Monday, April 10, 2023
Randomized Controlled Study: Twice-Daily Oral Zinc Helps Effectively Treat COVID-19!
Researchers from the Northern African nation of Tunisia investigate the use of twice oral zinc as a regimen targeting SARS-CoV-2. Semir Nouira at University of Monastir, Emergency Department and Laboratory Research and colleagues designed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of zinc supplementation as a potential therapy targeting SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.
Recruiting, randomizing and enrolling COVID-19 patients without end-organ failure, 231 patients were administered oral zinc and 239 participants were given a matching placebo for 15 days. The study protocol included the following primary endpoints: A) death due to COVID-19 and B) intensive care unit (ICU) admission ≤30 days post-randomization as well as secondary endpoints including A) length of hospitalization for inpatients and B) duration of COVID-19 symptoms for those outpatient subjects testing positive for the novel coronavirus. The findings suggest a twice-daily regimen of oral zinc helps treat SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.
The study team reports in the published piece in Journal Clinical Infectious Diseases that the VIZIR study was conducted in three Tunisian university referral hospitals (Fattouma Bourguiba Hospital Monastir, Sahloul Hospital Sousse, Farhat Hached Hospital Sousse) and two non-university hospitals (Ksar Hlel Hospital, Teboulba Hospital). Patients were first screened in the COVID-19 triage unit of each participating center. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before enrollment.
What did the Tunisian team discover?
Out of the total patient pool 190 of the subjects (40.4%) were ambulatory and 280 of the patients (59.6%) were hospitalized. The authors report in the peer reviewed result that at day 30 of the study [mortality was]
5% in the zinc group and 9.2% in the placebo group (OR: .68; 95% CI .34–1.35)
ICU admission rates were, respectively, 5.2% [zinc] and 11.3% (OR: .43; 95% CI .21–.87)
Combined outcome was lower in the zinc group versus the placebo group (OR: .58; 95% CI .33–.99)
Nouira and colleagues report consistent results observed in prespecified subgroups of patients aged <65 years, those with comorbidity, and those who needed oxygen therapy at baseline.
Moreover, those patients given zinc overall experienced shorter hospitalization duration than the placebo group—a difference of 3.5 days (95% CI 2.76–4.23) in the inpatient group. Also, the duration of COVID-19 symptoms decreased with zinc treatment versus the placebo subjects in the outpatient cohort (difference: 1.9 days; 95% CI .62–2.6).
The study investigators report no severe adverse events during the study.
Limitations
The authors report study limitations. These include:
Generalizability limited beyond patients with moderate clinical severity
The investigators report that they don’t know if larger doses than the amounts prescribed in this study would make a difference declaring this needs more investigation
The investigators ponder if longer treatment with zinc (over 15 days) could add more clinical benefit—they suggest the need for more data, investigation if zinc can help against risk of long COVID
Success of zinc may depend on zinc serum levels and they didn’t assess such levels in this study
Outcomes assessment completed via telephone
Investigator’s POV
A relatively strong study, the authors point out:
“To our knowledge, this study is the first well-powered, placebo-controlled clinical trial to report results of zinc for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. When administered orally to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 without end-organ failure, zinc demonstrated its efficacy to prevent ICU admission and to reduce hospital length of stay; for outpatients, zinc reduced symptom duration. Zinc should be considered for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.”
Journal article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36367144/
*******************************************
Masks Cause Headaches, Itching, and Lower Oxygen Intake
A systematic review of 2,168 studies that looked into the adverse effects of wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has found that the practice led to negative health consequences, including itching, headaches, and restriction of oxygen.
“We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second,” states the review, published in the “Frontiers in Public Health” on April 5. A meta-analysis of multiple studies found that headache was the “most frequent symptom” among mask wearers, with a prevalence of 62 percent for general mask use and up to 70 percent when using N95 masks. Shortness of breath was observed at 33 percent for general mask use and 37 percent among N95 users.
While 17 percent of surgical mask wearers experienced itching, this number was at 51 percent among users of N95. Acne prevalence among mask users was at 38 percent and skin irritation was at 36 percent. Dizziness was found to be prevalent among 5 percent of subjects.
“Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation,” the review states. “Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups.”
The restriction of oxygen uptake and hindrance in carbon-di-oxide release was identified as more significant among users of N95 masks. Continuous rebreathing of carbon dioxide results in the “right-shift of hemoglobin-O2 saturation curve.”
“Since O2 and CO2 homeostasis influences diverse down-stream metabolic processes, corresponding changes toward clinically concerning directions may lead to unfavorable consequences such as transient hypoxemia and hypercarbia, increased breath humidity, and body temperature along with compromised physiological compensations,” the review states.
The review also said that several mask-related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as symptoms of long COVID. “In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health,” it states, referring to the World Health Organization.
It suggested that the side effects of face masks be assessed based on risk-benefit analysis after taking into consideration their effectiveness against viral transmissions. If “strong empirical evidence” showing the effectiveness of masks is absent, the study recommended that wearing masks should not be mandated, “let alone enforced by law.”
Sudden Mask Policy Change, Suppressing Studies
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, existing data on respiratory viruses had shown that there was no basis for wearing masks to prevent their spread. “All the studies done in the world until 2020 showed that there is no justification for this,” Yoav Yehezkelli, a specialist in internal medicine and a lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense Forces, said in an interview with The Epoch Times in January.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the WHO issued guidelines that there was no need for wearing masks in the general public, he pointed out.
But in 2020 following the COVID-19 outbreak, recommendations on mask-wearing around the world suddenly changed “without having any new professional support to confirm that it does indeed have effectiveness against respiratory infection.”
A December letter that he co-wrote and sent to the Israel Medical Association Journal pointed to multiple studies suggesting that wearing masks can end up causing harm.
Potential negative effects include headaches, shortness of breath, a dip in blood oxygen levels, a rise in carbon dioxide levels, concentration difficulties, and bacterial contamination. The accumulation of CO2 can end up causing tiredness, blurriness, and sleepiness, he noted.
There have also been attempts to subdue studies that expose the ineffectiveness of masks. A 2023 study published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews stated that wearing masks made “little or no difference” when it came to the transmission of COVID-19.
A columnist at The New York Times published an opinion piece titled “Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work” and reached out to Cochrane for its view. The editor-in-chief at Cochrane then issued a statement saying that it’s an “inaccurate and misleading interpretation” to say the study shows that masks do not work, adding that the publication was “engaging” with the authors on updating the article’s abstract.
However, the authors refused to do so, with the lead author insisting that “there is just no evidence that [masks] make any difference … full stop.
*******************************************
Swiss National Health Authority Backs off from COVID-19 Vaccination: Recommendation Not, even for Vulnerable Populations
Recently several groups critical of the COVID-19 vaccines declared that Switzerland has banned COVID-19 vaccines. Is this true? Not quite in those terms. But the Switzerland’s Federal Health Agency (Bundesgesundheitsamt, BMG) made material changes to the national vaccination schedule that certainly hasn’t received mainstream press attention in North America.
The agency has backed away from recommending COVID-19 vaccination this spring and summer. Of course, it’s off-season for respiratory viruses, which could be part of the explanation. However, what else does the national Swiss health authority now promulgate on the topic of COVID-19 vaccination?
As mentioned above the BMG withdraws any COVID-19 recommendation for the spring and summer of 2023. However, the agency remains open for COVID-19 vaccine assessment for at-risk individuals, meaning the elderly, persons with comorbidities, those with immunosuppressed conditions.
The agency notes that a majority of the population has been vaccinated, an implicit message that the COVID-19 vaccine products do contribute to some protection against the Omicron-based variants. However, BMG also conveys that many have been infected already acknowledging that natural immunity can potentially be superior to vaccination itself while they acknowledge the overall Omicron pathogen becomes far less acute.
On that note, TrialSite recently reported that on one study in China covering the BA.5 Omicron subvariant—over 90% of the study participants infected with SARS-CoV-2 omicron were asymptomatic!
Of course, come the colder seasons later in 2023 and BMG reminds the agency will re-evaluate the recommendations.
Is BMG recommending COVID-19 vaccine for “particularly vulnerable people?”
In what could be a surprise move from a North American perspective the Swiss national health authority is backing off on any recommendation for COVID-19 vaccine. Clearly the agency has some concerns they are not overtly sharing with the masses.
BMG recommends that if individuals seek a COVID-19 vaccine they can consult with their physicians as “Vaccination can be useful in individual cases because it improves protection against serious illness for several months.”
****************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) Also here
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***********************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment