Biology and Medicine

[Doc]

https://scitechdaily.com/startup-coloss ... -bad-idea/

Startup Colossal Biosciences Wants To Bring Woolly Mammoths Back From Extinction – It Might Not Be Such a Bad Idea

"CRISPR"

[Typhoon]

Tinnitus.

Science | Electric shocks to the tongue can quiet chronic ringing ears

[Doc]

Tinnitus.

Science | Electric shocks to the tongue can quiet chronic ringing ears

I have had chronic tinnitus since about march 2020 . Never had it before that. Maybe a 9v battery?

[Typhoon]

Tinnitus.

Science | Electric shocks to the tongue can quiet chronic ringing ears

I have had chronic tinnitus since about march 2020 . Never had it before that. Maybe a 9v battery?

Here's a link to the full paper

Bimodal neuromodulation combining sound and tongue stimulation reduces tinnitus symptoms in a large randomized clinical study

More details should be provided in the "Materials and Methods" section of the paper.

Hope that this is of some help.

[Doc]

Tinnitus.

Science | Electric shocks to the tongue can quiet chronic ringing ears

I have had chronic tinnitus since about march 2020 . Never had it before that. Maybe a 9v battery?

Here's a link to the full paper

Bimodal neuromodulation combining sound and tongue stimulation reduces tinnitus symptoms in a large randomized clinical study

More details should be provided in the "Materials and Methods" section of the paper.

Hope that this is of some help.

Thanks! It is annoying at times. I will see if I can figure this out to give it a try.

[Typhoon]

Biophysical J | Why exercise builds muscles: titin mechanosensing controls skeletal muscle growth under load

Abstract
Muscles sense internally generated and externally applied forces, responding to these in a coordinated hierarchical manner at different timescales. The center of the basic unit of the muscle, the sarcomeric M-band, is perfectly placed to sense the different types of load to which the muscle is subjected. In particular, the kinase domain of titin (TK) located at the M-band is a known candidate for mechanical signaling. Here, we develop a quantitative mathematical model that describes the kinetics of TK-based mechanosensitive signaling and predicts trophic changes in response to exercise and rehabilitation regimes. First, we build the kinetic model for TK conformational changes under force: opening, phosphorylation, signaling, and autoinhibition. We find that TK opens as a metastable mechanosensitive switch, which naturally produces a much greater signal after high-load resistance exercise than an equally energetically costly endurance effort. Next, for the model to be stable and give coherent predictions, in particular for the lag after the onset of an exercise regime, we have to account for the associated kinetics of phosphate (carried by ATP) and for the nonlinear dependence of protein synthesis rates on muscle fiber size. We suggest that the latter effect may occur via the steric inhibition of ribosome diffusion through the sieve-like myofilament lattice. The full model yields a steady-state solution (homeostasis) for muscle cross-sectional area and tension and, a quantitatively plausible hypertrophic response to training, as well as atrophy after an extended reduction in tension.

Significance
How intracellular signaling in muscle cells organizes a trophic response is a central question in exercise science, rehabilitation practice, and the study of muscle homeostasis (including development, aging, and numerous pathologies). Cells use time-integrated mechanical stimuli to initiate signaling cascades in a way that depends on the strength and duration of the signal. Our work provides a quantitative analytical rationale for a mechanosensitive mechanism for trophic signaling in muscle and gives evidence that the titin kinase domain is a good candidate for hypertrophic mechanosensing. We expect advances in targeted exercise medicine to be forthcoming, specifically if the exact structure of the mechanosensing complex bound to the TK domain and its downstream signaling cascade are studied in more detail.

[Typhoon]

Nature | Common antidepressant slashes risk of COVID death

Fluvoxamine is both inexpensive and highly effective at preventing mild COVID-19 from turning severe.

It would good be if further clinical trials confirmed this reported result.

[Doc]

Nature | Common antidepressant slashes risk of COVID death

Fluvoxamine is both inexpensive and highly effective at preventing mild COVID-19 from turning severe.

It would good be if further clinical trials confirmed this reported result.

It is apparently, among other things, a strong anti-inflammatory drug.

Description of lancet study Plus a a pretty good explanation as to how SSRI anti depressant drugs work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrYj5VJKLIs

qrYj5VJKLIs

[Typhoon]

Luvox is overkill imo.

Many blood pressure meds are ACE-2 inhibitors and will block the spike protein. Why diddle with neurotransmitters if it’s not necessary?

If someone does get COVID-19, they have a increased chance of survival . . . with the side-effect that they'll be as happy as clams

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

ZFAMYmcNpK4

YYJpNLWlp8U

[Doc]

ZFAMYmcNpK4

YYJpNLWlp8U

[Typhoon]

APS | Altering Airflows and Stopping Drops

Two new studies provide insights into the efficacy of masks under different usage conditions, results that could help improve strategies for lowering transmission of COVID-19.

[Doc]

APS | Altering Airflows and Stopping Drops

Two new studies provide insights into the efficacy of masks under different usage conditions, results that could help improve strategies for lowering transmission of COVID-19.

Their results also showed that, for both sets of masks, the masks became significantly better at blocking drops as they became wetter.

Saha notes that masks absorb fluid that condenses from the wearer’s breath and sweat and, in humid environments, from the air; thus, understanding how a mask’s efficacy changes as it gets wetter is vital. The results imply that wet masks do not necessarily need to be switched out with dry ones; in fact, doing that could reduce the mask’s ability to protect. However, Saha notes that wetness may deteriorate other properties such as the mask’s breathability and how well it fits, which the team did not measure.

That is significantly different from what was "*known to be true*" previously.

So we are two years into a pandemic and this is just being studied now?

They say "follow the science" But how do you "follow the science" when it is so far behind where you are at? Just another sign of how much leadership has munged this.

[Typhoon]

APS | Altering Airflows and Stopping Drops

Two new studies provide insights into the efficacy of masks under different usage conditions, results that could help improve strategies for lowering transmission of COVID-19.

Their results also showed that, for both sets of masks, the masks became significantly better at blocking drops as they became wetter.

Saha notes that masks absorb fluid that condenses from the wearer’s breath and sweat and, in humid environments, from the air; thus, understanding how a mask’s efficacy changes as it gets wetter is vital. The results imply that wet masks do not necessarily need to be switched out with dry ones; in fact, doing that could reduce the mask’s ability to protect. However, Saha notes that wetness may deteriorate other properties such as the mask’s breathability and how well it fits, which the team did not measure.

That is significantly different from what was "*known to be true*" previously.

So we are two years into a pandemic and this is just being studied now?

They say "follow the science" But how do you "follow the science" when it is so far behind where you are at? Just another sign of how much leadership has munged this.

Well, I think you're referring to the US. If memory serves, the US CDC changed it position on masks once they became generally available.
Also, my impression is that the wearing masks was and continues to be controversial with a significant part of the US population.

In Japan, and elsewhere in E Asia, wearing a surgical-type mask in public and in places of work when one is sick to prevent spreading germs [bacteria or virus] long predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

So unlike the US, the wearing of masks, in Japan, to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus is routine and not controversial.

[Doc]

APS | Altering Airflows and Stopping Drops

Two new studies provide insights into the efficacy of masks under different usage conditions, results that could help improve strategies for lowering transmission of COVID-19.

Their results also showed that, for both sets of masks, the masks became significantly better at blocking drops as they became wetter.

Saha notes that masks absorb fluid that condenses from the wearer’s breath and sweat and, in humid environments, from the air; thus, understanding how a mask’s efficacy changes as it gets wetter is vital. The results imply that wet masks do not necessarily need to be switched out with dry ones; in fact, doing that could reduce the mask’s ability to protect. However, Saha notes that wetness may deteriorate other properties such as the mask’s breathability and how well it fits, which the team did not measure.

That is significantly different from what was "*known to be true*" previously.

So we are two years into a pandemic and this is just being studied now?

They say "follow the science" But how do you "follow the science" when it is so far behind where you are at? Just another sign of how much leadership has munged this.

Well, I think you're referring to the US. If memory serves, the US CDC changed it position on masks once they became generally available.
Also, my impression is that the wearing masks was and continues to be controversial with a significant part of the US population.

In Japan, and elsewhere in E Asia, wearing a surgical-type mask in public and in places of work when one is sick to prevent spreading germs [bacteria or virus] long predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

So unlike the US, the wearing of masks, in Japan, to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus is routine and not controversial.

Yes in the US. The original story was that masks made no difference. Then they did with the stipulation that they are not perfect in stopping COVID 19 as it is smaller than the mask are capable of filtering out. And the further stipulation that once they became wet they were worthless.

The part about getting wet didn't really make much sense to me. But OK I wore the mask to protect other people. I would limit how long I went into open to the public spaces to 15 minutes or less. I would reuse the masks after they dried in the Sun Leaving them in my car.

There have been some arguments made that being exposed to small amounts of the Virus might actually give some immunity. AS it takes quite a bit of viral load to contract COVID. Or at least it did originally. So wearing a mask that in theory would not stop COVID particules that may have been a good thing of sorts.

AS things stand right now I am questioning everything the government "experts" have to say. Certainly not taking their word for it. After all they have been wrong about so much taking their word for it would be foolish IMHO.Plus their advice at least in the US seems to be more political advice than medical advice

[Typhoon]

PNAS | An upper bound on one-to-one exposure to infectious human respiratory particles

Significance
Wearing face masks and maintaining social distance are familiar to many people around the world during the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Evidence suggests that these are effective ways to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it is not clear how exactly the risk of infection is affected by wearing a mask during close personal encounters or by social distancing without a mask. Our results show that face masks significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to social distancing. We find a very low risk of infection when everyone wears a face mask, even if it doesn’t fit perfectly on the face.

Abstract
There is ample evidence that masking and social distancing are effective in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. However, due to the complexity of airborne disease transmission, it is difficult to quantify their effectiveness, especially in the case of one-to-one exposure. Here, we introduce the concept of an upper bound for one-to-one exposure to infectious human respiratory particles and apply it to SARS-CoV-2. To calculate exposure and infection risk, we use a comprehensive database on respiratory particle size distribution; exhalation flow physics; leakage from face masks of various types and fits measured on human subjects; consideration of ambient particle shrinkage due to evaporation; and rehydration, inhalability, and deposition in the susceptible airways. We find, for a typical SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infectious dose, that social distancing alone, even at 3.0 m between two speaking individuals, leads to an upper bound of 90% for risk of infection after a few minutes. If only the susceptible wears a face mask with infectious speaking at a distance of 1.5 m, the upper bound drops very significantly; that is, with a surgical mask, the upper bound reaches 90% after 30 min, and, with an FFP2 mask, it remains at about 20% even after 1 h. When both wear a surgical mask, while the infectious is speaking, the very conservative upper bound remains below 30% after 1 h, but, when both wear a well-fitting FFP2 mask, it is 0.4%. We conclude that wearing appropriate masks in the community provides excellent protection for others and oneself, and makes social distancing less important.

SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 infection risk face mask near-field model

[Doc]

PNAS | An upper bound on one-to-one exposure to infectious human respiratory particles

Significance
Wearing face masks and maintaining social distance are familiar to many people around the world during the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Evidence suggests that these are effective ways to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it is not clear how exactly the risk of infection is affected by wearing a mask during close personal encounters or by social distancing without a mask. Our results show that face masks significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to social distancing. We find a very low risk of infection when everyone wears a face mask, even if it doesn’t fit perfectly on the face.

Abstract
There is ample evidence that masking and social distancing are effective in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. However, due to the complexity of airborne disease transmission, it is difficult to quantify their effectiveness, especially in the case of one-to-one exposure. Here, we introduce the concept of an upper bound for one-to-one exposure to infectious human respiratory particles and apply it to SARS-CoV-2. To calculate exposure and infection risk, we use a comprehensive database on respiratory particle size distribution; exhalation flow physics; leakage from face masks of various types and fits measured on human subjects; consideration of ambient particle shrinkage due to evaporation; and rehydration, inhalability, and deposition in the susceptible airways. We find, for a typical SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infectious dose, that social distancing alone, even at 3.0 m between two speaking individuals, leads to an upper bound of 90% for risk of infection after a few minutes. If only the susceptible wears a face mask with infectious speaking at a distance of 1.5 m, the upper bound drops very significantly; that is, with a surgical mask, the upper bound reaches 90% after 30 min, and, with an FFP2 mask, it remains at about 20% even after 1 h. When both wear a surgical mask, while the infectious is speaking, the very conservative upper bound remains below 30% after 1 h, but, when both wear a well-fitting FFP2 mask, it is 0.4%. We conclude that wearing appropriate masks in the community provides excellent protection for others and oneself, and makes social distancing less important.

SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 infection risk face mask near-field model

Health officials keep dancing around this. Mask limit to some extent how much viral load becomes airborn and to a lessor extent how much viral load a person that is wearing a mask inhales. I would guess the biggest factor is the type of mask followed by the way the mask is worn.

I constantly see people wearing masks below their nose. Which is ZERO protect from taking in viral load as most people breath through their nose, and wearing a mask would likely give some over confidence to the wearer in the amount of protection they were wearing.
Last year there were some comments by health officials that the masks might limit intake of viral load to the point that it some people may have achieved immunity At least from that particular mutation.


It is not whether the masks work or not but how well do they work. Initially we were told that they don't work. Which was a lie. They do to some degree. Then they said they don't work after a few minutes as they get wet. Now they are saying that they work better if they are wet.

They authors of the study you posted say it is too difficult to quantify transmission through masks. My thinking is we need new scientists.

For example. I remember years ago a study that showed blocking nasal passages with a clip during a cold significant shortened the duration of the cold. They even developed a clip, sort of a miniature headset for the nose that worked. It worked because it raised the temperature inside the nose to the point that CORONA cold virus could not survive. But I have seen ZERO about this WRT COVID 19. Maybe everyone forgot. BUt it seems much more likely the issue is there is no money in it.

[Doc]

Article from 2018 -- We have found aliens and they are within us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPQ7om598OM

nPQ7om598OM

No. Not that kind of aliens

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-ta ... -20180502/

Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses

mRNA in Lipid shells. Sounds an awful lot like mRNA vaccines.

Mostly because it is the research discoveries that made mRNA vaccines possible.

[Typhoon]

Preprint. Not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal.

bioRxiv | SARS-CoV-2 infects human adipose tissue and elicits an inflammatory response consistent with severe COVID-19

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2, has taken the lives of millions of individuals around the world. Obesity is associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. In this report, we demonstrate that human adipose tissue from multiple depots is permissive to SARS-CoV-2 infection and that infection elicits an inflammatory response, including the secretion of known inflammatory mediators of severe COVID-19. We identify two cellular targets of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adipose tissue: mature adipocytes and adipose tissue macrophages. Adipose tissue macrophage infection is largely restricted to a highly inflammatory subpopulation of macrophages, present at baseline, that is further activated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preadipocytes, while not infected, adopt a proinflammatory phenotype. We further demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detectable in adipocytes in COVID-19 autopsy cases and is associated with an inflammatory infiltrate. Collectively, our findings indicate that adipose tissue supports SARS-CoV-2 infection and pathogenic inflammation and may explain the link between obesity and severe COVID-19.

One sentence summary
Our work provides the first in vivo evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in human adipose tissue and describes the associated inflammation.

[Typhoon]

Nature | The long and tangled history of mRNA vaccines

Six decades of research and discovery to go "from lab bench to bedside".

d41586-021-02483-w_19660718.png (194.53 KiB) Viewed 3269 times

[Doc]

Nature | The long and tangled history of mRNA vaccines

Six decades of research and discovery to go "from lab bench to bedside".


d41586-021-02483-w_19660718.png

The largest issue with COViD vaccines seems to be Aspiration of injections. From my personal experience Aspiration is needed. The manufactures of COIVD vaccine instruction include aspiration. Is it possible they know something about this?

. . .

"The manufactures of COVID vaccine instruction include aspiration."

Sounds implausible at best. Source?

For example, there is no such instruction for the Pfizer - BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14471

Taken from the same instructions you link to above:
Pfizerinstructions.jpg

I've never heard of this practice until your post and link.

There are no major blood vessels at the conventional injection site - the deltoid muscle of the the upper arm / shoulder.

Anecdotally, every drug and vaccine injection that i have ever received was done without aspiration including my three COVID-19 vaccine doses.

The only time I have seen aspiration done is when a needle is purposely inserted into a vein for a transfusion or infusion.
Aspiration was done to draw blood - to confirm that the needle is properly positioned in the vein.

Well, that and bone marrow biopsy.
However, if one has a reason to have a bone marrow biopsy performed, then aspiration is the least of one's worries.

. . .


Aspiration was the standard, until around 2014 when WHO recommended dropping Aspiration. Part of the reason is that they felt that aspirating means some would have to have the needle pulled out and re-inserted if blood was present. This would lead to more people feeling discomfort and thus refusing to take injections.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28344770/

Aspiration in injections: should we continue or abandon the practice?

But the Pfizer shot instruction CLEARLY shows that it is to be an "intramuscular injection". As the only way to be sure of that is by Aspirating and there are blood vessels in the deltoid muscle otherwise the muscle would die and fall off your body. It does not matter that there are no "Major blood vessels" in it. Intramuscular means in the muscle not in the veins. The reason for that is to allow whatever is injected to slowly be released into the blood stream.

. . .

Well, yes. Intramuscular refers to injection into a muscle. The deltoid muscle as I mentioned above.

A bit of bleeding post-injection is not evidence that a major vein was hit. There are capillaries throughout the muscle tissue.

The idea is that no vein should be hit. Major or minor. That is why it is called intramuscular injection


Inadvertent injection of COVID-19 vaccine into deltoid muscle vasculature may result in vaccine distribution to distance tissues and consequent adverse reactions

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7668-5013Hamid Merchant

Correspondence to Dr Hamid Merchant, Department of Pharmacy, School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; hamid.merchant@hud.ac.uk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-141119
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Article has an altmetric score of 90

See more details
Tweeted by 121
On 1 Facebook pages
4 readers on Mendeley

Request Permissions

Ng recently raised an important concern about the inadvertent subcutaneous injection of COVID-19 vaccines that may lead to poor vaccine efficacy and adverse reactions.1 It is correct that the COVID-19 vaccines (such as AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen/J&J) are designed for administration by intramuscular injection and should not be injected intravascularly, subcutaneously or intradermally. However, the author further explained that due to the good vascularity in the muscles, the injected vaccine will reach systemic circulation quicker whereas the poor vascularity in the subcutaneous tissue can lead to vaccine failure, this is incorrect.

Most drugs injected into the muscles are meant for sustained absorption through the muscle vasculature and consequent distribution to body tissues is imperative for drugs to reach their target sites to exhibit their pharmacological and therapeutic effects. Unlike many drugs that are injected into the muscles, vaccines are not designed for absorption and distribution to systemic circulation. Once injected into the muscles, the COVID-19 vaccines spur an immune response against vaccine transfected cells. The antigen, lymphocytes and antigen-presenting cells drain through lymphatics into lymph nodes leading to humoral and cellular immune responses following vaccination. The COVID-19 vaccines absorption into systemic circulation may lead to vaccine distribution and transfection in distant tissues beyond injection site, that can cause rare serious adverse effects including autoimmune reactions against distance tissues.2

It has been recently demonstrated that direct administration of vaccine into—and distribution through systemic circulation may be responsible for platelets-adenoviral vector interaction, platelets aggregation and activation.3 This may also explain vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopaenia, also known as the thrombosis with thrombocytopaenia syndrome, leading to postimmunisation rare fatal thrombotic events like cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or the splanchnic vein thrombosis.4 Other adverse reactions of concern, such as postvaccine myocarditis/pericarditis5 and Guillain-Barré syndrome2 may also be associated with inadvertent vaccine distribution and transfection to tissues beyond injection site.

It was, therefore, cautioned that intramuscular injection of vaccine should be done with aspiration technique to avoid inadvertent vaccine administration into deltoid muscle vasculature that may lead to vaccine distribution to distance tissues which increases the risk of developing severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Poor injection technique may also cause a direct injury to the axillary nerves adjacent to the injection site in deltoid muscle that may lead to peripheral neuropathy. The consequent vaccine transfection and translation in the nerves may spur an immune response against nerve cells potentially cuasing an autoimmune nerve damage, for instance Guillain-Barré syndrome. All COVID vaccinators should be made aware of potential complications of poor injection technique; competency-based assessments may be considered for all vaccinators to improve COVID vaccine safety.

https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2021/ ... 021-141119

[Typhoon]

Science | Two decades of soldiers’ medical records implicate common virus in multiple sclerosis

Vaccines under development against Epstein-Barr virus might prevent rare, devastating disease

[Typhoon]

Given the active interest in gene therapy . . .

PNAS [2019] | Gene therapy successes point to better therapies

Despite some data concerns, two treatments for a rare pediatric killer could usher in a new wave of innovative medicines for neurological conditions.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The Illusion of Evidence Based Medicine.

There is a big flaw in the logic of evidence-based medicine as the basis for the practice of medicine as we know it, a practice based on science; one that determines care down to the level of the individual patient. This flaw is nestled in the heart and soul of evidence-based medicine, which (as we have seen over the last two years) is not free of politics. It is naive to think that data and the process of licensure of new drugs is free from bias and conflicts of interest. In fact, this couldn’t be any farther from the truth. The COVID-19 crisis of 2020 to 2022 has exposed for all to see how evidence based medicine has been corrupted by the governments, hospitalists, academia, big pharma, tech and social media. They have leveraged the processes and rationale of evidence-based medicine to corrupt the entire medical enterprise.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-i ... dGvBxQ&s=r

[Typhoon]

Nature | A TMPRSS2 inhibitor acts as a pan-SARS-CoV-2 prophylactic and therapeutic