COVID-19 - pandemic management strategy
Part two is here.
The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is causing fierce debate among scientists. The final word on this issue, as is customary in evidence-based medicine, can only be had by a consensus of experts, which we are unlikely to see any earlier than in 3-4 years.
At the same time, does the origin of SARS-CoV-2 have practical significance for the patient? No. For a practicing doctor as well. It is quite possible that this is a laboratory leak. However, constantly heated publications on this topic greatly contribute to the formation of an opinion about the coronavirus as an unprecedented and dangerous monster.
Fear-mongering contributes to the promotion of experimental drugs and other manipulations of this controlled pandemic. A fact that demonstrates the control of medical publications is the following:
"Furthermore, we show that 2019-nCoV is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus. Pairwise protein sequence analysis of seven conserved non-structural proteins domains show that this virus belongs to the species of SARSr-CoV (like several other bat coronaviruses, but to a different clade).
Notably, we confirmed that 2019-nCoV uses the same cell entry receptor-angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2)-as SARS-CoV. (Zhou P. et al., 2020)."
This publication caused a stir among practicing doctors, because questions immediately arose about the expediency of taking cardiac drugs that block ACE2. That is, there is a threat to the cardiological pharmaceutical business. Almost instantly, there was a consensus proving that the use of these drugs had no effect on the penetration of the coronavirus into the cell. This issue was not raised in the media anymore. This consensus reflects the real situation.
However, the speed of response is surprising, as well as how tightly this topic was closed. If the origin of the coronavirus is still actively discussed, and the number of publications in favour of it having a natural origin approximately corresponds to the number of publications in favour of it having an artificial one, then it is possible that this is beneficial to those who control all the information on this pandemic.
Today, publications prevail in which various experts claim that a new terrible monster unknown to science has appeared – a new coronavirus pneumonia. Some of them claim that it is pneumonitis. Pneumonitis, according to the accepted diagnostic criteria, we usually call lung damage in DBST (diffuse connective tissue diseases) - systemic scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus, etc.
What is common pneumonia? Pneumonia is a group of acute infectious (mainly bacterial) diseases that differ in aetiology, pathogenesis, and morphological characteristics, characterised by a focal lesion of the respiratory parts of the lungs with the obligatory presence of intra-alveolar exudation.
By the way, according to the European Respiratory Society, the mortality rate from ordinary pneumonia among those hospitalised in Europe is, depending on the pathogen: pneumococcus – 12.3%, legionella – 14.7%, staphylococcus – 31.8%.
With coronavirus pneumonia, the alveolar septa are affected, so the process is called diffuse alveolar damage. Once we called such a process in the lungs atypical pneumonia, in 2009 we called it viral-bacterial pneumonia, today we call it an unknown monster (coronavirus).
In 2013, an international consensus defined this condition as interstitial pneumonia. The symptoms of the disease, the X-ray and patho-anatomic picture have not changed. The information provided by the media, medical publications and online conferences for doctors has changed.
Of course, the confusion of opinions among experts (including paid ones) causes alarm among doctors, contradictory statements of foreign specialists sow panic, uncertainty, and confuse. The problem is that all interstitial lung diseases are the most difficult section of pulmonology, and all other specialists are poorly oriented in them.
A few words about the fact that a completely new, unknown to science pathophysiological response of our body to the introduction of an aggressive agent is in principle impossible. Such a response is rigidly determined by those biochemical reactions that are provided by the presence of well-defined chemical (biochemical) substances inside our cells and in the intercellular space.
If a strange cell appears inside the body, the mechanism of apoptosis (programmed cell death) is instantly triggered. In cases where apoptosis does not work and defective cells begin to grow, all histological versions of such cells have already been classified.
If you remember the primitive school chemistry, you will understand that the response options for chemical reactions are strictly limited. Inside the body, they are still limited by a mechanism called homeostasis (constancy of the internal environment). So the "new coronavirus pneumonia" is a hoax.
Although no one denies that this pathology has some details that distinguish it from others. As with any other pathology. However, the essential point for the clinician is something else. The axiom that it is necessary to treat not the disease, but the patient is that for a patient who has a concomitant allergy and for a patient who has recently undergone aorto-coronary bypass surgery, approaches to the treatment of an infectious disease are different.
Vascular damage in COVID-19 is also not something unique. All viruses increase the permeability of blood vessels and cause inflammation of the vascular wall. Therefore, any viral infection can cause a complication in any organ. Myocarditis after ARI has been known for more than 30 years, autoimmune lesions after viral infections, and even strokes after ARI have been known for more than 30 years.
There is nothing radically new or unique in the complications of coronavirus infection. This fact is the main reason why I took up the publication on the topic of COVID-19. This is exactly what my colleagues asked me to convey.
The mechanism of virus penetration into the cell is also of no fundamental importance, because (I repeat) during the swine flu pandemic we had an effective remedy that blocks the penetration of the H1N1 virus into the cell – oseltamivir (a neuraminidase inhibitor). However, it alone was not enough to save lives in the 2009-2010 pandemic.
We used antibiotics to treat swine flu pneumonia, and it was antibiotics that saved millions of lives around the world. Therefore, etiotropic treatment alone is always not enough for such processes, and even the most effective antiviral agent will not radically solve the problem of today's pandemic.
By the way, preventive antiviral treatment, the need for which is actively promoted by pharmaceutical companies, will also not solve the problems with the pandemic. The effectiveness of such treatment is at the placebo level, and the hepatotoxicity (liver damage) of all antiviral agents is high. So it is better to meet the disease with a healthy liver, because this is one of the main organs of our protection.
The main problem is that they are trying to confuse us and convince us that "every day new interpretations of its behaviour and mechanisms of infection of the body, as well as treatment methods, are being discovered. Therefore, in fact, the world health system is working in an online learning mode and is trying to cope with the pandemic on the fly without a reliable theory."
Americans say: "If you know the concept, no one will confuse you." Whatever the mechanism of infection, in response to the introduction of any foreign agent, as already mentioned, our body has one universal systemic nonspecific inflammatory response. And there is no other protection mechanism. This is the answer that has existed for as long as humanity has existed. And it is realised through the activation of the immune system, including the endothelium (inner wall) of blood vessels.
They are trying to convince us that "in fact, the world health system is working in an online learning mode and is trying to cope with the epidemic on the fly without a reliable theory." What does it mean "in an online learning mode?".
That is, under the slogan "save humanity", pharmaceutical companies develop medicines at the expense of taxpayers and immediately test them for free.
It is not surprising that Pfizer is the leader among these companies. Doctors are confused by contradictory and constantly changing treatment recommendations, most of them have been convinced that there are no effective treatment regimens for coronavirus infection, so they prescribe these experimental drugs.