Coronavirus prep

Options
1…250251253255256…484

Replies

  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    @GaleHawkins
    Thanks for the video. Very interesting and it certainly shows a reason to find fructose concerning as it relates to COVID. Certainly, does not describe a protective armor that the podcast woman mentioned. But I am glad that she said what she said or I would have never some across the information you shared in this video.

    After watching, I tried doing my own searches and the best I could add was this: https://www.lakanto.com/blogs/news/sugar-causes-physical-health-complications

    Maybe I should tell my husband to stop eating his Jujubes. :wink: Especially on the plane!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 37,375 Community Helper
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @AnnPT77
    Hey Ann, yes, thank you for the suggesting of the testing. We have played around with all sorts of ideas regarding traveling, not traveling, careful timing for quarantining, as well as the testing. Up until last weekend, we thought the testing would be our solution. THEN, I came across an MIT article: https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should-i-be-tested

    Yes, it was from July, so maybe it is no longer accurate and reflective of the current testing capabilities. But the comment that caught my eye were:

    -The diagnostic test, known as a “PCR test,” works by detecting genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the nose and upper throat. A study that examined false-negative rates post-exposure, found that during the four days of infection prior to symptom onset, the probability of a false negative on the PCR test went from 100 percent on Day 1 to 67 percent on Day 4. And even on the day individuals began showing symptoms, the false negative rate was still 38 percent, dropping to 20 percent three days after symptom onset. Of course, much depends on the sensitivity of the particular test being used. MIT Medical is using a test that has been shown to have a false-negative rate of less than 5 percent five days post exposure.

    -All of this is why we’re not recommending that people make decisions about their activities or contacts based on the results of a negative test shortly after possible exposure. For example, it’s not a good idea to fly into Boston on a crowded flight, get a COVID-19 diagnostic test within a day or two of arrival, and then, based on a negative result, visit your elderly grandparents. The only thing that negative test can tell you is that, at that particular moment in time, your sample did not show viral levels high enough to be reliably measured. It does not mean you were not exposed and infected during your travels. It does not mean you were not exposed and infected after your arrival. Do you want to visit your grandparents after flying into Boston? Self quarantine for 14 days first.

    two other interesting article on testing were:
    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/06/how-does-covid-19-antigen-test-work
    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/08/did-we-have-covid-19

    The question IMO isn't whether it's 100% certain-sure. It's only partially indicative. A *positive* test would be actionable. A negative one *might* be *somewhat* calming. That was my point. Yes, he could get Covid on the plane on the way home, so higher likelihood of false positive. He could get it on the way down, while in Florida . . . etc., with different probabilities of detection on arrival at home. It's a data point, a flawed one, for sure not a panacea.

    I'm not trying to trivialize your dilemmas, not at all. It's not "a solution". I was trying to be clear that I thought it was a probabilistic data point, maybe worth having in the mix for decision-making. For certainty? Quarantine would be the closest bet. But that's pretty inconvenient/unpleasant.
  • shaumom
    shaumom Posts: 1,003 Member
    I didn't think I'd seen this information here, but this was new information to me on covid and what might be involved that seemed to be worth keeping track of. Just to see if this information ends up being important later.

    The three big things that stood out to me were:
    - the prevalence severe covid infections matches the estimates of mast cell activation disorder prevalence.
    - Drugs inhibiting mast cells (MCs) and their mediators show promise in Covid-19.
    - None of the treated MCAS patients studied- so those who are taking drugs that inhibit mast cells - had severe cases of covid OR death. This is really unusual, because with MCAS patients, they are more likely to die or have severe case of whatever disease they have. So not doing that with covid, whatever the reason, looks like it could be helpful for research, you know?


    "Covid-19 Hyperinflammation and Post-Covid-19 Illness May Be Rooted in Mast Cell Activation Syndrome" in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

    https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30732-3/fulltext
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    @AnnPT77
    I appreciate all you are suggesting as help for me. The issue with the written word is how I write and someone reads may not be the same. In an individual situation basis I am not per se "concerned" to the level that my paragraph would imply. I know my husband will take all possible precautions and I know airlines are making concerted efforts to keep passengers healthy and therefore maintain what remains of their industry. I am 99% certain that he will be fine. What I meant to convey was my stress/frustration with the everything that we/I are getting hit with due to COVID. We have all these new expectations that we have to impose on each other to stay safe and healthy and have altered our realities of less than 8 months ago. Nothing is normal, predictable or as easy as it previously was. I am likely whining as hubby and I have been comparatively fortunate throughout these months. Hopefully I did not make you crazy trying to solve my issues. <3
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Diatonic12 wrote: »
    This thing seems like a cluster of diseases. Rheumatic fever, TB, SARS, EBV. How long does a TB vax last. Does that mean we'll need a booster if it's been longer than 15 years. :|

    Not an area where I'm well informed, but I think the point is related to a specific TB vax (BCG), not to just any TB vax. I don't know, but would suspect that there have been various TB vaxes over the decades, maybe even multiples currently.

    I think there is only one TB vaccine. I would imagine they are still working on this. I could be wrong, but I couldn't find a different TB vaccine other than BCG.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    Oh, and I would like to add something I heard and am curious what response you all might have.

    I was listening to a podcast, and the topic was the worst food one can consume during COVID times. (The positive qualities of green tea made me remember hearing this.) The food was fructose was the worst, and the claim was that fructose forms and "armor like coating" around the COVID virus and protects it. I have never heard this even once, but wondering what anyone else might have heard.

    If it worked that way, wouldn't the COVID virus all end up in your liver instead of in your lungs? I admit biology is not my field of expertise, but when I hear something that doesn't make sense to me, I tend to question it and informaton from the same source (meaning the podcast, not you).

    That makes sense because fructose is processed in the liver, but my understanding is that this virus enters cells with ACE2 receptors, which is a lot of different cells. Specifically, the virus relies upon glycosylation of the ACE2 receptors, so an increased glucose level makes it easier for the virus to enter. Fructose causes increased glucose, as do most all carbs. That doesn't work as a "coating" around the virus, though.
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    shaumom wrote: »
    I didn't think I'd seen this information here, but this was new information to me on covid and what might be involved that seemed to be worth keeping track of. Just to see if this information ends up being important later.

    The three big things that stood out to me were:
    - the prevalence severe covid infections matches the estimates of mast cell activation disorder prevalence.
    - Drugs inhibiting mast cells (MCs) and their mediators show promise in Covid-19.
    - None of the treated MCAS patients studied- so those who are taking drugs that inhibit mast cells - had severe cases of covid OR death. This is really unusual, because with MCAS patients, they are more likely to die or have severe case of whatever disease they have. So not doing that with covid, whatever the reason, looks like it could be helpful for research, you know?


    "Covid-19 Hyperinflammation and Post-Covid-19 Illness May Be Rooted in Mast Cell Activation Syndrome" in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

    https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30732-3/fulltext

    What I find interesting about this is that the most common treatment drugs for MCAS are strong antihistamines. Quercetin is also getting a lot of attention. It's also a natural antihistamine. Quercetin combined with Stinging Nettle and Vitamin C is a very effective, all natural antihistamine. Some say bromelain makes it more effective.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    If it worked that way, wouldn't the COVID virus all end up in your liver instead of in your lungs? I admit biology is not my field of expertise, but when I hear something that doesn't make sense to me, I tend to question it and informaton from the same source (meaning the podcast, not you).

    Hey Lynn, I get your thoughts and definitely odd to not find sources. Anyhow, I was at a loss for where I heard it, but was 100% certain that I had. Then I remembered I was talking with DD about it and I had sent her the link to the youtube/postcast.

    Anyhow, here is the link, for your own perusal:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHzXWCLCiI&amp;feature=youtu.be

    and then here is a cut and paste from her recap/sources:

    1. FRUCTOSE

    PROBLEMS:
    1.increases oxidative stress
    -leading to more cardiovascular disease & diabetes
    -countries with higher availability to HFCS have more diabetes
    -US is at the top
    2.inhibits the enzyme that turns vit D into a bioavailable active form
    3.inhibits glutathione production that helps repair the damage of oxidative stress
    4.coats the coronavirus and camouflages it from human cell detection
    5.allows virus to occupy ace-2 receptor site which is the entry point for the virus to the cell
    -receptors found in gut, kidney, lung, and liver

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/10/coronavirus-ace-2-receptor/
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.11.146522v1
    https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2237
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    Using the recap phrasing from above here was an article discussing the Biorvix paper: https://phys.org/news/2020-06-sugar-coating-coronavirus-infection.html

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    If it worked that way, wouldn't the COVID virus all end up in your liver instead of in your lungs? I admit biology is not my field of expertise, but when I hear something that doesn't make sense to me, I tend to question it and informaton from the same source (meaning the podcast, not you).

    Hey Lynn, I get your thoughts and definitely odd to not find sources. Anyhow, I was at a loss for where I heard it, but was 100% certain that I had. Then I remembered I was talking with DD about it and I had sent her the link to the youtube/postcast.

    Anyhow, here is the link, for your own perusal:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHzXWCLCiI&amp;feature=youtu.be

    and then here is a cut and paste from her recap/sources:

    1. FRUCTOSE

    PROBLEMS:
    1.increases oxidative stress
    -leading to more cardiovascular disease & diabetes
    -countries with higher availability to HFCS have more diabetes
    -US is at the top
    2.inhibits the enzyme that turns vit D into a bioavailable active form
    3.inhibits glutathione production that helps repair the damage of oxidative stress
    4.coats the coronavirus and camouflages it from human cell detection
    5.allows virus to occupy ace-2 receptor site which is the entry point for the virus to the cell
    -receptors found in gut, kidney, lung, and liver

    https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/10/coronavirus-ace-2-receptor/
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.11.146522v1
    https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2237

    Again, questioning the message in the podcast, not you: 4 and 5 are self-contradictory. If fructose coats the virus in a way that camouflages it from human cell detection, how could the virus interact with the cell's ace-2 receptor sites?

    Agreed. #5 is something I've seen a lot already. #4 is not something I have seen much until the last day or so and it just doesn't fit.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    @ReenieHJ From the articles I read yesterday, if that one person actually got a positive test (not sure about this presumed positive junk) then odds are that they had COVID. As I understand, false positives are rare while false negatives have a number of causes. So i would assume that the positive first test was right and the second negative was wrong, unless "presumed" has some significance.

    These are the articles I read yesterday:
    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should-i-be-tested
    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/06/how-does-covid-19-antigen-test-work
    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/08/did-we-have-covid-19
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    @lynn_glenmont and @T1DCarnivoreRunner
    I get both your positions, I brought it up initially as a "hmmmm" from something I remembered hearing last week. My giving the link and its references today was just to provide where I encountered it since there actually seemed to be interest in discussion its possible validity. At this point in time, I do not have the background to read that study (reference #2). Did either of you have better luck? I would have had to sit with a dictionary all day to even attempt it. The only comments I can add to this discussion are that a study was actually done, a doctor bothered to read and reference it (she had plenty to talk about without referencing it), and then an organization chose to write and article on the paper after reading it. It very well could be a case of garbage in garbage out, but it is worth a pause to see if there is anything of value in that study. I hope someone can actually read it! :)

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @lynn_glenmont and @T1DCarnivoreRunner
    I get both your positions, I brought it up initially as a "hmmmm" from something I remembered hearing last week. My giving the link and its references today was just to provide where I encountered it since there actually seemed to be interest in discussion its possible validity. At this point in time, I do not have the background to read that study (reference #2). Did either of you have better luck? I would have had to sit with a dictionary all day to even attempt it. The only comments I can add to this discussion are that a study was actually done, a doctor bothered to read and reference it (she had plenty to talk about without referencing it), and then an organization chose to write and article on the paper after reading it. It very well could be a case of garbage in garbage out, but it is worth a pause to see if there is anything of value in that study. I hope someone can actually read it! :)

    My understanding is that they created models of the virus and then tried to figure out how to make antibodies that circumvent the spike proteins. It doesn't sound like they had success, but still learned more about the structure of the virus and the spike proteins. Did you understand something different?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,199 Member
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    @lynn_glenmont and @T1DCarnivoreRunner
    I get both your positions, I brought it up initially as a "hmmmm" from something I remembered hearing last week. My giving the link and its references today was just to provide where I encountered it since there actually seemed to be interest in discussion its possible validity. At this point in time, I do not have the background to read that study (reference #2). Did either of you have better luck? I would have had to sit with a dictionary all day to even attempt it. The only comments I can add to this discussion are that a study was actually done, a doctor bothered to read and reference it (she had plenty to talk about without referencing it), and then an organization chose to write and article on the paper after reading it. It very well could be a case of garbage in garbage out, but it is worth a pause to see if there is anything of value in that study. I hope someone can actually read it! :)

    My understanding is that they created models of the virus and then tried to figure out how to make antibodies that circumvent the spike proteins. It doesn't sound like they had success, but still learned more about the structure of the virus and the spike proteins. Did you understand something different?

    That's pretty much what I got, except for the part about it not sounding like they had success. It sounded to me like the modeling and gaining insight from the modeling was their goal, and that they intended all along for that insight to be used by other researchers who work on antibody and vaccine development.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    missysippy930 wrote: »
    Donald Trump and his wife test positive for Covid-19.

    Wow, just one more dynamic added to this already crazy election.

  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    missysippy930 wrote: »
    Donald Trump and his wife test positive for Covid-19.

    Wow, just one more dynamic added to this already crazy election.

    I'm sure they will be fine as he has access to levels of treatment that most people don't.

    I am sure that you are correct. But I can just imagine all that is going to go on in the news now. As it was, I regretted turning on the TV way too often these days.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    missysippy930 wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    missysippy930 wrote: »
    Donald Trump and his wife test positive for Covid-19.

    Wow, just one more dynamic added to this already crazy election.

    I'm sure they will be fine as he has access to levels of treatment that most people don't.

    But 1 month from Election Day, quarantine for 14 days, so no campaigning around the country. They will have medical attention most people don’t receive, but no one is immune and he’s in the age group for risk factor.

    That was just discussed a bit on the news. Quarantine (I think they mentioned only 10?) or two negative tests over 24 hours apart. Speculation is that the second will be the faster path to returning to public campaigning. There was also speculation that President Trump may need to change his rally format. Time will tell.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,478 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    missysippy930 wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    missysippy930 wrote: »
    Donald Trump and his wife test positive for Covid-19.

    Wow, just one more dynamic added to this already crazy election.

    I'm sure they will be fine as he has access to levels of treatment that most people don't.

    But 1 month from Election Day, quarantine for 14 days, so no campaigning around the country. They will have medical attention most people don’t receive, but no one is immune and he’s in the age group for risk factor.

    Maybe so but I firmly believe his care and monitoring will be best of the best vs. that poor little 90 yo 100 lb. old lady in the nursing home that's merely someone's mom or grandma who's...well, old already and clearly dispensable. :/

    Bitter much? Oh yeh.

    The nursing home stories were terrible and sad. In Massachusetts some people are being prosecuted and then NY state made some bad bad decisions when it came to the NYC nursing home. On the other hand, there are plenty of nursing homes that managed to properly protect and care for their residents.

Categories