#Coronavirus Vaccine Progress

[sophsweet]

Quotes from Coronavirus Vaccine Designers and Researchers since SARS-COV1

Coronavirus Vaccine History Back in 2004, SARS vaccine trial spotlights continued peril by Helen Pearson was published in the science press. But public-health experts remain concerned that a second wave of infections could erupt, either from human contact with infected animals or by the virus escaping from laboratory samples.Pearson, Helen SARS vaccine trial spotlights continued peril. Nature…

[dpiresearchofficial]

Influenza Vaccines Market Size to Surpass US$ 13.7 Billion by 2032 DPI Research

Influenza Vaccines Market to Garner $13.7 Billion, Globally, By 2032 at 7.2% CAGR: DPI Research

[covid-safer-hotties]

They develop a mask that lights up when it detects the Coronavirus. It would signify great progress in case detection - Published Aug 5, 2024

Scientists at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are trying to apply the technology that worked to fight other diseases to this pandemic.

This invention could help stop the spread of COVID-19. A team of scientists from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) develop a mask that glows when contaminated by the new coronavirus. It would greatly help in the fight against this global pandemic.

According to Business Insider, in 2014, the MIT bioengineering laboratory began to develop sensors to detect the Ebola virus when it underwent lyophilization (a dehydration process) on a piece of paper. This same technology was adapted to address the Zika virus outbreak.

Again, as part of their work on this subject, they’re conducting research to be able to help in the COVID-19 pandemic. In this case, they hope to create a mask that can produce a fluorescent color to identify the coronavirus. If successful, it would help complement current virus detection methods.

“As we open up our transit system, you could envision it being used in airports as we go through security, as we wait to get on a plane,” said Jim Collins, head of the MIT lab, in conversation with Business Insider.

“You or I could use it on the way to and from work. Hospitals could use it for patients as they come in or wait in the waiting room as a pre-screen of who’s infected” he added.

This could greatly facilitate the work of doctors in the midst of this pandemic. One of the peculiarities of this coronavirus, unlike previous outbreaks, is the lack of symptoms in patients that test positive, making contagion easier for those who think they’re healthy when in reality they’re just asymptomatic. Also, it would make the detection of cases much quicker.

For now, it’s just in the first phase – although expectations are very high. They hope to develop the detector’s design in a way in which the sensors can be embedded into any mask.

They hope to show in the coming weeks that this method works. “Once we’re in that stage, then it would be a matter setting up trials with individuals expected to be infected to see if it would work in a real-world setting,” Collins said.

It would just be a matter of adapting the sensors to this new coronavirus, since in 2018 this technology was able to detect the viruses that cause SARS, measles, influenza, hepatitis C, West Nile, in addition to other diseases.

“We initially did this on paper to create inexpensive paper-based diagnostics,” Collins said. “We’ve shown it can work on plastic, quartz, as well as cloth.”

The COVID-19 vaccine is expected to be part of a long process, which is still far from over. However, this mask could help lower the rate of contagion around the world.

[quasarkisses]

The world is a better place for humans than it's ever been. That is the evidence-based perspective.

Despite war, despite global warming, despite coronavirus. Despite hate and death and loss.

More humans are vaccinated and educated – with access to electricity, clean water, gas to cook food and a mattress to sleep on – than ever before in history. Leaps and bounds of progress have happened just in the last 30 years.

Do not give up hope. The world keeps becoming a better place where more humans have their basic needs met.

This is the evidence-based perspective. Through gritted teeth, we endure and improve for the betterment of all.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Oliver Darcy at CNN:

Vladimir Putin’s information war in U.S. media paid off this weekend with a key victory halfway around the world. [...] As a Republican, Johnson is in a tough spot, politically speaking. While the Republican Party was once vehemently hawkish toward Russia, viewing the post-Soviet country as its chief adversary on the international stage, it has softened considerably in recent years and much of the party actively opposes sending additional dollars to Ukraine to continue fighting Russia. It was little more than a decade ago when Mitt Romney, then the party’s standard-bearer, famously declared Russia to be “our number one geopolitical foe.” In the years since, the party has dramatically changed its tune on Russia. A CNN poll conducted last summer found that a staggering 71% of Republicans do not support additional aid to thwart Putin’s war on Ukraine.

Much of the GOP’s softening toward Russia is owed to a near-total reversal in rhetoric from right-wing media personalities and outlets, prompted in large part by Donald Trump’s ascension to power in GOP politics. While the biggest players in right-wing media once fervently championed the foreign policy doctrines of the neo-conservatives, they now follow in the footsteps of Trump and vehemently reject the views once held by the George W. Bush administration. This transition is perhaps best exemplified by Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host was once sharply critical of Putin, characterizing him in no uncertain terms as a cruel “dictator.” But in recent years, Carlson has reversed his stance, flooding the right-wing information space — which he once reigned as king over — with pro-Putin rhetoric that effectively amounts to Russian propaganda. Carlson’s stance was put on display in stark fashion recently when he traveled to Moscow to conduct a widely denounced softball chat with Putin and then proceeded to record a series of propaganda videos touting Russia’s supposed greatness.

While figures like Carlson have promoted Russia and Putin, they have simultaneously trashed Ukraine and its leader Volodymyr Zelensky, promoting conspiracy theories that the country interfered in the 2016 election and was hiding biological weapons labs. Carlson, for example, has likened Zelensky to vermin and vigorously spoken out against U.S. support for Ukraine. Right-wing commentators like Carlson have questioned why taxpayer dollars are being spent to help Ukraine defend its borders when the U.S. struggles to secure its own southern border (though a recent bipartisan bill intended to tackle both issues was rejected by hardline Republicans.)

[...] “The GOP’s shift away from support for Ukraine shows how in the Republican Party, everything flows downstream from the obsessions and priorities of right-wing propagandists,” Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at the progressive watchdog Media Matters, told me Tuesday. “Tucker Carlson and his ilk wanted to back Putin’s invasion, their relentless lies won over the party’s base, and ultimately its elected officials have adopted their position.” “We’ve seen this same pattern time and again: Fox News and the like take basic concepts like ‘it’s a good idea to get vaccinated against the coronavirus’ and ‘the January 6 insurrection was bad’ and turn them on their heads — and Republican elites inevitably follow,” Gertz added. “Governing based on what gets ratings for B.S. artists is no way to run a country.”

CNN's Oliver Darcy wrote in the Reliable Sources newsletter that the right-wing media's anti-Ukraine/pro-Putin disinformation campaign has had fatal consequences in the fight against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The Republican Party and much of the right-wing commentariat were once resolutely anti-Russia; however, beginning in the 2010s that began with Vladimir Putin's enactment of anti-LGBTQ+ laws and then Russian asset Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and eventual "Presidency", the GOP shifted from anti-Russia to pro-Russia (and consequently anti-Ukraine).

[toshootforthestars]

From the report by Beth Mole, posted 29 Feb 2024:

In a lengthy background document, the agency laid out its rationale for consolidating COVID-19 guidance into general guidance for respiratory viruses—including influenza, RSV, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, and others, though specifically not measles. The agency also noted the guidance does not apply to health care settings and outbreak scenarios. "COVID-19 remains an important public health threat, but it is no longer the emergency that it once was, and its health impacts increasingly resemble those of other respiratory viral illnesses, including influenza and RSV," the agency wrote. The most notable change in the new guidance is the previously reported decision to no longer recommend a minimum five-day isolation period for those infected with the pandemic coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Instead, the new isolation guidance is based on symptoms, which matches long-standing isolation guidance for other respiratory viruses, including influenza. "The updated Respiratory Virus Guidance recommends people with respiratory virus symptoms that are not better explained by another cause stay home and away from others until at least 24 hours after both resolution of fever AND overall symptom are getting better," the document states. "This recommendation addresses the period of greatest infectiousness and highest viral load for most people, which is typically in the first few days of illness and when symptoms, including fever, are worst." The CDC acknowledged that the eased isolation guidance will create "residual risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission," and that most people are no longer infectious only after 8 to 10 days. As such, the agency urged people to follow additional interventions—including masking, testing, distancing, hygiene, and improving air quality—for five additional days after their isolation period. "Today’s announcement reflects the progress we have made in protecting against severe illness from COVID-19," CDC Director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement. "However, we still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory viruses—this includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick." Overall, the agency argued that a shorter isolation period would be inconsequential. Other countries and states that have similarly abandoned fixed isolation times did not see jumps in COVID-19 emergency department visits or hospitalizations, the CDC pointed out. And most people who have COVID-19 don't know they have it anyway, making COVID-19-specific guidance moot, the agency argued. In a recent CDC survey, less than half of people said they would test for SARS-CoV-2 if they had a cough or cold symptoms, and less than 10 percent said they would go to a pharmacy or health care provider to get tested. Meanwhile, "The overall sensitivity of COVID-19 antigen tests is relatively low and even lower in individuals with only mild symptoms," the agency said. The CDC also raised practical concerns for isolation, including a lack of paid sick leave for many, social isolation, and "societal costs." The points are likely to land poorly with critics. “The CDC is again prioritizing short-term business interests over our health by caving to employer pressure on COVID guidelines. This is a pattern we’ve seen throughout the pandemic,” Lara Jirmanus, Clinical Instructor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in a press release last month after the news first broke of the CDC's planned isolation update. Jirmanus is a member of the People's CDC, a group that advocates for more aggressive COVID-19 policies, which put out the press release. Another member of the group, Sam Friedman, a professor of population health at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, also blasted the CDC's stance last month. The guidance will "make workplaces and public spaces even more unsafe for everyone, particularly for people who are high-risk for COVID complications," he said.

But, the CDC argues that the threat of COVID-19 is fading. Hospitalizations, deaths, prevalence of long COVID, and COVID-19 complications in children (MIS-C) are all down. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing severe disease, death, and to some extent, long COVID—we just need more people to get them. Over 95% of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the 2023–2024 respiratory season had no record of receiving the seasonal booster dose, the agency noted. Only 22% of adults got the latest shot, including only 42% of people ages 65 and older. In contrast, 48% of adults got the latest flu shot, including 73% of people ages 65 and older. But even with the crummy vaccination rates for COVID-19, a mix of past infection and shots have led to a substantial protection in the overall population. The CDC even went as far as arguing that COVID-19 deaths have fallen to a level that is similar to what's seen with flu. "Reported deaths involving COVID-19 are several-fold greater than those reported to involve influenza and RSV. However, influenza and likely RSV are often underreported as causes of death," the CDC said. In the 2022–2023 respiratory virus season, there were nearly 90,000 reported COVID-19 deaths. For flu, there were 9,559 reported deaths, but the CDC estimates the true number to be between 18,000 and 97,000. In the current season, there have been 32,949 reported COVID-19 deaths to date and 5,854 reported flu deaths, but the agency estimates the real flu deaths are between 17,000 and 50,000. "Total COVID-19 deaths, accounting for underreporting, are likely to be higher than, but of the same order of magnitude as, total influenza deaths," the agency concluded.

(say no to raw dough: CDC)

[meret118]

For many immunocompromised patients, Evusheld was supposed to offer salvation, a way of protecting people who couldn’t respond to vaccines because their T cells and B cells were impaired — perhaps by cancer, a genetic condition, or drugs taken for organ transplants. Many saw it as their path back to a pre-Covid life, or at least to seeing family and friends again after a two-year hermitage.

Yet eight months after the Food and Drug Administration first authorized the treatment, only a tiny fraction of the roughly 7 million patients who might be eligible have received it. Hundreds of thousands of doses sit on shelves in hospitals and infusion centers across the country, even as a new coronavirus variant rips through the population.

“I think it’s clear throughout the pandemic that lip service has been paid for protecting immunocompromised Americans, but actual policy delivery has failed time and time again,” said Matthew Cortland, a senior fellow at Data for Progress who has been tracking Evusheld distribution.

More at the link.

[madanimalscientist]

CW: discussion of pet death (not mine, but a former friend's)

I am so happy for Belphie's health and success, the fact that we've managed to treat/cure FIP IS A GODDAMNED MIRACLE.

When I was in college in the early 2010s, FIP was a death sentence. I know this because we covered it in my classes and it was so scary to have it discussed as something that just happened sometimes there was no cure for, just palliative treatment, but it was a guaranteed death sentence. And I had a friend at the time whose kitten had gotten FIP and it was two weeks of hell, I was being as supportive as I could but it was traumatic for everyone involved. Because we were all hoping against hope that this cat would pull through and be okay, to defy the odds, and I was trying to be the strong one...it was hell. So this is a MIRACLE, that what was once a death sentence now can be treated and cured, and has an cure rate >80%! (>95% according to some sources). This is HUGE.

The other thing? FIP is a -coronavirus-. This is why when the news re COVID 19 broke, my department (animal science) went into lockdown a full month ahead of the rest of the university. Because people were shrugging off COVID as 'it's just a coronavirus, like a cold' and our dept went 'or like FIP'. We knew just how deadly coronaviruses can be. And interestingly enough, some drugs designed to treat COVID can now be used to treat FIP, further increasing the odds of survival and helping cats recover.

But back in July when Rogue had her health scare (right before I was due to go overseas for a month and a half, like literally 2 weeks before), one of the concerns was that it was FIP, and I had a full on panic attack in the vet exam room, because I knew there was treatment and that some cats had been cured but I didn't know the success rate was so high. And for a moment there mentally I was back in college for a moment with my friend's cat dying and there was nothing I could do about it, except it was my cat affected. But the vet (bless her, she is so awesome) explained that there is a cure now and that in Australia it's even on-label and that it's curable and it's no longer a death sentence and they'd had multiple successful patients be fine in a matter of weeks. And I was SO RELIEVED because I was so terrified and the fact that we've come so far re this in just over a decade, to me that is a miracle and it's amazing.

Rogue's health issues turned out to be something else, thank God, and something treatable even - she needs to get bloodwork to follow up in 6 months but she's fine and her usual loud self. Like yes the vet bills were $$$ and that was an incredibly stressful week of bloodwork and tests to figure out wtf was going on, but I am so so grateful that it turned out ok.

As someone who is not a vet but who is vet-adjacent for work, who took a lot of the same undergrad classes as people who went on to become vets....the only other time I heard that same level of sadness in my professor's voice when he discussed FIP was when he discussed Parvo (and he was a dog show judge when Parvo first hit the USA, this is a story that will Traumatize you and I will not share it on tumblr, GET YOUR PETS VACCINATED FOR PARVO) it was that bad. I'm in my early 30s, I graduated college in '13, but in some ways it doesn't feel that long ago, so progress like this is a miracle and I am so glad.

a lot of you probably knows Belphie's story, but I'll summarize just in case.

Devon Rex cats are better for people with allergies (less shed fur + less Fel d1 protein in their saliva), so on February 16, 2024, I went the breeder route and put down a deposit. before Belphie even opened his eyes, he was mine!

every Friday, the breeder sent me a new photo. I had a broken leg, and was basically rotting in bed at that point, so it was the best part of my week. then, at 12 weeks old, I BROUGHT HIM HOME!

at first, he was so alive! like a wind-up monkey that never shut off. he dangled from the wall-hangings, savaged my feet as I walked, and used my elderly cats as jumping poles to do cool acrobatics over. but all this gradually faded.

first, he stopped playing. then he stopped climbing. then he stopped moving much at all. my vet ran tests on him and found multiple pathogens (calcivrius + mycoplasma), but the medication didn't help - he kept declining.

on September 17th, I woke up to find him swollen like a balloon. we finally had an answer: he had Feline infectious Peritonitis, aka FIP. before 2017, this would've been a death sentence. he would've kept bloating until he drowned in his own fluids. and before 2024, I would've been forced to inject him with black market drugs. but thankfully, South Tower Animal Hospital in Fergus, Ontario was doing a study on the oral medication! we drove two hours, enrolled him, and left with the GS-441524 pills.

and he went from those photos above.....to this:

I thought Belphie would die as a kitten. I'd accepted that he would never grow up. but now he gets to LIVE!

and all for the low cost of $7,553.....ahhhahaha........god.

that + a recent home disaster has wiped out my savings, but I still need to pay for Belphie's medication. to remain in this study, I need to do bloodwork monthly until Feb 2025, and he'll need daily pills until March 2025.

I've put a risograph print + enamel pin set up at greerstothers.shop. I hate asking for help, but if you'd like to support Belphie's continued treatment, please consider checking them out!

[darkmaga-returns]

By Ethan Huff October 15, 2024

Another loudmouthed pro-vaccine politician died last year after he took the "vaccine" injections offered under Operation Warp Speed for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).

Former Florida House District 23 progressive Rep. Richard Rowe Jr. is the type who uploaded photos of his COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card from the CDC on social media. He also wished death on people who refused the injections, calling them the derogatory term "anti-vaxxers" while going on a profanity-laced Facebook tirade.

"Let me be real clear ... I do not give a **** what happens to anti-vaxxers. I don't," Rowe hatefully wrote in a Facebook post during the "pandemic."

"Let Darwin do his work. They helped to kill 700,000 Americans. I do not have the pity or tears to spare for any of them. It's all dried up now. Sorry. At this point, I'm just hoping they feel 1/10th of the pain theyve [sic] caused everyone. The kids will be fine. THEY'RE going to suffer. And I ******* well think they've earned it."

When he posted his signed "vaccination" card from the CDC, also to Facebook, Rowe admitted that he views his obedience to the medical police state as morally superior to the "anti-vaxxers" who protected their immune systems from Big Pharma's experimental poisons.

"Yeah, I'm mostly here for personal ego," Rowe narcissistically wrote. "Already had COVID last year, so not worried about catching it. But I want to maintain my smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority while making fun of Darwin'd [sic] anti-vaxxers. It's actually pretty noble, really."

[lilysarafan]

Sarafan ChEM H Program Drives Collaborative Research at Stanford

Sarafan ChEM-H is a key research driver in Stanford University’s mission of forwarding molecular discoveries to benefit human health. Established in 2013, Standing for Chemistry, Engineering, and Medicine for Human Health, or Stanford ChEM-H, brings together around 200 postdoctoral students, faculty members, and undergraduates to explore how individual molecules interact within the body and how these behaviors alter with the presence of diseases. The information enables novel discoveries that transform the treatment of diseases in clinical settings.

The name ChEM-H reflects a significant gift in 2022 from Lily Sarafan, BS ’03, MS ’03. The university trustee and healthcare entrepreneur invested in research into the microbiome, immunology, vaccines, and cancer. Funded programs additionally seek to uncover the molecular mechanisms underpinning aging,

In addition, the investment plays an integral role in supporting the ChEM-H Knowledge Centers or shared laboratories focused on translational biomedical science research. The specialized equipment available at the centers goes beyond what individual labs and departments on campus offer and enables an interdisciplinary approach to graduate training.

The Knowledge Center for Medicinal Chemistry provides an environment for technical areas such as high-throughput screening, macromolecular structure, protein engineering, and metabolomics. It provides researchers with state-of-the-art instrumentation and knowledge resources critical in drug discovery and synthesizing new compounds. Leading pharmaceutical laboratories have this level of support, but academic settings do not. Therefore, it has become a unique experience for participants.

Another center focuses on macromolecular structure and provides researchers with advanced tools for examining proteins and nucleic acids and the biomolecules’ functions, shapes, and interactions. Advanced equipment includes cryo-EM instrumentation, which drives leading-edge virus particle and large-molecule imaging. Understanding coronavirus and its unique spike protein became essential during the pandemic.

The Knowledge Centers support around 100 research collaborations, which have generated eight filed patents and more than 50 published research papers. Several startups have launched as a result of the Knowledge Centers' research, resulting in entrepreneurial ventures well beyond the Stanford ecosystem.

The director of Sarafan ChEM-H described the funding gift as essential in accelerating progress by removing traditional barriers between chemistry, biology, medicine, and engineering. Students receive training in collaborative approaches that bridge disciplines and translate into novel treatment pathways. Stanford’s acting dean of research further characterized the future of science as “team science,” with shared platforms bringing together talented researchers who might otherwise not interact. Using open collaboration spaces, they share specialized expertise and meaningfully further each others’ projects.

Regarding her funding contribution, Lily Sarafan described herself as a “passionate supporter of the life sciences” who values the flexible research model embodied in next-generation ChEM-H activities. She also finds the program’s commitment to “diversity of all forms” encouraging, as Stanford reaches out to the most promising and highly qualified entrepreneurial researchers worldwide. The future is bright for young researchers looking to make their scientific and entrepreneurial mark in emerging biological and medical science areas.

[misfitwashere]

September 21, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 22, 2024

On Thursday, September 19, the day after the Federal Reserve began to lower interest rates two and a half years after it began to raise them to get inflation under control, President Joe Biden spoke to the Economic Club of Washington, D.C., a nonprofit, nonpartisan forum where leaders from around the world can speak to larger questions about the global economy. 

Biden noted the interest rate cut and identified it as an important signal from the Federal Reserve to the nation that inflation, which at its post-pandemic peak was 9.1%, has come down close to the Fed’s target rate of 2%. He described it as “a declaration of progress…a signal we’ve entered a new phase of our economy and our recovery.”

But Biden told the audience he was “not here to take a victory lap.” Instead, he wanted to “speak about…how far we’ve come, how we got here, and, most importantly, the foundation that I believe [we’ve] built for a more prosperous and equitable future in America.” He wanted, he said, to make the country realize how much progress we’ve made, because if we don’t, the negative economic mindset he attributes to the pandemic will “dominate our economic outlook,” and we will miss “the immense opportunities in front of us right now.” 

Biden reminded the audience that when he and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in January 2021, having “inherited the worst pandemic in a century and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” they found “there was no real plan in place—no plan to deal with the pandemic, no plan to get the economy back on its feet. Nothing—virtually nothing.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the U.S. wouldn’t see a full economic recovery until at least 2025.

But, Biden said, he “came into office determined not only to deliver immediate economic relief for the American people but to transform the way our economy works over the long term; to write a new economic playbook,” investing in ordinary Americans and promoting fair competition.

Immediately, Biden and the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan—without a single Republican vote—to launch “one of the most sophisticated logistical operations in American history” to get coronavirus vaccines into every person in America. Without addressing the pandemic, there could be no economic recovery, he said. The American Rescue Plan also “delivered immediate economic relief for those who needed it the most,” preventing “a wave of evictions, bankruptcies, and delinquencies and defaults” like those that had followed economic crises in the past and had “weakened the recovery and left working families permanently further behind,” a process Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called “economic scarring.”

The economic crash had tanked local and state tax revenues, so the administration funded state and local governments to keep teachers and first responders working, small businesses open, and more housing being built. It expanded the Child Tax Credit, which cut child poverty in half. The American Rescue Plan included the Butch Lewis Act, which protected the pensions of millions of union workers and retirees.

During the pandemic, factories shut down, and supply chains—from shipping to port operations to trucking networks—were tangled. The reopening of the global economy sent inflation skyrocketing, and then Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine sent food and oil prices even higher. 

Biden reminded the members of the Economic Club of the massive cargo ships stuck outside the Port of Los Angeles before the 2021 holidays, and the shortage of baby formula, and explained that his administration brought together business and labor to repair supply chains and “unclog our ports, trucking networks, and shipping lines.” (Although Biden didn’t note it, Republicans in 2021 suggested that the “reckless spending” of the American Rescue Plan meant that Christmas would be “ruined,” but the administration worked to smooth out the tangles and by July 2024 the Port of Los Angeles saw record-breaking volume passing through it, up 37% from July 2023.) Biden also released oil reserves to stabilize global markets and increased energy production to record highs. Together, these measures began to ease inflation. 

Nonetheless, Biden said, critics claimed that the economic supports of the American Rescue Plan would make people leave the labor market—remember “The Great Resignation”?—and that it would take significant unemployment to lower prices. But rather than backing off, Biden and Harris seized the moment to invest in the United States. They wrestled the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law through Congress to rebuild roads, bridges, ports, airports, trains, and buses; to remove lead pipes from schools and homes; and to provide affordable high-speed internet access to every American. 

The administration insisted that U.S. contracts must use U.S. workers and U.S. products. With the CHIPS and Science Act, it brought back semiconductor chip manufacturing to the U.S., and private companies from around the world are investing tens of billions of dollars in new chip factories in the U.S. that are already employing construction workers and will soon employ factory workers. Factory construction is at a record high now, and the Biden-Harris administration created more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs.

Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act that will help cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 and is creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. That law also permits Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, saving taxpayers an estimated $160 billion over the next decade. 

With inflation under control and a record 16 million jobs created, the administration’s policies proved, Biden said, that it’s possible to bring down inflation while also safeguarding jobs and wages for American workers and promoting economic growth. A record nineteen million people have applied to start new businesses. More Americans have health insurance than ever before. The racial wealth gap is the smallest in 20 years. And rather than creating a recession, these measures kept economic growth above 3% last year. The stock market is at record highs.

Biden contrasted his economic policies, based in the idea that the economy grows from the middle out and the bottom up, with those of former president Trump, whose policies of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are based in the idea that the economy grows best when markets drive it and that concentrating wealth at the top of society permits individuals to invest more efficiently than the government can. Biden noted that, in contrast to his own approach, Trump’s policies killed manufacturing jobs and saw very little factory construction, while creating the largest budget deficit in American history. 

Biden listed these comparisons to make the point that, as he said, “[f]or the past 40 years, too many leaders have sworn by an economic theory that has not worked very well at all: trickle-down economics. Cut taxes for the very wealthy…and hope the benefits trickle down. Well, guess what?  Not a whole lot trickled down to my dad’s kitchen table. It’s clear, especially under my predecessor, that trickle-down economics failed.  And he’s promised it again—trickle-down economics—but it will fail again.” He noted, as former president Bill Clinton pointed out at the Democratic National Convention, that since 1989 the U.S. has created about 51 million jobs, and 50 million of them have come under Democratic presidents.

“I’m a capitalist,” Biden said, “[b]ut I believe capitalism is the greatest force to grow the economy for everybody.” He called for more affordable housing, affordable childcare, and lower healthcare costs, noting that those policies will increase economic growth. He called for higher taxes on the very wealthy to pay for those pro-growth policies and to cut the deficit.

And then Biden brought the economic discussion back to his argument before the State Department in 2021, just after he took office. He told the audience at the Economic Club that we have such a dynamic system, and foreign companies are willing to invest here, because of the stability provided in the U.S. by the rule of law. Indeed, it is the rule of law that protects investments and capital, as evidenced by the fact that autocrats stash their money not in their own countries or other dictatorships, but in liberal democracies where investments cannot be taken away or legal protections changed on a dictator’s whim.

After listing the extraordinary economic successes of the past three and a half years, Biden told the audience: “American business, our economic dynamism can’t succeed…without a stability and security that makes us the envy of the world.” 

–-

[covid-safer-hotties]

False divisions and dubious equivalencies Children’s rights during the COVID-19 pandemic - Published June 18, 2024

Introduction In January 2022, nearly two years after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), millions of students, educators, and parents around the world, including in the United States (US) protested that no student should have to risk their health for education (Pinsker 2022) However, many Western governments—led by Sweden, the United Kingdom (UK), and the US—have chosen to ignore calls for public health and safety. As Sweden adopted the least protective approach to community transmission, contrarian physicians in the US and UK advanced the anomalous Swedish example for in-person schooling without mitigations, particularly as soon as pediatric COVID-19 vaccines were in sight. Despite proving false for previously-vaccinated age groups, the most controversial and oft-mistaken contrarians—inexpert in social or behavioral sciences—claimed that ending school masking requirements would incentivize parents to vaccinate younger children, whose vaccine uptake never reached adequate levels despite the implementation of this advice (MSNBC 2022). Public admissions of such mistakes have never led to correcting the policies based on them. Instead, the lack of health and safety in schools resulting from zero-mitigation policies continues to cause great physical and psychosocial harms to children and families.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic—the worst global health crisis in over a century—at least 10.5 million children in the world have lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19, tens of thousands of children have died, and millions have suffered disability (Bellandi 2022; UNICEF 2022). The pathway of SARS 2 infection is through the respiratory system, but COVID-19 (or COVID) is a multisystemic, vascular, and neurotropic disease with immunological effects that often renders survivors vulnerable to other infections and morbidities (Smadja et al. 2021; Temgoua et al. 2020; Zhou et al. 2020). Although the vast majority of those infected live past the initial, acute phase of infection, survivors of COVID-19 are at substantial and cumulative risk for Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as Long COVID, regardless of age, vaccination, or health status (Iacurci 2022).

Life expectancy has fallen in four out of five OECD nations during the pandemic, and dramatically in the US, reversing decades-long gains (British Medical Journal 2022). Long COVID is a chronic manifestation of COVID-19 after the acute phase of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, or SARS 2), with prolonged effects and substantial global prevalence (Chen et al. 2022). Each COVID infection carries between a one-in-five and a one-in-eight chance of progressing to Long COVID within about a month or more of infection, with recent studies reporting as high as nearly one-in-two prevalence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022d; Van Beusekom 2022). Long COVID commonly causes chronic fatigue, neurological damage, psychological disorders, memory impairment, confusion, and numerous other serious and lasting sequelae in healthy people across age groups, such as blood clots, heart attacks, and a three-fold increased risk of death within a year of a non-severe infection (Al-Aly, Bowe, and Xie 2022; Salari et al. 2022; Uusküla et al. 2022; Xu, Xie, and Al-Aly 2022). Long COVID experts admonish against current policies of mass infection, asserting the need to create awareness of this “urgent problem with a mounting human toll” (Ballering et al. 2022; Kikkenborg Berg et al. 2022; Lopez-Leon et al. 2022).

Princeton historian Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor describes the US toll of death and disability as “surreal,” which official estimates undercount (Taylor 2022). More than one million Americans died in fewer than two-and-a-half years, exceeding four thousand deaths per day several times (Taylor 2022). More than 7 percent of the US population (twenty-three million people) suffer from disabling Long COVID, causing more than half a million Americans to become unemployed (Iacurci 2022; British Medical Journal 2022). While comprising only 4 percent of the global population, the US has the highest COVID-19 death toll in the world, has fared worse than peer countries, and has accounted for approximately one-quarter of global COVID infections and one-sixth of deaths (Bennett and Cuevas 2022; World Health Organization 2022b).

COVID-19 is the leading infectious cause of death in US children, and among the top five causes of pediatric death overall, even after vaccination (White House 2022a). US COVID mortality has exceeded four decades of AIDS mortality (Thrasher 2022, 9–10). However, in the third year of the pandemic, 4,100 COVID deaths per week—more than a weekly September 11 mass casualty event—has been treated as unremarkable by US media and politicians (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022a; British Medical Journal 2022). Public health scientists, physicians, economists, and other experts representing the consensus view of the pandemic warn that “Leaders and policymakers must not accept or normalise our dangerous current status quo,” including through minimization of hazards, which lead to widespread dissemination of false beliefs (British Medical Journal 2022). Yet, leading the way, after Sweden and the UK, the US government has ended effective COVID public health mitigations, despite ongoing and escalating need for public safety measures. Other nations, such as New Zealand and Singapore, loosened otherwise stringent national safety protocols only after achieving significantly lower per-capita death rates and making considerable public health investments to secure their populations during upcoming surges (British Medical Journal 2022).

In the US and UK, poverty, gender, and race are the strongest determinants of disease burden, encompassing public-facing workers in health, service, and retail sectors (Sustainable Development Solutions 2022; Taylor 2022). Those with fewest resources carry the greatest burdens. COVID fatality rates, and therefore COVID health concerns, are consistently far higher among Black, Latinx, and other US racial minority groups (Pew Research 2021b). Counties experiencing the highest death rates are those with average poverty rates of 45 percent (Taylor 2022).

Nations that consistently implement public health measures and/or have better infrastructure for health, safety, and education see more equitable outcomes across various socio-economic metrics. The zero COVID policies of New Zealand, Australia, China, and Pacific Island nations experienced relatively rare mortality and low morbidity overall in proportion to their populations than laissez-faire nations, translating to roughly eight to ten times lower case fatality rates (Our World in Data 2020–2022; World Health Organization 2022a). Nations in which mitigations are normalized, such as the Republic of Korea and Japan, have experienced remarkably lower mortality and morbidity (Our World in Data 2020–2022). Cuba took the approach of closing in-person schools indefinitely and used the widely accessible medium of state television to broadcast national curricula during school days so that schoolchildren could continue engaging educational material from home or settings outside of school (Goodman 2021a). Cuban leadership explained that they based this decision on epidemiological and experiential understanding that viruses transmit most efficiently among children in school settings, and as a result, focused on developing a COVID vaccine for children first.

Depending on the state and timing, US pandemic response has fallen along a continuum ranging from aiming to eradicate or contain the virus (most protective) to laissez-faire (least protective), the latter of which became the dominant national approach (Bai et al. 2022; Gretchen 2020; Long et al. 2022; Normile 2021; Yang et al. 2022). Laissez-faire refers to minimal regulations in the public interest by the state, and prioritization of “free market” activity and individual “choice” (Scott and Marshall 2009, 405). Laissez-faire nations deprioritized children’s vaccination, focusing instead on protecting the elderly, who, in the US, enjoy far greater wealth, political power, and governmental spending and benefits than children (Corsaro 2015, 308–314).

Research on children’s rights during the pandemic inadequately addresses the ways children’s rights to life, health, and safety have been falsely rendered oppositional to education and child development under the guise of championing children, uncritically accepting dominant narratives underwriting laissez-faire policies (e.g., Adami and Dineen 2021). This chapter reviews scientific studies, news articles, surveys, and statistical data involving experts and policymakers, and finds that the dominant narrative of school reopenings manufactured a “debate” that created false divisions and dubious equivalencies between different sets of children’s rights. Despite scientific and international-legal consensus on children’s rights to life, health, and safety as fundamental, the protection of these rights during the pandemic was rendered adversarial to child development, psychosocial well-being, and children’s economic, educational, and social welfare rights. Dominant discourse also ignored socio-economic disparities or leveraged them in ways to promote in-person schooling without mitigations.

How and why this occurred is analyzed from an intersectional perspective, meaning that inequities and injustices resulting from harmful policies are understood as having systemic and historical roots along the lines of race, class, gender, and generational disparities, which are reproduced in and through law, politics, and policy (Crenshaw 1998). An intersectional approach shows that violations of children’s rights to life, health, and safety are occurring through the exploitation and reinforcement of longstanding structural inequities, while creating new ones. Laissez-faire policy regarding childhood education has been driven by politics and power, against scientific consensus and public opinion. Coordinated inauthentic actions, disinformation campaigns, and political violence are considered within the scope of politics and power disfiguring public policy in violation of children’s rights.

The adoption of laissez-faire pandemic policies has occurred through at least three primary means, including (1) minimization or denialism and mythologizing regarding the harms of COVID-19 to children and their network effects; (2) a moral panic of pediatric mental health and academic attrition blamed on mitigation measures; and (3) political prioritization of narrow, short-sighted economic aims that insist upon labor and schooling in unsafe spaces despite the availability of effective mitigations. A policy of no policy during a global public health emergency has created a crisis of children’s rights in which life, health, safety, and education are routinely undermined, with poorer socio-economic outcomes. This requires corrective reframing of pandemic policy to combat disinformation, normalize mitigation of communicable disease, and prioritize children’s rights, needs, and perspectives. This chapter aims to expose violations of human rights through laissez-faire pandemic policy within the larger goals of generating critical awareness of their modus operandi and prevention of further systemic harms.

[albonium]

"Long COVID is an often debilitating illness that occurs in at least 10% of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. More than 200 symptoms have been identified with impacts on multiple organ systems. At least 65 million individuals worldwide are estimated to have long COVID, with cases increasing daily.

Biomedical research has made substantial progress in identifying various pathophysiological changes and risk factors and in characterizing the illness; further, similarities with other viral-onset illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome have laid the groundwork for research in the field.

In this review, we explore the current literature and highlight key findings, the overlap with other conditions, the variable onset of symptoms, long COVID in children and the impact of vaccinations. Although these key findings are critical to understanding long COVID, current diagnostic and treatment options are insufficient, and clinical trials must be prioritized that address leading hypotheses.

Additionally, to strengthen long COVID research, future studies must account for biases and SARS-CoV-2 testing issues, build on viral-onset research, be inclusive of marginalized populations and meaningfully engage patients throughout the research process."

[colinwilson11]

Oncology Precision Medicine Market To Showcase Strong Growth Owing To Rising Demand For Targeted Cancer Therapies

The Oncology Precision Medicine Market has been growing at a steady pace owing to the increasing prevalence of various types of cancers and the need for more effective treatment options. Oncology precision medicine or personalized cancer therapy involves the use of molecular diagnostic tools to identify specific genomic alterations in a patient's tumor which helps physicians select appropriate targeted therapies. Unlike conventional chemotherapy, precision medicine enables customized treatment based on a person's individual genetics, lifestyle and environment. Some key benefits of precision therapies include better treatment response rate, reduced side effects, and ability to target specific cancer mutations.

The Oncology Precision Medicine Market is estimated to be valued at US$ 130 Bn in 2024 and is expected to exhibit a CAGR of 8.9% over the forecast period 2024-2031.

Rising demand for targeted therapies and advancements in genomic profiling technologies are the major factors fueling the growth of this market.

Key Takeaways

Key players operating in the oncology precision medicine are AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. These companies are engaged in developing novel targeted therapies and combinational regimens of existing drugs.

Continued rise in cancer incidence globally is generating considerable demand for precision therapy approaches. According to WHO, cancer burden is expected to reach 27.5 million new cases and 16.3 million cancer deaths by 2040.

Technological advancements such as next-generation sequencing, bioinformatics and development of companion diagnostics have enabled robust molecular characterization of tumors, which is improving clinical outcomes of precision cancer treatments.

Market Trends

1. Personalized Immunotherapy - Advancements are being made to develop personalized cancer vaccines and immune checkpoint inhibitors tailored to an individual's genetic makeup and tumor mutations. This offers immense potential to enhance immunotherapies response rates.

2. Combinational Therapies - Given emergence of drug resistance, focus is shifting towards combination of targeted drugs and immunotherapies. Numerous ongoing clinical trials are evaluating safety and efficacy of precision therapy combinations.

Market Opportunities

1. Liquid Biopsy Applications - Non-invasive liquid biopsies offer promise for real-time tumor monitoring and detection of acquired resistance. Growing research on liquid biopsy mediated precision therapies can expand market opportunities.

2. Emerging Markets - Lower penetration of precision oncology in developing nations compared to developed countries presents significant scope for future market expansion.

Impact Of COVID-19 On Oncology Precision Medicine Market Growth

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the growth of the oncology precision medicine market. In the initial phases, various restrictions imposed to curb the spread of infection disrupted the supply chain and halted clinical trials. Production and supply of critical ingredients used in targeted therapies and immunotherapies faced delays. This caused shortages of some molecular tests used for cancer diagnosis and tumor profiling.

However, with progress in vaccination and adaptation to new safety protocols, the market is recovering fast. Telehealth and digital platforms played a key role in continuing remote consultation and treatment supervision during lockdowns. This boosted demand for companion diagnostics and biomarkers to optimize targeted treatments. Partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and diagnostic labs expanded disease monitoring and management capacities.

Investments in genomic and artificial intelligence-driven research accelerated during the pandemic to develop effective precision approaches against coronavirus. This is rapidly expanding knowledge applicable to personalized oncology. Growing focus on treatment individualization as per immune response and risk factors will boost post-COVID growth. Affordability of localized molecular testing is improving with increased production capacities.

Geographical Regions With High Oncology Precision Medicine Market Concentration

North America accounts for the largest share of the oncology precision medicine market value currently. This is attributed to broader healthcare insurance coverage and early adoption of novel targeted and immunotherapies. Comprehensive biomarker testing and genomic profiling are routinely used for selecting the right treatment pathway in the US and Canada.

Western Europe is another major revenue generator with high acceptance of precision diagnosis and therapies. Government-funded universal healthcare and stringent regulatory approval mechanisms fosters innovation. Asia Pacific is emerging as the fastest growing regional market. Developing nations like China and India are making huge investments in advancing their precision oncology infrastructure and capabilities.

Geographical Region Witnessing Fastest Growth In Oncology Precision Medicine Market

Asia Pacific region is projected to witness the fastest growth in the oncology precision medicine market during the forecast period. This is owing to rising cancer incidence, growing healthcare expenditure, increasing public-private collaborations and regulatory reforms to facilitate novel diagnostics and therapies.

Countries like China, South Korea and Japan are rapidly building genomic and clinical trial capacities to meet domestic demand and emerge as global precision medtech hubs. India is promoting medical tourism with competitive costs and a large patient pool benefiting from access to targeted medicines. Initiatives to strengthen diagnostic labs, train oncologists and establish tech-driven research facilities will further accelerate APAC's market expansion.

Get more insights on this topic: https://www.ukwebwire.com/oncology-precision-medicine-market-is-estimated-to-witness-high-growth-owing-to-advancements-in-cancer-genomics/

Author Bio:

Alice Mutum is a seasoned senior content editor at Coherent Market Insights, leveraging extensive expertise gained from her previous role as a content writer. With seven years in content development, Alice masterfully employs SEO best practices and cutting-edge digital marketing strategies to craft high-ranking, impactful content. As an editor, she meticulously ensures flawless grammar and punctuation, precise data accuracy, and perfect alignment with audience needs in every research report. Alice's dedication to excellence and her strategic approach to content make her an invaluable asset in the world of market insights. (LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/alice-mutum-3b247b137 )

What Are The Key Data Covered In This Oncology Precision Medicine  Market Report?

:- Market CAGR throughout the predicted period

:- Comprehensive information on the aspects that will drive the Oncology Precision Medicine 's growth between 2024 and 2031.

:- Accurate calculation of the size of the Oncology Precision Medicine  and its contribution to the market, with emphasis on the parent market

:- Realistic forecasts of future trends and changes in consumer behaviour

:- Oncology Precision Medicine  Industry Growth in North America, APAC, Europe, South America, the Middle East, and Africa

:- A complete examination of the market's competitive landscape, as well as extensive information on vendors

:- Detailed examination of the factors that will impede the expansion of Oncology Precision Medicine  vendors

FAQ’s

Q.1 What are the main factors influencing the Oncology Precision Medicine ?

Q.2 Which companies are the major sources in this industry?

Q.3 What are the market’s opportunities, risks, and general structure?

Q.4 Which of the top Oncology Precision Medicine  companies compare in terms of sales, revenue, and prices?

Q.5 Which businesses serve as the Oncology Precision Medicine ’s distributors, traders, and dealers?

Q.6 How are market types and applications and deals, revenue, and value explored?

Q.7 What does a business area’s assessment of agreements, income, and value implicate?

*Note: 1. Source: Coherent Market Insights, Public sources, Desk research 2. We have leveraged AI tools to mine information and compile it

[justinspoliticalcorner]

WaPo's Philip Bump: State-endorsed violence is triumphing over left-aligned protests

Philip Bump at Washington Post:

I was in Florida in May 2021 when I saw a white Mini Cooper with two seemingly incongruous bumper stickers. One said, “I WILL NOT COMPLY” — a then-vogue sentiment as governments sought to mandate vaccines to fight the coronavirus pandemic. In a rear window, though, the car displayed a monochromatic American flag with one of the stripes rendered in blue. This, of course, is the graphical representation of the “Blue Lives Matter” mantra, an expression of support for the police that emerged as law enforcement began facing new criticism about the killing of Black civilians a decade ago. I will not comply … but I support our men and women in law enforcement.

It’s easy to carve out a realm where these sentiments are not at odds. The driver won’t comply with vaccine mandates but stands with the police as they do the hard work of subduing the real criminals. Or, to define the space where the sentiments are not at odds more simply: The driver adheres to a right-wing worldview in which state power is properly deployed against the left. For the driver, the law protects but doesn’t bind, as the saying has it. That was three years ago. In the period since, state power has gained a lot of ground against its long-standing adversaries’ criticism and protest. Last week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) took the unusual-for-him step of pardoning a man who was convicted of murder in a shooting death in Austin. The shooter, Daniel Perry, was driving in the city in July 2020 when he came across a protest criticizing the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis. Garrett Foster was part of the crowd and was carrying a rifle, which is legal in the state. Perry claimed that Foster aimed the weapon at him and that he fired in self-defense.

Others in the crowd denied that Foster raised his weapon. A jury determined that the killing was not justified and sentenced Perry to prison. They did so without even seeing some of the most striking evidence: text messages from Perry in which he expressed racist views and talked about shooting people who engaged in looting in the wake of the Floyd protests. (Foster, like Perry, was White.) But Abbott decided a pardon was in order, arguing that the state’s stand-your-ground law “cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney.” Foster’s killing was rebuked by Texans but sanctioned by the state. In the wake of the protests in 2020 — an underrecognized challenge to state power from the left — other states attempted to build laws specifically to increase the costs of those protests. In Florida and Oklahoma, for example, the state legislatures passed and governors signed laws absolving drivers of some penalties if they struck protesters blocking roads.

[...] One of the widest partisan divides, meanwhile, was on “disrupting public events.” That divide was about as wide as the one on “establishing encampments.” Since the protests that unfolded in the summer of 2020, the largest widespread protest movement seen in the United States has been centered on the establishment of encampments on college campuses to protest Israel’s military incursion in Gaza. Most Americans expressed skepticism of those protests in polling released this month. In recent Fox News polling, though, a majority of Democrats expressed support for the protests while Republicans opposed them by more than a 5-1 margin. [...]

At many colleges, including New York's Columbia University, administrators agreed with the Republicans. Law enforcement was brought in to disrupt and remove encampments. That was true at Columbia, where the New York Police Department swept the campus more than once. The second and final sweep resulted in several students being hospitalized. Over the weekend, the NYPD again violently disrupted a protest. Officers were seen striking protesters participating in a pro-Palestinian event in Brooklyn, with police arguing that the response was needed because protesters were blocking the streets. The neighborhood’s City Council member told the New York Times that “from my vantage point, the response appeared preemptive, retaliatory and cumulatively aggressive.” [...]

The violent crackdown on the protests were sanctioned by the state. It is possible that the bumper sticker on that car I saw in Florida in 2021 was harrumphing not about an unwillingness to comply with the coronavirus vaccine but, instead, with the advent of a Democratic president. After all, the weeks after the 2020 election were awash in right-wing refusal to comply with the state power manifested in recognizing Joe Biden’s electoral victory. On Jan. 6, 2021, rioters supporting Donald Trump overwhelmed law enforcement and overtook the Capitol in a failed effort to redirect power back to the sitting president.

The response from Trump’s allies and the broader right has been illuminating. There was an immediate effort to rationalize the violence by comparing it to the protests that unfolded the previous summer, like the one at which Garrett Foster was killed. Or like the one after which teenager Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men. (“Those who help, protect, and defend are the good guys,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) wrote on social media once Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder. “Kyle is one of good ones.”) Over the longer term, though, the right’s Capitol riot narrative — led by people like Greene — focused more heavily on the purported injustices those rioters had faced. Those who are incarcerated have been presented as “political prisoners,” rather than as violent criminals and, often people who’ve pleaded guilty to their offenses. In the vernacular of that Mini Cooper, these were honorable people refusing to comply, not criminals engaged in an unacceptable denial of how much blue lives matter.

Washington Post’s Philp Bump wrote a solid article on why left-leaning protests (pro-Palestine, pro-Black Lives Matter, etc.) are more likely to face state-sanctioned violent crackdown responses than right-leaning protests (anti-COVID mitigation measures, etc.)

[gazettereview]

Houston Researchers Develop Nasal Vaccine That Prevents COVID-19 From Spreading -Read more at https://gazettereview.com/houston-researchers-develop-nasal-vaccine-that-prevents-covid-19-from-spreading/ - https://gazettereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/covid-nasal-vaccine-spray.jpg #Health

Houston Researchers Develop Nasal Vaccine That Prevents COVID-19 From Spreading

A team of scientists from the University of Houston have come up with a novel vaccine that can be used to prevent the spread of various coronavirus strains, in addition to the flu. With this, they’ve not only made progress in vaccinating against the flu and SARS-CoV-2 virus, but are also one step closer to […]

https://gazettereview.com/houston-researchers-develop-nasal-vaccine-that-prevents-covid-19-from-spreading/