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 hyperinf…
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
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