Vaccines and cancer: The myth that won’t die
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Two recent studies reported rising cancer rates among younger adults in the U.S. and worldwide. This prompted some online anti-vaccine accounts to link the studies’ findings to COVID-19 vaccines.
But, as with other myths, the data tells a very different story.
What you need to know
- Baseless claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer have persisted online for several years and gained traction in late 2023.
- Two recent reports finding rising cancer rates among younger adults are based on pre-pandemic cancer incidence data. Cancer rates in the U.S. have been on the rise since the 1990s.
- There is no evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk.
False claims about COVID-19 vaccines began circulating months before the vaccines were available. Chief among these claims was misinformed speculation that vaccine mRNA could alter or integrate into vaccine recipients’ DNA.
It does not. But that didn’t prevent some on social media from spinning that claim into a persistent myth alleging that mRNA vaccines can cause or accelerate cancer growth. Anti-vaccine groups even coined the term “turbo cancer” to describe a fake phenomenon of abnormally aggressive cancers allegedly linked to COVID-19 vaccines.
They used the American Cancer Society’s 2024 cancer projection—based on incidence data through 2020—and a study of global cancer trends between 1999 and 2019 to bolster the false claims. This exposed the dishonesty at the heart of the anti-vaccine messaging, as data that predated the pandemic by decades was carelessly linked to COVID-19 vaccines in viral social media posts.
Some on social media cherry-pick data and use unfounded evidence because the claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer are not true. According to the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society, there is no evidence of any link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in cancer diagnosis, progression, or remission.
Why does the vaccine cancer myth endure?
At the root of false cancer claims about COVID-19 vaccines is a long history of anti-vaccine figures falsely linking vaccines to cancer. Polio and HPV vaccines have both been the target of disproven cancer myths.
Not only do HPV vaccines not cause cancer, they are one of only two vaccines that prevent cancer.
In the case of polio vaccines, some early batches were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), a virus that is known to cause cancer in some mammals but not humans. The contaminated batches were discovered, and no other vaccine has had SV40 contamination in over 60 years.
Follow-up studies found no increase in cancer rates in people who received the SV40-contaminated polio vaccine. Yet, vaccine opponents have for decades claimed that polio vaccines cause cancer.
Recycling of the SV40 myth
The SV40 myth resurfaced in 2023 when vaccine opponents claimed that COVID-19 vaccines contain the virus. In reality, a small, nonfunctional piece of the SV40 virus is used in the production of some COVID-19 vaccines. This DNA fragment, called the promoter, is commonly used in biomedical research and vaccine development and doesn’t remain in the finished product.
Crucially, the SV40 promoter used to produce COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t contain the part of the virus that enters the cell nucleus and is associated with cancer-causing properties in some animals. The promoter also lacks the ability to survive on its own inside the cell or interact with DNA. In other words, it poses no risk to humans.
Over 5.6 billion people worldwide have received COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020. At that scale, even the tiniest increase in cancer rates in vaccinated populations would equal hundreds of thousands of excess cancer diagnoses and deaths. The evidence for alleged vaccine-linked cancer would be observed in real incidence, treatment, and mortality data, not social media anecdotes or unverifiable reports.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Great Cholesterol Myth, Revised and Expanded – by Dr. Jonny Bowden and Dr. Stephen Sinatra
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The topic of cholesterol, and saturated fat for that matter, is a complex and often controversial one. How does this book treat it?
With strong opinions, is how—but backed by good science. The authors, a nutritionist and a cardiologist, pull no punches about outdated and/or cherry-picked science, and instead make the case for looking at what, statistically speaking, appear to be the real strongest risk factors.
So, are they advocating for Dave Asprey-style butter-guzzling, or “the carnivore diet”? No, no they are not. Those things remain unhealthy, even if they give some short-term gains (of energy levels, weight loss, etc).
They do advocate, however, for enjoying saturated fats in moderation, and instead of certain polyunsaturated seed oils that do far worse. They also advocate strongly for avoiding sugar, stress, and (for different reasons) statins (in most people’s cases).
They also demystify in clear terms, and often with diagrams and infographics, the various kinds of fats and their components, broken down in far more detail than any other pop-science source this reviewer has seen.
Bottom line: if you want to take a scientific approach to heart health, this book can help you to focus on what will actually make the biggest difference.
Share This Post
-
Plant-Based Alternatives for Meat Recipes
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝How about providing a plant-based alternative when you post meat-based recipes? I appreciate how much you advocate for veggie diets and think offering an alternative with your recipes would support that❞
Glad you’re enjoying! And yes, we do usually do that. But: pardon, we missed one (the Tuna Steak with Protein Salad) because it’d be more than a simple this-for-that substitution, we didn’t already have an alternative recipe up (as with the salmon recipes such as the Chili Hot-Bedded Salmon and Thai Green Curry Salmon Burgers).
Our recipes, by the way, will tend towards being vegan, vegetarian, or at least pescatarian. This is for several reasons:
- Good science suggests the best diet for general purpose good health is one that is mostly plants, with optional moderate amounts of fermented dairy products, fish, and/or eggs.
- Your writer here (it’s me, hi) has been vegan for many years, transitioning to such via pescatarianism and ovo-lacto vegetarianism, and so the skill of cooking meat is least fresh in my memory, meaning I’d not be confident writing about that, especially as cooking meat has the gravest health consequences for messing it up.
Note on biases: notwithstanding this writer being vegan, we at 10almonds are committed to reporting the science as it stands with no agenda besides good health. Hence, there will continue to be unbiased information about animal products’ health considerations, positive as well as negative.
See also: Do We Need Animal Products To Be Healthy?
…as well as, of course, some animal-based classics from our archives including:
We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of & Eggs: All Things In Moderation?
Finishing with one for the vegans though, you might enjoy:
Which Plant Milk? We Compare 6 Of The Most Popular
Some previous articles you might enjoy meanwhile:
- Pinpointing The Usefulness Of Acupuncture
- Science-Based Alternative Pain Relief
- Peripheral Neuropathy: How To Avoid It, Manage It, Treat It
- What Does Lion’s Mane Actually Do, Anyway?
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Women spend more of their money on health care than men. And no, it’s not just about ‘women’s issues’
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Medicare, Australia’s universal health insurance scheme, guarantees all Australians access to a wide range of health and hospital services at low or no cost.
Although access to the scheme is universal across Australia (regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status), one analysis suggests women often spend more out-of-pocket on health services than men.
Other research has found men and women spend similar amounts on health care overall, or even that men spend a little more. However, it’s clear women spend a greater proportion of their overall expenditure on health care than men. They’re also more likely to skip or delay medical care due to the cost.
So why do women often spend more of their money on health care, and how can we address this gap?
Elizaveta Galitckaia/Shutterstock Women have more chronic diseases, and access more services
Women are more likely to have a chronic health condition compared to men. They’re also more likely to report having multiple chronic conditions.
While men generally die earlier, women are more likely to spend more of their life living with disease. There are also some conditions which affect women more than men, such as autoimmune conditions (for example, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis).
Further, medical treatments can sometimes be less effective for women due to a focus on men in medical research.
These disparities are likely significant in understanding why women access health services more than men.
For example, 88% of women saw a GP in 2021–22 compared to 79% of men.
As the number of GPs offering bulk billing continues to decline, women are likely to need to pay more out-of-pocket, because they see a GP more often.
In 2020–21, 4.3% of women said they had delayed seeing a GP due to cost at least once in the previous 12 months, compared to 2.7% of men.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has also shown women are more likely to delay or avoid seeing a mental health professional due to cost.
Women are more likely to live with chronic medical conditions than men. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock Women are also more likely to need prescription medications, owing at least partly to their increased rates of chronic conditions. This adds further out-of-pocket costs. In 2020–21, 62% of women received a prescription, compared to 37% of men.
In the same period, 6.1% of women delayed getting, or did not get prescribed medication because of the cost, compared to 4.9% of men.
Reproductive health conditions
While women are disproportionately affected by chronic health conditions throughout their lifespan, much of the disparity in health-care needs is concentrated between the first period and menopause.
Almost half of women aged over 18 report having experienced chronic pelvic pain in the previous five years. This can be caused by conditions such as endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea (period pain), vulvodynia (vulva pain), and bladder pain.
One in seven women will have a diagnosis of endometriosis by age 49.
Meanwhile, a quarter of all women aged 45–64 report symptoms related to menopause that are significant enough to disrupt their daily life.
All of these conditions can significantly reduce quality of life and increase the need to seek health care, sometimes including surgical treatment.
Of course, conditions like endometriosis don’t just affect women. They also impact trans men, intersex people, and those who are gender diverse.
Diagnosis can be costly
Women often have to wait longer to get a diagnosis for chronic conditions. One preprint study found women wait an average of 134 days (around 4.5 months) longer than men for a diagnosis of a long-term chronic disease.
Delays in diagnosis often result in needing to see more doctors, again increasing the costs.
Despite affecting about as many people as diabetes, it takes an average of between six-and-a-half to eight years to diagnose endometriosis in Australia. This can be attributed to a number of factors including society’s normalisation of women’s pain, poor knowledge about endometriosis among some health professionals, and the lack of affordable, non-invasive methods to accurately diagnose the condition.
There have been recent improvements, with the introduction of Medicare rebates for longer GP consultations of up to 60 minutes. While this is not only for women, this extra time will be valuable in diagnosing and managing complex conditions.
But gender inequality issues still exist in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. For example, both pelvic and breast ultrasound rebates are less than a scan for the scrotum, and no rebate exists for the MRI investigation of a woman’s pelvic pain.
Management can be expensive too
Many chronic conditions, such as endometriosis, which has a wide range of symptoms but no cure, can be very hard to manage. People with endometriosis often use allied health and complementary medicine to help with symptoms.
On average, women are more likely than men to use both complementary therapies and allied health.
While women with chronic conditions can access a chronic disease management plan, which provides Medicare-subsidised visits to a range of allied health services (for example, physiotherapist, psychologist, dietitian), this plan only subsidises five sessions per calendar year. And the reimbursement is usually around 50% or less, so there are still significant out-of-pocket costs.
In the case of chronic pelvic pain, the cost of accessing allied or complementary health services has been found to average A$480.32 across a two-month period (across both those who have a chronic disease management plan and those who don’t).
More spending, less saving
Womens’ health-care needs can also perpetuate financial strain beyond direct health-care costs. For example, women with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain are often caught in a cycle of needing time off from work to attend medical appointments.
Our preliminary research has shown these repeated requests, combined with the common dismissal of symptoms associated with pelvic pain, means women sometimes face discrimination at work. This can lead to lack of career progression, underemployment, and premature retirement.
More women are prescribed medication than men. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Similarly, with 160,000 women entering menopause each year in Australia (and this number expected to increase with population growth), the financial impacts are substantial.
As many as one in four women may either shift to part-time work, take time out of the workforce, or retire early due to menopause, therefore earning less and paying less into their super.
How can we close this gap?
Even though women are more prone to chronic conditions, until relatively recently, much of medical research has been done on men. We’re only now beginning to realise important differences in how men and women experience certain conditions (such as chronic pain).
Investing in women’s health research will be important to improve treatments so women are less burdened by chronic conditions.
In the 2024–25 federal budget, the government committed $160 million towards a women’s health package to tackle gender bias in the health system (including cost disparities), upskill medical professionals, and improve sexual and reproductive care.
While this reform is welcome, continued, long-term investment into women’s health is crucial.
Mike Armour, Associate Professor at NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University; Amelia Mardon, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Reproductive Health, Western Sydney University; Danielle Howe, PhD Candidate, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University; Hannah Adler, PhD Candidate, Health Communication and Health Sociology, Griffith University, and Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Finding Peace at the End of Life – by Henry Fersko-Weiss
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This is not the most cheery book we’ve reviewed, but it is an important one. From its first chapter, with “a tale of two deaths”, one that went as well as can be reasonably expected, and the other one not so much, it presents a lot of choices.
The book is not prescriptive in its advice regarding how to deal with these choices, but rather, investigative. It’s thought-provoking, and asks questions—tacitly and overtly.
While the subtitle says “for families and caregivers”, it’s as much worth when it comes to managing one’s own mortality, too, by the way.
As for the scope of the book, it covers everything from terminal diagnosis, through the last part of life, to the death itself, to all that goes on shortly afterwards.
Stylewise, it’s… We’d call it “easy-reading” for style, but obviously the content is very heavy, so you might want to read it a bit at a time anyway, depending on how sensitive to such topics you are.
Bottom line: this book is not exactly a fun read, but it’s a very worthwhile one, and a good way to avoid regrets later.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Before You Eat Breakfast: 3 Surprising Facts About Intermittent Fasting
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. William Li is well-known for his advocacy of “eating to beat disease”, and/but today he has advice for us about not eating to beat disease. In moderation, of course, thus: intermittent fasting.
The easy way
Dr. Li explains the benefits of intermittent fasting; how it improves the metabolism and gives the body a chance to do much-needed maintainance, including burning off any excess fat we had hanging around.
However, rather than calling for us to do anything unduly Spartan, he points out that it’s already very natural for us to fast while sleeping, so we only need to add a couple of hours before and after sleeping (assuming an 8 hour sleep), to make it to a 12-hour fast for close to zero effort and probably no discomfort.
And yes, he argues that a 12-hour fast is beneficial, and even if 16 hours would be better, we do not need to beat ourselves up about getting to 16; what is more important is sustainability of the practice.
Dr. Li advocates for flexibility in fasting, and that it should be done by what manner is easiest, rather than trying to stick to something religiously (of course, if you do fast for religious reasons, that is another matter, and/but beyond the scope of this today).
For more information on each of these, as well as examples and tips, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
- Intermittent Fasting: What’s the truth?
- 16/8 Intermittent Fasting For Beginners
- Meal Timings & Health: How Important Is Breakfast?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Long-Covid Patients Are Frustrated That Federal Research Hasn’t Found New Treatments
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Erica Hayes, 40, has not felt healthy since November 2020 when she first fell ill with covid.
Hayes is too sick to work, so she has spent much of the last four years sitting on her beige couch, often curled up under an electric blanket.
“My blood flow now sucks, so my hands and my feet are freezing. Even if I’m sweating, my toes are cold,” said Hayes, who lives in Western Pennsylvania. She misses feeling well enough to play with her 9-year-old son or attend her 17-year-old son’s baseball games.
Along with claiming the lives of 1.2 million Americans, the covid-19 pandemic has been described as a mass disabling event. Hayes is one of millions of Americans who suffer from long covid. Depending on the patient, the condition can rob someone of energy, scramble the autonomic nervous system, or fog their memory, among many other http://symptoms.in/ addition to the brain fog and chronic fatigue, Hayes’ constellation of symptoms includes frequent hives and migraines. Also, her tongue is constantly swollen and dry.
“I’ve had multiple doctors look at it and tell me they don’t know what’s going on,” Hayes said about her tongue.
Estimates of prevalence range considerably, depending on how researchers define long covid in a given study, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts it at 17 million adults.
Despite long covid’s vast reach, the federal government’s investment in researching the disease — to the tune of $1.15 billion as of December — has so far failed to bring any new treatments to market.
This disappoints and angers the patient community, who say the National Institutes of Health should focus on ways to stop their suffering instead of simply trying to understand why they’re suffering.
“It’s unconscionable that more than four years since this began, we still don’t have one FDA-approved drug,” said Meighan Stone, executive director of the Long COVID Campaign, a patient-led advocacy organization. Stone was among several people with long covid who spoke at a workshop hosted by the NIH in September where patients, clinicians, and researchers discussed their priorities and frustrations around the agency’s approach to long-covid research.
Some doctors and researchers are also critical of the agency’s research initiative, called RECOVER, or Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery. Without clinical trials, physicians specializing in treating long covid must rely on hunches to guide their clinical decisions, said Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development with the VA St Louis Healthcare System.
“What [RECOVER] lacks, really, is clarity of vision and clarity of purpose,” said Al-Aly, saying he agrees that the NIH has had enough time and money to produce more meaningful progress.
Now the NIH is starting to determine how to allocate an additional $662 million of funding for long-covid research, $300 million of which is earmarked for clinical trials. These funds will be allocated over the next four http://years.at/ the end of October, RECOVER issued a request for clinical trial ideas that look at potential therapies, including medications, saying its goal is “to work rapidly, collaboratively, and transparently to advance treatments for Long COVID.”
This turn suggests the NIH has begun to respond to patients. This has stirred cautious optimism among those who say that the agency’s approach to long covid has lacked urgency in the search for effective treatments.Stone calls this $300 million a down payment. She warns it’s going to take a lot more money to help people like Hayes regain some degree of health.“There really is a burden to make up this lost time now,” Stone said.
The NIH told KFF Health News and NPR via email that it recognizes the urgency in finding treatments. But to do that, there needs to be an understanding of the biological mechanisms that are making people sick, which is difficult to do with post-infectious conditions.
That’s why it has funded research into how long covid affects lung function, or trying to understand why only some people are afflicted with the condition.
Good Science Takes Time
In December 2020, Congress appropriated $1.15 billion for the NIH to launch RECOVER, raising hopes in the long-covid patient community.
Then-NIH Director Francis Collins explained that RECOVER’s goal was to better understand long covid as a disease and that clinical trials of potential treatments would come later.
According to RECOVER’s website, it has funded eight clinical trials to test the safety and effectiveness of an experimental treatment or intervention. Just one of those trials has published results.
On the other hand, RECOVER has supported more than 200 observational studies, such as research on how long covid affects pulmonary function and on which symptoms are most common. And the initiative has funded more than 40 pathobiology studies, which focus on the basic cellular and molecular mechanisms of long covid.
RECOVER’s website says this research has led to crucial insights on the risk factors for developing long covid and on understanding how the disease interacts with preexisting conditions.
It notes that observational studies are important in helping scientists to design and launch evidence-based clinical trials.
Good science takes time, said Leora Horwitz, the co-principal investigator for the RECOVER-Adult Observational Cohort at New York University. And long covid is an “exceedingly complicated” illness that appears to affect nearly every organ system, she said.
This makes it more difficult to study than many other diseases. Because long covid harms the body in so many ways, with widely variable symptoms, it’s harder to identify precise targets for treatment.
“I also will remind you that we’re only three, four years into this pandemic for most people,” Horwitz said. “We’ve been spending much more money than this, yearly, for 30, 40 years on other conditions.”
NYU received nearly $470 million of RECOVER funds in 2021, which the institution is using to spearhead the collection of data and biospecimens from up to 40,000 patients. Horwitz said nearly 30,000 are enrolled so far.
This vast repository, Horwitz said, supports ongoing observational research, allowing scientists to understand what is happening biologically to people who don’t recover after an initial infection — and that will help determine which clinical trials for treatments are worth undertaking.
“Simply trying treatments because they are available without any evidence about whether or why they may be effective reduces the likelihood of successful trials and may put patients at risk of harm,” she said.
Delayed Hopes or Incremental Progress?
The NIH told KFF Health News and NPR that patients and caregivers have been central to RECOVER from the beginning, “playing critical roles in designing studies and clinical trials, responding to surveys, serving on governance and publication groups, and guiding the initiative.”But the consensus from patient advocacy groups is that RECOVER should have done more to prioritize clinical trials from the outset. Patients also say RECOVER leadership ignored their priorities and experiences when determining which studies to fund.
RECOVER has scored some gains, said JD Davids, co-director of Long COVID Justice. This includes findings on differences in long covid between adults and kids.But Davids said the NIH shouldn’t have named the initiative “RECOVER,” since it wasn’t designed as a streamlined effort to develop treatments.
“The name’s a little cruel and misleading,” he said.
RECOVER’s initial allocation of $1.15 billion probably wasn’t enough to develop a new medication to treat long covid, said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Healthcare Transformation Institute.
But, he said, the results of preliminary clinical trials could have spurred pharmaceutical companies to fund more studies on drug development and test how existing drugs influence a patient’s immune response.
Emanuel is one of the authors of a March 2022 covid roadmap report. He notes that RECOVER’s lack of focus on new treatments was a problem. “Only 15% of the budget is for clinical studies. That is a failure in itself — a failure of having the right priorities,” he told KFF Health News and NPR via email.
And though the NYU biobank has been impactful, Emanuel said there needs to be more focus on how existing drugs influence immune response.
He said some clinical trials that RECOVER has funded are “ridiculous,” because they’ve focused on symptom amelioration, for example to study the benefits of over-the-counter medication to improve sleep. Other studies looked at non-pharmacological interventions, such as exercise and “brain training” to help with cognitive fog.
People with long covid say this type of clinical research contributes to what many describe as the “gaslighting” they experience from doctors, who sometimes blame a patient’s symptoms on anxiety or depression, rather than acknowledging long covid as a real illness with a physiological basis.
“I’m just disgusted,” said long-covid patient Hayes. “You wouldn’t tell somebody with diabetes to breathe through it.”
Chimére L. Sweeney, director and founder of the Black Long Covid Experience, said she’s even taken breaks from seeking treatment after getting fed up with being told that her symptoms were due to her diet or mental health.
“You’re at the whim of somebody who may not even understand the spectrum of long covid,” Sweeney said.
Insurance Battles Over Experimental Treatments
Since there are still no long-covid treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration, anything a physician prescribes is classified as either experimental — for unproven treatments — or an off-label use of a drug approved for other conditions. This means patients can struggle to get insurance to cover prescriptions.
Michael Brode, medical director for UT Health Austin’s Post-COVID-19 Program — said he writes many appeal letters. And some people pay for their own treatment.
For example, intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, low-dose naltrexone, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy are all promising treatments, he said.
For hyperbaric oxygen, two small, randomized controlled studies show improvements for the chronic fatigue and brain fog that often plague long-covid patients. The theory is that higher oxygen concentration and increased air pressure can help heal tissues that were damaged during a covid infection.
However, the out-of-pocket cost for a series of sessions in a hyperbaric chamber can run as much as $8,000, Brode said.
“Am I going to look a patient in the eye and say, ‘You need to spend that money for an unproven treatment’?” he said. “I don’t want to hype up a treatment that is still experimental. But I also don’t want to hide it.”
There’s a host of pharmaceuticals that have promising off-label uses for long covid, said microbiologist Amy Proal, president and chief scientific officer at the Massachusetts-based PolyBio Research Foundation. For instance, she’s collaborating on a clinical study that repurposes two HIV drugs to treat long covid.
Proal said research on treatments can move forward based on what’s already understood about the disease. For instance, she said that scientists have evidence — partly due to RECOVER research — that some patients continue to harbor small amounts of viral material after a covid infection. She has not received RECOVER funds but is researching antivirals.
But to vet a range of possible treatments for the millions suffering now — and to develop new drugs specifically targeting long covid — clinical trials are needed. And that requires money.
Hayes said she would definitely volunteer for an experimental drug trial. For now, though, “in order to not be absolutely miserable,” she said she focuses on what she can do, like having dinner with her http://family.at/ the same time, Hayes doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life on a beige couch.
RECOVER’s deadline to submit research proposals for potential long-covid treatments is Feb. 1.
This article is from a partnership that includes NPR and KFF Health News.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
