Covid19 not a killer virus

THE EDITOR: Covid19 mortality has turned out to be many times lower than expected and close to that of typical seasonal flu (0.2 per cent).

The number of registered coronavirus deaths are continuously being overestimated. The CDC itself has suggested that this is undoubtedly the case. There is a difference between death by the coronavirus and death with the coronavirus. Humans are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria at the same time. Considering that most people who have developed severe symptoms suffered from additional pathologies, one cannot simply conclude that the coronavirus infection was the cause of death. This was certainly not taken into account in the statistics.

The most vulnerable groups can be identified. The vast majority of deceased patients were 80 years of age or older. The majority (70 per cent) of those dying, younger than 70, had an underlying disorder, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease, or obesity. The vast majority of infected people (98 per cent) did not or hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.

Meanwhile, there is affordable, safe, and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc, and AZT (azithromycin). Remdesivir has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo activity in animal models against the viral pathogens MERS and SARS, which are also coronaviruses and are structurally similar to covid19.

The limited preclinical data on remdesivir in MERS and SARS indicate that it is the only broad-spectrum anti-retroviral with potential activity against covid19. Dexamethasone has been shown in studies done in the UK to significantly reduce mortality and morbidity from this infection when used early in the illness. Rapidly applied, these therapies lead to recovery and often prevent hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.

Effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of colleagues in the field with impressive results. This contrasts sharply with the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by double-blind studies), which in some countries (eg, the Netherlands) has even led to a ban on some forms of therapy.

A meta-analysis in The Lancet, which could not demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The primary data sources used proved to be unreliable and two out of three authors admitted to “conflicts of interest.” However, most of the guidelines based on this study remained unchanged.

Serious questions have arisen out of this state of affairs. In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients daily, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference watched millions of times.

French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille (IHU) also presented this promising combination therapy as early as April. Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured many patients in his practice with HCQ and zinc, called on colleagues in a petition for freedom of therapy. Definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy.

From the distressing media images of ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) where people were suffocating and given artificial respiration in agony, we now know that this was caused by an exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the pulmonary blood vessels. The administration of blood thinners and dexamethasone and the avoidance of artificial ventilation, which was found to cause additional damage to lung tissue, means that this dreaded complication, too, is virtually not fatal anymore – ScienceDirect-Thrombosis Research.

It is, therefore, not a killer virus, but a treatable condition. Why are we persisting with the untenable propaganda and political impediments globally tied together and presented as a “package” in, by, and from virtually all countries?

STEVE SMITH

via e-mail