Search This Blog

Sunday, February 6, 2022

Still hope ivermectin will help fight covid

The actor and vaccine sceptic Laurence Fox announced on Twitter last Sunday that he’d tested positive for Covid – or ‘the Omnicold’, as he scornfully called it.

The 43-year-old, now leader of the anti-woke Reclaim Party, who says he has not been jabbed, explained that he was treating himself with a regime that included painkillers, a nasal rinse and ivermectin – a prescription anti-parasitic drug.

Ivermectin has been touted as a miracle Covid cure that costs pennies – although it’s not approved for this use in the UK, America or in Europe, and major reviews of clinical data have concluded that, at present, there’s not enough evidence to say whether there’s any benefit. To those who don’t believe the hype, it’s often simply dubbed ‘a horse dewormer’.

Social media erupted. Tweeters gleefully took the opportunity to remind Fox of recent provocative posts in which he claimed ‘the virus is all in your mind’, wore a T-shirt that read ‘No vaccine needed. I have an immune system’, and told a political journalist who’d tested positive to ‘have a Lemsip and grow a pair’.

Ivermectin immediately began trending on social media, including a post from Dr Rachel Clarke, an NHS palliative care doctor and author, who told her 240,000 followers: ‘I wish Laurence Fox a very speedy recovery, but it’s important to stress there is no clear evidence that ivermectin (a horse dewormer) reduces the risks of catching Covid, or its severity.’

Speaking to The Mail on Sunday’s Medical Minefield podcast while isolating at home in London, Fox claimed he had simply wanted to get people talking about the drug. He said: ‘I’m no scientific genius, but I keep an open mind. There are lots of scientific studies going round that show ivermectin could have an effect if taken in the early stages, when you’re at home, in stopping the virus replicating in the body and reducing the severity of illness.

‘But if you go to the Government website, their advice if you’ve got Covid is to take paracetamol. Or it’s jab, jab, jab, which we now know is only effective to a degree. Why aren’t they telling people there are other things they could do?’

Ivermectin was first developed for tropical medicine. It’s commonly used to treat nasty parasitic infections, including onchocerciasis, or river blindness, which causes loss of vision and severe skin itching, and lymphatic filariasis, which causes the limb deformity elephantiasis.

It is also used in veterinarian medicine, hence the ‘horse dewormer’ label. But as Fox points out, rightly, many drugs we take are also given to animals – antibiotics, for instance.

In truth, ivermectin’s parasite-fighting abilities mean it has been a life saver in developing countries since being introduced in the late 1970s – so much so, it’s on the World Health Organisation’s list of essential medicines. In 2015, its inventors won a Nobel Prize. But as the bugs that cause most of the illnesses that ivermectin treats aren’t seen in the UK, the drug isn’t licensed here.

It is being studied as a treatment for Covid at Oxford University. But the UK drugs watchdog, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, advises against using it for this purpose outside of a clinical trial. 

In America, medicines regulators at the Food and Drug Administration are more forthright. In response to reports of ‘patients who have required medical attention after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock’, they put out an article on their website titled: Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin To Treat Or Prevent Covid-19.

In it, they warn ‘taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous’, and that doing so ‘can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death’.

Fox, pictured, said he picked up a supply of the drug while on holiday in Mexico, where it is available 'over the counter'

Fox, pictured, said he picked up a supply of the drug while on holiday in Mexico, where it is available 'over the counter'

Laurence Fox: People who call Ivermectin a horse dewormer are racist
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time1:02
Fullscreen

Nevertheless, there are doctors in the UK going against NHS advice and giving it to Covid patients, The Mail on Sunday has learned. One we spoke to said they were contactable via private groups on messaging app Telegram, and a group called The World Council for Health, whose website includes advice on how much ivermectin to take. It’s the same regime that Fox followed.

The father-of-two picked up a supply of ivermectin tablets while on holiday in Mexico, where it’s widely available over the counter. He said he purchased ‘a load of it, just in case I ever needed it. I thought, why not?’

Fox says his son ‘came home from school with Covid’ and a few days later he began suffering symptoms himself – ‘shivering and shaking and feeling rotten’. He took a test – he says it’s the first he had done – which was positive.

When we talk, he says he’s ‘a bit bunged up, like I have a chesty cold’, but feeling fine. Fox also wanted to set the record straight.

‘I’m not anti-vax,’ he said. ‘I mean, my 82-year-old father took the vaccine, rather wisely, I’d imagine. But this shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all. My risk profile is massively lower than my father’s, so I think, my body, my choice. That’s what it means to live in a democratic society. And there should be more choices.

‘I want [ivermectin] to be up for debate. It might be a cheap way to stop people getting so ill, and by next winter we might have something people could take at home to stop them from getting so bad they need to go to hospital.

‘The problem is, as I discovered, even mention it or show any hesitancy about the vaccine and people jump on you. Or doctors on Twitter call it a horse dewormer, which is misinformation. It’s a safe drug taken by millions of children around the world.’

According to Fox: ‘The problem is, as I discovered, even mention it or show any hesitancy about the vaccine and people jump on you. Or doctors on Twitter call it a horse dewormer, which is misinformation. It’s a safe drug taken by millions of children around the world'

According to Fox: ‘The problem is, as I discovered, even mention it or show any hesitancy about the vaccine and people jump on you. Or doctors on Twitter call it a horse dewormer, which is misinformation. It’s a safe drug taken by millions of children around the world'

I am now '100% naturally immune': Laurence Fox after catching Covid
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time0:54
Fullscreen

These are all fair points. So what is the truth? Could ivermectin be a viable early-stage treatment for Covid, and even a vaccine alternative? Is it being hushed up by ‘big pharma’ and governments that realise there’s more money to be made from vaccines and more expensive drugs?

Or is this simply wishful thinking and conspiracy theory, with little or no evidence to back it up?

For the answer, we need to go back to mid-2020, when preliminary lab studies looking at repurposing existing drugs as Covid treatments suggested ivermectin was able to kill off the virus in test tubes. This led to clinical trials with Covid patients and, by the end of the year, some were reporting mind-blowing results.

One influential Egyptian paper, published in November 2020, found that a course of ivermectin could reduce deaths from Covid by 90 per cent. Shortly afterwards, in December, Wisconsin-based lung and intensive care specialist Dr Pierre Kory appeared before a Senate committee claiming ivermectin was a ‘miracle drug’ against Covid.

In a clip of his statement, viewed millions of times on YouTube, he said: ‘We have a solution to this crisis. There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact. And when I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly.’

At another point, he said ‘If you take it, you will not get sick’, mentioning an Argentine trial that found it prevented high-risk healthcare workers from catching Covid 100 per cent of the time.

Given these ringing endorsements, experts began asking why ivermectin wasn’t being immediately rolled out.

One of them was UK-based public health expert Dr Tess Lawrie. Inspired by Dr Kory, she set about reviewing all the available data on ivermectin and Covid, and was equally convinced. She said: ‘It was clear ivermectin was a game-changer. And thousands of people were dying every day at that stage.

‘I wrote to the British Medical Journal, and to [then Health Secretary] Matt Hancock. I made a video, appealing to the PM, trying to get the message out that we had a safe, effective treatment. But I heard nothing.’

Frustrated that health authorities were seemingly ignoring their pleas, both Lawrie and Kory helped produce guides to using ivermectin that are still available online.

As Dr Lawrie says: ‘We had something that reduced deaths, hospitalisation and transmission. I just thought, what the hell are we waiting for?’

If some of this sounds almost too good to be true, that’s because, in certain cases, it was.

Data experts began looking into the ivermectin studies and uncovered numerous instances of research fraud: invented or plagiarised results, details of patients who never existed and even trials that may never have take place. The Egyptian study had included patients who had died before the trial started. Dozens of patient records had been duplicated, and large sections of text were copied from other papers or press releases.

Data experts began looking into the ivermectin studies and uncovered numerous instances of research fraud: invented or plagiarised results, details of patients who never existed and even trials that may never have take place. The Egyptian study had included patients who had died before the trial started. Dozens of patient records had been duplicated, and large sections of text were copied from other papers or press releases

Data experts began looking into the ivermectin studies and uncovered numerous instances of research fraud: invented or plagiarised results, details of patients who never existed and even trials that may never have take place. The Egyptian study had included patients who had died before the trial started. Dozens of patient records had been duplicated, and large sections of text were copied from other papers or press releases

In July, the fraudulent paper was retracted. Another study was withdrawn in November by its Lebanese authors after it was revealed that patient records had been repeated over and over, as if copied and pasted. The researchers claim this was an ‘innocent mistake’, but have not thus far published a corrected version.

A hospital named as taking part in the Argentine trial told a leading news website that it has no record of it happening. An article by Dr Kory published in a major journal in January 2021 was later rejected, after the editors ruled that it contained ‘unbalanced or unsupported scientific conclusions’ and that ‘the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment, which is inappropriate’.

In November, a study by Dr Kory and colleagues which suggested Covid patients given treatment that included ivermectin were 75 per cent less likely to die was also retracted by the journal that had published it, after one of the hospitals involved said the data did not match its own records.

Of course, before any of the retractions, these papers had been read hundreds of thousands of times and their results cited as proof for ivermectin in numerous other studies and articles.

But the revelations did lead some scientists who were initially enthusiastic about ivermectin to change their stance – including respected Liverpool University virus expert Dr Andrew Hill.

Dr Hill initially joined the clamour for the drug to be approved for Covid without delay, after reviewing ivermectin studies.

But in the light of the staggering amount of fraudulent research, he changed his position – much to the fury of ivermectin advocates, who have since claimed he has financial conflicts of interest, something he denies.

Australian epidemiologist Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, whose research has been pivotal in exposing fraudulent ivermectin studies, says: ‘It was a big blow [for the pro-ivermectin lobby] because Dr Hill was probably their biggest proponent from the establishment. Without him, they’re really quite a fringe group.’

Dr Hill has since published a new analysis, excluding the problematic studies. All that remained is evidence that the drug has little to no effect on Covid.

When we spoke last week, he admitted he had been ‘naive’ in taking the ivermectin studies at face value. He said: ‘I’d never come across research fraud before, so I didn’t have the radar to detect it.’

Respected medical research body Cochrane conducted a similar analysis, excluding 18 studies with what they called ‘inconsistencies’, and came to a similar conclusion to Dr Hill.

Despite this, there are scientists have continued to back the treatment.

Most, it must be said, also express misgivings about Covid vaccines and government responses to the pandemic in general. They say large clinical trials that show ivermectin had little or no effect ‘were designed to fail’.

Dr Kory has lashed out online, calling the retractions censorship and a ‘heinous disinformation campaign’. He still maintains that the drug is ‘the single greatest solution to the global pandemic’.

‘The issue with ivermectin is simply its price – it costs less than a dollar and represents the biggest threat to the immense and future profits of the pharmaceutical industry,’ he wrote in a recent blog. He suggests that only very expensive new medications have been given the green light for Covid.

But others have pointed out that there are cheap, repurposed generic drugs that have been approved, including steroid drug dexamethasone and asthma inhaler medication budesonide.

Dr Lawrie also believes ivermectin became seen by goverments as a threat to ‘the Covid money machine’, and that allegations of fraud are ‘a hit’ on the drug, and on the reputations of the researchers who backed it.

But Dr Meyerowitz-Katz says: ‘The deficiencies in most of the studies that we identified were there for anyone to see and very easy to confirm. It’s hard to understand how they ever got published in the first place.’

Professor Paul Garner, of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who worked on the Cochrane review, says: ‘I’ve been looking at trials for over 25 years and you can see where results are suspicious – where the effect is just so dramatic, it can’t possibly be true.

‘The problem was that the scientific process just got bypassed by social-media hype.

‘It’s become an ideological debate, tied to the idea that the vaccine doesn’t work, which is ridiculous. The jabs have saved millions of lives, and made a very substantive difference to this pandemic.’

In some countries – particularly those that have struggled with their vaccine rollouts – ivermectin is provided to the public to treat and prevent Covid, which Prof Garner calls ‘unfortunate… it’s a political decision that goes against guidance from specialists who understand these areas of public health’.

Despite the controversy, one former GP now in private practice told me she had prescribed the drug to ‘dozens of patients’, adding: ‘It’s a safe drug. If someone gets in touch and asks for help, I’ll give it.

‘One woman who was getting worse and worse took it and rapidly got better. I don’t charge – I am not making any money out of this.’

There is currently another route to getting ivermectin: via Oxford University’s Principal trial.

Volunteers who catch Covid can register online within 14 days of diagnosis, and be sent a three-day supply. So far, more than 8,000 patients have been through the process – but the study is yet to report any findings.

The Oxford researchers declined to comment but a source close to the trial said: ‘It could turn out to work. We just don’t know yet.’

Pharmaceutical expert Dr Penny Ward, at King’s College London, says the medical community would welcome proof that ivermectin worked. She says: ‘An effective antiviral could be taken when you become unwell to help reduce severity, or if you have a close contact who then tests positive, to prevent the infection happening.

‘This debate is just going to go round and round until a properly conducted clinical trial produces results, giving us an answer about whether the damn thing works or not.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10479997/Is-horse-worming-pill-promoted-Laurence-Fox-Donald-Trump-miracle-cure-Covid.html

Solving medical mystery of deadly illness in young child

 New research from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has solved the medical mystery of why a 2-year-old child -- seemingly healthy at birth -- succumbed to an undiagnosed, rare illness. The research team identified a previously unknown genetic cause of interstitial lung disease, providing answers to the parents and doctors puzzled by the child's condition.

The research, conducted as part of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Undiagnosed Diseases Network, demonstrates, among other benefits, how an interdisciplinary team of researchers can work together to solve medical mysteries, helping patients understand a diagnosis, prognosis and what a genetic abnormality may mean for family members and family planning.

The study is published the week of Jan. 31 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network is a national research network aimed at diagnosing rare and previously undescribed diseases in patients whose conditions present as medical mysteries. Washington University serves as a clinical site that evaluates patients, and a model organism screening site that develops models to study genes in zebrafish and roundworms.

Interstitial lung disease is a broad term for a disease in which the lungs gradually deteriorate, causing scarring that makes it increasingly difficult to breathe. Several gene abnormalities have been associated with interstitial lung disease in infants and children, but some patients have the disease despite harboring none of the known genetic abnormalities. In the new study, the researchers were presented with the case of a young child with interstitial lung disease of unknown cause. The child later died of the disease.

The researchers analyzed the child's DNA code as well as the DNA code of both parents. A team of bioinformatics specialists at Baylor College of Medicine then narrowed down the initial long list of DNA code changes or genetic variants they identified -- many of which are harmless -- to a smaller list of possible culprits. The lung tissue from the child had evidence of a problem with surfactant in the lungs. In the lungs' air sacs, surfactant is a complex mixture of proteins and lipids that reduces surface tension in the air sacs and keeps them open, easing the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide during breathing. Many people with interstitial lung disease have abnormalities in the surfactant protein genes. But this child did not have any genetic variants in the code of the surfactant protein genes.

Rather, the researchers found a variant in a gene that makes a protein called RAB5B that turns out to be part of the cellular machinery that processes the surfactant proteins, the researchers later learned. They showed that the RAB5B protein plays a vital role in packaging the surfactants into tiny compartments called vesicles and moving them to their proper locations. In this case, the genetic variant did not simply prevent the protein from working -- the genetic variant caused the protein to be actively harmful.

"When mutations happen that break a protein, usually the protein just doesn't work anymore -- its function is missing," said co-senior author Tim Schedl, PhD, a professor of genetics. "But this is a case where the broken protein is not only not working, it's actively poisoning other processes. This results in the loss of the surfactants in the lungs."

The researchers were able to identify this abnormality by studying the genetic variant in roundworms that are called C. elegans. The child had only one abnormal copy of the gene, demonstrating that even having one normal copy did not compensate for the poisonous protein produced by the mutated copy. Worms with one abnormal copy required three normal copies to restore normal function, demonstrating the poisonous activity of the abnormal copy, according to experiments conducted by first author Huiyan "Winnie" Huang, PhD, an instructor in pediatrics. And consistent with these genetics, the researchers found that neither of the child's parents had the genetic abnormality, indicating that the variant was only present, by happenstance, in the child's genes and was therefore a new variant in the DNA that arose during embryonic development.

"In so many cases, we don't know why a patient has a particular disease," said co-senior author Steven L. Brody, MD, the Dorothy R. and Hubert C. Moog Professor of Pulmonary Medicine. "But we were able to solve this case, and there's a real satisfaction in that. Potentially, this could lead to finding answers for other people who have diseases similar to this."

Added co-author Jennifer A. Wambach, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics: "This gene, RAB5B, is now associated with interstitial lung disease in children. There are patients with a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease without a genetic explanation. For these patients, sequencing RAB5B may reveal changes in their DNA code that could account for their disease. Knowing the underlying genetic cause and identifying other patients with the same genetic problem can help us better predict the course of the disease, so we can better prepare patients and their families for what is to come, such as whether the patient may respond to treatments, or worsen to needing a lung transplant, or whether it may be appropriate to begin discussing compassionate care."

While the diagnosis was not able to help the patient in this case, knowledge of the underlying cause allowed the parents to know that the genetic variant was not inherited and there would be a very low chance of future children having the same disease.

"Because these types of genetic diseases are so rare, there's very little information out there for patients or families," said co-senior author Stephen C. Pak, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics. "But collectively, there are millions of people who live with rare genetic diseases. That's why the Undiagnosed Diseases Network was formed -- to bring together bioinformatics specialists, researchers, lung biologists, pediatricians and other experts into this type of unique collaboration to try and address this unmet need."

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, through the Office of Strategic Coordination/Office of the NIH Director, grant numbers U54 NS108251 and U01 HG007709. Funding also was provided by the NIH, grant number R01 GM100756; the NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs, grant number P40 OD010440; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the NIH through the LungMAP consortium, grant number U01HL122642, and the LungMAP Data Coordinating Center, grant number 1U01HL122638; the Children's Discovery Institute; the St. Louis Children's Hospital Foundation; and The Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital.


Story Source:

Materials provided by Washington University School of Medicine. Original written by Julia Evangelou Strait. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Huiyan Huang, Jiehong Pan, David R. Spielberg, Neil A. Hanchard, Daryl A. Scott, Lindsay C. Burrage, Hongzheng Dai, David Murdock, Jill A. Rosenfeld, Ariz Mohammad, Tao Huang, Anika G. Lindsey, Hyori Kim, Jian Chen, Avinash Ramu, Stephanie A. Morrison, Zachary D. Dawson, Alex Z. Hu, Eric Tycksen, Gary A. Silverman, Dustin Baldridge, Jennifer A. Wambach, Stephen C. Pak, Steven L. Brody, Tim Schedl. A dominant negative variant of RAB5B disrupts maturation of surfactant protein B and surfactant protein CProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022; 119 (6): e2105228119 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2105228119

Two Powerful Drugs Now Adding to US Overdose Crisis

 Emerging reports show that two little-known drugs are making lethal new contributions to America's drug overdose crisis.

Para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene are being seen more often by medical examiners looking into overdose deaths, according to a government report published Thursday. They often are taken with — or mixed with — illicit fentanyl, the drug mainly responsible for the more than 100,000 U.S. overdose deaths in the last year.

Increasingly, one or the other of the two drugs is the sole reason for some overdose deaths, said Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, one of the report authors.

Often injected or snorted, they are more powerful than fentanyl, she said.

"These (victims) just crumple and collapse. Frequently they don't even inject the full syringe" before overdosing, said Mileusnic-Polchan, who leads the medical examiner's office in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The overdose-reversing drug naloxone can still work, but more of it may be needed than when other drugs are involved, she said.

The report, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for U.S. medical and public health professionals, is one of the first of its kind to raise alarms about the drugs. It was written by officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration; a toxicology lab at the University of California, San Francisco; and the Knox County Regional Forensic Center.

The Knoxville area recorded 770 unintentional drug overdose deaths from November 2020 through August 2021, the authors wrote. Test results for 562 of them found fentanyl, and nearly 190 of those also tested positive for methamphetamine. But 48 involved para-fluorofentanyl, and 26 involved metonitazene, according to the report.

And deaths involving those drugs have increased since the summer, Mileusnic-Polchan said.

Para-fluorofentanyl is a synthetic opioid, like fentanyl. It was invented in the 1960s and has been sold illegally in the past, sometimes under the name "China-white."

In 2020, investigators began seeing an uptick in overdoses involving the drug. Recently, it's been found in heroin packets and counterfeit pills.

Metonitazene is from a class of painkillers developed in the 1950s but never authorized for medical treatment. That drug began appearing more often in overdose autopsy reports last year.

It's not clear how widespread the drugs are. Cash-strapped medical examiner's offices and coroner's offices are not able to pay for toxicology work that looks for every conceivable drug, Mileusnic-Polchan said. Her office documented the two drugs because it participated in a DEA program that uses the UCSF lab for analysis.

U.S. overdose deaths have been rising for more than two decades, but they accelerated in the past two years — jumping more than 20% in the latest year alone, according to the most recently available CDC data, through June 2021.

Experts have said the top drivers are the growing prevalence of deadly fentanyl and the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many drug users socially isolated and unable to get treatment or other support.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/967484

Highly Infectious Mutant HIV Strain Discovered In The Netherlands

 A new highly transmissible and much more damaging strain of HIV has just been discovered in the Netherlands by scientists working with Oxford University. They're calling it the "new virulent subtype B" - or "VB", for short.

An international study led by researchers from Oxford’s Big Data Institute identified 109 cases of the new variant after analyzing more than 6,700 samples from patients who had tested positive for HIV. Details from the study were published this week in the medical journal Science. The researchers determined that the variant has been circulating in the Netherlands for "several years".

Source: Science

Their research revealed "significant" genome differences between the VB strain and other HIV variants. One was a much higher viral load, meaning the virus would be both more virulent and more infectious.

"Individuals with the VB variant had a viral load (the level of the virus in the blood) between 3.5 and 5.5 times higher," the scientists said. The results of their research have been published in the journal Science.

According to the research, the rate of CD4 cell decline - the hallmark of immune system damage by HIV - "occurred twice as fast in individuals with the VB variant, placing them at risk of developing AIDS much more rapidly."

But perhaps more importantly: patients infected with the VB strain also demonstrated an increased risk of transmitting the virus to other people.

These conclusions confirm scientists' long-standing fears: that new mutated strains could make the HIV-1 virus even more infectious and more dangerous. According to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, the virus already affects 38MM people worldwide, and 36MM people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic in the early 1980s.

Fortunately, modern treatments proved just as effective at suppressing the VB strain, a sign that patients infected with it wouldn't see any difference in their prognosis as those diagnosed with other strains. "There’s no cause for alarm with this new viral variant," said Oxford epidemiologist Chris Wymant, the lead author on the paper, during an interview with the AFP.

"Reassuringly, after starting treatment, individuals with the VB variant had similar immune system recovery and survival to individuals with other HIV variants," the study said.

VB has actually been around for a while - decades, from what the scientists could tell. The earliest sample from the study came from a patient diagnosed in 1992.

However, since VB causes a more rapid deterioration of the immune system defenses "this makes it critical that individuals are diagnosed early and start treatment as soon as possible" the researchers said, also emphasizing the importance of frequent testing for at-risk individuals.

Finally: the discovery of the VB variant should "be a warning that we should never be overconfident about saying viruses will just evolve to become milder" Wymant said.

It's a lesson "the science" should have already learned from the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/scientists-discover-highly-infectious-mutant-hiv-strain-netherlands