Fluoride on Trial

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century when, in reality, it’s one its greatest failures. Yet, in the face of solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive.  Proponents such as the American Dental Association and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control have spent millions of dollars on promotion1 and public relations2 to sell fluoridation using half-truths and misleading talking points.  While the U.S. is still trying to hold on to the fallacy that water fluoridation is a public health service, it’s one of the most widely rejected health interventions in the world, with 95% of the global population consuming nonfluoridated water.  Now, thanks to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the sustained education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and its supporters, it looks like we may finally be looking at an end to this toxic practice. In the video above, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, interviews Michael Connett, an attorney for FAN who is leading the lawsuit against the EPA. Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Act Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows citizens and nongovernmental organizations to petition the EPA to remove toxic substances found to pose an “unreasonable risk” either to the general population or a subset of that population. What’s more, it allows citizens and watchdog groups to present their case before a judge. That is what FAN did in this case, and it’s the first time a citizen’s group has ever brought a Section 21 TSCA petition all the way through to trial. It began November 22, 2016, when a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individuals, filed a petition3,4,5 calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the TSCA.  The petition was made on the grounds that a large body of research demonstrates fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities, and included over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing these health risks.  The EPA denied the petition6 February 27, 2017, on the grounds that it had failed to present “a scientifically defensible basis” to conclude that anyone had in fact suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of fluoride exposure. In response, FAN and its coalition partners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, legally challenging the EPA’s denial of their petition. Fluoride on Trial The trial began June 8, 2020.7 During the trial, Connett argued the EPA must, based on the evidence, eliminate the unreasonable risk of neurotoxicity posed by fluoride by banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water. Interestingly, among the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were the EPA’s own in-house experts on fluoride who, when asked to comment on the latest evidence, agreed that the animal data support the biological plausibility that fluoride causes neurotoxic effects in human beings. Joyce Donahue, an EPA scientist with the Office of Water, also admitted that studies showing harm to the brain warrant a thorough reevaluation of the theory that bone and teeth are the most sensitive to fluoride damage. Depositions by CDC officials, which took place in 2018, also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects. Neither does the EPA have safety data on fluoride intake and effects on the brain. Connett asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure. They produced one: A 1995 study in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats. Ironically, this study, Connett points out, shows that neonatal fluoride exposure actually is neurotoxic to rats, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case. Recent Studies Confirm Harms to Children The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there are only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. In reality, the scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. "There is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure … especially when the exposure occurs during early d

Fluoride on Trial

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century when, in reality, it’s one its greatest failures. Yet, in the face of solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive. 

Proponents such as the American Dental Association and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control have spent millions of dollars on promotion1 and public relations2 to sell fluoridation using half-truths and misleading talking points. 

While the U.S. is still trying to hold on to the fallacy that water fluoridation is a public health service, it’s one of the most widely rejected health interventions in the world, with 95% of the global population consuming nonfluoridated water. 

Now, thanks to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the sustained education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and its supporters, it looks like we may finally be looking at an end to this toxic practice.

In the video above, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, interviews Michael Connett, an attorney for FAN who is leading the lawsuit against the EPA.

Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Act

Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows citizens and nongovernmental organizations to petition the EPA to remove toxic substances found to pose an “unreasonable risk” either to the general population or a subset of that population.

What’s more, it allows citizens and watchdog groups to present their case before a judge. That is what FAN did in this case, and it’s the first time a citizen’s group has ever brought a Section 21 TSCA petition all the way through to trial.

It began November 22, 2016, when a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individuals, filed a petition3,4,5 calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the TSCA. 

The petition was made on the grounds that a large body of research demonstrates fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities, and included over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing these health risks. 

The EPA denied the petition6 February 27, 2017, on the grounds that it had failed to present “a scientifically defensible basis” to conclude that anyone had in fact suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of fluoride exposure. In response, FAN and its coalition partners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, legally challenging the EPA’s denial of their petition.

Fluoride on Trial

The trial began June 8, 2020.7 During the trial, Connett argued the EPA must, based on the evidence, eliminate the unreasonable risk of neurotoxicity posed by fluoride by banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water.

Interestingly, among the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were the EPA’s own in-house experts on fluoride who, when asked to comment on the latest evidence, agreed that the animal data support the biological plausibility that fluoride causes neurotoxic effects in human beings.

Joyce Donahue, an EPA scientist with the Office of Water, also admitted that studies showing harm to the brain warrant a thorough reevaluation of the theory that bone and teeth are the most sensitive to fluoride damage.

Depositions by CDC officials, which took place in 2018, also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects. Neither does the EPA have safety data on fluoride intake and effects on the brain.

Connett asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure. They produced one: A 1995 study in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats.

Ironically, this study, Connett points out, shows that neonatal fluoride exposure actually is neurotoxic to rats, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case.

Recent Studies Confirm Harms to Children

The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there are only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant.

In reality, the scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

Evidence brought forth during the trial included some 300 animal and human studies, including several published in 2019 and 2020 that show water fluoridation poses a significant risk to children’s brains and lowers IQ.

These studies are among the strongest yet, and are obviously relevant to water fluoridation as they were conducted in communities that have what the ADA considers an “optimal level” of fluoride in drinking water:

Green 20198 — Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.

Riddell 20199 — Published in Environment International, this study found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.

Malin 201910 — Published in Environmental Health, it linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.

Malin 201911 — Published in Environment International. A second study by Malin’s team reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride. The CDC funded this study.

Till 202012 — Published in Environment International, this study reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.

Uyghurturk 202013 — Published in Environmental Health, it found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019, and Bashash et al, 2017.14,15

The Bashash study,16,17 funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA, followed pregnant women and their babies for 12 years, measuring the fluoride in their urine, which reveals total exposure, regardless of the source. They found a strong relationship between the fluoride level in mothers’ urine and IQ scores in their children at the ages of 4, and between 6 and 12.

Fluoride Is Neurotoxic

What’s more, a draft systematic review published in 2020 by the National Toxicology Program, which included 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, concluded that fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin based on the large number, quality and consistency of brain studies.

This review did not include the three most recent neurotoxicity-related studies: Till 2019, Riddell 2019 and Uyghurturk 2020, the addition of which renders the evidence for neurotoxicity even more compelling.

While the draft NTP review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. This fact was also highlighted in a letter18 published in Pediatric Research by the co-authors of the 2019 JAMA Pediatrics study, who wrote:19

“Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation … is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent.

When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results.

Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring …

The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit.”

Similarly, in a 2019 review,20 Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean concluded:

“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.”

As early as 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) looked at the toxicology of fluoride, concluding that, based on the studies available at that time, fluoride poses a threat to the brain.21

Fluoride Suppresses Thyroid Function

As noted by Connett in the interview above, studies have also demonstrated that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor22 that suppresses thyroid function. This too can help explain some of the neurological damage seen from fluoride exposure.

For example, it is known that hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) during pregnancy can result in lowered IQ and other neurological deficits in their offspring. Studies23,24 have also shown fluoride can promote and exacerbate iodine deficiency.

In 2015, British researchers warned that 15,000 people may be needlessly afflicted with hypothyroidism in the U.K. as a result of drinking fluoridated water.25,26,27 Areas with fluoride levels above 0.3 mg/L had a 30% higher rate of hypothyroidism than nonfluoridated areas.

Fluoride’s Toxic Past

In the interview, Connett and Kennedy also review and summarize the sordid history of how fluoride chemicals came to be added to water supplies in the first place. During the Manhattan Project, enormous amounts of fluoride chemicals were used in the processing of uranium for the atom bomb.

Records clearly show fluoride was a highly dangerous substance causing significant environmental harm. In 1946, farmers in Salem County sued the U.S. government for $400,000 in damages to peach crops caused by fluoride fumes traced back to a facility involved in the bomb-making process. Cattle were also killed.

As noted by Connett, the aluminum and bomb-making industries realized they had a serious problem on their hands and were facing staggering liability for fluoride pollution. As a result, you start to see a shift in the science at that time. Harmful effects on human health were suppressed, and potential benefits were being introduced — even before there was any safety data available whatsoever.

Too Much Fluoride Causes Dental Fluorosis

The fact of the matter is that fluoride is a toxic substance with no known biological imperative. Researchers have even questioned its efficacy as a topical anticaries prophylactic.28

Dental caries is caused by demineralization of your teeth by the acids formed during the bacterial fermentation of dietary sugars. Demineralization is countered by the deposit of minerals from your saliva. However, the remineralization process is a slow one, and fluoride is said to prevent dental caries by enhancing this remineralization.

The problem is your teeth do not actually rely on fluoride for remineralization. What’s more, research29 has concluded that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It has long been believed that fluoride changes the main mineral in tooth enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more decay-resistant material called fluorapatite.

However, the researchers found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick — meaning it would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. As noted by the authors, “it has to be asked whether such narrow … layers really can act as protective layers for the enamel.”

Meanwhile, fluoride has been shown to cause significant systemic harm when ingested. This is why, in 2019, the CDC warned that 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 6 use potentially dangerous amounts of toothpaste. As reported by the Chicago Sun Times:30

“Brushing with too much toothpaste can damage enamel, as children could swallow too much fluoride while their teeth are developing, the CDC says. This can cause dental fluorosis, white marks and discoloration of teeth.”

If you look closely, you’ll find fluoride-containing toothpastes have a warning on their label stating that “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

This warning was made mandatory for fluoride-containing dental products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April 1997.31 Ironically, while swallowing toothpaste is recognized as a cause for concern, we’re supposed to believe that drinking fluoridated water at any quantity is not only safe, but beneficial for our teeth.

In reality, studies have found that children with fluorosis have increased rates of cavities32,33 — a finding that suggests more fluoride is definitely not better, not even when it comes to protecting against cavities.

Current Status of the Lawsuit

After the closing arguments were presented, the judge made several comments on the record, including that the evidence presented by plaintiffs raises serious questions about the policy to fluoridate water supplies, and that the EPA had illegitimately denied FAN’s 2016 petition for TSCA action. The judge also noted that “the EPA, during these years of litigation, has used the wrong standard to assess this evidence,” Connett says.

In the end, the judge asked that the two parties agree to give the EPA the chance to reassess the evidence correctly, using the right standard of review. Connett expressed his concern to the Court that the EPA has a history of dragging its feet on this issue and that there’s enough evidence to take immediate protective action.

The judge in turn noted that he expects the EPA to conclude its re-evaluation within months, not years. Connett hopes they will be able to come to an agreement with the EPA, but if they don’t, the judge has made it clear that he has the evidence and will make a ruling, if needed.

So, we still have to wait for the conclusion to this groundbreaking trial, but clearly, we are closer than we’ve ever been to seeing an end to this tragic and unnecessary poisoning of millions of individuals.

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
0
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

President Trump’s COVID-19 Treatment Is Already Unique. Here’s What Doctors May Do Next

He's been hospitalized and has received an experimental treatment

President Trump’s COVID-19 Treatment Is Already Unique. Here’s What Doctors May Do Next
helicoptered to Walter Reed Army Hospital, where he will be hospitalized for at least a few days “out of an abundance of caution,” the White House says; the First Lady, Melania Trump, has also tested positive.

How the President of the United States is treated for COVID-19 will likely be very different from how the 7 million-plus other Americans who have contracted the disease were taken care of, at least in some ways. To start, before Trump was hospitalized, his physician Sean Conley revealed that the President received an experimental drug duo from Regeneron of so-called monoclonal antibodies. The treatment can help the body’s immune system fight viruses like SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, by preventing them from infecting healthy cells.

But the treatment is still undergoing trials; an initial study was promising but involved only 275 people. The cocktail not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor authorized for emergency use. That leaves two other ways for a person to get such a treatment. The first and most common is by signing up for a clinical trial, though there’s no guarantee that a volunteer would get the treatment rather than a placebo. The second, which Trump took advantage of, is for a person’s physician to apply to the company behind a treatment and the FDA for so-called “compassionate use,” a one-time, patient-specific authorization based on the doctor making a strong case that it’s worth trying an experimental treatment despite the inherent uncertainty and risk.

“Often we [as doctors] have to make decisions without the results of a clinical trial,” says Dr. Matthew Neal, associate professor of surgery and critical care medicine at University of Pittsburgh. “And the President’s doctors did that.”

That Trump has contracted COVID-19 well into the pandemic means that, unlike those who were sickened early on, the President will benefit from months of scientific and medical understanding of the disease. While there is still no truly standard way to treat COVID-19, Trump’s treatment both reflects what doctors have learned about the potentially fatal disease over the past nine months, and pushes the boundaries of that knowledge.

One such lesson from the past year is that COVID-19 may be best understood as two different diseases, requiring two different types of treatments. The infection itself can lead to the hallmark symptoms of fever, fatigue, headache and shortness of breath, as the virus burrows into a person’s respiratory tract and starts to replicate in the first few days after exposure. But as the virus continues to gain a foothold, the body’s immune system can mount a hyper-aggressive response. That attack on the virus, along with the inflammation that ensues, can damage the lungs and other organs and contribute to some of the more severe symptoms, including respiratory failure, blood clots, strokes and even death.

Treating the early infection—sometimes before symptoms appear—with antiviral medications, or the appropriately dedicated immune cells designed to target the virus, might help to prevent the disease from progressing to the point where the immune system starts to do major damage. The experimental treatment the President received represents one such therapy that researchers are studying. The drug cocktail is made of two monoclonal antibodies that were found from combing the blood of people who recovered from COVID-19, as well as from infected mice.

Just days before Trump announced his diagnosis, Regeneron reported encouraging results from its ongoing study of the dual-drug therapy. Among 275 people who had COVID-19 but were not ill enough to be hospitalized, those receiving the treatment showed a significant reduction in the amount of virus in their blood in seven days compared to those receiving the placebo. The drugs seemed to have the strongest effect in helping people who were slower to mount natural immune responses to the virus—essentially stepping in to battle the infection and give the patients’ immune systems time to build a stronger defense. Regeneron is also studying its combination therapy in patients who are hospitalized with more severe symptoms. But patients like Trump, who are still early in their disease course, represent the next wave of people who might benefit from the therapy.

Drew Angerer—Getty ImagesU.S. President Donald Trump leaves the White House for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on the South Lawn of the White House on October 2, 2020 in Washington, D.C.

Trump’s hospitalization strays from the general approach to caring for newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients, say doctors who have treated dozens of patients since the pandemic began. For them, the first move is enforcing an indefinite period of quarantine to limit the chances for infected people to spread the virus to others.

“One thing we have learned is that at very early phases of illness, such as where the President appears to be at the moment, is likely when patients are the most infectious,” says Dr. Jonathan Grein, director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai and an infectious disease physician. “We have learned that patients can be infectious before they are symptomatic, and that it appears they are likely most infectious around the time their symptoms are beginning. So he is likely at the phase of his illness where there is the most potential for transmitting the virus to others.”

So far, about 80% of people who test positive for COVID-19 tend to recover with mild or even no symptoms and don’t need to be hospitalized. Instead, they require close monitoring and over-the-counter treatments like acetaminophen to reduce their fever, and fluids to stay hydrated, says Dr. David Nace, clinical chief of geriatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. “We can manage mild cases as outpatients with normal supportive care, watching them extremely closely,” he says.

The next two weeks will be vital for determining whether President Trump has only a mild case of COVID-19, or whether it progresses on to more severe disease. One certainty about SARS-CoV-2 infections is that doctors can’t predict how the virus will affect individual patients. “It is a bizarre virus because it has so many different presentations,” says Nace. He has seen people who never develop symptoms and recover, while others don’t develop symptoms until the second week of their infection, at which point they become severely ill, and still others who have very serious symptoms early in their disease and then suddenly rebound and recover. Of course, COVID-19 can also be fatal; more than 1 million people have died of the disease worldwide so far.

Trump can benefit from some of the collected wisdom gathered from the more than 34 million people who tested positive before him about deciding, for example, if and when he might need hospitalized care and whether he needs new therapies being tested for those who been have admitted. The White House has not said if Trump’s symptoms have worsened to the point where he requires supplemental oxygen or more intensive care.

When deciding if their COVID-19 patients need to be hospitalized, doctors typically look for persistent and worsening symptoms, especially difficulty breathing. “That is definitely a huge red flag,” says Grein. These patients are then admitted to the hospital mainly so they can receive supplemental oxygen to help them breathe and increase the amount of oxygen in their blood, which can drop to dangerously low levels if their breathing is compromised.

If that’s not enough, doctors turn to the experimental antiviral drug remdesivir, which the FDA authorized for use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms. Like the antibodies in the Regeneron combination, remdesivir works by blocking the virus’ ability to infect healthy cells. Early studies have shown that people receiving infusions of remdesivir can shorten their hospital stay and wean themselves off of additional oxygen sooner than those not receiving the drug. Studies on the drug are continuing, however, including with people who have recently been diagnosed but only have mild symptoms and don’t need to be hospitalized.

Some patients are also receiving another type of antibody therapy in the form of convalescent plasma. It’s extracted from blood donated by recovered patients, and gives newly infected patients a boost of immune-fighting cells specifically designed to dispatch SARS-CoV-2. While some scientists, including Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, note the data on the effectiveness of convalescent plasma in fighting COVID-19 aren’t complete yet, the strategy has a long history in treating infectious diseases like influenza. The FDA approved the therapy on an emergency basis for treating COVID-19 in late August.

Trump Mask
Kevin Dietsch—UPI/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesU.S. President Donald Trump holds a protective mask during the first U.S. presidential debate hosted by Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2020.

For people with more advanced disease, steroids like dexamethasone, which is used to rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and Crohn’s disease, can also be helpful. In more severe cases of COVID-19, as the body’s own immune system launches a hyperactive response against the virus, the inflammation begins to do more damage to healthy cells and tissues than the virus itself. Studies on COVID-19 patients show that steroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs can suppress this response and lessen the more severe symptoms of the disease on the respiratory system.

Depending on whether his symptoms get worse, Trump may also benefit from new understanding about ventilators. They were heavily used in the early days of the pandemic to rescue patients in intensive care who struggled to breathe. But the latest data show that people who were intubated and put on ventilators fared worse than those who were not. Doctors are now more judicious about using the mechanical breathing devices and rely instead on some of the more promising therapies, like convalescent plasma or remdesivir.

Doctors also now know that blood clots are a risk factor for COVID-19 patients. Neal, with support from the NIH, is testing blood thinners for hospitalized patients to lower their risk of developing dangerous clots that can lead to embolisms and strokes. It’s possible that some of the damage to the lungs might even be due to clots forming in small blood vessels there, he says. “We know SARS-CoV-2 has an effect on platelets [which cause clots], by making platelets hyperactive and over-responsive,” says Neal. “And we know there is a close link between blood clotting and inflammation, and that SARS-CoV-2 infection results in a very profound inflammatory process.”

It’s impossible to predict how Trump’s COVID-19 experience will play out—both for him and for the country more broadly. But what is certain is that Trump’s care, and the decisions his doctors make, will be the result of everything that doctors and scientists have learned from COVID-19 patients and study participants. The point, after all, is to make sure the last case is never treated the same way as the first—and to improve results for everyone.

Source : Time More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.