COVID-19 and the Unraveling of Experimental Medicine

Part III

Excerpt from COVID-19 and the Unraveling of Experimental Medicine - Part III

In this three-part series, we delve into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the first of the new millennium. We'll explore the evolving role of experimental medicine amidst unique challenges. Our focus will be on understanding the complex interactions between the biological and social realms, and how existing practices have influenced them. We acknowledge that these assessments hold the potential to shape future pandemic responses. You can read Part I here and Part II here.

Abstract

In the first two segments of our COVID-19 trilogy we examined the failure of the scientists and policy-makers to favorably alter dynamics of the SARSCoV-2 pandemic. Containment policies such as lockdowns and closure of businesses, which came with great social and economic costs, had no meaningful impact on morbidity or mortality. The mRNA vaccines were an unqualified disaster: they neither halted viral spread nor conferred herd immunity and, in their wake, spawned unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates: to data there have been approximately 1,183,493 COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse event reports in the US-based Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) including 25,641 deaths. Globally, this translates to about 23.67 million adverse events and about 512,820 deaths. Medical science has unleashed yet another mass casualty event which will likely surpass any of the pharmacologically-induced tragedies of the 20th century.

In this third part we examine the path not taken: a handful of cheap, widely available, home-based therapies—ozone preconditioning, hydroxychloroquine, and light/vitamin treatment—which, had they been implemented early in the pandemic could have reduced morbidity and mortality by 80% or more. We estimate these interventions could have prevented about 4.8 million deaths globally and 768,000 in the US and in the process put an early end to the pandemic. Contrary to claims made by COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, there is an abundance of evidence in the medical literature in support of the very treatments he rejected out-of-hand. Moreover, the evidence was present well before the pandemic but was ignored by medical scientists. We conclude by discussing implications of the fraudulent mRNA vaccine scheme and the dark web of manipulation and disinformation promulgated by those who sponsored this dangerous and ill-conceived experiment. The pandemic sounds a clarion call mandating widescale reform of the healthcare system, medical-industrial complex, and their incestuous relationship with governmental and academic oversight bodies.

Introduction

In the first two segments of our COVID-19 trilogy we examined the abysmal failure of the science community and policy-makers to curtail the dynamics of the SARSCoV-2 pandemic. Mitigation or containment strategies, which came with great social and economic costs, had no meaningful impact on morbidity or mortality. The mRNA vaccines were an unqualified disaster: they neither halted viral spread nor conferred herd immunity and, in their wake, spawned a laundry list of disabling side effects. In the process, medical science has unleashed yet another mass casualty event which, in all likelihood, will surpass any of the pharmacologically-induced tragedies of the 20th century.

One of the profoundly disturbing aspects of the pandemic was suppression of views that ran contrary to the science narrative. Social media outlets such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter censored alternative content. News networks like CNN incessantly reported biased pro-vaccine accounts while ignoring the accumulating mass of counterfactual evidence that began to surface in the summer of 2021. As a consequence, they disseminated a fog of disinformation.

Not only did such tactics undermine basic scientific and democratic principles but, as we shall see, greatly amplified the carnage of the pandemic and cost many more lives.

In this third part of the series we examine the path not taken: a handful of cheap, widely available, home-based therapies which, had they been implemented in a timely manner, especially in the early months of the pandemic before vaccines were even available, could have drastically reduced morbidity and mortality—by up to 80% and probably more. Contrary to claims made by authoritative voices, there was and is an abundance of evidence in the medical literature in support of the very treatments that mainstream medicine rejected.

We conclude by discussing implications of the fraudulent mRNA vaccine scheme and the dark web of manipulation and disinformation promulgated by those who sponsored this dangerous and poorly conceived experiment. The hidden subtext revolves around betrayal of public trust. The pandemic sounds a clarion call mandating widescale reform of the healthcare system, medical-industrial complex, and their incestuous relationship with governmental and academic oversight bodies.

Before the Storm

We have defined the tendency to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to express symptoms as a state of susceptibility or, conversely, lack of resistance. Such susceptibility takes origin in the deficient functions of the immune system as a result of its inability to contain and incapacitate the virus. For most of the 20th century immune protective functions were regarded to be secondary to the synthesis and release of neutralizing antibodies. As we have seen, however, the antibody response is far downstream from the primary locus of function which resides in the phagocytic activity of cells like macrophages and neutrophils. For this reason, early immunologists like Metchnikoff and Bordet conceived immune function as part of an organized internal digestive system.

The ability of the phagocytic system to contain SARSCoV-2 in the interstitial fluid space is the crucial determinant that distinguishes asymptomatic viral invasion from full-blown infection. Once phagocytic barrier functions have been breached systemic activation of the immune response by the cytokine system ensues along with symptoms like fever, fatigue, weakness, cough, shortness of breath, body aches and more. One observes varying states of susceptibility related to such cellular functions across the age spectrum in the population.

According to a 2021 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report there is marked age-related risk stratification for death secondary to COVID-19 infection. Data indicate that the mortality rate in the 0-17 year range is only about 0.002% or 20 per million. When infected, children usually have mild symptoms and are more likely to be asymptomatic. This same population typically has lower antibody responses [1-7]. Mortality risk jumps by nearly 25-fold in the 18-49 year range to about 0.05% or 500/ million; by 300-fold in the 50-64 year group to 0.6% or 6,000/million; and, astonishingly, by 4500-fold in the 65+ year range to about 9% or 90,000/million [8]. Clearly, risk is not spread evenly across the population.

By the same token across all age groups we observe a markedly heightened risk for severe COVID-19 disease and death in those with pre-existing chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, obesity, heart disease, renal disease, cirrhosis, COPD, cancer, and frailty [9- 21]. Individuals with such conditions are more likely to require hospitalization, have longer hospital stays, be admitted to the ICU, require mechanical ventilation, and experience various organ failure syndromes. Having a single co-morbidity like diabetes or hypertension raises the risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes by up to 2-3- fold depending on the study. And as we have seen, those with severe disease tend to express higher antibody levels [22-28].

Read the full article here.

James A. Thorp, MD
Board Certified ObGyn
Board Certified Maternal Fetal Medicine

References

1. Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19. Joyner MJ, Carter RE, Senefeld JW, et al. NEJM 2021; 384(11):1–13

2. Differences in Antibody Kinetics and Functionality Between Severe and Mild Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections. Rijkers G, Murk JL, Wintermans B, van Looy B, et al. J Infect Dis2020;222(8):1265–9.

3. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with differing severities of coronavirus disease 2019. Kowitdamrong E, Puthanakit T, Jantarabenjakul W, et al. PLoS One2020; 15(10): e0240502

4. Kinetics of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibody Avidity Maturation and Association with Disease Severity. Luo YR, Chakraborty I, Yun C, et al. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73(9): e3095-97

5. The kinetics of humoral response and its relationship with the disease severity in COVID-19. Ren L, Zhang L, Chang D, et al. Commun Biol2020; 3(1):1–7

6. A longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients reveals a high correlation between neutralizing antibodies and COVID-19 severity. Legros V, Denolly S, Vogrig M, et al. Cell Mol Immunol2021; 18(2): 318- 27

7. The dynamics of immune response in COVID-19 patients with different illness severity. Zhang B, Yue D, Wang Y, et al. J Med Virol 2020 July:1–8.

8. COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionMarch 19, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ planning-scenarios.html

9. Age and frailty are independently associated with increased COVID-19 mortality and increased care needs in survivors: results of an international multi-centre study. Geriatric Medicine Research Collaborative; Covid Collaborative, Welch C.AgeAgeing2021;50(3):617-30

10. Detrimental effect of diabetes and hypertension on the severity and mortality of COVID-19 infection: a multi-center case-control study from India. Jayaswal SK, Singh S, Malik PS, et al. Diabetes MetabSyndr2021;15(5):102248

11. Prevalence of co-morbidities and their association with mortality in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Singh AK, Gillies CL, Singh R, et al. Diabetes ObesMetab2020;22(10):1915-24

12. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension increase risk of death in novel coronavirus patients irrespective of age: a prospective observational study of co-morbidities and COVID-19 from India.Gupta A, Nayan N, Nair R, et al. Compr Clin Med 2021;3(4):937-44

13. Frailty is associated with in-hospital mortality in older hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands: the COVID-OLD study. Blomaard LC, van der Linden CMJ, van der Bol JM, et al. Age Ageing2021; 50(3):631-40

14. Age, frailty, and comorbidity as prognostic factors for short-term outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in geriatric care.Hägg S, Jylhävä J, Wang Y, et al. J Am Med Dir Assoc2020;21(11):1555-1559.e2

15. Clinical frailty scale (CFS) indicated frailty is associated with increased in-hospital and 30-day mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Rottler M, Ocskay K, Sipos Z, et al. Ann Intensive Care2022:12(1):17

16. Characteristics and outcomes of frailty admitted to ICU with coronavirus disease 2019: an individual patient data meta-analysis.Subramaniam A, Anstey C, Curtis JR, et al. Crit Care Explor 2022;4(1):e0616

17. Conditions favoring increased COVID-19 morbidity and mortality: their common denominator and its early treatment.Shevel E. Mo Med2021;118(2):113-15

18. Is it all in the heart?Myocardial injury as a major predictor of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Harmouch F, Shah K, Hippen JT, et al. J Med Virol2021;93(2);973

19. Pre-existing health conditions and severe COVID-19 outcomes: an umbrella review approach and meta-analysis of global evidence.Treskova-Schwarzbach M, Haas L, Reda S, et al. BMC Med 2021;19(1):212

20. Diabetes, hypertension, body mass index, smoking and COVID-19-related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.MahamatSaleh Y, Fiolet T, Rebeaud ME, et al. BMJ Open2021; 11(10):e052777

21. Clinical characteristics and morbidity associated with coronavirus disease 2019 in a series of patients in metropolitan Detroit.Suleyman G, Fadel RA, Malette KM, et al. JAMA Netw Open3(6):e2012270

22. Disease severity dictates SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibody responses in COVID-19. Chen X, Pan Z, Yue S, et al.Signal Transduct Target Ther2020; 5(1):1–6.

23. Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review. Chvatal-Medina M,Mendez-Cortina Y, Pablo J. Patiño PJ, et al. Front Immunol2021; 12:633184216

24. Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized pediatric and adult patients.Pierce CA, Preston-Hurlburt P, Dai Y, et al. Sci Transl Med2020; 12(564): eabd5487

25. High neutralizing antibody titer in intensive care unit patients with COVID-19. Liu L, To KKW, Chan KH, et al. Emerg Microbes Infect2020; 9(1):1–30

26. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in Convalescent Plasma Donors Are Increased in Hospitalized Patients; Subanalyses of a Phase 2 Clinical Study. Microorganisms. Terpos E, Politou M, Sergentanis TN, et al. Microorg2020; 8(12): 1885

27. Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population.Klein SL, Pekosz A, Park HS, et al. J Clin Invest2020; 130(11):6141–50

28. Postconvalescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralizing antibodies are elevated in individuals with poor metabolic health.Racine-Brzostek SE, Yang HS, Jack GA, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2021; 106(5): e2025- -e2034