Advances in the fight against the coronavirus

[sicetaitsimple]

When is this article dated?

[Christophe]

End of July ?

[Obamot]

It is the background which is interesting, it dates from June and still relevant for many points.
What do you think is outdated?

Coronavirus: why everyone was wrong (II) (by Beda M. Stadler)

4. Common sense immunology

As an immunologist, I trust a biological model, namely that of the human organism, which has built an adaptive and proven immune system. At the end of February, on my way home after the recording [of a Swiss political debate on television], I mentioned to Daniel Koch [former head of the Swiss federal section “Communicable diseases” of the Federal Office of Public Health] that I suspected that there was ALREADY general immunity in the population against Sars-Cov-2. He argued against my point of view. I still defended him later when he said that children were not a determining factor in the spread of the pandemic. He suspected that the children did not have a receptor for the virus, which of course is insane. Yet we had to admit that his observations were correct. But the fact that every scientist subsequently attacked him and asked him for studies to prove his point was somewhat ironic. No one has asked for studies to prove that people from certain risk groups are dying. When the first statistics from China and later global data showed the same trend, that is, almost no child under the age of ten got sick, everyone should have argued that the children clearly need to be immunized. For any other disease that does not affect a certain group of people, we would come to the conclusion that that group is immune. When people sadly die in a nursing home, but at the same place other retirees with the same risk factors are completely unharmed, we also have to conclude that they were likely immune.

But this common sense seems to have eluded many, let's call them "immunity deniers" just for fun. This new breed of deniers had to observe that the majority of people who tested positive for this virus, that is, the virus was present in their throats, did not get sick. The term "silent carriers" was brought up in a hat and it was claimed that one could be sick without having symptoms. This is really something! If this principle were to spread now in the field of medicine, health insurers would have a real problem, but also teachers whose students could now claim to have any illness to skip school, if at the end of the day we didn't 'needed more symptoms to say that we are “sick”.

The next joke some virologists shared was the claim that those who were sick without symptoms could still pass the virus on to other people. The “healthy” patient would have so many viruses in his throat that a normal conversation between two people would suffice for the “healthy” to infect the other in good health. At this point we have to dissect what is going on here: if a virus grows anywhere in the body, also in the throat, it means that the human cells are dying. When [human] cells die, the immune system is immediately alerted and infection is caused. Pain is one of the five cardinal symptoms of infection. It's understandable that people with Covid-19 don't remember that initial sore throat and then go on to claim they had no symptoms just a few days ago. But for doctors and virologists, turning this into a story of "healthy" patients, which has often been used to justify panic-stoking containment, shows just how bad the joke really is. At least the WHO has not accepted the claim of asymptomatic infections and has even disputed that claim on its website.

Here is a succinct and brief summary, especially for immunity deniers, of how humans are attacked by germs and how we respond to them: If there are pathogenic viruses in our environment, then all humans - whether they are immune or not - are attacked by viruses. If someone is immune, the battle against the virus begins. First, we try to stop the virus from binding to our own cells with the help of antibodies. This normally works only partially, not all are blocked, and some virions attach themselves to the appropriate cells. It doesn't have to cause symptoms, but it's not a disease either. Because the second guardian of the immune system is now called to act. It is the above-mentioned T cells, white blood cells, that can determine from the outside in which other cells the virus is now hiding in order to multiply. These cells, which are currently incubating the virus, are searched throughout the body and killed by T cells until the last virus is dead.

So if we do a corona PCR test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small broken part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive as long as there are tiny broken parts of the virus. Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. This is exactly what happened, when there was the information, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans already infected with Covid-19 were infected a second time and to falsely deduce from this that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus.

5. The problem of immunity to corona

What does all of this mean in real life? The extremely long incubation time of two to 14 days - and reports of 22 to 27 days - should wake up any immunologist. As well as the claim that most patients would no longer secrete the virus after five days. Both [allegations] in turn lead to the conclusion that there is - somehow in the background - a baseline immunity that distorts events, compared to an expected cycle [of a viral infection] - that is that is, leads to a long incubation period and immunity. This immunity also appears to be the problem for patients with a severe course of the disease. Our antibody level, that is, the capacity of our defense system, decreases with age. But also malnourished or malnourished people can have weakened immune system, which is why this virus not only reveals medical problems of a country, but also social problems.

If an infected person does not have enough antibodies, that is, a weak immune response, the virus slowly spreads throughout the body. Now that there aren't enough antibodies, all that's left is the second supporting leg of our immune response: T cells start attacking virus-infested cells throughout the body. This can lead to an exaggerated immune response, essentially a massive massacre; this is called a Cytokine Storm. Very rarely, this can also occur in small children, in this case called Kawasaki syndrome. This very rare event in children has also been used in our country to stir up panic. However, it is interesting to note that this syndrome is very easy to cure. The [affected] children receive antibodies from healthy blood donors, that is, people who have contracted a coronavirus cold. This means that the suppressed [supposedly non-existent] immunity in the population is in fact being used for therapeutic purposes.

And now?

The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in the winter, but it won't be a second wave, but just a cold. Young, healthy people who are currently walking around with a face mask on their face would do better to wear a helmet instead, as the risk of something falling on their head is greater than the risk of having a severe case of Covid-19.

If we see a significant increase in infections in 14 days [after the Swiss released the lockdown], we would know at least that one of the measures was helpful. Other than that, I recommend reading the latest work by John P. A Ioannidis in which he describes the world situation based on data from May 1, 2020: people under 65 are only 0,6 to 2,6, 65% of all fatal cases of Covid. To bring the pandemic under control, we need a strategy that simply focuses on protecting those at risk over XNUMX. If that's the opinion of a high-level expert, a second lockdown is simply unnecessary.

On the way back to normal, it would be good for us citizens if some alarmists apologize. Like the doctors who wanted a triage of Covid patients over the age of 80 in order to stop ventilating them. Also the media which continued to show alarmist videos of Italian hospitals to illustrate a situation which as such did not exist. All politicians are calling for “test, test, test” without even knowing what the test actually measures. And the federal government with its “app”, they will never develop it by telling me if someone close to me is positive, even if it is not contagious!

In winter, when the flu and other colds reappear, we can then start kissing again a little less, and we should wash our hands even without the virus present. And people who do get sick can still don their masks to show others what they have learned from this pandemic. And if we still haven't learned how to protect our risk groups, we will have to wait for a vaccine that will hopefully be effective in those at risk as well.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, advice, treatment ideas, or any endorsement. The views, beliefs and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect my own.

[izentrop]

I have read the study and the data "limitations" show that the researchers are fairly certain of their conclusions. We can translate by: asymptomatic are not contagious.

The discussion of the study does not lead to this conclusion at all, beware of the duning kruger effect.

[Obamot]

Coronavirus: why everyone was wrong (I) (by Beda M. Stadler)

Erratum, chapter 3, last sentence

Nor have I yet understood why epidemiologists are so much more interested in the number of deaths, rather than the number of lives that may have been saved.

In short, roughly speaking, this eminent German scientist is saying out loud what many supposed collaborators in the health world are whispering. Her opinion is in line with the opinions of a number of eminent specialists and big names, such as Prof. Joyeux, Perronne, Raoult, Toussaint, Douste Blazy, Alexandra Henrion-Caude (geneticist, former research director at INSERM, and director of a research institute), Dr Louis Fouché. But also some of their opponents (as long as they were in good faith and not having an opinion biased by conflicts of interest. Such as Dr. Blachier, who contradicted himself, and had the courage to do it, he did not say that incongruities. Bon Blachier is in contradiction with Toussaint and Raoult. On this video (below) an interesting contradictory debate which brings answers (whether one is for an edge or the other is debatable, there is always an interest, a reflection, a possibility of changing one's own opinion) you have to listen to this debate, with in perspective what Stadler says, and you understand a lot of things:

This debate was hot! And full of unexpected twists !!

[izentrop]

This debate was hot! And full of unexpected twists !!

Mainly cordial where everyone was able to express themselves without losing their heart.
Two free and brilliant minds who accept controversy.

In my opinion, Fouché would be more emotional and less factual.

[Obamot]

Yes it remains cordial.
Is about "emotional”, At Blachier, there is something insidious, I like R. Rony's commentary who says:
- “[...] one sees it well in the non-verbal attitudes, [of] Blachier […] Fouché sends him messages of appeasement), and boom he finds himself facing a well of science... ”.
So we do not discern the same things ... (He shows the comments under the video, which say a lot. There you go ...)
And thin, I forgot lots of sizes: Prof. Luc Montaigner, Prof. Dominique Maraninchi, Prof. Eric Chabriere, Philippe Parola, head of the Infectious Diseases department at the IHU, Laurent Toubiana, epidemiologist researcher at INSERM ( Dr in physics), Pr Jean-Christophe Lagier, Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, etc ...

[Robob]

I have read the study and the data "limitations" show that the researchers are fairly certain of their conclusions. We can translate by: asymptomatic are not contagious.

The discussion of the study does not lead to this conclusion at all, beware of the duning kruger effect.

Well give us a more detailed opinion since you reproach me for my lack of competence : if I post this study here, it is not to hear myself being treated as a low-fronted conspirator (which is generally implied by your answers to my posts). It is for people who seem more qualified to discuss it here and give their informed point of view.

I think at least I have the skills to judge in a debate which seems to me the closest to the truth. Without debate, I prefer to refer to the conclusions of a Chinese study, published in Nature, on 10 million people, than, for example, on the decision of a president of the republic to reconfine a country on the basis of a figure of 400 plausible deaths, out of a hat (the figure not the president: although when you think about it a little ...).

Let's take another example:

There is a lot of article in the meanstream press indicating that asymptomatics are contagious:
The first article on google when you type "asymptomatic contagious" is this:
https://sante.journaldesfemmes.fr/fiche ... %20maladie.
we engage directly on "They are called "healthy carriers". How long are they contagious? "
They are contagious: not a word in the rest of the article except the usual banalities. Trash can !
So I dig on google to be less stupid, in French than bullshit ... Trash!

I find an article in English with a link to the study is better:
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... he-disease
"20% of coronavirus infections are asymptomatic but still contagious."
To be precise, further down in the article:
"The advice comes as new research reveals up to 1 in 5 coronavirus infections have no symptoms but are still contagious."
We understand that once again, the article is dependent (it validates the major policy for managing the epidemic, containment).
the word "research" refers to the study:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.1003346
It's practical, we can check what they say:
"What did the researchers do and find?"
"We found some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection is less likely than in contacts of people with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10–1.27)."
"We found evidence that infection with SARS-CoV-2 in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection is less likely than in contacts of people with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0,35, CI to 95% 0,10-1,27). "

You can also discuss this study ... otherwise trash!

So show me I'm on the wrong track with tangible arguments, links, proofs. The rest will only strengthen my certainties.

[VetusLignum]

Nigella (the plant which, according to some traditions, "cures all ailments except death") also cures covid19.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20217364v2

Sage too (in any case, it has antiviral effects in vitro)
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 8.388710v1

As a reminder: who has sage in his garden, does not need a doctor

[Christophe]

Smoke smoke

Nicotine, a good protector against Covid-19 but very bad for infected people

https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sante/la-nico ... 525b9daee1