The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it's been shown in the SARS Cove 1 that the binding of the of it to the h2 receptor results in a Down regulation in ace to receptors it results in decreased levels of a's 2 and this exacerbates lung entered injury and leads to worse outcomes
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it's not as simple as more ace 2 receptor bad less ace 2 receptor good and in fact it seems to be quite the opposite in terms of this SARS Cove one virus at least when it's binding to the ACE to your receptor it's decreasing the ACE 2 receptor it's also decreasing these two levels and that is causing worse injury in the lungs because it's dis regulating the Rena and angiotensin system
this has been shown to occur in the original SARS one virus so SARS cove 1 which also enters the cell through the ACE 2 receptor down regulates or decreases cellular ace 2 expression levels and this has been shown to cause worse disease severity in the SARS one virus