Everything went wrong in the beginning of the pandemic, following the complete denial of early intervention protocols to manage the acute upper respiratory symptoms and prevent the progression of the life threatening organic lower respiratory disease. Especially in the vulnerable population with low innate immunity. The situation worsene…
Everything went wrong in the beginning of the pandemic, following the complete denial of early intervention protocols to manage the acute upper respiratory symptoms and prevent the progression of the life threatening organic lower respiratory disease. Especially in the vulnerable population with low innate immunity. The situation worsened with the denial of access to primary care and early intervention as a result of mandated lock downs and complete lack of primary care. Resulting in a futile fire fighting mode and overwhelming of critical care facilities among the vulnerable population who could have avoided life threatening complications with early interventions. Thus creating a ground for emergency use authorisation and misleading the implementation of a poorly developed vaccine, using a technology which had questionable safety.
Further the entire population were sleep walked by the experts and medical fraternity into mandating this sub optimal vaccine which failed to prevent infection and transmission but claimed to reduce the severity of the disease. By conveniently redefining the purpose of vaccine after having failed in meeting the much needed and conventional clinical end point of preventing infection and its transmission. To make situation worse, boosters were proposed to meet the drop in antibody titres.
Thank you Philip for your relentless efforts in bringing out the facts and educating the population. I am sure we will be better prepared in the future.
You are right and each one of your sentence is a bullet point. Before the population was led into sleep walking by the experts over the magic of impending vaccines and new anti virals ( see my earlier comment below), the medical administration experts around the world were sleep walking on all the points mentioned by you. Were they led into ( by whom, no prizes for a safe guess) or were they dizzy on their own ? These administrators became a flock of sheep around the world in those first few months. I recall reading in April/May 2020 people scrambling about the viral phase ….in France, Germany, Italy….paracetamol ok, not ok, ibuprofen not ok, naproxen ok…. These were all the medicines in mind for the viral phase and no clues about the second phase, it was just plain emergency management, just physically keeping up breathing and the rest to the will of the God. Where was the need for the doctors to get so frozen in those initial weeks ? Did the Chinese story in Jan-Mar 2020 scare every one ? We don’t know. Collectively this was anything but a professional response.
More emphasis was made on the genetic engineering and chemistry of the so called novel pathogen than its impact on the host biology. The existence and spread of this pathogen was further fueled and endorsed by the false diagnostic test the PCR.
In my personal experience in managing patients I could not find any correlation in positivity and severity of the illness. But a definite correlation could be established among those with preexisting poor metabolic health, severe essential nutrient deficiencies compromising immune health and regulation ( not even the aged who were otherwise healthy). Which only points out to delayed or failed primary care in these vulnerable individuals. Everything else was a hoax.
The healthy and the so called asymptomatic individuals who evaded the localised contact of the pathogen are currently succumbing to the systemic effects of the unwanted protein post vaccination
Could doctors like you, who could understand the science of this virus quickly, both from observations and studies, establish in your practice level norms for early treatments and use of classical medicines ? Or were you constrained in any way by the official pronouncements and guidelines ? I am seeking this info because the correlation you found between illness severity and pre-existing conditions should have been only for the second phase, which also should have hit the patient only if he had not taken any meaningful treatment in the initial days of viral phase. Could you record the correlation distinctly for the two phases ? In my opinion on the organic chemistry of many common drugs, those who were taking regularly immuno modulators (including cancer drugs), anti inflammatories, anti histamines, TB/asthmatic drugs, anti psychotics/antidepressants, neuro drugs ( like pregabalin), bp drugs for their existing conditions were carrying sufficient anti viral protection from these drugs. So they must have experienced only a moderate/eventless viral phase with minimal chances of getting hit suddenly on the 8th-10th day by the autoimmune trigger of breathlessness. They must have been safe, unless they were under advice to discontinue them for a while if they tested positive ( as you said, the test was a self goal). I have written in many places that all these drugs have part anti viral behaviour by virtue of their chemical structures and a couple of them would never have allowed the viral load build up in individuals in the first few days. Can you clarify from your practice experience?
In fact what I am highlighting here is a very unique point, contrary to the omnibus view that the people with pre baggages were the ones hit hard by this virus. I have never read anyone saying that their medications were protective in the viral phase, which is what it is. I recall a report from California in early 2021 that a cohort of patients on anti inflammatories for their arthritic conditions were not infected by this virus, the prophylactic use of HCQ. If you have the resources and data, please look for individual correlations from your patient data. Small cohorts of patients on monitored anti inflammatories, anti histamines, anti depressants/ anti psychotics, long haul respiratory medicines, anti hypertensives, under each category and their infection record. That should be quite revealing. I have made this request a few times in the comments of various podcasts that I see, but no response. I am pretty certain that the every day run of these conditions and the metabolism of the medicines cross path with the host biology of this virus.
For sure the severity of the disease always was evident in all individuals who had a natural progression into the second phase (especially when they reached out to address their symptoms without correcting the initial hypersensitive phase due to lack of access to timely primary care). The propensity of this progression into this hyperinflammatory phase often was evident in those with preexisting conditions. One other common denominator making them susceptible to this progression was deficiency in Vitamin D (and in obese individuals) and those with higher NLR, ESR and /or low Tregs signifying preexisting proinflammatory state.
Individuals who were on treatment for preexisting hypersensitivity, chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions for sure were found to be relatively less susceptible to both the phases, I am more convinced with the idea that these agents helped in preventing and correcting these two phases rather than claiming them to be antivirals.
I want to renew my long standing emphasis again. Almost all these categories of drugs are anti virals with a possible split distinction - if the composite pKa of the drug is high, say 9, 10 and above, they can defang the virus directly and eliminate it. If the pKa is 7.5, 8 type, they can interfere in the work of the virus and render it ineffective. In either case, these molecules are only part anti virals. They can work as single anti viral drug adequately only if the viral load is low - asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. If the viral load is high, severely symptomatic, then they need to be bolstered by another drug or two, preferably an anti histamine. They won’t be adequate as single drugs. This was true of Ivermectin also. That is how your patients must have responded while on their existing drugs. One more point. The term “ those with existing conditions” may be used loosely. Some one who has been taking a daily metformin or two, or a daily telmesartan or amlodipine or even both sets of them for 15 years safely and without any other major health issues, in my opinion, should not be considered in that “pre existing condition” category. The term must apply only to more serious baggage. On the last line of your comment, the drugs were working on the virus directly or indirectly, that is how they were mitigating that phase, so they deserve to be called anti virals.
I appreciate your hypothesis of these agents contributing to an altered extracellular and intracellular microenvironment. As a result , providing the negating effect on the virus and its replication. Our focus was more on the host rather than the virus at that time. Based on the fact and rationale that we had very little time and resources to study the virus and then develop agents to counter it.
My opinion about antiparasitic agents being effective during the pandemic is based on the fact that they have been successfully repurposed as antiinflammatory and immunomodulators in chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Early addition of these agents during the initial upper respiratory tract symptoms justified their prophylactic role against the second phase. With the appropriate addition of the corticosteroids, helped contained the progressing life threatening lower respiratory tract inflammation ( refered to hypersensitive pneumonitis) and restoration of oxygen saturation.
While the use of antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers helped in the management of the upper respiratory tract symptoms. In addition we corrected the essential and micronutrient deficiency alongside. We also found significant benefits and synergestic effects when we used our compounded herbo mineral preparation with proven antihypersensitive, antiinflammatory and immunomodulating properties. As part of our Integrative medicine and functional nutrition protocols. We continue to use this approach in those presenting with adverse events of the vaccine (which are essentially the unwanted systemic effects of the antigenic spike protein)
Unlike researchers, for hands on doctors like you, I am not sure if exclusive focus either on the host or the virus is possible in your daily practice. They are one and the same, even in the second phase where the virus takes the backseat in controlling the disease. The repurposed anti virals can work with two clear focuses. Example, an anti histamine will mitigate the histamine release based symptoms of the host. Its repurposed anti viral property will directly work on the virus stopping the load build up. All these considerations are now history, as with Omicrons the second phase is absent. But its milder viral phase ( only phase) cannot be ignored from early URT treatments, unlike similar looking common cold. How have handled it in the last 2 years ? I cannot still figure out why the Omicrons have continued to roil the USA with deaths, about 4000 plus per month even now. Even with the continuing shunning of early treatment protocols, even with the claims it is all people with predispositions ( which I do not accept), this phenomenon of mortality is unprecedented and unacceptable. Any thoughts ? Are you able to exclude Omicron based mortality in your cases. You know very well how Omicron is totally out of currency in many parts of the world, including India, for two years now.
The cases reported across india are highly insignificant to cause any alarm. Moreover strain specific testing is not at all a common practice. The new normal of excess mortality and life disabling/ threatening morbidities being reported across the highly vaccinated populations deserves critical investigation. From the beginning i was never convinced with mRNA approach to vaccination
Everything went wrong in the beginning of the pandemic, following the complete denial of early intervention protocols to manage the acute upper respiratory symptoms and prevent the progression of the life threatening organic lower respiratory disease. Especially in the vulnerable population with low innate immunity. The situation worsened with the denial of access to primary care and early intervention as a result of mandated lock downs and complete lack of primary care. Resulting in a futile fire fighting mode and overwhelming of critical care facilities among the vulnerable population who could have avoided life threatening complications with early interventions. Thus creating a ground for emergency use authorisation and misleading the implementation of a poorly developed vaccine, using a technology which had questionable safety.
Further the entire population were sleep walked by the experts and medical fraternity into mandating this sub optimal vaccine which failed to prevent infection and transmission but claimed to reduce the severity of the disease. By conveniently redefining the purpose of vaccine after having failed in meeting the much needed and conventional clinical end point of preventing infection and its transmission. To make situation worse, boosters were proposed to meet the drop in antibody titres.
Thank you Kannan.
Thank you Philip for your relentless efforts in bringing out the facts and educating the population. I am sure we will be better prepared in the future.
You are right and each one of your sentence is a bullet point. Before the population was led into sleep walking by the experts over the magic of impending vaccines and new anti virals ( see my earlier comment below), the medical administration experts around the world were sleep walking on all the points mentioned by you. Were they led into ( by whom, no prizes for a safe guess) or were they dizzy on their own ? These administrators became a flock of sheep around the world in those first few months. I recall reading in April/May 2020 people scrambling about the viral phase ….in France, Germany, Italy….paracetamol ok, not ok, ibuprofen not ok, naproxen ok…. These were all the medicines in mind for the viral phase and no clues about the second phase, it was just plain emergency management, just physically keeping up breathing and the rest to the will of the God. Where was the need for the doctors to get so frozen in those initial weeks ? Did the Chinese story in Jan-Mar 2020 scare every one ? We don’t know. Collectively this was anything but a professional response.
More emphasis was made on the genetic engineering and chemistry of the so called novel pathogen than its impact on the host biology. The existence and spread of this pathogen was further fueled and endorsed by the false diagnostic test the PCR.
In my personal experience in managing patients I could not find any correlation in positivity and severity of the illness. But a definite correlation could be established among those with preexisting poor metabolic health, severe essential nutrient deficiencies compromising immune health and regulation ( not even the aged who were otherwise healthy). Which only points out to delayed or failed primary care in these vulnerable individuals. Everything else was a hoax.
The healthy and the so called asymptomatic individuals who evaded the localised contact of the pathogen are currently succumbing to the systemic effects of the unwanted protein post vaccination
Could doctors like you, who could understand the science of this virus quickly, both from observations and studies, establish in your practice level norms for early treatments and use of classical medicines ? Or were you constrained in any way by the official pronouncements and guidelines ? I am seeking this info because the correlation you found between illness severity and pre-existing conditions should have been only for the second phase, which also should have hit the patient only if he had not taken any meaningful treatment in the initial days of viral phase. Could you record the correlation distinctly for the two phases ? In my opinion on the organic chemistry of many common drugs, those who were taking regularly immuno modulators (including cancer drugs), anti inflammatories, anti histamines, TB/asthmatic drugs, anti psychotics/antidepressants, neuro drugs ( like pregabalin), bp drugs for their existing conditions were carrying sufficient anti viral protection from these drugs. So they must have experienced only a moderate/eventless viral phase with minimal chances of getting hit suddenly on the 8th-10th day by the autoimmune trigger of breathlessness. They must have been safe, unless they were under advice to discontinue them for a while if they tested positive ( as you said, the test was a self goal). I have written in many places that all these drugs have part anti viral behaviour by virtue of their chemical structures and a couple of them would never have allowed the viral load build up in individuals in the first few days. Can you clarify from your practice experience?
In fact what I am highlighting here is a very unique point, contrary to the omnibus view that the people with pre baggages were the ones hit hard by this virus. I have never read anyone saying that their medications were protective in the viral phase, which is what it is. I recall a report from California in early 2021 that a cohort of patients on anti inflammatories for their arthritic conditions were not infected by this virus, the prophylactic use of HCQ. If you have the resources and data, please look for individual correlations from your patient data. Small cohorts of patients on monitored anti inflammatories, anti histamines, anti depressants/ anti psychotics, long haul respiratory medicines, anti hypertensives, under each category and their infection record. That should be quite revealing. I have made this request a few times in the comments of various podcasts that I see, but no response. I am pretty certain that the every day run of these conditions and the metabolism of the medicines cross path with the host biology of this virus.
For sure the severity of the disease always was evident in all individuals who had a natural progression into the second phase (especially when they reached out to address their symptoms without correcting the initial hypersensitive phase due to lack of access to timely primary care). The propensity of this progression into this hyperinflammatory phase often was evident in those with preexisting conditions. One other common denominator making them susceptible to this progression was deficiency in Vitamin D (and in obese individuals) and those with higher NLR, ESR and /or low Tregs signifying preexisting proinflammatory state.
Individuals who were on treatment for preexisting hypersensitivity, chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions for sure were found to be relatively less susceptible to both the phases, I am more convinced with the idea that these agents helped in preventing and correcting these two phases rather than claiming them to be antivirals.
I want to renew my long standing emphasis again. Almost all these categories of drugs are anti virals with a possible split distinction - if the composite pKa of the drug is high, say 9, 10 and above, they can defang the virus directly and eliminate it. If the pKa is 7.5, 8 type, they can interfere in the work of the virus and render it ineffective. In either case, these molecules are only part anti virals. They can work as single anti viral drug adequately only if the viral load is low - asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. If the viral load is high, severely symptomatic, then they need to be bolstered by another drug or two, preferably an anti histamine. They won’t be adequate as single drugs. This was true of Ivermectin also. That is how your patients must have responded while on their existing drugs. One more point. The term “ those with existing conditions” may be used loosely. Some one who has been taking a daily metformin or two, or a daily telmesartan or amlodipine or even both sets of them for 15 years safely and without any other major health issues, in my opinion, should not be considered in that “pre existing condition” category. The term must apply only to more serious baggage. On the last line of your comment, the drugs were working on the virus directly or indirectly, that is how they were mitigating that phase, so they deserve to be called anti virals.
I appreciate your hypothesis of these agents contributing to an altered extracellular and intracellular microenvironment. As a result , providing the negating effect on the virus and its replication. Our focus was more on the host rather than the virus at that time. Based on the fact and rationale that we had very little time and resources to study the virus and then develop agents to counter it.
My opinion about antiparasitic agents being effective during the pandemic is based on the fact that they have been successfully repurposed as antiinflammatory and immunomodulators in chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Early addition of these agents during the initial upper respiratory tract symptoms justified their prophylactic role against the second phase. With the appropriate addition of the corticosteroids, helped contained the progressing life threatening lower respiratory tract inflammation ( refered to hypersensitive pneumonitis) and restoration of oxygen saturation.
While the use of antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers helped in the management of the upper respiratory tract symptoms. In addition we corrected the essential and micronutrient deficiency alongside. We also found significant benefits and synergestic effects when we used our compounded herbo mineral preparation with proven antihypersensitive, antiinflammatory and immunomodulating properties. As part of our Integrative medicine and functional nutrition protocols. We continue to use this approach in those presenting with adverse events of the vaccine (which are essentially the unwanted systemic effects of the antigenic spike protein)
Unlike researchers, for hands on doctors like you, I am not sure if exclusive focus either on the host or the virus is possible in your daily practice. They are one and the same, even in the second phase where the virus takes the backseat in controlling the disease. The repurposed anti virals can work with two clear focuses. Example, an anti histamine will mitigate the histamine release based symptoms of the host. Its repurposed anti viral property will directly work on the virus stopping the load build up. All these considerations are now history, as with Omicrons the second phase is absent. But its milder viral phase ( only phase) cannot be ignored from early URT treatments, unlike similar looking common cold. How have handled it in the last 2 years ? I cannot still figure out why the Omicrons have continued to roil the USA with deaths, about 4000 plus per month even now. Even with the continuing shunning of early treatment protocols, even with the claims it is all people with predispositions ( which I do not accept), this phenomenon of mortality is unprecedented and unacceptable. Any thoughts ? Are you able to exclude Omicron based mortality in your cases. You know very well how Omicron is totally out of currency in many parts of the world, including India, for two years now.
The cases reported across india are highly insignificant to cause any alarm. Moreover strain specific testing is not at all a common practice. The new normal of excess mortality and life disabling/ threatening morbidities being reported across the highly vaccinated populations deserves critical investigation. From the beginning i was never convinced with mRNA approach to vaccination