Heavy users of conservative media more willing to take ivermectin for COVID-19

 

FDA says anti-parasitic not approved for COVID-19 and ‘can be highly dangerous’

ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IMAGE: CONFIDENCE IN DR. ANTHONY FAUCI PROVIDING TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION ABOUT PREVENTING AND TREATING COVID-19 - BY RELIANCE ON DIFFERENT MEDIA SOURCES. FROM ANNENBERG SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE SURVEY, AUG. 16-SEPT. 5, 2021. view more 

CREDIT: SOURCE: ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER

PHILADELPHIA – Four in 10 Americans – and 7 in 10 heavy users of conservative media – say they would take ivermectin if they had been exposed to someone who has Covid-19, according to a new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.

Although ivermectin is approved for use to treat parasitic roundworm infections in humans, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of this anti-parasitic drug to prevent or treat Covid-19, and studies of use of it for those purposes have been inconclusive. The FDA says current data “do not show ivermectin is effective against Covid-19” and using it for that purpose in humans or animals “can be highly dangerous.” (See this story by FactCheck.org.)

“The finding that heavy consumers of conservative media are more likely to report a willingness to take ivermectin is consistent with our finding in the summer of 2020 that this audience was more likely to be willing to take hydroxychloroquine – which at the time was under study, and which the FDA later concluded was an ineffective treatment for hospitalized Covid patients, one whose risks outweigh its benefits,” said APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

The survey is the third wave of data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults that was empaneled in the spring of 2021. This wave of the survey, which was conducted in August and September among 1,669 respondents, finds that:

• Overall confidence that health authorities including Dr. Anthony Fauci are providing the public with trustworthy information about Covid-19 was largely unchanged from June to early September;
• Confidence in Fauci continues to be significantly lower among people who are heavier users of conservative media and very conservative media;
• Nearly 1 in 5 Americans (18%) say they are not likely to be vaccinated and over half of them – 10% of the total sample – say there is nothing that would change their mind;
• A quarter of respondents (25%) say they know someone, including themselves, who was fully vaccinated for Covid-19 and nonetheless tested positive for Covid-19 (a so-called breakthrough case); and
• Unvaccinated people are significantly more likely than vaccinated people to say they know a vaccinated person who experienced a breakthrough case of Covid-19.

“The evidence that those who are unvaccinated are more likely to report knowing a vaccinated person who experienced a breakthrough infection may indicate that the unvaccinated seek out evidence consistent with their vaccination hesitance or are more likely to live in under-vaccinated communities with higher ongoing spread of Covid-19 – or both phenomena may be at work,” Jamieson said. “The public health community needs to remind the public that vaccinated individuals who do get breakthrough infections are far less likely to need hospitalization or to die from Covid than are the unvaccinated.” (See additional details near end of release.)

The latest Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) survey was conducted among 1,669 U.S. adult respondents from August 16-September 5, 2021. Data were weighted to represent the target U.S. adult population. The margin of error is ± 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The survey, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent research company, is a follow-up to June 2021 and April 2021 surveys fielded with the same respondents. See the Appendix for methodology, questions, and additional data.

Confusion over ivermectin

Conservative media personalities have long promoted the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19. For example, in a show on March 8, 2021, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham said: “And we know that our FDA has in many ways failed us by not allowing for the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, both of which are used around the world to reduce Covid hospitalizations and deaths.”

Multiple large studies are assessing the use of the drug but at this point it is unapproved for Covid-19 by the FDA, which warns that its use can be dangerous.

Just 1 in 10 Americans (10%) say the statement “ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19” is true, compared with 27% who say it is false. A majority of Americans (63%) say they are not sure whether that statement is true or not.

But when asked how likely they would be to take ivermectin if they had been exposed to someone with Covid-19 and the drug were available, 40% of Americans said they were somewhat or very likely to do so.

Ivermectin and media exposure

The survey asked respondents to describe their media use on a six-point scale, from 0 (none) to 5 (a lot of information). Respondents who gave a 4 or 5 to a type of media use are referred to here as heavy or heavier users. Our analysis of respondents’ self-reported media exposure found that among people who said they are heavier users of…

• Very conservative sources such as Newsmax, One America News (OAN), Gateway Pundit, Parler or Telegram: 75% said they were likely to take ivermectin;
• Conservative media sources such as Fox News, Mark Levin, or Breitbart: 70% said they were likely to take ivermectin;
• Social media sources such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter: 46% said they were likely to take ivermectin;
• Mainstream print/broadcast media sources such as ABC, NBC, and CBS News, the Associated Press, and the news pages of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal: 35% said they were likely to take ivermectin.

Confidence in U.S. health authorities

As in the June survey, the current ASK survey found that the most trusted source of information for treating and preventing Covid-19 is an individual’s primary health care provider:

• Primary health care provider: 87% are confident their primary health care provider is offering trustworthy information about treating and preventing Covid-19 – up significantly from 83% in June.
• Food and Drug Administration: 76% are confident that the FDA, which authorized emergency use of the Covid-19 vaccines available in the United States, is providing trustworthy information about Covid-19 – statistically the same as in the prior surveys, in April and June.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 75% are confident the CDC is providing trustworthy information on Covid-19, statistically unchanged in our surveys since August 2020;
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: 68% are confident that Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is providing trustworthy advice on Covid, statistically unchanged in our surveys since August 2020.

Lower confidence among conservative media users

While confidence in the CDC, FDA, and Fauci remains high overall, it is substantially lower for all three among people who are heavier users of very conservative sources, and lower for the CDC and Fauci among those who are heavier users of conservative media sources. Among the heavier users of:

• Very conservative media: 31% express confidence in Fauci, 59% in the CDC, 51% in the FDA, and 86% in their primary health care provider;
• Conservative media: 49% express confidence in Fauci, 60% in the CDC, 68% in the FDA, and 90% in their primary health care provider;
• Social media: 76% express confidence in Fauci, 83% in the CDC, 80% in the FDA, and 94% in their primary health care provider;
• Mainstream print/broadcast users: 87% express confidence in Fauci, 90% in the CDC, 90% in the FDA, and 96% in their primary health care providers.

The data are consistent with those in June. The only statistically significant change was seen in social media users’ 94% confidence in primary health care providers, up from 83% in June.

Vaccines and prevention

The ASK survey found that 75% of respondents reported receiving a Covid-19 vaccine, up from 70% in June and 47% in April, when the same group was surveyed. Of the current sample’s vaccinated respondents, 52% said they got Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine, 40% got Moderna’s, and 6% got Johnson and Johnson’s.

Of the total respondents, 49% reported discussing Covid-19 vaccination with a health care provider and 51% did not. Speaking with a health care provider about the vaccine was not significantly associated with the decision to be vaccinated or not, an analysis found.

• Of those who spoke with a health care provider, 83% said the provider was an M.D./medical doctor, 3% said it was an osteopath/D.O., and 1% said it was a chiropractor.
• Asked whether that health care provider was supportive of or opposed to the Covid-19 vaccine, 85% said the provider was supportive, 4% said the provider was opposed, and 11% said they were not sure.

Nearly half of those surveyed (47%) said they knew someone who died from Covid-19.

As mentioned above, a quarter of those surveyed (25%) said they know a vaccinated person (including themselves) who had a breakthrough case of Covid.

• Almost 1 in 4 of those (23%) who are vaccinated reported knowing a vaccinated person who had a breakthrough case of Covid – but almost 1 in 3 of those (31%) who are unvaccinated people reported knowing someone with a breakthrough case, a statistically significant difference.

The survey respondents who knew someone with a breakthrough case were asked about the severity of those people’s symptoms. The respondents said 57% of the people who tested positive for Covid-19 despite being vaccinated had moderate or severe symptoms and 43% had no or mild symptoms.

Not vaccinated and not likely to be

Among the total sample, 1 in 4 (25%) Americans said they have not been vaccinated against Covid-19, compared with 30% in June.

Among this still-unvaccinated group, 79% said they have the information they need to decide whether to get vaccinated, but 21% say they still do not have the information they need.

Nearly 1 in 5 (18%) people in the still-unvaccinated group said they were not likely to be vaccinated. When this group was asked, “Is there anything that could change your mind and convince you to get vaccinated, or not, or are you unsure,” over half of the group – or 10% of the total respondents – said there was nothing that would change their mind.

The top reasons selected by the group who say they are unlikely to be vaccinated:

• 61% - It’s still too untested/I’m waiting to see what happens (*up significantly from 48% in April)
• 53% - I don’t trust the government (*up significantly from 40% in April)
• 51% - I don’t trust the scientists and companies that make the vaccine (*up significantly from 36% in June and 30% in April)
• 49% - I’m worried about allergies and side effects (*up significantly from 35% in April)
• 28% - I’m just not concerned about coronavirus/Covid-19
• 26% - I never get vaccines, generally
• 15% - I had coronavirus/Covid-19, so I think I’m immune (*up significantly from 7% in June and April)

The total exceeds 100% because people were allowed more than one response.

Phthalates, used in the manufacture of plastic food containers and many cosmetics, may lead to roughly 100,000 premature deaths a year

 

Px

Daily exposure chemicals called phthalates, used in the manufacture of plastic food containers and many cosmetics, may lead to roughly 100,000 premature deaths among older Americans each year, a new study shows. The resulting annual economic burden is between $40 billion and $47 billion, a value more than quadruple that of previous estimates.

For decades, phthalates have been shown to pose a potential danger to human health because the chemicals can interfere with the function of hormones, signaling compounds made in glands that circulate to influence processes throughout the body, experts say. Exposure is believed to occur through buildup of these toxins as consumer products break down and are ingested, with exposure linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Led by researchers at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the new investigation of more than 5,000 adults between the ages of 55 and 64 showed that those with the highest concentrations of phthalate in their urine were more likely to die of heart disease than those with lesser exposure.

Similarly, Americans in this high-exposure group were more likely to die of any cause than those in low-exposure groups. However, high levels of the toxins did not appear to increase risk of death due to cancer.

“Our findings reveal that increased phthalate exposure is linked to early death, particularly due to heart disease,” says study lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP. “Until now, we have understood that the chemicals connect to heart disease, and heart disease in turn is a leading cause of death, but we had not yet tied the chemicals themselves to death.”

Trasande cautions that the new study does not establish a direct cause and effect association between phthalate exposure and early deaths, in part because the specific biological mechanism that would account for the connection remains unclear. The study investigators say they plan to further study the role these chemicals may play in hormone regulation and inflammation in the body.

However, according to Trasande, the Jim G. Hendrick MD Professor at NYU Langone Health, the new results add to mounting evidence of societal costs related to continued heavy exposure to the chemicals. For example, past research has linked more than 10,000 deaths a year to lowered testosterone levels in adult men attributed to phthalate exposure. These deaths cost Americans nearly $9 billion in lost economic productivity.

To see if there were similar mortality and economic costs from other disorders, the new study, publishing online Oct. 12 in the journal Environmental Pollution, was designed to further examine links between phthalate exposure and deaths of all causes in the U.S. and quantify the resulting economic costs, according to Trasande.

For the investigation, the research team analyzed data including phthalates found in urine samples obtained from adults who participated in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Survey from 2001 to 2010. The researchers limited their analysis to those whose cause of death had been tracked through 2015. In addition, they focused on a subgroup of Americans between 55 and 64, since previous studies had based estimates of phthalate-driven death in this population. This way, the team could accurately compare their study results to the prior estimates.

The study investigators also used data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wonder database, the U.S. Census Bureau, and models from earlier studies to estimate the economic cost of early death for this group.

“Our research suggests that the toll of this chemical on society is much greater than we first thought,” says Trasande, who also serves as director of the NYU Langone’s Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards. “The evidence is undeniably clear that limiting exposure to toxic phthalates can help safeguard Americans’ physical and financial well-being.”

Almost 42,000 sources of toxic 'forever chemicals' could be polluting surface or drinking water across the US

– A new study by Environmental Working Group scientists finds almost 42,000 potential sources of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS that could be polluting surface water or drinking water in communities across the U.S.

The study bolsters EWG’s long-running calls for strict PFAS regulations, in addition to more testing.

PFAS pollution affects all communities, from the affluent to those near the fence lines of industrial facilities. More work is urgently needed to identify areas where residents might face greater health risks from contaminated water.

EWG researchers analyzed potential sources of PFAS contamination in drinking water supplies nationwide, using public data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online database.

The facilities that appeared most often as possible sources were solid waste landfills, wastewater treatment plants, electroplaters and metal finishers, and petroleum refiners.

The analysis was published in a special issue of the American Water Works Association Water Science journal featuring the latest PFAS research.

PFAS are called forever chemicals because they build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment.

“It is critical that the EPA start regulating PFAS – now,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., the lead author of the study and a senior scientist at EWG. “Every community in the U.S. is likely affected by PFAS contamination, but those living near or downstream from industrial facilities may be more at risk.

“Our investigation identifies a huge number of potential sources of contamination. It also provides a framework for deciding where and what to test so we can end releases into the environment,” Andrews added.

In March, EWG-commissioned tests of tap water samples from throughout Northern Virginiarevealed PFAS contamination at levels significantly higher than those previously reported for other parts of the Washington, D.C., metro area.

Valuable case studies of data available from California and Michigan show that PFAS contamination is common at many different types of sites and that widespread testing for PFAS in wastewater is crucial.

“The results from states like Michigan show there is a wide variety of sources of PFAS in surface water,” said Andrews. “Many landfills and industrial sites release PFAS at detectable concentrations that may exceed state limits or health guidelines for PFAS in water.

"It is urgent that ongoing releases of PFAS be identified. We need to stop non-essential uses of  PFAS and use filters to reduce these compounds from out water,” he said.

Industrial PFAS discharges in Michigan have gone down substantially as a result of widespread testing, permitting of discharges and added treatment. In 2018, state officials set water quality standards for PFOA and PFOS, the two most notorious PFAS compounds, for discharges into drinking water supplies.

State law prohibits releases from wastewater utilities of more than 420 parts per trillion, or ppt, for PFOA and 11 ppt for PFOS.

Results from tests of water downstream from manufacturing facilities and from PFAS users across the U.S. revealed many previously unknown PFAS, which confirmed the need for broad testing of industrial facilities across the entire class of PFAS compounds.

PFAS are among the most persistent toxic compounds in existence, contaminating everything from drinking water to food, food packaging and personal care products. They are found in the blood of virtually everyone on Earth, including newborn babies.

Very low doses of PFAS chemicals in drinking water have been linked to suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns.

Reducing PFAS levels in surface water and drinking water remains a nationwide challenge. But it’s one that can be met through comprehensive tests of surface water and drinking water, along with tests of wastewater from potential PFAS sources.

The Biden administration also needs to use the EPA’s powers to regulate as many industrial categories of PFAS discharges as possible.

“We need to turn off the tap of PFAS pollution from these industrial discharges, which affects more and more Americans every day. That’s the first step,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs.

“The second step is for the EPA to set a national PFAS drinking water standard. And the third is to clean up legacy pollution,” Faber added.

The EPA’s proposal to regulate some industrial discharges of PFAS into our drinking water falls short of what’s needed to end the pollution flowing from companies. EWG’s new research shows that the contamination is likely even more widespread across the U.S. than has been confirmed, further underscoring the need for swift regulatory action.

Oppose the proposed Wheelabrator Putnam Ash Landfill expansion

This Wednesday, October 13, the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing online at 3 p.m. regarding the proposed Wheelabrator Putnam Ash Landfill expansion.  If approved, the expansion will double the size of the current landfill from 68 to 120 acres. The Wheelabrator ash landfill is situated along the banks of the Quinebaug River in Putnam, designated an environmental justice community. The landfill takes the ash from 4 of 5 trash incinerators in Connecticut and receives out of state ash from Westchester, NY. 

 

The permits under consideration in this hearing request modifications to existing solid waste permits to construct and operate an ash residue landfill, renewal and modification to the permit to discharge into sanitary sewer, and modification to the permit to discharge to groundwater.         

 

Local activists and residents petitioned DEEP for a public hearing due to environmental and public health concerns about expanding the landfill and extending its life for decades. Also of concern, discharge of wastewater containing toxic chemicals found in the incinerator ash (PFAS, dioxins and heavy metals) into the groundwater and into the water treatment system of the host town, Putnam, and questions about adequate testing and monitoring.

Oral health can be an additional, modifiable risk factor for high risk COVID-19 patients

 

The correlation between poor oral health and COVID-19 severity, as well as the correlation between oral health and delayed recovery, demonstrates a potential need to consider oral health an additional risk factor for cardiac patients who may contract COVID-19. The new sub-study, examining Egyptian cardiac patients, will be presented at ACC Middle East 2021, a hybrid meeting held in partnership by the American College of Cardiology, Egyptian Society of Cardiology and the ACC Egypt Chapter on Oct. 14-15, 2021.

The oral cavity is a potential reservoir for respiratory pathogens. Previous trials have linked poor oral hygiene with increased inflammation and cardiovascular disease. According to the researchers, COVID-19 severity has also been linked to an inflammatory response.

The researchers hypothesized that increased COVID-19 severity may be linked to poor oral health status, especially in patients with cardiovascular diseases. According to the study authors, the study assessed oral health status, severity of COVID-19 symptoms, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and duration of recovery.

“Oral tissues could act as a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, developing a high viral load in the oral cavity. Therefore, we recommended maintenance of oral health and improving oral hygiene measures, especially during COVID-19 infection,” said Ahmed Mustafa Basuoni, MD, cardiology consultant at Cairo University and lead author of the study. “Simple measures like practicing proper oral hygiene, raising awareness of oral health importance either in relation to COVID-19 infection or systemic diseases by using media and community medicine, regular dental visits, especially in patients with CVD, and using [antimicrobial] mouthwashes [could help in] preventing or decreasing the severity of COVID-19 disease.” 

The study included 86 Egyptian heart disease patients with a confirmed COVID-19 PCR test. Using a questionnaire, researchers from Cairo University assessed oral health and COVID-19 severity. An oral health score was used to determine the effect of oral health on COVID-19. Data on CRP levels and COVID-19 PCR tests were collected via the questionnaire and confirmed via medical records. CRP levels are used to determine when there is inflammation in the body.

According to the researchers, the correlation between oral health and COVID-19 severity showed a significant inverse relationship, as did the correlation between oral health with recovery period and CRP values. Poor oral health was correlated to increased values of CRP and delayed recovery, especially in patients with cardiac diseases.

“Oral health should be a part of routine history taking and examination in cardiac patients,” Basuoni said. “Lifestyle measures should be instructed to all cardiac patients regarding good oral hygiene with regular dental visits. We need to give more space in research for these risk factors which can be easily modified.”

Republicans Must Be Held Accountable

Each and every Republican office holder and candidate for office who fails to excoriate and repudiate Donald Trump and his supporters, followers, and enablers for their efforts to subvert the integrity of America's election laws and election officials through intimidation, violence and continued claims of a "stolen" election must be held accountable. 

When Noam Chomsky claimed that the Republican Party was the most “dangerous organization in human history” he was referring to that fact that the Trump administration had shown total and utter disregard for the future of the planet and appeared dedicated to dismantling previous legacies to tackle climate change, and claimed the world has never seen an organization more profoundly committed to destroying planet earth.  But it may be not too far off the mark to refer to today's Republican Party as the most dangerous organization in U.S. history.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It’s a quote routinely attributed to Edmund Burke. But it turns out falsely so. Apparently, he never uttered these words. At best, the essence of the quote can be traced back to the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, who delivered an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews and stated: “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.

Apply this to Republican office holders and candidates: "He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name."

What do I mean by "held accountable?".Democratic party committees, candidates and supporters must, at every opportunity, publicly condemn  Republican office holders and candidates who actively support or silently endorse subversion of our electoral system.

Pandemic Profiteering: Making a Killing on COVID

 Connecticut Citizen Action Group

 In April 2021, five health insurance companies sent Governor Ned Lamont a letter, threatening to move jobs out of Connecticut if the state passed a Public Option. The Public Option would have allowed small businesses, nonprofits, and many individuals to be part of the state’s Partnership Plan for health insurance, where they would benefit from the state's purchasing power to lower costs. Private insurance companies would still have had work administering the plan - but may have seen limits on their profits. 

This report is the third in a series by the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG), examining how the excessive greed and shady

This report looks at overall profits, and how these companies have chosen to use these resources - further enriching executives and a small group of shareholders, at the expense of public health. Prior reports examined CEO compensation, which totaled $137.6 million, and lobbying, finding ethics breaches and $1.3 million spent in six months to defeat the Public Option. CCAG has dubbed these companies Connecticut’s Five Families to highlight their unethical behavior. 

The entire series can be found here. 

Four of these companies made more than $35 BILLION in profit in 2020. The entire budget of the state of Connecticut, for reference, is $46.4 billion. With those dollars, they could have taken many steps, including: 

● Sending home testing kits, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as face masks, hand sanitizer and face shields, to people they cover. 

● Providing education to enrollees, including providing Community Health Workers (CHWs) to boost vaccine participation, checking on the health of enrollees, and assisting people with meeting their healthcare needs, including the mental health needs of children enrolled in their plans.