The Playground

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    We Saw This Coming... Increased Risk of New Variant Infection in the Vaccinated Only Preprint of a study shows increased risk of infection in the vaccinated. We Tried To Warn You.

    Zephir - I am a bit surprised by your comment here.


    I have been saying (above) that obviously the more mutations in the spike, the less well will vaccines protect. That is why whereas protection against infection from original COVID is very high, it is lower for alpha, and much lower for delta.


    Now, I am not some wonder-thinker, creative and ahead of the curve. All the mainstream scientists expect this. They do not know how much a variant with more mutations will have a greater risk of infection, which is why at the momnet everyone is silent (though pessimistic) about omicron. We just do not have the info.


    You are maybe thinking this means preprint that vaccinated population has a higher risk of infection than unavccinated? It is not what the preprint says.


    We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. No clear differences were found between vaccines. However, the effect was larger in the first 14-59 days after complete vaccination compared to 60 days and longer. In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.


    It does not say that vaccinated individuals have more risk of delta infection than unvaccinated. Far from it. Rather it says that the protection against original COVID infection from the vaccine is higher than against delta infection. Which everyone has been telling you for a long time.


    It is interesting (and not surprising) that COVID disease induced immunity is less variant specific than vaccine immunity. You know this is expected, not because vaccines reduce immune response, but because they make a highly specific immune response. There is no evidence from any data so far that being vaccinated reduces the bodies ability to make a broader immune response after (subsequent) infection. This is an idee fixe in the minds of antivaxxers without evidence.


    The 1st gen vaccines are not a final solution to COVID. They would have to be very very good for that to be true. They are better than we expected, but not good enough to deal with delta in one go - even if we could vaccinate the entire world which we cannot (or perhaps politically will not).


    The linked preprint says it clearly (but the discussion in it is suppressed by the antivaxxer link):


    We found no association between previous infection and a new infection with Beta, Gamma or Delta
    versus Alpha, suggesting that there is a no difference in immunity between Alpha and Beta, Gamma
    or Delta after previous infection, in contrast to vaccine-induced immunity. It is not yet clear whether
    previous infection or vaccination induces better protection against infection. However, primary
    infection comes with a risk of hospitalization or death, especially in older persons or individuals with
    underlying conditions. Even if infection-induced immunity protects better against reinfection with
    novel variants, vaccination is preferred over infection to protect individuals against severe disease as
    the cumulative risk from two infections should be taken into account.

    Quote from Fm1

    ADE represents a safety concern associated with vaccination strategies. Previous research investigated ADE with SARS-CoV-2 focusing on the wild type or original strain of SARS-CoV-2 called Wuhan/D614G. However, as the delta variant now represents the majority of strains the study team investigated the interaction of infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Employing molecular modeling methods, the INSERM-based team demonstrates that enhancing antibodies show a higher attraction for Delta variants over the original Wuhan/D614 N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The authors propose that based the observations from their modeling enhancing antibodies reinforce the binding of the spike trimer to the host cell membrane via the clamping of the NTD to lipid raft microdomains. Do these stabilizing mechanisms expedite the conformational change that stimulates the demasking of the receptor binding domain? The study authors propose that based on their modeling in the case of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 “the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neuralization.” But with Delta the neutralizing antibodies demonstrate less “affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity.” This implies that the masses of population receiving COVID-19 vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (mRNA or viral vectors) face potential risk of ADE. Consequently, the authors posit that “Second generation vaccines with spike protein formulations lacking structurally-conserved ADE-related epitopes should be considered” moving forward. Other prominent figures such as Dr. Paul Offit contend that there is no evidence that the four types of coronaviruses associate with any ADE.

    This is not new news. And ADE is a real risk in any vaccine, which everyone pointed out from the start. Luckily thus far there is no clinical evidence of it being significant with gen 1 vaccines., and strong clinical evidence it is outweighed by vaccination benefits.


    But, that is why everyone is looking to gen 2 vaccines which are less specific but still effective.


    Equally there is no clinical evidence so far from SA of ADE with omicron where vaccinated and unvaccinated alike appear to have a mild disease. Still I do not trust these anecdotal observations and think we will have to wait some time for real data.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You are maybe thinking this means preprint that vaccinated population has a higher risk of infection than unavccinated? It is not what the preprint says.


    The blog article appears to have fooled several people, and, this appears to have been the authors intentions - as judged from the comments underneath it.


    We Saw This Coming... Increased Risk of New Variant Infection in the Vaccinated Only
    Preprint of a study shows increased risk of infection in the vaccinated. We Tried To Warn You. #Pathogenicpriming is Real.
    popularrationalism.substack.com


    After someone falls for the misleading subtext noted by Huxley, an argument develops over the correct interpretation.


    Then up pops the blog’s author, who slyly manages to confirm ‘Andrew’s (and Huxley’s) interpretation is correct, but in a manner that leaves the duped antivaxxer readers still believing in the misleading subtext.


    Clever… in a twisted and devious way.



    Edit: Thinking about it, its hardly a ‘subtext’ with a title such as is - Its just straight up deception.

    I read the Zephir_AWT link earlier today. Seemed rather straight forward until I read the comments section. That made me go back and re-read the abstract. It could have been better worded IMO.


    As I understand it, vaccine induced immunity does not protect as well against breakthrough infection from the variants, as does acquiring natural immunity from infection by the original Alpha.


    Is that how everyone understood it?

    Re spike protein. I'm not a virologist but better at information theory. Yes targeting the spike protein is not a stupid idea and hopefully we will get more robust

    vaccines as development continue.


    I will just note that it could be advantageous for the immune system to combine matching of spikes with other proteins. It would mean that you can allow a more

    robust match of the spike if you also know that it matches A,B,C. If not this means that the immune system depends on very specific details of the spike protein else

    if it can do more advanced matches on the whole virus it can concentrate on matching robustly. I think that many here thinks that matching is only for one protein,

    maybe it is so, but then that is not optimal. Then I thought that neurons might be involved in the immune system as it allows for much more advanced control.

    Actually I found this neurons and immune system

    Quote from Shane D.

    I read the Zephir_AWT link earlier today. Seemed rather straight forward until I read the comments section. That made me go back and re-read the abstract. It could have been better worded IMO.


    As I understand it, vaccine induced immunity does not protect as well against breakthrough infection from the variants, as does acquiring natural immunity from infection by the original Alpha.


    Is that how everyone understood it?


    The abstract is poorly worded, as ambiguity remains in the sentence:


    We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination.


    Does that mean: Getting vaccinated increases the risk of infection by a variant other than alpha? Or, that vaccines are less effective against variants other than alpha?


    The only way to know for sure is to read more of the of the paper.


    On first reading it, I assumed the first interpretation (and immediately wondered how the paper managed get published on medrxiv, who have stated they wish to avoid situations like this).


    After reading the whole paper I realised I had likely been primed into this interpretation by the wholy misleading headline on the blog Zephir linked to:


    We Saw This Coming... Increased Risk of New Variant Infection in the Vaccinated Only

    Preprint of a study shows increased risk of infection in the vaccinated. We Tried To Warn You. #Pathogenicpriming is Real.


    “HashtagPathogenicPriming” being antivaxxer slang for ADE. Which can be a problem with some vaccines, but so far has always been spotted during the clinical trials phase (although it seemingly ignored by Philippino regulatory authorities, in the dengvaxia scandal). So far there is no evidence of ADE in covid vaccines, but that doesn’t stop it getting spaffed about by antivaxxers, in much the same way as the MMR/autism meme.

    Quote from stefan

    Then I thought that neurons might be involved in the immune system as it allows for much more advanced control.

    Actually I found this neurons and immune system


    This is an interesting topic that starts with questions about conscious control of our autonomic nervous system, and ends somewhere in tantric buddhism. (Or maybe that should be the other way round).


    Anyway… you might be interested this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034215/

    So far there is no evidence of ADE in covid vaccines I wouldn't be so sure about it..

    Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is sicker? The Unvaccinated Are Looking Smarter Every Week

    A pilot study of homeschooled six to 12-year-olds from four American states published on April 27th in the Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health based on their mothers' reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism, should make all parents think twice before they ever vaccinate again:

    • Vaccinated children were more than three times as likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (OR 4.3)
    • Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children IMO with such a numbers it's safe to say, that hay fever is completely disease of vaccination
    • Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
    • Vaccinated children had more than quadruple the risk of being diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)
    • Vaccinated children were 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)
    • Vaccinated children were 340 percent (OR 4.4) more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
    • Vaccinated children were 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with an ear infection than unvaccinated children (OR 4.0)
    • Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children (OR 8.01)
    • Vaccinated children were 2.5-fold more likely to be diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children

    Unvaccinated children in the study were actually better protected against some “vaccine-preventable diseases” than children who got the shots. Since 2000, the CDC has recommended four shots against seven different strains of pneumococcal infections before age 15 months (13 strains since 2010), but vaccinated children in the study were 340 percent more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia compared to unvaccinated children (OR = 4.4).

    Zephir, theoretical physics is a mathematical discipline, and requires more than the occasional word salad if you want to convince scientists of, say, your pet 'aether-wave' theory.


    And in a similar manner, you never going to begin to convince any scientist, or indeed sensible person, that covid vaccines cause ADE by linking to an unholy brew of anecdotes, reddit comments, irrelevant images, grifting MAGA-heavy anti-vaxxer articles (first link if anyone wants a laugh), and cranky homeschoolers self-diagnosing their kids with 'autism'.


    Of the two higher-quality links you provided: Alex Berenson's unfortunate mistake is excellently explained/mocked here, and your second-from-top link can be explained by the presumed fact that the countries least able to afford vaccines are also the least capable of counting covid cases within their population.

    Quote from Shane D.

    I read the Zephir_AWT link earlier today. Seemed rather straight forward until I read the comments section. That made me go back and re-read the abstract. It could have been better worded IMO.


    As I understand it, vaccine induced immunity does not protect as well against breakthrough infection from the variants, as does acquiring natural immunity from infection by the original Alpha.


    Is that how everyone understood it?

    That is probably true, but not what is said.


    They say that COVID infection induced immunity does not give different protection against different variants, whereas vaccine immunity gives more protection for the earlier variants. They do not compare the two.


    We know from other work that infection can provide very good immunity - if it is severe enough. Mild infection (particularly asymptomatic) provides less good immunity. So, basically, you can get better than vaccine immunity from severe infection by having a severe infection.

    A reiteration in plain English of what we all know and simply understand that the immune system represents a finite resource such that if presented with A COVID vaccine part of that resource is used up, leaving a vulnerability when challenged with any novel pathogen bacterial,fungal or viral. Thus we have remarkably few cases of COVID in sub-saharan Africa which I originally associated with the prevalence of anti-malarial drug use there ie routine use of HCQ. But it turns out it was due to Ivermectin after all! Explains everything by comparing Africa with S.America with its massive COVID outbreak and absence of similar routine ivermectin therapy. Is it as simple as that? :) :) :)

    Quote from Zeus46

    So far there is no evidence of ADE in covid vaccines, but that doesn’t stop it getting spaffed about by antivaxxers, in much the same way as the MMR/autism meme.


    Of course the vaccinated get more CoV-19 because of mere joy... This was the intention of the vaccination. Getting more often sick...So new definition for a vaccine: A vaccine makes you more often sick. Now everything is fine again...


    And what about herpes zoster ?

    The Ziverdo trial in India also seems to be remarkably far more successful than the vaccine approach to the problem. When will the WHO come to its senses and start mass ant-viral therapies rather than mass-vaccination? Vaccination against COVID has to be recognised for what it is in reality a massive failure. :) :) :)

    Quote from Zeus46

    theoretical physics is a mathematical discipline, and requires more than the occasional word salad i

    Einstein himself speaks... or better pebble ...

    https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

    The study is 100x more clear than most FUD spread by the CoV-19 gene therapy ( claimed vaccine) mafia.

    Here what an UK professor says about CoV-19 gene therapy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsyYP2_zBYI


    Unluckily in German and a long background interview. So it's past the one hour mark...

    Nasal Spray Stops COVID-19 In Use in Israel & Bahrain—Why Isn’t this Reported in America


    Nasal Spray Stops COVID-19 In Use in Israel & Bahrain—Why Isn’t this Reported in America
    At the start of 2021 TrialSite reported on UK-based NHS hospitals involved with a clinical trial involving a nasal spray that in a lab environment
    trialsitenews.com



    At the start of 2021 TrialSite reported on UK-based NHS hospitals involved with a clinical trial involving a nasal spray that in a lab environment exhibited the ability to kill 99.9% of SARS-Cov-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Called the SaNOTize Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS), this investigational product was designed to kill COVID-19 in the upper airways, in effect inhibiting the virus from incubating and thereby making its way to the host’s lungs. The product was developed by Vancouver, Canada-based SaNOtize Research and Development Corp, based on results from lab tests at Utah State University’s Antiviral Research Institute. By the summer of 2021 the product was evidencing positive results in Phase 2 clinical trials. The investigational product was so promising that some countries, including Israel have allowed the product into pharmacies. What is the status of this important, promising investigational product in major markets? Why hasn’t the mainstream news in places like the United States or Europe more broadly covered this important easy to administer and cost effective investigational therapy? Are major pharmaceutical companies monopolizing mindshare for their vaccines and expensive branded therapies?


    The Investigational Product

    Available as a simple nasal spray, it is designed to kill the virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs. It is based on nitric oxide (NO), a natural nano-molecule with proven anti-microbial properties, and which has a direct effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.


    NONS is one of the few novel therapeutic treatments, outside of expensive monoclonal antibodies, that is proven to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in humans.NONS has already received a CE mark in Europe, which is the equivalent of marketing authorization as a Medical Device (the CE mark confirms that the medical device meets certain “essential requirements” of the European General Medical Devices Directive and is safe for the intended purpose). By virtue of the CE mark, SaNOtize has permission to launch NONS in the EU. NONS has also been approved and is being sold in Israel and Bahrain under the trade name Enovid.


    Positive Clinical Trial Results

    A few months ago the company, SaNOtize Research Institute announced a deal inked with Indian generic drug maker Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. In the deal the company and Glenmark announced an exclusive long-term strategic partnership to produce, market and distribute NONS for COVID-19 treatment in India and other Asian markets including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Nepal, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste and Vietnam.


    Most Recent Clinical Trials

    The company reported that back in March, 2021 NONs was reported safe and effective as an antiviral treatment to prevent transmission of COVID-19, shortening its course and reducing the severity of symptoms. In the first 24 hours, NONS reduced the average viral load by approximately 95%, and then by over 99% within 72 hours. This experimental product was evaluated in healthy volunteers and patients as part of UK and Canada-based clinical trials.


    Their Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT04337918) targeting 143 participants was completed early in the year. This multi-center, randomized, controlled Phase 2 clinical efficacy study involved their Nitric Oxide Releasing Solution treatment targeting COVID-19.


    Available for Real World Use in Israel Pharmacies

    In a little reported news release the company in July, 2021 reported that the NONS product was made available in Israeli pharmacies. This news was available in multiple media.


    Based on Phase 2 results at the time, the product known as Enovid was granted an emergency use authorization as a medical device by Israel’s Ministry of Health earlier I the year. Called Enovid in Israel, the product provides a physical and chemical barrier to protect from viruses. Based on NONS, Enovid releases a small dose of nitric oxide (NO), a natural nanomolecule with proven anti-microbial properties including against SARS-CoV-2.


    Dr. Chris Miller, Co-founder and Chief Science Officer of SaNOtize declared “We are thrilled to have Enovid available in pharmacies in Israel and we are moving as quickly and diligently as possible through regulatory approval processes elsewhere in the world to make NONS available to the wider public.” Also back in July SaNOtize announced the appointment of Dan Suesskind and Elaine Campbell to its Board of Directors. Noteworthy, Suesskind served as the Chief Financial Officer at Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, the world’s largest generic drug maker from 1977 to 2008.


    Expansion of Clinical Trial in Canada

    Back in June of 2021 Health Canada authorized the company to commence with enrollment of volunteers in Phase 3 clinical trials and that it submitted an application for a New Drug Submission under Health Canada’s Interim Order.


    Moreover the company reported over the summer it was concurrently in the process of regulatory filings in numerous other nations including Brazil and Mexico following the results of a successful Phase 2b clinical trial.


    Led by principal investigator Dr. Jeremy Road, a private general provider, the study included BC Diabetes, LMC Manna, Diex Recherche Quebec as well as in Joliette and Sherbrooke.


    The Company

    Founded in 2017 by Dr. Gilly Regev, PhD, and Dr. Chris Miller, PhD, BA, RT, TrialSite has tracked this company with considerable interest. With $.25 million dollars raised—including some grant early on from the U.S. Department of Defense, SaNOtize develops and patents a Nitric Oxide Releasing Solution platform to treatment and prevent microbial infections, including drug resistant microbes.


    The company targets a number of indications including COVID-19

    COVID-19: Prophylaxis or Treatment?


    COVID-19: Prophylaxis or Treatment?
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite by MarkPA By now, the internet is
    trialsitenews.com


    By now, the internet is replete with essays and articles, whether in pre-print or published, discussing the evidence of various drugs and nutraceuticals on COVID-19. Oxychloroquine and zinc were probably the first out of the gate while ivermectin and vitamin D might be the most prominent today. In most cases, these substances are discussed for late-treatment, early-treatment, and as prophylactics. Which strategy makes the most sense strategically?


    Late-treatment doubtlessly should show up third in this trifecta. By then, most of the damage to the body has been done. Early treatment has enjoyed the most urgent attention; and, rightly so. When we have a symptomatic patient, or at least one who tests positive, we are pretty sure we are confronting the pathogen and our efforts will be rewarded by a swifter and less costly course of treatment. We also know we are dealing with a reward-to-risk ratio where the risk is non-speculative. We are pretty sure that we can project a statistically reliable course of morbidity.


    Prophylaxis is a much tougher shot to call. Should we administer a candidate substance to a person who is, apparently, well? Here, the reward-to-risk ratio is entirely speculative. With younger, healthy individuals the risks of an adverse outcome from COVID-19 are predictably low. With the elderly and comorbid, the risks are high; yet, we still have difficulty predicting the individual’s risk of exposure.


    WHO and the major countries’ governments have bet the course of humanity on vaccines whose efficacy remains unconvincing after 11 months of experimental use. Our leaders seem to have chosen the most speculative and high-risk strategy based on an implicit assumption that the COVID-19 vaccines would have a side-effect profile typical of predecessor vaccines for other diseases. This, notwithstanding that the mRHA vaccines were based on a technology never previously used in a successful and safe vaccine.


    With drugs previously approved for other diseases and nutraceuticals we have a much firmer handle on the risks of administration, whether to an individual believed to be infected or not. Prescinding from the specifics of any substance (i.e., one or another of the several vaccines, Remdesivir, zinc or Ivermectin) we know much more about proven low-risk alternatives to new-drug development. Arguably, we’ve overlooked numerous low-risk paths to dealing with the pandemic in favor of President Trump’s Warpspeed initiative. Was this a good idea? Is it still a good idea?


    More importantly, for purposes of this inquiry, is whether to emphasize early treatment over prophylaxis.


    Suppose our strategy were to achieve herd immunity at the lowest possible cost and the highest possible certainty. The history of epidemiology would teach that the most certain path is to simultaneously infect the least vulnerable en mass, while protecting the most vulnerable. The young and healthy should be exposed and treated only if-and-when individuals become infected. Natural immunity should be the most robust. Meanwhile, the old and comorbid should be treated prophylactically and otherwise isolated from others who might infect them; i.e., anyone not previously infected and recovered. Such a strategy ought to use a minimum of resources which are never entirely free of cost of all relevant types (financial, opportunity costs of using a hospital bed to treat a patient with a different illness).


    Most of the off-patent drugs and nutraceuticals discussed as having apparent efficacy for COVID-19 are cheap; but they are still not free. Nevertheless, they are remarkably cheap due to the full fruition of the Industrial Revolution. Most of the cost of these substances is to be found in processing a unit of production and distributing it in the marketplace. The therapeutic ingredients themselves are nearly free. To illustrate, let’s suppose that a minimal dose of such substances could be brought to market for 9 cents per pill, whereas a substantial dose would cost 11 cents per pill. In developed countries these prices are negligible. In underdeveloped countries such costs still must be considered.


    Suppose we have a pool of 100 or 100,000 individuals we wish to protect. And suppose an early course of treatment involves a substantial dose of a substance for 5 days. If a single member in our pool of 100 (or, 1000 members of our pool of 100,000) were to become ill, at 11 cents for 5 days it would cost $ 0.55 to attempt to treat that single patient early. Conversely, to treat the entire pool of 100 prophylactically might require a small dose weekly for 52 weeks per year. Total cost for the pool: 100 * 52 * $ 0.09 = $ 468.00. Moreover, as COVID-19 looks to be endemic, this cost must be projected for an unknown number of years into the future. Clearly, early treatment appears to be the bargain from this back-of-the-envelope analysis.


    Yet, the previous paragraph might not describe the only legitimate way of comparing the costs and benefits of prophylaxis as compared to early treatment. The SARS-COV-2 virus seems to be mutating swiftly. Moreover, irrespective of whether the origin of this virus was natural or man-made, we have no control over either source. And so, we ought to be cognizant of the risk of pandemics based on still more novel pathogens. In either case, we can’t know whether the next pandemic might pass over the elderly while devastating the young or those of working age.


    Suppose our candidate substances were vitamin C or D. Might we improve humankind’s immune systems world-wide for less than $500 per person per year? What might be the offsetting benefits from lower healthcare costs or greater productivity from such an investment? We don’t know, of course, but the arithmetic makes it clear that it would be well worth our while to learn whether this might be so. Pick a suite of matched country pairs (or province pairs). For each pair, invest $500 per person for a dose of C and a dose of a placebo; in another pair, $500 for a dose of D and a dose of placebo; . . . a dose of ivermectin and a dose of placebo.


    We should soon discover which of these substances show efficacy; and we would do no harm! In underdeveloped populations suffering from malnutrition, parasites or malaria, a substantial investment in such trials would certainly produce some good without harm apart from the opportunity cost of not spending $500/person/year on some other worthy purpose such as education or sanitation. The pay-off comes in the developing world. Suppose we discovered which of these substances worked. The developed countries’ cost savings in healthcare and productivity would easily pay for all the trials in underdeveloped countries.


    The costs and benefits of such trials are not so simple as depicted by the simple example of some number – say a dozen – mono-treatments. Each substance would have to be tried at a low, medium, and substantial dose. Each substance at each dose would have to be tried in diverse combinations with other substances. E.g., a zinc trial alone would probably fail as would an oxychloroquine trial. But a combination of zinc with oxychloroquine at a moderate dosage would be apt to show some efficacy.


    Interestingly, the cost of combination trials need not be much larger than the cost of mono-substance trials. If a moderate dose of zinc or oxychloroquine might be produced at 10 cents each, a combined dose of zinc plus oxychloroquine might cost only 12 cents from factory to the consumer. It’s very likely that trials for numerous combinations of off-patent drugs or nutraceuticals could be completed for an aggregate cost no greater than phase I, II and III trials for a new drug. Phases I and II could be skipped since we can assume safety; we need only study effectiveness.


    Eventually, we should also learn something about the robustness of successful prophylactics. Do they protect against just one, a few or several COVID-19 variants? Do they also protect against other endemic viruses, bacteria, or parasites? Do they fill any heretofore undiscovered nutritional deficits?


    Cheap. Safe. Pay-off comes from benefits accruing to the developed world. Why bet humanity’s future on any single new drug development?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.