies similar to those cloned from some infected patients. Induction of more potent and durable responses may require new adjuvants or replicating chimeric vectors chimeras that bear HIV genes. Passive or genetic delivery of broadly neutralizing antibodies may provide broad protection and/or lead to insights for vaccine designers. Proof-of-concept trials in non-human primates and in one human efficacy trial have provided scientific clues for a vaccine that could provide broad and durable protection against HIV. The use of vaccines to destroy HIV reservoirs as part of therapy or cure is now also being explored.”Finding the best way through both the latent CD4+ T cell reservoir population that is circulating in plasma and in the tissue, will in itself quite possibly require a multifocal approach. It’s been shown that during initial HIV infection, some individuals have a surprisingly strong and persistent CD8 response that is essentially killing off that HIV-1 invasion. Often these individuals had an extended period, measured in years, of non-progressive HIV disease evidenced through a measured and continuously low level viremia. Mimicking that natural response, through the transformation of CD8 T cells into specifically engineered cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) cells, designed to hunt and kill viral-infected CD4+ T cells, is an important component for a cure. Where the end result is to eradicate the HIV reservoir contained in memory CD4+ T cells. In the last five years it’s been shown that within two different CD4 cell types:a memory CD4+ T cell, which is an inactive CD4 that contains latent proviral DNA in the genome anda recently infected CD4 T cell, carrying linear unintegrated HIV-1 DNA,Either type of CD4 T cell will at times produce a unique enzyme. The enzymatic function inhibits the binding of an HIV-1 packet to the CCR5 or CXCR4 expressed proteins that create a binding site for HIV-1, and appear on the external envelope of a CD4 T cell. In the latent reservoir, the infected memory CD4+ T cell is otherwise behaving in the same way as any other HIV naive CD4. It does not appear that the memory CD4+ T cell will signal surrounding cells in any way other than when induced to release this enzyme which may be used as a target. Engineered CTL, with an exclusive function sensitive to this unique enzyme released within the tissues of the human host. This is just one solution for tracking down, and killing off the HIV reservoir that is contained within the various tissues. These CTL would be engineered out of CD8 T cells removed from the source patient, modified in vitro, cloned to greater numbers and then returned to the source patient. Or, possibly thru mutagenesis of CD8 T cells in vivo. This type of mutagenesis would be an enormous step toward avoiding medically undesirable physical stresses that are predicted for all source patients. These stresses and some of the consequences of this type of treatment were revealed not long ago in a Quest Clinical Research gene-therapy trial.In 2011, research and testing performed by Quest Clinical Research in San Francisco sought to use a gene-therapy technique to modify CD4 T cells. The modification in this trial was intended to provide HIV resistance and assess the viability of the process. CD4 T cells were taken from a source patient, modified in vitro, then nurtured and cloned before being infused, or returned to the source patient. Prior to infusion the patient required medical treatment and hospital care rendering him/her immunologically suppressed. Suppression for this process was in the fashion that is employed for a person undergoing organ transplantation. This level of immune suppression avoids the possible immune response that is often called, “rejection”. It was hoped that these steps would provide a new type of CD4 enclave. The CD4 T cells would hopefully show HIV resistance and live, grow and reproduce within the source patient. The genetic modifications changed the CD4 cell’s external appearance by forming a different pattern and type of receptor on the outside envelope of the CD4 T cell. These modified cells had an altered protein expression associated with the CCR5 gene. The CCR5 was chosen precisely because that gene specifies the appearance of the protein receptor that is the primary binding site on the surface of a CD4 T cell for an HIV-1 packet. The resulting modification to CCR5 gene, nullified the additional steps that an HIV-1 packet would have to undergo in order to transfer the genetic RNA material passed the CD4 T cell’s protective envelope. Where, insertion of that RNA material only occurs following a successful binding by HIV-1 to the protein receptor. The research parameters were set so that the process was classified successful if the CD4 T cell would have gained resistance to HIV and continue to persist in the environment created while the source patient followed their cART regimen after infusion of the genetically modified CD4+ T cells. Although nowhere near 100% efficacy, a surprisingly large amount of the engineered CD4 T cells performed a reasonable task in resisting HIV-1. The modification process successfully disrupted CCR5 protein expression in nearly 25% of the modified CD4 T cells and, although taxing on the overall general health of the patient, it is a survivable process. This trial also revealed that a second genetic modification, one made to the CXCR4 gene which expresses a secondary protein binding receptor (and is the primary site for HIV-2), would be optimal to further limit the potential means by which HIV-1 has for attaching to a CD4 T cell.Further study of each treatment or cure strategy, as well as a possible vaccination strategy, continue out of necessity. Today’s cART requires strict life-long treatment, a high cost which restricts its broad use worldwide, and the routinely expressed development of multi-drug resistance. Although clearly cART is a powerful tool, it fails as a lone tool to cure HIV infection. Within the story of HIV infection, there exists a long living and stable latent proviral reservoir. The known reservoir exists, lying dormant in a very small number of the overall T cell population and is established throughout the far flung tissues and varied disparate systems of the human body. Research is underway to determine modalities capable of inducing viral expression within this latent CD4 population of the reservoir. Expression of viral glycoproteins within the tissues and on the surface of CD4 T cells, could be identified and an immune response initiated. The host’s immune system is needed to disable and sweep away the now visible, once latent, CD4+ T cell of the reservoir. The immune response may also benefit from a boosting in ability. Either a functional cure or an eradication cure would be achieved when the immune response swept away all the cells that contained HIV DNA, or for when an apoptotic destruction of the infected CD4+ T cell occurs before the T cell begins functioning as a center for HIV replication. There continues to be a debate whether latent HIV DNA also exits within other cell types. Research being release in July 2016 should be helpful in illuminating the extent of to which HIV exists in additional cell types. Curing HIV in those who are living today and have seroconverted (approx. 37 million people worldwide) and creating a vaccine against the spread of new HIV infections (approx. 2 million people every year worldwide) are very closely intertwined. A cure, will likely require implementing more than one single strategy and quite possibly even require multiple modalities within those multiple strategies.HIV has been consistent in one scientific regard throughout its study period;a short-length and simply constructed genetic string of RNA, is surprisingly powerful in conducting gene therapy in vivo.HIV is agile and it will rapidly mutate when pressure is applied. The pressure being; any attempt to control replication.Mutation occurs quickly, especially when using a single offensive modality to apply that pressure.This information became evident as HIV was exposed to AZT (zidovudine) in mono therapy treatment. AZT was originally created with hopes to be used as a cancer fighting drug in 1964. It held a minor research history before it was ultimately approved as an HIV/AIDS drug in 1987, after a scant 25 month approval process. AZT has a common chemotherapy characteristic of halting all cellular division throughout the human body. AZT has toxic impact on the heart and skeletal muscle and causes anemia and hepatotoxicity, but all side effects are reversed following the discontinuation of its use. When AZT was used as an ARV drug in a mono-therapy, resistant strains of HIV developed within a few months time. This rapid mutation toward drug resistance develops in HIV regardless of whether the AZT regimen is followed precisely or loosely or with high or low dosing. Another result was more problematic than the speed of the viral mutation. The mutated HIV had a number of drug resistant strains. The varying strains developed alongside the decline in effectiveness of mono the therapy. The viral mutations also delivered particularly aggressive strains of HIV. Shortly after these revelations, AZT was put to work in a combination therapy with 3TC (lamivudine, Epivir). This combination therapy provided more time before HIV developed drug resistance. With this discovery it then followed in what seemed to be just overnight; when three or more ARV drugs are used in combination they will suppress an HIV viral load to a significantly depleted serum level. Plus this combination therapy reduced the likelihood of ARV drug resistance, altogether. Equally important when AZT resistance did come about, this newest drug resistant HIV genome is less infectious than wild-type HIV-1. Here it is that AZT was an absolute failure in mono treatment, but over the course of 10 years there are several measurable successes. Using AZT in a clinical environment taught valuable lessons in how to apply ARV drugs. Application of that lesson from AZT, made cART into a successful tool that suppresses HIV disease progression.Today’s successful cART regimens are based upon the illumination that AZT therapies provided. Because of AZT, researchers know exactly how HIV will naturally respond to unnatural external pressure; rapid mutation. These mutations can increase or decrease the power that HIV wields against the human immune system. It is from this light, that a cure for HIV infection can also be found. There has been no reason to believe otherwise and research should focus on what is already known about HIV. Multiple strategies of ARV drugs are used to quell HIV replication in several ways. Three methods are presently available as treatment:to inhibit fusion of the HIV-1 packet,to inhibit the enzymes necessary for RNA transcription,to inhibit the enzymes required for proviral DNA to integrate with human DNA.ARV drugs can be effective before the insertion of viral RNA into the CD4 T cell and in the steps along the way. Once the viral RNA is inserted inside the CD4 cell envelope other drugs can be used effectively. There is a characteristic in some ARV drugs that when put to use in specific combinations, one can have the synergistic affect of boosting the function of another. Cytokines can be used to boost the effectiveness of the immune system and used as another action against HIV. There are several additional types of ARV drugs under development including:maturation inhibitors,assembly and budding inhibitors,zinc finger inhibitors,antisense drugs which attach directly to HIV-1,cellular metabolism modulators.With gene-therapy techniques there are also multiple possibilities;can be applied to disassemble proviral HIV DNA,or to carve out the HIV genome from within human DNA after integration,it can be used to modify the resistance capability of CD4 T cells,to alter function that exists naturally in CD8 T cells.All of these modalities are either an example of a technique presently used in HIV treatment, or they represent very tangible and possible modalities under investigation by researchers today. The experience in developing a successful cART strategy has shown that it is necessary to confront HIV from different angles, simultaneously, or the consequence of viral mutation forms resistance to the ARV drugs. When investigating multiple strategies with numerous modalities possible under each, too many variables can become a limiting factor and research is already slow and methodical. When coupling these things into HIV research, results require a lot of time to develop. Investigators and Researchers should put aside the notion that one individual modality of a drug or a single gene-therapy application can be a cure for HIV infection. When a modality proves itself somewhat effective against HIV, it may be suitable in combination with other modalities, including vaccine technology. The combination of modalities will yield their own unique level of efficacy. When modalities are combined into components of a combination treatment, the solution to curing HIV infection will likely be found. The cure treatment will probably require the use of multiple modalities that are applied simultaneously, or that the components of the cure treatment are applied in a precisely choreographed order. With the goal of a cure, all treatment pathways must avoid viral mutation and the development of drug resistance.Regardless of how a cure strategy is deployed or a preventive vaccine plays out, Big Pharma is already a securely positioned winner in every possible equation. They win whether they provide new ARV drugs to be used for viral suppression. That’s a lifetime of continued cART. And they win when these ARV drugs are used in combination with other therapies to accomplish a cure. In one way or another, in cART or cure, ARV drugs will be used as treatment, and possibly by as many as 10 million of the 37 million people who currently face living with HIV disease every day. Once a preventive vaccine is deployed, Big Pharma will win once more as they sell their preventive vaccine to any portion of the 7 billion people who will likely populate the planet. Additionally, the promising treatment of HIV will include elimination of social judgement, discrimination, bias and stigma in the HIV/AIDS care community but experienced more destructively from the government agencies that control access and from the public at large who harbor illogical opinion about this minority group. The most promising treatment of all is universal and affordable access to medical treatments and medications here at home in the U.S., and also worldwide.

NO. Evidence shows increased pestilence happens when the earth is cooling not warming. Cooler and wet summers and more flooding cause infestations to rise.Extreme flooding recorded during the Little Ice Age when many perished. Even in semi- tropical regions like Brazil the summers are wetter and the winters cooler for more plague.This means a reverse question: does the coronavirus plague shake the tree of the global warming theory?Covid 19 and climate change / global warming are the much exaggerated fears of our century. They are two peas in a pod in the overreaction with blanket lockdowns and carbon taxes imposed without founded science.Research Article | Open AccessVolume 2017 |Article ID 5058085 | 25 pages | The Effect of Seasonal Weather Variation on the Dynamics of the Plague DiseaseThe Effect of Seasonal Weather Variation on the Dynamics of the Plague DiseaseRigobert C. Ngeleja ,1 Livingstone S. Luboobi ,1,2 and Yaw Nkansah-Gyekye11. IntroductionPlague is the ancient disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis and has had significant effects on human societies throughout the history [1]. Dynamics of plague disease are the result of complex interactions between human beings, rodent population, flea population, and pathogens in the environment. Seasonal variation particularly temperature, humidity, rainfall, and precipitation greatly affects the normal transmission capacity of plague disease by either lowering it or raising it. It affects pathogen in the environment, fleas, rodents, and even human behavior by altering their normal immigration rate, death rate, survival rate, and infectious capability [2].People walk in the flooded street during a period of seasonal high water in Venice, Italy, November 15, 2019. This week saw the city's worst flooding in 50 years. REUTERS/Manuel SilvestriHype Exposed: Central Europe GETTING WETTER (Not Drier) Since Industrialization BeganBy P Gosselin on 27. May 2020Central Europe has been getting WETTER over the long term, and not drier like much media like to suggest. Dry years are nothing new.Lately in Central Europe we’ve been hearing a lot about drought becoming the new normal – all because of man-made global warming, of course.Lots of hype made from 2 years of “drought”For example, Latest breaking news available as free video on demand | Euronews here reported that the single dry year of 2018 should be a “wake-up call for climate change”.Scientist Peter Hoffmann from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research expects even more frequent drought-producing omega highs blocking in the future – due to climate change.Today the media keep reporting Central Europe’s current dry conditions, which have persisted over the past two years, as if they have been unprecedented. Is it really so?Data tell another storyCentral Europe was far drier back when CO2 was below 300 ppm, before 1900. Long-term trend has been towards a wetter climate. Data: German DWD National Weather Service.It’s useful to go back again and look at the precipitation data for Germany – which well represents Central Europe.Central Europe was far drier back when CO2 was below 300 ppm, before 1900. Long-term trend has been towards a wetter climate. Data: German DWD National Weather Service.Hat-tip: Schneefan.As the chart above shows, extremely dry years like 2018 happened before, and 2019 precipitation was even well within the 10% variability range.Also the 30-year period of 1881-1920 was far drier than the most recent 30 years. Nothing unusual is happening.So the next time you hear doom and gloom reports from the COVID-19 hysteria media about Europe’s droughts being the new normal and we’re all gonna dry up and die unless we lock down fossil fuels, just dismiss them as more fake news."Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" - Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English - by Pierre L. GosselinTHE RATIONAL CLIMATE E-BOOK by Patrice Peyot“The first thing to observe, is that CO2 will not change more the fate of mankind than COVID-19 has. As cruel as the death of a loved one is in every family, reasoning must distance itself from the emotions. Each year, 60 million people die worldwide (Ritchie, 2019) and would none of the 1.11 million who died of COVID-19 as of late Oct. 2020 have died this year of something else (which is a doubtful hypothesis as most were elderly with medical pre-conditions and previous morbidity), then COVID-19 will account at most in the worse case for just 1,85% of the annual death toll so far and will hardly reach 2% by year end; Furthermore, 1.11 million over 7.8 billion is a tiny 0.0142% of the world population, do you think it is going to change anything to mankind's fate on this planet? Thus, this leaves us with 98% of the deaths to be attributed to another cause.So when Gates (2020) states “A global crisis has shocked the world. It is causing a tragic number of deaths, making people afraid to leave home, and leading to economic hardship not seen in many generations. Its effects are rippling across the world”, one will notice that the tragedy and the economic devastation does not result of COVID-19, but of the inappropriate measures taken by most governments and local authorities worldwide, reproved by many health practitioners (UHP, 2020). As Grannis (2020) puts it “The shutdown of the US economy will prove to be the most expensive self-inflicted injury in the history of mankind”.Sweden and a few other countries have taken another route and resorted to the responsibility of their citizen by informing them and letting them free of taking what appropriate measures they deemed necessary for their protection and to let the virus propagate until herd immunity would be obtained. Did Sweden fare worse than the others who enforced extraordinarily coercive measures violating the most fundamental human rights? Certainly not!Furthermore, not accounted for by the COVID-19 statistics will be the host of mental illnesses, people committing suicide because they will no longer succeed to feed their families, all deaths that result not of COVID-19 but of the desire to protect us against our will by enacting at all levels, i.e. governments, local authorities, etc. regulations and decrees that have simply trampled our most basic freedoms, i.e. to go to work, to move around, to freely travel, to meet who we needed or wished when we wanted, etc.Pages 300–301The Rational Climate e-BookThis book addresses all aspects of climate and paleo-climates, from atmospheric physics, to astronomical influences and geological and geochemical drivers. It covers the computer models claiming to simulate the climate and the policies that are projected from themhttps://patricepoyet.org/COVID Lockdowns May Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study ShowsBY NATALIE COLAROSSION 1/14/21 AT 11:41 AM ESTWhat Is Herd Immunity? How To Achieve It And Why It Can Be Controversial Amid COVID-19NEWS CORONAVIRUS PANDEMICS HEALTH AND SCIENCEA study evaluating COVID-19 responses around the world found that mandatory lockdown orders early in the pandemic may not provide significantly more benefits to slowing the spread of the disease than other voluntary measures, such as social distancing or travel reduction.The peer reviewed study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation on January 5, and analyzed coronavirus case growth in 10 countries in early 2020.The study compared cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.S. – all countries that implemented mandatory lockdown orders and business closures – to South Korea and Sweden, which instituted less severe, voluntary responses. It aimed to analyze the effect that less restrictive or more restrictive measures had on changing individual behavior and curbing the transmission of the virus.The researchers used a mathematical model to compare countries that did and did not enact more restrictive lockdown orders, and determined that there was "no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country.""We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures," the research said.However, the researchers also acknowledged that the study had limitations, and noted that "cross-country comparisons are difficult," since nations may have different rules, cultures, and relationships between their government and citizenry.The study was conducted by researchers affiliated with Stanford University, and was co-authored by Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and economics who has been a vocal opponent of coronavirus lockdowns since March.Bhattacharya was also among a group of scientists who wrote The Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial statement that encouraged governments to lift lockdown restrictions to achieve herd immunity among young and healthy people, while focusing protections on the elderly.For additional context, other studies have oppositely determined that lockdown orders have effectively saved millions of lives.A new study shows that mandatory lockdown orders may not provide more significant benefits to curbing the spread of COVID-19 vs voluntary measures such as social distancing and travel restrictions. Here, one pedestrian walks on the pavement in central London in the morning on March 24, 2020 after Britain ordered a lockdown.JUSTIN TALLIS/GETTYA study published in the journal Nature by researchers at Imperial College London in June found that some 3.1 million deaths had been averted due to lockdowns across Europe early on in the pandemic."This data suggests that without any interventions, such as lockdown and school closures, there could have been many more deaths from COVID-19. The rate of transmission has declined from high levels to ones under control in all European countries we study," Dr. Samir Bhatt, an author of the study from Imperial College London said in June, according to the university."Careful consideration should now be given to the continued measures that are needed to keep SARS-CoV-2 transmission under control," he added.A second study published alongside that report in Nature, and led by scientists in the United States, found that 530 million coronavirus infections had been avoided due to early lockdowns in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France and the United States, according to the news outlet.Mandatory lockdown orders have also been a highly politicized issue across the U.S.Some Republican leaders, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, have vehemently opposed state or nationwide closures to curb the spread of COVID-19. In Democratic states, including New York and California, lockdown orders have been a consistent part of the coronavirus response since March.According to a poll released by Vox and Data for Progress on December 24, more than half of Americans said they would support a nationwide lockdown for one month.But President-elect Joe Biden said in an interview in November that he had no intention of implementing a national shutdown when he takes office on January 20."I'm not going to shut down the economy. I'm going to shut down the virus," Biden said. "There is no circumstance which I can see that would require a total national shutdown. I think that would be counterproductive."As of Thursday, the United States had recorded over 23 million COVID cases and 385,178 deaths since the start of the pandemic, according to Johns Hopkins University.COVID lockdowns may have no clear benefit vs other voluntary measures, international study shows125-year mini ice age linked to the plague and fall of empiresEARTH 8 February 2016By Penny SarchetThe Course of Empire: The Destruction (1836) by Thomas ColeEmpires caught a chillNew York Historical Society/GettyWinter was coming. In AD 536, the first of three massive volcanic eruptions ushered in a mini ice age. It coincided with an epidemic of the plague, the decline of the eastern Roman Empire, and sweeping upheavals across Eurasia.Now we have the first evidence that the disruption to climate continued a lot longer than a decade, as was previously thought. The extended cold period lasted until around 660, affecting Europe and Central Asia, and perhaps the rest of the world too.The work builds on research that used ice cores to identify three significant volcanic eruptions in the years 536, 540 and 547. Now Ulf Büntgen at the Swiss Federal Research Institute in Birmensdorf and his colleagues have used tree ring data from Europe and Central Asia to show that decades of cooler summers – in some cases 4 °C cooler – ensued, probably caused by volcanic particulates in the atmosphere.Over this time, average summer temperatures would have been roughly 2 °C below those from 1961 to 1990, the standard reference period for studies of this kind.This long cold spell coincided with a period of widespread social turmoil across Eurasia, including the plague sweeping across Eastern Europe, Chinese dynasties changing, the Slavs expanding across Europe, and the transformation of the eastern Roman empire into the Byzantine empire.“There was dramatic social, cultural, and political change in this period,” says Shaun Tougher, a historian at Cardiff University, UK, who was not involved in the research. “Perhaps aspects of the changes were exacerbated by a colder period.”Stress on societies“Suggesting climate caused complex events in human history like the fall of empires is controversial,” says geographer Francis Ludlow of Trinity College Dublin in Ireland. “Ultimately [though], there can be very little doubt that these sorts of abrupt climatic events place great stress on societies, and can sometimes tip them over the edge.”This could have helped speed the demise of what remained of the Roman empire, by then restricted to the Mediterranean, which lost land and power during the mini ice age. The shorter growing season would have affected crops, and this could have led to famine and made people more vulnerable to disease.“Such climatic disruption could have contributed to the movement of plague-bearing rodents into the empire,” says historian Doug Lee of the University of Nottingham, UK.It wasn’t just the Romans who suffered – the eastern Türk empire around modern-day Mongolia and the Northern Wei and Sui dynasties in China also fell during this time.Weather winnersThis period is what historians refer to as Late Antiquity, and so Büntgen’s team named the cooling event the Late Antique Little Ice Age.It could have been more severe than the later, better-known Little Ice Age. “Based on this study, we would say this episode was the coolest over the last 2000 years,” says Büntgen.The period had its share of winners too. “In any period of changing climate, there will be some regions and societies that are better able to adapt,” says Ludlow.The Arabian peninsula may have been one area that benefited, perhaps becoming less dry during this time, says Büntgen. “We argue that this was a time when increased vegetation in this area could have been useful for nomadic people or for feeding camels.” This could helped Arab peoples move into Europe and take land from the Romans.Other winners during this period include the Lombards, who invaded Italy, and the early Slavic languages, which seemed to have spread across most of continental Europe at this time from an unknown homeland.Journal reference: Nature Geosciences, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2652Read more: AD 536: The year that winter never endedRead more: 125-year mini ice age linked to the plague and fall of empiresNote the evidence is overwhelming that global warming is not happening as solar activity goes blank and winters happen earlier and longer.This question is only a red herring without any foundation but there is very real issue as to whether the coronavirus was bioengineered and not sourced from bats or wet markets.How COVID-19 was madeThere is ongoing censorship, even in the scientific literature, to restrict publication of information contrary to the accepted narrative that COVID-19 is naturally-occurring.What follows is not an analysis of motivations or an indictment meant to assign blame, but a history of scientific investigation that eventually led to COVID-19.A recent news article published in the scientific journal Nature noted, that while it is important to find the origin of COVID-19 to prevent reinfection, it has been difficult pinpointing the source.“It is quite possible we won’t find it. In fact, it would be exceptionally lucky if we land on something,” said Lucy van Dorp, a geneticist from University College London.It may indeed be impossible to identify a natural source, if COVID-19 was the product of bioengineering…. Read more details at this site.The fact that no natural source of COVID-19 has been identified, that scientific evidence exists suggesting bioengineering and the clear ability to do so, all demand an expanded investigation as to its origin.Climate, Ecology, and Infectious DiseaseCSUN History Professor Explores Similarities Between COVID-19 and Bubonic Plagueon August 31, 2020An illustration from the 14th century of how people saw the plague. Image courtesy of Clementine OliverSeveral centuries may have passed, but California State University, Northridge history professor Clementine Oliver has noticed several parallels between the current COVID-19 crisis and the bubonic plague of the 14th century, including culture shifts and changes in society that resulted from both pandemics.Also known as the “Black Death” because one of its most common symptoms, blackened and swollen lymph nodes, the bubonic plague widely affected Europe and Asia. About 25 million people died due to it between 1346 and 1351.Oliver noted similarities between the actual viruses — the plague had a pneumonic form that can be spread through coughing and breathing, like COVID-19 — as well as similarities in how society responded to the viruses.CSUN History Professor Explores Similarities Between COVID-19 and Bubonic PlagueAdditional Reasons for Being Concerned: BioterrorChina bubonic plague: Beijing seals off village as panicked experts confirm black deathCHINESE officials have been forced to close off a village in the country after an outbreak of the bubonic plague this week.By BILL MCLOUGHLINPUBLISHED: 11:58, Tue, Aug 11, 2020China bubonic plague: Beijing seals off village as panicked experts confirm black deathBubonic Plague emergence near Wuhan ‘sowing seeds for worst pandemic in history’ revealedTHE Bubonic Plague has been confirmed to have infected one person in China's Inner Mongolia province, with authorities placing the city of Bayan Nur under a level three warning for epidemic control, but it is not the first time the infamous disease has wreaked havoc.By CALLUM HOAREPUBLISHED: 00:50, Tue, Jul 7, 2020| UPDATED: 10:27, Tue, Jul 7, 2020Solar “Grand Minima” Preparedness Plan i.e. Little Ice Age Preparedness PlanBy James Marusekhttp://www.breadandbutterscience.com/GMDPP.pdfThe second threat is the Bubonic Plague. Yersinia Pestis is a pathogen that has undergone large-scale genetic flux. Global cooling at the beginning of the Dark Ages began in 536 A.D. An outbreak of the Bubonic Plague struck Constantinople 6 years later. It was caused by a very deadly variant of the Yersinia Pestis bacillus that used fleas (and rats) as a plague transport mechanism. This plague was referred to as the Plague of Justine.As it swept from the Middle East to the Mediterranean Basin, approximately 50 percent of population perished. Impact, 2009 James A. Marusek 35 Global cooling at the beginning of the first Little Ice Age began in 1315 A.D. An outbreak of the Bubonic Plague struck the Chinese Gobi Desert 15 years later.This deadly variant of the Yersinia Pestis bacillus killed 35 million Asians and spread westward where it killed approximately 1/3 of the European population. The plague was known as the Black Death. It came in three variants: bubonic plague, primary septicemic plague, and the pneumonic plague. To date, this deadly bacillus has been responsible for 200 million human deaths.The flea/rat/human plague route still exists today. As a result, the Earth is a fertile ground for the next great plague. If a mutated form of the bubonic plague were to infect the rat population, the results could be devastating. For example, it is estimated that the number of rats living in New York City alone is in the 44-96 million range. The estimated rat population in the United States may exceed 300 million.One method to combat this threat is to destroy a critical link in the transmission route, namely the fleas. Over the past few years, many inexpensive pesticides that have been shown to be highly effective in flea control have been driven off the market. I recommend we reevaluate the safety concerns with these products in relationship with the benefits that might be gained by halting the spread of the bubonic plague. (I suspect these safety concerns have been overblown by the radical environmental movement and will not stand up to real scientific scrutiny.) Another approach is immunization. While going through basic training in the military, I underwent a series of immunization shots. One of these was for the bubonic plague. Of all the immunizations that I received in my lifetime, this was the only one that physically affected me. Almost immediately after receiving the shot, I could feel my body going wobbly. Several individuals in my squad fainted. It underlies the potency of the bubonic plague to produce death. The immunizations should be voluntary. Some individuals will have a severe reaction to this immunization. The shot is several times more potent than the Smallpox vaccination. I recommend individuals not underestimate the lethality of the Bubonic Plague and obtain this immunization.Colder and snowy winters are evidence against global warming according to the UN IPCC when they predicted the end of snow.This prediction could not be further from the truth as is the best evidence that the null hypothesis i.e. “there is no global warming” is true.Prolonged temperature drop debunks any fear of a climate crisis from warming.The flu and Covid-19 are classic winter respiratory disease not happening in the tropics. See this data on the virus and you will see it is a Northern Hemisphere health problem almost entirely.Vancouver is the earliest infected in Feb and now leads Canada with flattening the curve and few deaths and Vancouver has an unusually warm March while Eastern North America had record cold winter that is still extent. This shows the opposite of the question as also is evident during the brutal Little Ice Age.Frost fairs in London as the Thames iced over during the Little Ice AgeReferences supporting the aboveEmerging Infectious DiseasesMalaria in England in the Little Ice AgePaul Reiter, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, San Juan, Puerto RicoDISCLOSURESEmerging Infectious Diseases. 2000;6(1)·0Read CommentsAbstract and IntroductionPresent global temperatures are in a warming phase that began 200 to 300 years ago. Some climate models suggest that human activities may have exacerbated this phase by raising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Discussions of the potential effects of the weather include predictions that malaria will emerge from the tropics and become established in Europe and North America. The complex ecology and transmission dynamics of the disease, as well as accounts of its early history, refute such predictions. Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s--the coldest period of the Little Ice Age--malaria was an important cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century, when the present warming trend was well under way. The history of the disease in England underscores the role of factors other than temperature in malaria transmission.The earth's climate has always been in a state of change. The past 250 to 300 years have seen a fairly steady warming trendhttps://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414687_1The real reason germs spread in the winterBy David Robson18th October 2015Flu season is a fact of life – but until recently, no one knew why. The answer hinges on the disgusting ways that germs pass between people.IIt begins as surely as the leaves dropping off the trees. As the mercury drops and the sunlight fades, the sniffles set in. At best, it’s just a cold that leaves us with the strange feeling that we’ve swallowed a cheese grater; if we’re unlucky, our body is wracked with a high fever and aching limbs for up a week or longer. We have flu.The flu season arrives so predictably, and affects so many of us, that it’s hard to believe that scientists have had very little idea why cold weather helps germs to spread. Over the last five years, however, they have finally come up with an answer that might just offer a way to stem the tide of infection – and it revolves around a rather grim fact about the ways that your sneezes linger in the air.The fact that it is simply colder in winter can’t explain the yearly flu seasonA new understanding of influenza couldn’t come quickly enough; worldwide, up to five million people catch the illness each flu season, and around a quarter of a million die from it. Part of its potency comes from the fact that the virus changes so quickly that the body is rarely prepared for the next season’s strain. “The antibodies we’ve built up no longer recognise the virus – so we lose our immunity,” says Jane Metz at the University of Bristol. It also makes it harder to develop effective vaccines, and although you can engineer a new jab for each strain, governments often fail to persuade enough people to take it up.Germs can linger for a long time on an underground train (Credit: Getty Images)The hope is that by understanding better why flu spreads in winter, but naturally fades in summer, doctors could find simple measures to stop its spread. Previous theories had centred on our behaviour. We spend more time indoors in the winter, meaning that we’re in closer contact with other people who may be carrying germs. We’re more likely to take public transport, for instance – and as we’re pressed against spluttering commuters, misting up the windows with their coughs and sneezes, it’s easy to see how this could send us over a tipping point that allows flu to spread through a population.Without much sunlight, we may run low on Vitamin D, weakening the immune systemAnother popular idea concerned our physiology: the cold weather wears down your body’s defences against infection. In the short days of winter, without much sunlight, we may run low on Vitamin D, which helps power the body’s immune system, making us more vulnerable to infection. What’s more, when we breathe in cold air, the blood vessels in our nose may constrict to stop us losing heat. This may prevent white blood cells (the warriors that fight germs) from reaching our mucus membranes and killing any viruses that we inhale, allowing them to slip past our defences unnoticed. (It could be for this reason that we tend to catch a cold if we go outside with wet hair.)While such factors will both play some role in transmission, analyses suggested that they couldn’t completely explain the yearly emergence of flu season. Instead, the answer may have been lying invisible in the air that we breathe. Thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, cold air can carry less water vapour before it reaches the “dew point” and falls as rain. So while the weather outside may seem wetter, the air itself is drier as it loses the moisture. And a steady stream of research over the past few years has shown that these dry conditions seem to offer the perfect environment for the flu virus to flourish.In winter, we’re more likely to take public transport, pressed against wet windows and spluttering commuters (Credit: iStock)Lab experiments, for instance, have looked at the way flu spreads among groups of guinea pigs. In moister air, the epidemic struggles to build momentum, whereas in drier conditions it spreads like wildfire. And comparing 30 years’ worth of climate records with health records, Jeffrey Shaman at Columbia University and colleagues found that flu epidemics almost always followed a drop in air humidity.In fact, the overlap of the graphs was so close, “you could pretty much put one on top of each other,” says Metz, who together with Adam Finn, recently reviewed all the evidence for the Journal of Infection. The finding has now been replicated many times including analyses of the 2009 Swine flu pandemic.In winter, you are breathing a cocktail of dead cells, mucus and viruses from everyone who has visited the room recentlyThat’s counter-intuitive – we normally think that the damp makes us ill, rather than protects us from disease. But to understand why, you need to grasp the peculiar dynamics of our coughs and sneezes. Any time we splutter with a cold, we expel a mist of particles from our nose and mouths. In moist air, these particles may remain relatively large, and drop to the floor. But in dry air, they break up into smaller pieces – eventually becoming so small that they can stay aloft for hours or days. (It’s a bit like the mist you get when you turn a hose pipe to its finest spray.) The result is that in winter, you are breathing a cocktail of dead cells, mucus and viruses from anyone and everyone who has visited the room recently.What’s more, water vapour in the air seems to be toxic to the virus itself. Perhaps by changing the acidity or salt concentration in the packet of mucus, moist air may deform the virus’s surface, meaning that it loses the weaponry that normally allows us to attack our cells. In contrast, viruses in drier air can float around and stay active for hours – until it is inhaled or ingested, and can lodge in the cells in your throat.There are some exceptions to the general rule. Although the air on aeroplanes is generally dry, it does not seem to increase the risk of catching influenza – perhaps because the air conditioning itself filters out any germs before they have a chance to circulate. And although the dry air seems to fuel the spread of flu in the temperate regions of Europe and North America, some contradictory results suggest the germs may act somewhat differently in more tropical areas.In particularly warm and wet conditions, the virus may end up sticking to more surfaces within a roomOne explanation is that in particularly warm and wet conditions of a tropical climate, the virus may end up sticking to more surfaces within a room. So although it can’t survive in the air so well, the flu virus could instead be thriving on everything that you touch, making it more likely to pass from hand to mouth.To understand why dry air makes us ill, you need to understand the peculiar dynamics of our coughs and sneezes (Credit: Getty Images)But in the northern hemisphere at least, these findings could offer a simple way to kill the germs while they are still hanging in the air. Tyler Koep, then at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, has estimated that simply running an air humidifier in a school for one hour could kill around 30% of the viruses flying around the air. Similar measures could (almost literally) pour cold water on other disease hotspots – such as hospital waiting rooms or public transport. “It would be a way of curbing the large outbreaks that occur every few years as the flu virus changes,” he says. “The potential impact in the cost of work days missed, schools days missed, and healthcare, would be substantial.”Can wearing a surgical mask help prevent a cold? Not always (Credit: Getty Images)Shaman is now working on further trials, though he thinks that it will involve a tricky balancing act. “Though higher humidity is associated with lower survival rates for influenza, there are other pathogens, such as pathogenic mould, that thrive at higher humidity,” he says. “So care must be taken with humidification – it's not solely beneficial.”The scientists are keen to emphasise that measures like vaccines and good personal hygiene are still the best ways to protect yourself; using water vapour to kill the germs would just offer an additional line of attack. But when you are dealing with an enemy as mercurial and pervasive as the flu virus, you need to use every possible weapon in your arsenal.https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151016-the-real-reason-germs-spread-in-the-winterThe complexity of climate and viruses make models false predictors. “… we have massively overestimated the fatality of covid-19.” Stanford Professor. Pestilence rises as earth cools.Stanford Professor: Data Indicates We’re Severely Overreacting To CoronavirusPerspectives on the Pandemic:Empty streets in New YorkDealing with Coronavirus, a fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.Dr John P.A. Ioannidis is a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.In an analysis published Tuesday, Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis — co-director of the university’s Meta-Research Innovation Center and professor of medicine, biomedical data science, statistics, and epidemiology and population health — suggests that the response to the coronavirus pandemic may be “a fiasco in the making” because we are making seismic decisions based on “utterly unreliable” data. The data we do have, Ioannidis explains, indicates that we are likely severely overreacting.“The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco,” Ioannidis writes in an opinion piece published by STAT on Tuesday.“Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable,” the statistician writes. “How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?”The woefully inadequate data we have so far, the meta-research specialist argues, indicates that the extreme measures taken by many countries are likely way out of line and may result in ultimately unnecessary and catastrophic consequences. Due to extremely limited testing, we are likely missing “the vast majority of infections” from COVID-19, he states, thus making reported fatality rates from the World Health Organization “meaningless.”“Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes,” Ioannidis explains. With very limited testing in many health systems, he suggests, that “selection bias” may only get worse going forward.Ioannidis then zooms in on the “one situation” where “an entire, closed population was tested”: the Diamond Princess cruise ship’s quarantined passengers. While the fatality rate was 1.0%, he points out, the population was largely elderly, the most at-risk demographic. Projected out onto the age structure of the U.S. population, he calculates, the death rate is more like 0.125%, with a range of 0.025% to 0.625% based on the sample size:Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.“That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done,” Ioannidis stresses. “A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”For those who argue that the high fatality rate among elderly people indicates that the death rate cannot be as low as 0.05%, the professor notes that “even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.” (Read the full opinion piece here.)The climate conundrum rising CO2 despite lockdowns verifies natural sources so dominate the human emissions are immaterial.Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2January 03:415.46 ppmJanuary 02:415.14 ppmJanuary 01:415.54 ppmDecember 31:415.15 ppmDecember 30:415.23 ppmLast Updated: January 4, 2021Mauna Loa Global Monitoring Laboratory.Brazilian scientists and academics write an Open Letter on the “science” of the #coronavirus pandemicCharles Rotter / 4 hours ago May 31, 2020From CONEXÃPOLÍTICAThe coordinator of the statement is Marcos Nogueira Eberlin. He is a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of Campinas. After postdoctoral work at Purdue, he founded the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, growing it into a highly distinguished lab and supervising some 200 graduate and post-doctoral students, scientists who today work as researchers and professionals all around the globe.Text of letter:The “science” of the PandemicDuring this pandemic, the term “science” has been used “ad nauseam”, that is, has been repeated to exhaustion: “Science, science, science”, “I’m pro-science”, “For from the science, through the science and to the science I guide my decisions and acts” and “I am, therefore, fully right to do so”. It is clear that the intention here is to lead all of us to the idea of ​​decisions based on something unquestionable and infallible, as scientific as law, as the law of gravity.Groups of “science experts” or famous YouTube scientists, many of them still “beginners” in science, some of them with a minimal or no experience in fighting pandemics, are selected by the establishment and the media to give “scientific aura” for the lockdown and the condemnation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an ineffective drug; worse, as a deadly poison.That disastrous apocalyptic simulations from the “Imperial College” – this pompous name that brings us to the idea of ​​a center of excellence of infallible, omnipotent and unquestionable knowledge, an “College of the Empire” – are being used to place everyone at home, and then, to compare data as being the absolute reference of the truth. “We did something and as a result, we reduced those many deaths. Therefore: ‘blessed be the science!’”.But what kind of “science” is that to which they are appealing? And who, in the name of this “science”, would be allowed to speak? Science (I know that there are controversies, as scientists even debate on its meaning) is “the dispassionate search for the truth about the Universe and life”. But ironically, we seek truths that we don’t even know what those truths would be like, or where they would be found. For this reason, sometimes, ironically, even when scientists find a truth that is indeed true, yet they doubt that they have found it. We literally zigzag in the dark, searching for solutions to our problems. Therefore, we sometimes say that: “eating eggs is bad, it increases cholesterol”; and sometimes: “eggs are good, eat at ease”.Richard Feynman put it this way: “Science is the culture of doubt”. And I would add, “science is the culture of debate, of divergence of opinions”.Rarely, there are situations in which we reach consensus in science, even a momentary consensus. Some defend the “Big Bang” and the theory of evolution, others, including myself, are skeptical of them. Some defend with data and papers the central role of men in global warming, others defend, with the same data and papers, that human activity is irrelevant. Scientists are human beings, therefore, skeptics and enquirers who can and should speak for themselves, like all scientists have the right to do, but NEVER A SCIENTIST OR A GROUP OF THEM CAN DECLARE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!Nobody, absolutely nobody is allowed to speak for science or declare that he is “been guided” by science! In times of pandemic, this impossibility is even greater, as we face an unknown enemy. Data is still being collected and researches are being performed and published by scientists divided by their worldviews, and by their political and party preferences.Whoever said he acted in the name of science, dishonestly usurped science prestige. For what type of “science” is this, unanimous and consensual, that no one has ever heard of? Could someone give me its address so I can confirm its consent? Its phone, email and WhatsApp?As for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the inevitable scientific clash between theses is clear when renowned scientists from around the world and in Brazil – such as virologist Paolo Zanotto (with 7,400 scientific citations) and doctors Didier Raoult (with 148,000 citations), Philip M. Carlucci and Vladimir Zelenko – defend its use based on studies and articles, whereas other scientists, also renowned and based on the same or other studies and articles, condemn it. Numerous countries such as the USA, Spain, France, Italy, India, Israel, Russia, Costa Rica and Senegal use the drug (HCQ) to fight covid-19, whereas other countries refrain from using HCQ as one of the strategies to contain the pandemic, betting on other controversial tactics.Who then speaks here in the name of “science”? Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”? Where is such authorization found?One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish with it the “sacred mantle of science”.Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”. But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies. Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”? Others have developed atom bombs. Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.The Manaus’ study with chloroquine (CQ) performed here in Brazil and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [1], is emblematic to this discussion of “science”. Scientists there used, the manuscript reveals, lethal doses in debilitated patients, many in severe conditions and with comorbidities. The profiles of the groups do not seem to have been “randomized”, since a clear “preference” in the HIGH DOSE group for risk factors is noted. Chloroquine, which is more toxic than HCQ, was used, and it seems that they even made “childish mistakes” in simple stoichiometric calculations, doubling the dosage with the error. I’m incapable of judging intentions, but justice will do it. The former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta quoted this study, supported it, and based on it, categorically stated: “I do not approve HCQ because I am based on ‘science, science, science’!”.Another study published by Chinese researchers in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and which is still persistently used against HCQ was also at least revolting [2]. In it, the authors declared: “we administer 1,200 mg for 3 days, followed by 800 mg for 12 to 21 days, in patients with moderate to severe symptoms”. In other words, they gave a huge dosage of the drug that could reach the absurdity of 20 grams in the end, and it given was too late to patients (HCQ should be administered in the first symptoms or even earlier). And even worse, overdosing on HCQ or any other drug for severe cases is poisonous. What do you think, was it good science? The recommended dosage in Brazil, since May 20th, 2020, by the new Ministry of Health, for mild symptoms is 2 times 400 mg in the first day (every 12 hours) and 400 mg for 5 days for a total of 2.8 grams.In other published studies, also in these internationally renowned journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and BMJ [3-5], once again, “problems” are clearly noted, since or the patients were randomized in irregular ways, placing older, more susceptible or most severe and hypoxemic patients in the higher (lethal) dose groups, or more men (almost 3 times more deadly by covid than women), or more black people (in the USA, black people have displayed higher mortality) and more smokers, and where most of the deaths occurred in the first days of the studies (signs that were deaths of critically ill patients, who at this stage would be more “intoxicated” than “treated” with HCQ), or they administered HCQ isolated, when it is known that it is necessary to associate HCQ at least with azithromycin. One of these studies [5] administered HCQ only on the sixteenth day of symptoms (for really early treatment, HCQ administration should be started up to fifth day), in other words, at the end of the disease, when the drug can do little good or nothing to the patient.These studies indicate that some scientists either forgot how “science” is done or that there is a huge effort to disprove, whatever it takes, that HCQ works. How can someone or even Councils and Academies of Medicine cite such studies as the “science” of their decisions? How can that be?On the contrary, the study published – and today with more than 3 thousand patients tested – and carried out by Dr. Didier Raoult in France [6], using the correct dosage and at the right time, with a very low mortality rate (0.4%), and the Prevent Senior’s clinical experience in Brazil – also quite encouraging – are disqualified with very “futile” arguments such as: “Didier Raoult is a controversial and unworthy researcher”, “At Prevent Senior Clinic they were not sure of the diagnosis” (but none of the hospitalized patients with clear COVID symptoms died), “Placebo effect” (what a supernatural power of inducing our mind that reduces mortality from 40% to zero, I want this placebo!), “Study performed by a health plan company” (I do not doubt that this people indeed want to save lives, because the patients were their customers who pay their bills), and similar ephemeral arguments.I post on my Facebook, almost daily, works, studies and incredible reports in favor of HCQ. Many sympathize with me, but some are vehemently opposed, and confront me with arguments such as: “how can such a respected scientist lose his prestige to defend such a president [Bolsonaro]?”. Some of them I know personally, others I search on their profiles. They may exist, I know, but I haven’t found even one of these Facebook friends so far who is not a leftist, fight against the current president of Brazil and, as a rule, is in favor of the clumsy #StayAtHome.But the most important question I think it should be ask is this: are we absolutely certain by “science” that HCQ is efficient and saves lives? No, we are not. The chance is high, but certainly no scientist is sure about it. In a few years, we will know better. Are we then absolutely certain today that HCQ does not work? Of course we are not, no one honestly is certain of it. Therefore, I want to leave the “science of doubt” aside, since scientists diverge, and appeal to another area: the law. Here in Brazil the use of HCQ has even been questioned to the supreme court asking judges to settle the debate based on “science”. Nobody knows, however, who will speak “in the name of science”. But there is, in Law, a unquestionable and consensual position that could be used to define the dilemma:“In dubio pro reo”. In other words, in case of doubt, favor or absolv the defendant (in this case, the HCQ).If there is doubt by “science”, and a plausible possibility is the cure with HCQ, and if the drug is cheap (nearly free), available and distributed by several pharmaceutical companies ( in Brazil by Cristália, Apsen, EMS, Armed Forces , Sanofi-Aventis), and since it has minimal side effects in acute dosages of only 5 days (many take the drug daily for years), similar to all drugs (see aspirin and paracetamol), and considering that the defendant is likely to face a higher risk of life, if not medicated, then we should all be PRO-LIFE!THAT ALL, ABSOLUTELY ALL BRAZILIANS WHO WISH TO DO SO, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH HCQ.It’s a fair legal decision. And that is it.This is science, not the “science” that I like or the “science” that others have appropriated it, but the “science” that we have here and now, based on the current facts, based on reason.Finally, let us all remember that in the face of a new disease and its extremely rapid progression in the most debilitated patients with very serious complications, and so many uncertainties in the diagnosis, and as we don’t treat papers or health forms, but PEOPLE, it is imperative to the doctor look face to face their patients and decide invoking not the “science of some”, but the valuable compass of medicine that has saved many lives since the beginnings of medicine: “THE CLINIC IS SOVEREIGN!”Prof. Marcos N. Eberlinhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/31/brazilian-scientists-and-academics-write-an-open-letter-on-the-science-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/Original post: By James Barrett DailyWire.comLIST OF EXPERTS/STUDIES/ANALYSES CHALLENGING COVID-19 PANIC (VIEW AS SLIDESHOW)COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, Californiahttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054361v1.full.pdfhttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20050542v1.full.pdfA Conversation with Knut Wittkowski, PhD, Apr 1-2, 2020In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable datahttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1.full.pdfTop Israeli prof claims simple stats show virus plays itself out after 70 daysGermany’s 'Wuhan' has 15 per cent infection rate and low death tollCoronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measureshttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20059618v1.full.pdfCOVID-19, Urgent Reassessment, Diagnosis and Basic Principles of Infectiology: Open Letter from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel - Global ResearchSARS-CoV-2: fear versus dataHas Sweden Found the Right Solution to the Coronavirus? | National Review12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic - Global ResearchSunlight destroys virus quickly, new govt. tests find, but experts say pandemic could last through summerhttps://www.nber.org/papers/w26917.pdfList of experts/studies/analyses challenging covid-19 panicMore plague therefore challenges alarmist science pushing global warming.