The study indicates that it is very effective. The authors found that 10 people in the group getting the normal treatment had a COVID-19-related urgent care visit, emergency department assessment, or hospitalization. Only 1 person in the group that got the usual treatment plus budesonide had that kind of outcome. In addition, the group that got budesonide recovered, on average, a full day earlier than those who did not get it. Finally, fewer patients in the budesonide group had persistent symptoms after 14 and 28 days. Thus, it seems that budesonide does aid in the treatment of COVID-19.
What prompted the study? As the authors state:
In early reports describing COVID-19 infection from China, Italy and the United States, there was a significant under representation of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We hypothesized that this may be due to the widespread use of inhaled [chemicals like budesonide] in these patients. (reference marks removed by me)
It looks like their hunch turned out to be right. Now, of course, there are limitations to the study. The sample size is reasonable, but not as large as that of a full-scale clinical trial. Also, it was conducted in a single community, which would provide a more homogenized group of people than a study conducted over a large geographic range. Nevertheless, the results are so dramatic that it is hard to understand how these limitations could invalidate the results.
If you end up experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, ask your physician about this study and whether or not budesonide might be a viable treatment option for you. Please note that like all medications (and foods), this medication has potential side effects in some people, so you shouldn’t take it without consulting a physician who knows your medical history.
Great article Dr. Jay. It’s encouraging to hear new viable treatments for COVID are still being discovered.
I’m currently having a discussion with an acquaintance about the covid vaccines.
I’ve recommended to him what you’ve posted, and he sent me this article: https://crtxnews.com/feb-22nd-newsletter-just-say-no/
Do you think these are valid concerns regarding the vaccines?
Definitely not. I think the author doesn’t even understand what the vaccines do, since they do not affect genes in any way. Thus, there is no “gene therapy” involved. Also, he says that the vaccines don’t produce immunity, but not only do the studies demonstrate that they do, the COVID-19 cases are dropping like crazy now that the vaccines are being used. In fact, the past few weeks should be the most infectious weeks (because of the weather), but infections are going down, not up. That’s because of the vaccines.
The author also doesn’t understand what the VAERS system does. The fact that lots of reports are made to it is not surprising, because lots of shots have been given. Statistically, the more shots given, the more adverse effect will be reported. That would be true even if the shots contained nothing! After all, bad things happen to people every day, and the more shots that are given, the more likely those bad things will appear to be correlated to the shots. The VAERS is there so that researchers can look for patterns to then do studies that can determine whether or not the reported events are associated with the vaccine. This was how VAERS was used to show that the old rotavirus vaccine had a serious side effect for 1 in 11,000 recipients (see here and here), which was enough to remove it from the approved list. There is now a rotavirus vaccine that does not have that issue.
The studies done on the COVID-19 vaccines so far show that the rate of serious side effects is barely above the rate of serious side effects caused by a placebo. This study, for example, says 0.6% of vaccine recipients reported a serious side effect, while 0.5% of those getting the placebo did.
Agreed. I sent my aquaintance my own response and opinions regarding Dr. Hotze’s article. I’ll post them here as well:
My review of Dr. Hotze article: It seems many of the statements Dr. Hotze makes are not verified by the references he gives. He makes the claim that the vaccines are “manufactured using cells derived from (aborted babies).” While some COVID vaccines are being developed with the use of aborted fetal cells (Johnson and Johnson for instance), the vaccines which are being discussed, the Pfizer and Moderna ones, have not at all been developed with the use of fetal cells. He mentions mRNA experimental gene therapy done to animals in 2005 and 2012, but provides no references. The same with his claim that “there were more than 40,000 documented adverse reactions in the U.S. including thousands of cases of anaphylactic shock and serious neurological problems” and his claim that the vaccines “turn on the production of COVID-19, but it has no off switch.” It does actually have an off switch: all used mRNA decays and is recycled as a matter of course.
Dr. Hotze also states that “There is convincing evidence that this experimental gene therapy may trigger an antibody-dependent enhancement reaction and increase the virus’s ability to infect your cells.” His evidence is cited in the second source: “Current data on COVID‐19 vaccines is limited, but does not so far reveal evidence of ADE (antibody dependant enhancement) of disease. Non‐human primate studies of Moderna’s mRNA‐1273 vaccine showed excellent protection, with no detectable immunopathology.” As you can see, the source clearly states that current data does NOT so far reveal evidence of ADE, only that it may possibly be a concern as more data is collected: “Thus, the absence of ADE evidence in COVID‐19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non‐theoretical risk to the subjects.”
Toward the end of the article, Dr. Hotze cites his third source when he states: “British Medical Journal (BMJ) Associate Editor Peter Doshi, who had the opportunity to review the available data, pointed out the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the pre-approval trials. He concluded that rather than the widely publicized 95% effective rate, these “vaccines” are, at best, 19% effective. At this low rate, they would never have been approved!” Actually, if you read the source, Doshi’s “at best” estimate is 29%. Granted, that would still be considered such a “low rate, they would never have been approved.” However, again, if you actually read the source, both those percentages are based on the fact that there were SUSPECTED cases of COVID in test subjects, thus, if every one of the suspected cases were covid positive, that’s how you would get the 19-29% efficiency rate. However, Doshi admits “considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriadcauses—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.” His excuse for his reasoning is as follows: “But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.” To me that basically sound like Doshi expecta COVID-19 vaccines to not just take care of covid, but all diseases with covid-like symptoms, which seems remarkably unfair. All I can say is, please do your research with an open mind, even with sources that you consider to be reliable. God bless!
Well done!
Quick question: My understanding of mRNA is that only one protein can be created from the instructions of one mRNA molecule, and then the mRNA molecule decays and is recycled, and the cells then stop making that protein. Is that correct?
A single mRNA makes more than one protein. Most mRNA’s have a half-life on the order of many hours but less than a day. While they are active, they will induce protein production. Most mRNAs can be considered gone after 10 days. However, some mRNAs last longer than others, especially when they aren’t very long. The time between doses of the COVID-19 is specifically based on the survival of that particular strand of mRNA. The second dose is given after the first dose’s mRNA has decayed away. So you can say that the cells will manufacture the SARS-CoV-2 protein for, at most, four weeks.
Here’s another interesting article that a family member sent me about the vaccines: https://afinalwarning.com/500036.html
This article makes statements such as “The information carrying molecule, messenger RNA, can instruct human cells ultimately in the same way as cancer drivers, playing a major role in causing cancer to thrive while inactivating natural tumor-suppressing proteins the human body creates to save you from cancer. This is the complete opposite of what the CDC and the vaccine manufactures are telling everyone right now about the Covid vaccines, and this is based on clinical research by molecular biologists at the Sloan Kettering Institute.”
However, if you actually read the article that they reference by the Sloan Kettering Institute (click on the word trojan horse) it says right at the top of the article:
“Researchers at the Sloan Kettering Institute have found that changes in an information-carrying molecule called messenger RNA can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins and thereby promote cancer. The findings pinpoint previously unknown drivers of the disease. It’s important to note that mRNAs are a normal component of all cells and the specific ones discussed here are not involved in mRNA-based vaccines, like the one developed against SARS-CoV-2.” (https://www.mskcc.org/news/scientists-find-cancer-drivers-hiding-rna-not-dna).
There are a lot of breath-takingly ignorant statements in that article. One of the worse is:
The mRNA in the vaccination never goes into the nucleus, so it can’t be transported out of the nucleus. In addition, mRNA is designed to be transported out of the nucleus when it transcribes DNA. Thus, it is perfectly natural for mRNA to be transported out of the nucleus. It’s the way the cell works!