I may be paranoid, but that doesn’t mean I’m crazy. COVID-19 shows a remarkably low death rate in Asia, particularly Eastern Asia, compared to the US or Europe or South America. As of this month, there have been 734,600 US deaths from COVID-19, representing 0.22% of all Americans. Another way of stating this is 2.2 deaths per thousand population. In one year, COVID has lowered the life expectancy of US men by 2.1 years; with the decline worst among hispanic men. The COVID death rate is very similar in Europe, and higher in South America (in Peru 0.62%), but hardly any deaths in East Asia. In China only 4,636 people, 0.003% of the population. That’s 1/700th the rate in the US, and almost all of these deaths are in western China. They no longer bother with social distancing.
The low death rate in East Asia. was noted by the BBC over a year ago. Based on today’s data from Worldometer, here, the low death rates continue throughout East Asia, as graphed at right. In Hong-Kong the death rate is 0.03 per thousand, or 1/70th the US rate. In Taiwan, 0.04 per thousand; in Singapore, 0.01 per thousand; in S. Korea 0.04 per thousand; Cambodia and Japan, 0.1 per thousand. The highest of these countries shows 1/20 the death rate of the US. This disease kills far fewer East Asians than Westerners. This difference shows up, for example in a drop in the lifespan of male Americans by 2.16 years. The lifespan of male Hispanics dropped more, by 4.58 years. In China, Japan, and Korea the lifespans have continued to increase.
Life expectancy for US males has dropped by 2.16 years. It’s dropped more for Hispanic and Black Americans. Data for women is similar but not as dramatic.
My suspicion is that this was a racially targeted bio-weapon. But perhaps the targeting of westerners reflects a cultural lifestyle difference. Mask use has been suggested, but I don’t think so. In many high mask countries the death rate is high, while in low mask Taiwan and Korea it’s low, only 0.04 COVID deaths per thousand. Even Sweden, with no masks reports only 1.4 per thousand deaths; that’s 2/3 the death rate of the US. Masks do not seem to explain the difference.
Another lifestyle difference is obesity; Americans are fat. Then again, Peru was hit far worse than we were, and Peruvians are thin. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, folks are fat, but the death rate is small. Another cultural difference is medicine, but I don’t believe Sweden, Germany, and France have worse healthcare than Taiwan or Cambodia. Cambodia saw 1/20 the US COVID death rate.
My suspicion is that this disease targets by race because it was designed that way. If it isn’t a bio weapon, it certainly behaves like one. I may be paranoid here, but that’s the way it seems.
As a side issue, perhaps related, I note that China keeps pushing for the to close its manufacturing in the interest of CO2 abatement, while they keep building coal burning power plants to fill the manufacturing need that we abandon. I also notice that they hit us with tariffs while protesting our tariffs, that they steal our intellectual property, and that they are building islands in the sea between China and Japan. There is war-tension between our countries, and Western-targetting virus appears right outside of China’s top-security virus lab — their only level 4 lab — I’m guessing it’s not a total coincidence.
With the sun setting earlier, and the threat of new COVID lockdowns, there is a real threat of a depression, seasonal and isolation. A partial remedy is exercise; it helps fight depression whether you take other measures not. An article published last month in the Journal of Affective Disorders reviewed 22 studies of the efficacy of exercise, particularly as an add-on to drugs and therapy. Almost every study showed that exercise helped, and in some studies it helped a lot. See table below. All of the authors are from the University of British Columbia. You can read the article here.
From “Efficacy of exercise combined with standard treatment for depression compared to standard treatment alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” by JacquelineLee1 et al.In virtually every study, exercise helps fight depression.
For those who are willing to exercise, there are benefits aside from mental health. Even a daily walk around the block helps with bone strength, weight control, heart disease, plus the above mentioned improvement in mood. More exercise does more. If you bicycle without a helmet, you’re likely to live longer than if you drive.
For those who can’t stand exercise, or if exercise isn’t quite enough to send away the blues, you can try therapy, medication, and/or diet. There is some evidence that food that are high in lithium help fight depression. These food include nuts, beans, tomatoes, some mineral waters, e.g. from Lithia springs, GA. The does is about 1/100 the dose given as a bipolar treatment, but there is evidence that even such small doses help. Lithium was one of the seven ingredients in seven up — it was the one that was supposed to cheer you up. See some research here.
Some years ago I wrote a largely negative review of Brown’s gas, but the COVID crisis in India makes me want to reconsider. Browns gas can provide a simple source of oxygen for those who are in need. First, an explanation, Browns gas is a two-to-one mix of hydrogen and oxygen; it’s what you get when you do electrolysis of water without any internal separator. Any source of DC electricity will do, e.g. the alternator of a car or a trickle charger of the sort folks buy for their car batteries, and almost any electrode will do too (I’d suggest stainless steel). You can generate pressure just by restricting flow from the electrolysis vessel, and it can be a reasonable source of small-scale oxygen or hydrogen. The reaction is:
H2O –> H2 + 1/2 O2.
The problem with Brown’s gas is that it is explosive, more explosive than hydrogen itself, so you have to handle it with care; avoid sparks until you separate the H2 from the O2. Even the unseparated mix has found some uses, e.g. as a welding gas, or for putting in cars to avoid misfires, increase milage, and decrease pollution. I think that methanol reforming is a better source of automotive hydrogen: hydrogen is a lot safer than this hydrogen-oxygen mix.
Browns gas to oxygen for those who need it.
The mix is a lot less dangerous if you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen with a membrane, as I show in the figure. at right. If you do this it’s a reasonable wy to make oxygen for patients who need oxygen. The electrolysis cell can be a sealed bottle with water and the electrodes; add a flow restriction as shown to create the hydrogen pressure that drives the separation. The power can be an automotive trickle charger. You can get this sort of membranes from REB Research, here and many other suppliers. REB provide consulting services if you like.
In a pinch, you don’t even need the membrane, by the way. You can rely on your lungs to make the separation. A warning, though, the mix is dangerous. Avoid all sparks. Also, don’t put salt into the water. You can can put in some baking soda or lye to speed the electrolysis, but If you put salt in, you’ll find you don’t make oxygen, but will instead make chlorine. And chlorine is deadly. If you’re not sure, smell the gas. If it smells acrid, don’t use it. This is the chlorine-forming reaction.
2NaCl + 2 H2O –> H2 + Cl2 + 2NaOH
Ideally you should vent the hydrogen stream out the window, but for short term, emergency use, the hydrogen can be vented into your home. Don’t do this if anyone smokes (not that anyone should smoke about someone on oxygen). This is a semi-patentable design, but I’m giving it away; not everything that can be patented should be.
My son works at a company called Homodeus. It’s part of 4Catalyzer, an umbrella of seven medical biotechnology companies with a staff of 300 scientists and engineers. One of the Homodeus products, still waiting FDA guidance is a COVID-19, RNA self-tester called Homodeus Detect. It tests for COVID RNA directly, not for antibodies, with tests are much faster than hospital tests, taking 45 minutes, but more complex than the unreliable test strips. So far, the Detect tests have shown no false positives or false negatives. That would suggest 100% reliable, except but there are a fair number of invalid tests. The invalid tests are lares due to the complexity, and also to the fact that you are testing snot, essentially. There is no blood-taking involved, unlike with the test strips, but just a nasal swab, and the cost is moderate, about $35 per test. However you have to do some lab work. After you swab your nose, you put the swab in a heated liquid bath where chemicals break up the snot and dissolve the shells on any viruses or pollen present. After 30 minutes, you pass the liquid onto a detector strip that contains a conjugate protein that binds to SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Your answer appears 15 minutes later as one of three lines: one for positive, one for negative, or one indicating an invalid test. Invalid tests show up more often than they like, about half the time, especially when the test is done by amateurs.
Getting an invalid test result is a downside of the current product, but I don’t think it should prevent sales. You get better at doing the test, and speed and lack of false positives and negatives is a bigger plus. It seems worthwhile to fast-track offer this test for doctors offices and hospital admissions, at least. I’d also like to see it used for airplane boarding and interstate travel, so that a person traveling might avoid the two week quarantine that many states impose. I’d certainly pay $200 or more to avoid a two-week quarantine, and if I have to do a second or third test, I’d do that too.
At least some people realize it’s a big advantage to know if you are currently infections.
Because this test measures virus RNA, and not antibodies, it indicates infection virtually as soon as you’re infected. That’s a benefit for those wishing to fly, or to meet with people, an advantage that is not lost on Elon Musk at least (see tweet). The test also shows negative as soon as the virus is gone, and that’s big. In recent months the FDA has fast-track approved an antibody indicating test from Abbott Labs, but that test has many false readings and only indicates infection several days afterward, and it does not indicate when you are no longer infectious.
The FDA has not offered to fast track this test, or any other like it for approval. They have not even indicated what sort of reporting and privacy requirements they want, so things sit in limbo, both for Homodeus, and for competing companies. Here is a story in USA today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/07/29/fda-opens-door-rapid-home-covid-19-tests/5536528002. One big issue that the FDA is contact tracing. The FDA would like to be able to trace all the contacts of anyone who tests positive, while maintaining privacy as demanded by the 4th Amendment.
One way around the 4th amendment concerns would be to require anyone who uses the test to sign a waiver allowing the government to trace their contacts. Alternately there could be a block-chain enabled app that would come with the test. An app coms already providing a timer for when to move to the next step, and it includes a machine-vision system to help analyze dim lines on the indicator. Perhaps the FDA would accept block chain as a way to allow full reporting while maintaining privacy The FDA has yet to provide guidance on what they want, though. Without guidance or fast-track approval, things sit in limbo. Here is a scathing legal analysis from the Yale Law Journal.
You can get a free test, but have to do it at Homodeus headquarters in Guilford, Connecticut. It’s free, and results appears in about 45 minutes.. Homodeus has been manufacturing the test in quantity; if you are interested, use the following link to sign up: https://www.homodeusinc.com/research. Healthcare providers are particularly welcome.
Why did the FDA fast-track approve Abott’s antigen/ antibody test. Maybe because the tests rethought to not lead to lower mask use. Alternately, Abott has more political pull. You can read the FDA’s explanation here. In my biassed opinion the Homodeus product is good enough to fast track especially for hospitals and healthcare providers. It could save lives while allowing the economy to reopen.
Robert Buxbaum, November 15, 2020 (with massive help from Aaron M. Buxbaum)
A few days ago, I asked for and received the PCV-13 pneumonia vaccine, and a few days earlier, the flu shot. These vaccines are free if you are over 65, but you have to ask for them. PCV-13 is the milder of the pneumonia vaccines, providing moderate resistance to 12 common pneumonia strains, plus a strain of diphtheria. There is a stronger shot, with more side-effects. The main reason I got these vaccines was to cut my risk from COVID-19.
Some 230,00 people have died from COVID-19. Almost all none of them were under 20, and hardly any died from the virus itself. As with the common flu, they died from side infections and pneumonia. Though the vaccine I took is not 100% effective against event these 13 pneumonias, it is fairly effective, especially in the absence of co-morbidities, and has few side effects beyond stiffness in my arm. I felt it was a worthwhile protection, and further reading suggests it was more worthwhile than I’d thought at first.
It is far from clear there will be a working vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COV-19. We’ve been trying for 40 years to make a vaccine against AIDS, without success. We have also failed to create a working vaccine for SARS, MERS, or the common cold. Why should SARS-CoV-2 be different? We do have a flu vaccine, and I took it, but it isn’t very effective, viruses mutate. Despite claims that we would have a vaccine for COVID-19 by early next year, I came to imagine it would not be a particularly good vaccine, and it might have side effects. On the other hand, there is a fair amount of evidence that the pneumonia vaccine works and does a lot more good than one might expected against COVID-19.
A colleague of mine from Michigan State, Robert Root Bernstein, analyzed the effectiveness of several vaccines in the fight against COVID-19 by comparing the impact of COVID-19 on two dozen countries as a function of all the major inoculations. He found a strong correlation only with pneumonia vaccine: “Nations such as Spain, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, Peru and Chile that have the highest COVID-19 rates per million have the poorest pneumococcal vaccination rates among both infants and adults. Nations with the lowest rates of COVID-19 – Japan, Korea, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand – have the highest rates of pneumococcal vaccination among both infants and adults.” Root-Bernstein also looked at the effectiveness of adult inoculation and child inoculation. Both were effective, at about the same rate. This suggests that the the plots below are not statistical flukes. Here is a link to the scientific article, and here is a link to the more popular version.
An analysis of countries in terms of COVID rates and deaths versus pneumonia vaccination rates in children and adults. The US has a high child vaccination rate, but a low adult vaccination rate. Japan, Korea, etc. are much better. Italy, Belgium, Spain, Brazil, and Peru are worse. Similar correlations were found with child and adult inoculation, suggesting that these correlations are not flukes of statistics.
I decided to check up on Root-Bernstein’s finding by checking the state-by state differences in pneumonia vaccination rates — information available here — and found that the two US states that were hardest hit by COVID, NY and NJ, have among the lowest rates of inoculation. Of course there are other reasons at play. These states are uncommonly densely populated, and the governments of both made the unfortunate choice of sending infected patients to live in old age homes. At least half of the deaths were in these homes.
Pneumonia vaccination may also explain why the virus barely affected those under 20. Pneumonia vaccines was available only in 2000 or so. Many states then began to vaccinate about then and required it to attend school. The time of immunization could explain why those younger than 20 in the US do so well compared to older individuals, and compared to some other countries where inoculation was later. I note that China has near universal inoculation for pneumonia, and was very mildly hit.
I also took the flu shot, and had taken the MMR (measles) vaccine last year. The side effects, though bad, are less bad than the benefits, I thought, but there was another reason, and that’s mimicry. It is not uncommon that exposure to one virus or vaccine will excite the immune system to similar viruses, so-called B cells and T-cell immunity. A recent study from the Mayo Clinic, read it here, shows that other inoculations help you fight COVID-19. By simple logic, I had expected that the flu vaccine would help me this way. The following study (from Root-Bernstein again) shows little COVID benefit from flu vaccine, but evidence that MMR helps (R-squared of 0.118). Let men suggest it’s worth a shot, as it were. Similar to this, I saw just today, published September 24, 2020 in the journal, Vaccines, that the disease most molecularly similar to SARS-CoV-2 is pneumonia. If so, mimicry provides yet another reason for pneumonia vaccination, and yet another explanation for the high correlations shown above.
As a final comparison, I note that Sweden has a very high pneumonia inoculation rate, but seems to have a low mask use rate. Despite this, Sweden has done somewhat better than the US against COVID-19. Chile has a low inoculation rates, and though they strongly enforced masks and social distance, it was harder hit than we were. The correlation isn’t 100%, and masks clearly do some good, but it seems inoculation may be more effective than masks.
There are two main routes for catching flu. One is via your hands and your eyes and nose. Your hands pick up germs from the surfaces you touch, and when you touch your eyes or nose passages, the germs infect you. This was thought to be the main route for infection, and I still think it is. I’d been pushing iodine hand sanitizer for some time, the stuff used in hospitals, saying that that the alcohol hand sanitizer doesn’t work well, that it evaporates.
The other route, the one touted by the press these days is via direct cough droplets, breathing them in or getting them in your eyes. Masks and face shields are the preferred protection from this route, and the claim is that masks will stop 63% of the spread. The 63% number has an interesting history, it comes from this test with infected hamsters. Hamsters are 63% less likely to infect other hamsters when they wear a mask. Of course, the comparison has some weaknesses: hamsters don’t put their fingers in their noses, nor do they rub their eyes with their hands, and hamsters can be forced to keep the mask barrier all the time — read the study to see how.
A more realistic study, or more relevant to people, in my opinion showed a far lower effect for masks, about 20%. During the HiNi flu pandemic of 2009 a group of 1437 college students at a single university were divided into three randomized groups, see the original report here. Students at a few chosen residence halls were instructed to wash their hands regularly, use sanitizer, and wear masks. Students at other halls were either told to wear masks only, or told to go on as they pleased. This was the largest group, the control. They included students of the the largest residence hall on campus. The main results appear as the graph below, Figure 1 of the report. It shows a difference of 6% or 20%, depending on how you look at things, with the mask plus hand-health group, MPHH, doing the best.
After 6 weeks of monitoring, approximately 36% of the control group had gotten the flu or some collection of flu symptoms. The remaining 64% of the residents remained symptom free. This is he darkest line above.
Of the FM Only group, the medium line above, those instructed to wear face masks only. 30% of this group showed flu symptoms, with 70% remaining symptom free. Clearly masks do help with humans, but far less than what you’d expect from the news reports.
Sweden kept the primary schools open and allows people to wear masks and social distance at they see fit. The death toll to August 1 is identical to Michigan, or slightly bette Sweden’s top virologist recommends that the US follow suit. Open up and trust people.
The group that did best was FMHH, the group who both wore facemarks and used hand health, regular hand washing plus hand sanitizer. This group reported an average of 3.5 hours per day of mask use above the control group average. This is about as good or better than I see in Michigan. Adding the hand health provided an additional 1% improvement, or a 3% improvement, depending on how you look at these things. The press claims hand health is wasted effort, but I’m not so sure. I argue that the effect was significant, and that the hand sanitizer was bad. I argue that iodine hand wash would have done better at far less social cost.
I also note that doing nothing was not that much worse than mask use. This matches with the observation of COVID-19 in Sweden. With no enforced social distancing, Sweden did about the same as Michigan — slightly better, despite Michigan closing the schools and restaurants, and imposing some of the toughest requirements for social distancing and mask use.
Other things that affect how likely you are to get flu symptoms. I find these rustles more interesting than the main face-mask result.
There were other observations from the university study that i found isignificant. There are racial differences and social differences. The authors didn’t highlight these, but they are at least as large as the effect of mask use. Asians got the flu only 70% as often as others, while black students got it 8% more often. This matches what has been seen in the US with COVID-19. Also interesting, those with a recent flu shot got flu more often; those with physical activity 13% more often. Smokers got the flu less than non-smokers and women got it 22% more often than men. The last two are the reverse with COVID-19. I could speculate on the reasons, but clearly there is a lot going on.
Why did Asians do better than others? Perhaps Asians have had prior exposure to some similar virus, and are thus slightly immune, or perhaps they used the masks more, being more socially acceptable. Why were smokers protected? It’s likely that smoke kills germs; was that the cause. These are speculations, and as for the rest I don’t know.
I am not that bothered that the students probably didn’t wear their masks 100% of the time. Better would be better, but even with mask use 100% of the time, there are other known routes that are almost impossible to remove: clothing, food, touching your face. I still think there is a big advantage to iodine hand wash, and I suspect we would be better off opening up a bit too.
Sweden has scientists; Michigan has scientists. Sweden’s scientists said to trust people to social distance and let the COVID-19 disease run its course. It was a highly controversial take, but Sweden didn’t close the schools, didn’t enforce masks, and let people social distance as they would. Michigan’s scientists said to wear masks and close everything, and the governor enforced just that. She closed the schools, the restaurants, the golf courses, and even the parks for a while. In Michigan you can not attend a baseball game, and you can be fined for not wearing a mask in public. The net result: Michigan and Sweden had almost the same death totals and rates, as the graphs below show. As of July 28, 2020: Sweden had 5,702 dead of COVID-19, Michigan had 6,402. That’s 13 more dead for a population that’s 20% smaller.
Sweden’s deaths pre day. There are 5,702 COVID dead since the start, out of a population of 10.63 million. There are 79,494 confirmed COVID cases, but likely a lot more infected.
Sweden and Michigan are equally industrial, with populations in a few dense cities and a rural back-country. Both banned large-scale use of hydroxy-chloroquine. Given the large difference in social distance laws, you’d expect a vastly different death rate, with Michigan’s, presumably lower, but there is hardly any difference at all, and it’s worthwhile to consider what we might learn from this.
Michigan’s deaths pre day. There are 6,426 COVID dead since the start, out of a population of 9.99 million. There are 88,025 confirmed COVID cases, but likely a lot more infected.
What I learn from this is not that social distance is unimportant, and not that hand washing and masks don’t work, but rather it seems to me that people are more likely to social distance if they themselves are in control of the rules. This is something I also notice comparing freezer economies to communist or controlled ones: people work harder when they have more of a say in what they do. Some call this self -exploitation, but it seems to be a universal lesson.
Both Sweden and the US began the epidemic with some moderate testing of a drug called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)and both mostly stopped in April when the drug became a political football. President Trump recommended it based on studies in France and China, but the response was many publications showing the didn’t work and was even deadly. Virtually ever western country cut back use of the drug. Brazil’s scientists objected — see here where they claim that those studies were crooked. It seems that countries that continued to use the drug had fewer COVID deaths, see graph, but it’s hard to say. The Brazilians claim that the anti HCQ studies were politically motivated, but doctors in both Sweden and the US largely stopped prescribing the drug. This seems to have been a mistake.
US hospitals stopped using HCQ in early April almost as soon as Trump recommended it. Sweden did the same.
In July, Henry Ford hospitals published this large-scale study showing a strong benefit: for HCQ: out of 2,541 patients in six hospitals, the death rate for those treated with HCQ was 13%. For those not treated with HCQ, the death rate was more than double: 26.4%. It’s not clear that this is cause and effect. It’s suggestive, but there is room for unconscious bias in who got the drug. Similarly, last week, a Yale researcher this week used epidemiological evidence to say HCQ works. This might be proof, or not. Since epidemiology is not double-blind, there is more than common room for confounding variables. By and large the newspaper experts are unconvinced by epidemiology and say there is no real evidence of HCQ benefit. In Michigan and Sweden the politicians strongly recommend continuing their approaches, by and large avoiding HCQ. In Brazil, India and much of the mideast, HCQ is popular. The countries that use HCQ claim it works. The countries that don’t claim it does not. The countries with strict lock-down say that science shows this is what’s working. The countries without, claim they are right to go without. All claim SCIENCE to support their behaviors, and likely that’s faulty logic.
Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 fatality rates in different countries as of early June 2020. This isn’t enough to prove HCQ effectiveness, but it’s promising, and suggests that increased use is warranted, at least among those without heart problems.
Given my choice, I’d like to see more use of HCQ. I’m not sure it works, but I’m ,sure there’s enough evidence to put it into the top tier of testing. I’d also prefer the Sweden method, of nor enforced lockdown, or a very moderate lockdown, but I live I’m Michigan where the governor claims she knows science, and I’m willing to live within the governor’s lockdown.There is good, scientific evidence that, if you don’t you get fined or go to jail.
Brazil has decided to go its own route in response to the Corona virus pandemic. They’re using minimal social distancing with a heavy reliance on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap drug that they claim is effective (as has our president). Brazil has been widely criticized for this, despite so far having lower death rate per million than the US, Canada, or most of Europe. In an open letter, copied in part below, 25 Brazilian scientists speak out against the politicalization of science, and in favor of their approach to COVID-19. The full letter (here). The whole letter is very worth reading, IMHO, but especially worthwhile is their section on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), copied below.
….. Numerous countries such as the USA, Spain, France, Italy, India, Israel, Russia, Costa Rica and Senegal use the drug (HCQ) to fight covid-19, whereas other countries refrain from using HCQ as one of the strategies to contain the pandemic, betting on other controversial tactics.
Who then speaks here in the name of “science”? Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”? Where is such authorization found?One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish with it the “sacred mantle of science”.
Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.
Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”. But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies. Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”? Others have developed atom bombs. Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.
The Manaus’ study with chloroquine (CQ) performed here in Brazil and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [1], is emblematic to this discussion of “science”. Scientists there used, the manuscript reveals, lethal doses in debilitated patients, many in severe conditions and with comorbidities. The profiles of the groups do not seem to have been “randomized”, since a clear “preference” in the HIGH DOSE group for risk factors is noted. Chloroquine, which is more toxic than HCQ, was used, and it seems that they even made “childish mistakes” in simple stoichiometric calculations, doubling the dosage with the error. I’m incapable of judging intentions, but justice will do it. The former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta quoted this study, supported it, and based on it, categorically stated: “I do not approve HCQ because I am based on ‘science, science, science’!”.
Another study published by Chinese researchers in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and which is still persistently used against HCQ was also at least revolting [2]. In it, the authors declared: “we administer 1,200 mg for 3 days, followed by 800 mg for 12 to 21 days, in patients with moderate to severe symptoms”. In other words, they gave a huge dosage of the drug that could reach the absurdity of 20 grams in the end, and it given was too late to patients (HCQ should be administered in the first symptoms or even earlier). And even worse, overdosing on HCQ or any other drug for severe cases is poisonous. What do you think, was it good science? The recommended dosage in Brazil, since May 20th, 2020, by the new Ministry of Health, for mild symptoms is 2 times 400 mg in the first day (every 12 hours) and 400 mg for 5 days for a total of 2.8 grams.
In other published studies, also in these internationally renowned journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and BMJ [3-5], once again, “problems” are clearly noted, since or the patients were randomized in irregular ways, placing older, more susceptible or most severe and hypoxemic patients in the higher (lethal) dose groups, or more men (almost 3 times more deadly by covid than women), or more black people (in the USA, black people have displayed higher mortality) and more smokers, and where most of the deaths occurred in the first days of the studies (signs that were deaths of critically ill patients, who at this stage would be more “intoxicated” than “treated” with HCQ), or they administered HCQ isolated, when it is known that it is necessary to associate HCQ at least with azithromycin. One of these studies [5] administered HCQ only on the sixteenth day of symptoms (for really early treatment, HCQ administration should be started up to fifth day), in other words, at the end of the disease, when the drug can do little good or nothing to the patient.
These studies indicate that some scientists either forgot how “science” is done or that there is a huge effort to disprove, whatever it takes, that HCQ works. How can someone or even Councils and Academies of Medicine cite such studies as the “science” of their decisions? How can that be?
On the contrary, the study published – and today with more than 3 thousand patients tested – and carried out by Dr. Didier Raoult in France [6], using the correct dosage and at the right time, with a very low mortality rate (0.4%), and the Prevent Senior’s clinical experience in Brazil – also quite encouraging – are disqualified with very “futile” arguments such as: “Didier Raoult is a controversial and unworthy researcher”, “At Prevent Senior Clinic they were not sure of the diagnosis” (but none of the hospitalized patients with clear COVID symptoms died), “Placebo effect” (what a supernatural power of inducing our mind that reduces mortality from 40% to zero, I want this placebo!), “Study performed by a health plan company” (I do not doubt that this people indeed want to save lives, because the patients were their customers who pay their bills), and similar ephemeral arguments.…
I admire the spunk of these fellows going agains the doctors, WHO. Beyond being a critique of bad research on a particular drug, it is a defense of science. Science is a discussion, a striving for truth. It is not supposed to demand blind allegiance to a few politically appointed experts. They’ve convinced me that the tests sponsored by the world health organization seem designed to show failure, and reminded me that there is rarely a one-size-fits-all for problems and all times.
I also find striking the highly critical response of my local newspapers and TV reporters. While they both like to highlight efforts by South America as they try entering the first world, with help from Bill gates and leftist politicians, they have been uniformly condemned Brazil for its non-left approach and now for use of HCQ. They want Sous Americans to think, but only if their conclusions are no different from those of their favorite, liberal thinkers.
I’m a fan of iodine both as a hand sanitizer, and as a sanitizer for surfaces. II’ve made gallons of the stuff for my own use and to give away. Perhaps I’ll come to sell it too. Unlike soap washing or alcohol sanitizer, iodine stays on your hands for hours after you use it. Alcohol evaporates in a few seconds, and soap washes off. The result is that iodine retains killing power after you use it. The iodine that I make and use is 0.1%, a concentration that is non-toxic to humans but very toxic to viruses. Here is an article about the effectiveness of iodine against viruses and bacteria Iodine works both on external surfaces, and internally, e.g. when used as a mouthwash. Iodine kills germs in all environments, and has been used for this purpose for a century.
With normal soap or sanitizer it’s almost impossible to keep from reinfecting your hands almost as soon as you wash. I’ve embedded a video showing why that is. It should play below, but here’s the link to the video on youtube, just in case it does not.
The problem with washing your hands after you receive an item, like food, is that you’re likely to infect the sink faucet and the door knob, and the place where you set the food. Even after you wash, you’re likely to re-infect yourself almost immediately and then infect the towel. Because iodine lasts on your hands for hours, killing germs, you have a good chance of not infecting yourself. If you live locally, come by for a free bottle of sanitizer.
For those who’d like more clinical data to back up the effectiveness of iodine, here’s a link to a study, I also made a video on the chemistry of iodine relevant to why it kills germs. You might find it interesting. It appears below, but if it does not play right, Here’s a link.
The video shows two possible virus fighting interactions, including my own version of the clock reaction. The first of these is the iodine starch interaction, where iodine bonds forms an I<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> complex, I then show that vitamin C unbinds the iodine, somewhat, by reducing the iodine to iodide, I<sup>-</sup>. I then add hydrogen peroxide to deoxidize the iodine, remove an electron. The interaction of vitamin C and hydrogen peroxide creates my version of the clock reaction. Fun stuff.
The actual virus fighting mechanism of iodine is not known, though the data we have suggests the mechanism is a binding with the fatty starches of the viral shell, the oleo-polysaccharides. Backing this mechanism is the observation that the shape of the virus does not change when attacked by iodine, and that the iodine is somewhat removable, as in the video. It is also possible that iodine works by direct oxidation, as does hydrogen peroxide or chlorine. Finally, I’ve seen a paper showing that internal iodine, more properly called iodide works too. My best guess about how that would work is that the iodide is oxidized to iodine once it is in the body.
There is one more item that is called iodine, that one might confuse with the “metallic” iodine solutions that I made, or that are sold as a tincture. These are the iodine compounds used for CAT-scan contrast. These are not iodine itself, but complex try-iodo-benzine compounds. Perhaps the simplest of these is diatrizoate. Many people are allergic to this, particularly those who are allergic to sea food. If you are allergic to this dye, that does not mean that you will be allergic to a simple iodine solution as made below.
The solution I made is essentially 0.1% iodine in water, a concentration that has been shown to be particularly effective. I add potassium iodide, plus isopropyl alcohol, 1%, 1% glycerine and 0.5% mild soap. The glycerine and soap are there to maintain the pH and to make the mix easier on your hands when it dries. I apply 5-10 ml to my hands and let the liquid dry in place.
There are two standard treatments for a disease. One is through a chemical, pill or shot, often using a patented antibiotic or antiviral molecule, sometimes a radioactive chemical or anti-inflammatory. There have been quite a lot of success with these molecules especially against bacterial disease. E.g. penicillin, a molecule found in cheese, was quite effective against infection, syphilis, and even the viral disease, rabies. Still, in surprisingly many cases, a molecule that you’d expect should cure a disease does not. For this reason, recent research has looked into the other approach to a cure — use your own immune system.
In the most basic version of this approach, that of Paracelcius, is to give the patient nothing beyond sunshine, a clean dressing, and good food. In surprisingly many cases, this is enough to allow the patient’s own immune system will fight the disease successfully. Currently, this seems like our best option to fight COVID-19, the new Wuhan coronavirus.; antivirals seem to have no particular effect on COVID-19, as with rabies, but patients do get better on their own with time, and there is some indication that sunlight helps too, at least in fighting the disease spread, and perhaps in effecting a cure.
Your immune system is remarkably flexible. When it is up to the task, as in the video below white blood cells multiply enormously around the invader and attack. The white cells do not harm your body cells nor those of friendly bacteria, but rally to kill nearly any invader, even one the cells have never seen before. There is a minimum of side effects (fever, tiredness) but these go away after the invader is gone. The immune system then keeps the memory of the invader alive via “Memory T cells” so that it can attack more quickly if the same invader is seen again. This is what we call immunity, and it’s a type of protection that you generally don’t get from pills.
Unfortunately, not every disease is fought well by the immune system alone. Measles, for example, or smallpox. For several of these diseases we’ve found we can activate the patient’s immune system with a vaccination, even after the patient contacts the disease. An injection of a weaker form of the disease seems to help kick-start the patients own immune system. Vaccination tends to have bad side-effects, but for many diseases, e.g. measles, the bad is outweighed by the good. Interestingly we’ve begun to use this approach on some cancers, too, and it seems to work. Immune therapy, it’s called.
Immune therapy is not generally the first line approach to cancer, but it might be the best for slow cancers, like prostate. Generally, in the fight against cancer, the preferred method is to removes as much of cancer cells as possible, and treat any missed cells using a mix of radiation and chemicals. This works but there are a lot of side-effects. Immune therapy is sort of similar, in a way. Instead of irradiating the bad cells inside the body, one takes the cancer cells outside of the body (or the virus molecules) and uses radiation and chemicals to knock off bits. These bits, a weakened form of the cancer or of the virus, are then cultured and re-injected into the body. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. For melanoma, skin cancer, immune therapy is found to works about 1/4 of the time. Why not more? It seems that sometimes the immune system gets “exhausted” fighting a foe that’s to much for it. And sometimes the activated immune system starts attacking the host body. This is an auto-immune response.
