Pages

Showing posts with label Favipiravir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Favipiravir. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 January 2021

Why not try traditional medicine, steam inhalation in Covid-19 fight?



I think we are depending too much on the promise of vaccines to defeat Covid-19.


From day one, the cry has been “wait for the vaccine” or “vaccine is coming” and it has raised the hopes of Malaysians too high. I fear our hopes may be in for a terrible crash as none of them is 100% effective and we really don’t know the long-term effects.

Moreover, the vaccination programme will only begin in March and is expected to be completed by the end of the year or early next year.

A. Kathirasen
 -


What is to happen in the meantime? The government tells us the health ministry’s capacity to handle the rising Covid-19 cases is at near-breaking point. In fact that was the reason given by Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin in seeking a proclamation of emergency on Jan 11. Leaving aside the facilities, how long can our over-worked frontliners last?

Yesterday, there were 3,585 cases and 11 deaths. The cumulative total number of deaths stands at 700 and cases at 190,434. There are predictions that daily cases could go up to even 8,000 a day in March.

I have always wondered if governments are chasing the vaccine and pinning their hopes on it simply because they want to – or need to – show their people they are doing something.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the promise of a vaccine was the rage. Every government touted it as though the disease would vanish or be effectively neutralised once the vaccines were in the market.

Even today, many governments, including our own, are putting their hopes on, and praying, that the vaccines work. As nothing else seems to have worked, and as the virus continues wreaking havoc, governments are under tremendous pressure to be seen doing something to save their people.

The truth is, the vaccine is not going to immediately end the pandemic. Even if we are vaccinated, we would still have to do what we are doing now – wash hands, wear masks, practice physical distancing.

We should not, therefore, depend on vaccines alone or see it as the magic wand that will cause Covid-19 to vanish. We should look at various methods of handling the disease.

That is why I am glad to hear that the health ministry has begun two drug trials involving the easily available Favipiravir and Ivermectin.

Health director-general Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah said in a Facebook post yesterday that Favipiravir had shown effectiveness against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection “within a range of therapeutic dose” in several in-vitro studies but that the use of the drug for those at risk of deterioration was not fully studied.

A team of three specialists led by Dr Chuah Chuan Huan, Dr Suresh Kumar Chidambaram and Dr Mahiran Mustafa are carrying out the Favipiravir drug trial while the Ivermectin drug trial is being conducted by another team led by Dr Cheah Wee Kooi, Dr Suresh Kumar and Dr Mahiran.

Noor Hisham said Ivermectin was a US Food and Drugs Administration-approved “broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent” and that it had been “repurposed” to fight Covid-19 with “equivocal clinical outcomes”.

The first drug trial involves 500 patients while the second involves 400. Both studies, at 11 designated hospitals, are collaborative efforts between the ministry’s infectious disease specialists and the Institute for Clinical Research.

This is good news. If the trials prove positive, we have on our hands drugs that are so much cheaper than vaccines and which are easily available.

Ivermectin is a medicine used on livestock and people infected by parasitic worms. Some doctors claim it is effective in reducing Covid-19 deaths, with a few calling it a “wonder drug”. Several small clinical trials, including in India and Spain, suggest Ivermectin can reduce in-hospitality mortality rates.

Favipiravir, an anti-viral drug, has shown promising results in Covid-19 clinical studies in countries such as India, China, Japan and Russia and some of them, including India and China, have approved it for use against Covid-19.

While it is carrying out the two drug trials, the government should also study alternative therapies, not just stick to allopathic medicine.

I’m pleased to note that Thailand has turned to herbs in its fight against Covid-19. It is using the Andrographis Paniculata plant, commonly known as green chiretta, to cut both the severity of the disease and costs. Five public hospitals are carrying this out as a pilot project.

According to the Thai health ministry, human trials show that the condition of patients improved within three days if the medicine was given within 72 hours of testing positive. And no side effects were reported.

I urge the health ministry to contact the Thai health ministry, if it hasn’t yet, to get more details and try it here too.

Also, why don’t our medical experts – whether in hospitals or universities – carry out experiments to check the efficacy of home Covid-19 remedies such as steam inhaling? It shouldn’t take too long to test this, given the availability of patients.

I know, steam inhalation has generally been poo-pooed by western experts and pharmaceutical giants. I suspect it is because there is no money to be made in this, unlike in a vaccine. Can you imagine how many people – including middlemen and officials arranging vaccines for their country – will become rich with the vaccine rollout?

On the other hand, no one is going to make money if home remedies are touted as possible solutions.

Traditional medicine practitioners in India have been recommending steam inhalation for a while now. For instance, the Jogi Ayurved Hospital in Surat, India, says it has experimented with Covid-19 patients and finds steam inhalation effective.

I recently saw a viral video in which Jogi Ayurved founder Nilesh Jogal claims steam inhalation for two minutes, twice a day has prevented his entire staff from infection despite being in touch with more than 4,000 Covid-19 patients.

And a recent published study by researchers at the Biochemistry and Pharmacology Laboratory, Meyer Children’s University Hospital in Florence, Italy, says steam inhalation can help mitigate the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The small initial study – on 10 patients – is published in the journal Life Sciences.

This is what the researchers say: “The study protocol consisted of exposure of airway mucosae to humidified steam through inhalation for at least 20 minutes (four cycles of 5 min or five cycles of 4 min) within one hour, with a temperature maintained between 55 and 65 degree centigrade in the first 4/5 min after initiation of water boiling (experimental measurements in triplicate).

“The patient was asked to drape the towel over the back of his/her head lowering towards the hot steam down to about 25 to 30cm from the water.

“The primary outcome was a reduction of viral shedding after four days (at least six cycle threshold values measured with RT-PCR) and the secondary outcome complete virus elimination after the four-day protocol.”

Now that is promising news, surely.

I urge the health ministry to conduct its own trials – I’m sure it will find thousands of volunteers – to see if this dirt cheap, home remedy is effective. And it should do it fast, not wait till June or the end of the year.

Imagine how many people can help themselves to be safe if it works. And there are no side effects. The government won’t need to spend billions on vaccines and the health system won’t be stretched.

The ministry should clearly state that it is not a cure, just an aid in the fight against Covid-19. But to ensure people don’t harm themselves or scald themselves, the ministry should come up with guidelines.

Don’t see this is as possibly causing an embarrassment. Also, don’t consider looking at alternatives – especially in Siddha, Ayurveda and Chinese traditional medicine – as “unscientific”. Move away from the mindset that only expensive allopathic medicine works and look at combining different therapies.

The only criteria for consideration is this: Does it work and is it safe?

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2021/01/27/why-not-try-traditional-medicine-steam-inhalation-in-covid-19-fight/

ALSO READ:

MUST READ:


Healthwise: Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 23 January 2021

Oxford’s PRINCIPLE Trial: Bringing Ivermectin Directly into the Developed World in the Battle Against COVID-19

Researchers at Oxford University are planning the first, large high-quality trial of a cheap drug that has been credited with dramatically reducing Covid-19 deaths in the developing world.

The Principle trial is hunting for treatments that could be used at home soon after symptoms appear. The aim is to find a medicine that makes an impact during the earliest stages of disease, preventing severe illness.

The next batch of medicines it will assess will include ivermectin. Used for decades to treat livestock and people infested with parasitic worms, it has been hailed as a Covid “wonder drug” by supporters. However, many other scientists say that it is yet to be properly evaluated.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trial-for-covid-wonder-drug-that-could-save-thousands-of-lives-99jc07v2s


Ivermectin, used for decades to treat livestock and people infested with parasitic worms, has been hailed as a Covid “wonder drug”
MAHESH KUMAR/AP


 By  

covid-19 flccc ivermectin sars-cov-2 university of oxford
The University of Oxford soon kicks “the PRINCIPLE Trial” into a higher gear now, in what they consider a pathbreaking “high-quality trial” of Ivermectin, a generic drug already evidencing significant efficacy in over two dozen clinical trials around the world, according to some researchers. 

The UK government also backs this pivotal study via the Department of Health and Social Care. Searching for early-onset, home-based ambulatory treatments for COVID-19, the PRINCIPLE Trial seeks to meet a gap in research in the world’s richest nations to date. 

Nearly all of the taxpayer-financed research-based expenditures of governments in the US, UK and Europe, for example, have gone into vaccines, novel monoclonal antibodies, and novel therapeutics, with an emphasis on treating severely ill patients. 

Ivermectin, hailed as the “wonder drug” or “the People’s medicine” for COVID-19, gains growing attention worldwide made more widely available, frankly, partly due to TrialSite’s consistent chronicling of these trials around the world since the original University of Monash breakthrough. 

The team discovered that in a lab cell culture, Ivermectin obliterates the novel coronavirus within 48 hours. Since then, TrialSite has covered most studies worldwide, whereas, by the summer, groups in the U.S., such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), commenced meta-analysis covering the dozens of Ivermectin studies around the world. 

According to these physician/scientists, the results reveal compelling data that Ivermectin actually reduces the COVID-19 death rate while accelerating viral clearance and transmission reduction. 

Enter the preeminent University of Oxford and the PRINCIPLE Trial: the globe’s top investigators now seek to finally test if Ivermectin and antiviral Favipiravir, both low-cost, orally-administered, generally available generic drugs, can be proven safe and effective in a “properly designed trial.” 

Led by Co-Chief investigator Chris Butler, Professor of Primary Care, Nuffield Department of Primary Care, Health Services at Oxford, the study team is generally upbeat about the prospects. Still, Dr. Butler notes the “gap in the data.” 

A critically important trial, the PRINCIPLE Trial, is also causing a stir. Groups such as the FLCCC raise the Helsinki Accords: from their vantage, they remind all about the question of ethical conduct—is it right and proper to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial when there is sufficient evidence that a drug can save lives? 

Couldn’t a dose control study or well-designed observational study be run instead to both generate data and protect patients? 

On the other hand, that Oxford is the first major center to embrace this important generic drug is truly game-changing and demonstrates the leadership position of that research institution again.

‘Not a Great Place to be’

On Saturday, The Times’ scientific correspondent Rhys Blakely rightly identified growing frustration worldwide with apex research agencies such as the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a number of funding governments use of taxpayer money. In the U.S., for example, Operation Warp Speed, in conjunction with the NIH’s ACTIV, has spent over $13 billion of taxpayer money on just a handful of vaccine and novel monoclonal antibody developers, yet the nation has experienced a staggering amount of death from the pandemic.

A growing cry by physicians and other medical professionals for drugs that can be used at the early onset of the virus, to impede the progression of infectious severity, hasn’t been reflected in the research spent to date.

But other nations have commenced with programs to treat early-onset treatments with antivirals or Ivermectin. Albeit, these tend to be low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) with far fewer resources than would be available in America, Britain or Europe, for that matter. These poorer countries must be ever more resourceful—they don’t have many billions of dollars to spend during a pandemic on lengthy, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. 

Russia led a series of agile studies that led to the approval of Favipiravir, as has India (with multiple generic versions), and several other countries. Ivermectin is used in India’s state of Uttar Pradesh, with 210 million people, health officials there swear by the results. The same is occurring in some Brazilian states, Bangladesh, and for that matter, Peru and Argentina. TrialSite commissioned a documentary about this unfolding situation in Peru. In Europe, at least in the south eastern fringe, the use of Ivermectin gains steam in Greece and the Balkan Peninsula.

Frustration Enters the “First World”

But the “First World” that is the wealthiest Western nations have experienced some of the most horrific losses from this pandemic. The U.S. has been the epicenter of the pandemic, with over 400,000 deaths.

The Times’ Blakely spoke with Wellcome Trust’s Nick Cammack, who shared that there are only “…two strong new antiviral candidates in the pipeline to date. One is called molunpiravir (EIDD-2801) from Merck.” Taken via tablet form and reported on by TrialSite, it is apparently designed to actually “…interfere with an enzyme that the virus relies on to replicate.” Cammack shares that if the clinical trials perform, the drug could be available toward Q3 2021.

Dr. Cammack also introduced Roche’s AT-527, another antiviral drug that is early in the pipeline. This gap, Cammack frets is, “…worrying.” That is, “To have only a few potential therapeutics for a nasty disease during a global pandemic—it’s not a great place to be. We need a big push in R&D.”

In the United States, TrialSite was one of the only media at the time to report on the breakthrough findings of the ICON study in Broward County, Florida. There, Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter and the team from Broward Health discovered amazing results from the ICON observational study, which evidenced, among other things, that Ivermectin could lower the COVID-19 death rate. The results were finally published in CHEST, but they were not considered strong enough as ICON was observational and not a randomized, placebo controlled study.

Many doctors in the U.S. started prescribing off-label, and with every trial result that TrialSite reported on, the data gained strength. There was some mounting evidence that Ivermectin definitely could inhibit the coronavirus. TrialSite for months called out for NIH funding of Ivermectin studies: the online media platform’s founder even wrote an urgent email communication to NIH Director Francis Collins.

Enter Oxford’s PRINCIPLE Trial

Perhaps there is no stronger brand in research than that of Oxford University. One of the world’s most renowned investigational hubs, this prominent group, led by Dr. Peter Horby, conducted the RECOVERY trial, which showcased and found the benefits of corticosteroids in more severe COVID-19 cases. Backed by the UK government, now The PRINCIPLE Trial seeks to confirm whether low-cost, easy-to-administer drugs such as Ivermectin and Favipiravir can truly inhibit the coronavirus.

In the recent The Times article, journalist Rhys Blakely interviewed Co-Lead investigator Dr. Butler who acknowledged that Ivermectin “…Has potential antiviral properties and anti-inflammatory properties, and there have been quite a few smaller trials conducted in low-and-middle-income countries, showing that it speeds recovery, reduces inflammation and reduces hospitalization…”

“The Data Gap”

TrialSite has now chronicled many dozens of Ivermectin trials around the world—randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case series total near 75, while at least 50 randomized controlled trials and observational studies have occurred worldwide. The FLCCC, based out of the U.S., maintains a meta-analysis of a couple dozen Ivermectin studies, covering about 2,000 patients.

According to this group, the existing data leads to a clear-cut case of evidence for A.) additional dosing studies and B.) emergency use authorization as lives need to be saved now. Already, over 400,000 lives in the U.S. have been lost, despite over $13 billion in taxpayer-supported major clinical trials, primarily targeting vaccines and novel monoclonal antibodies.

But this isn’t enough for what is considered by the biomedical research establishment, including the prominent University of Oxford. The studies in places like Bangladesh and Columbia; Egypt and Argentina; Iraq and India; and Mexico and other LMICs aren’t sufficient. Be it flawed, study design, too much dosing variability, or not sufficient numbers of patients, the evidence must be established elsewhere. That significant groups in America and Britain have studied these underlying studies, and assembled meta-analyses pointing to strong data for efficacy isn’t good enough for the apex research institutes and the West’s major academic medical centers.

While some groups such as the FLCCC call for immediate emergency use authorization and dose-finding studies, the major research center scientists and principal investigators, as well as health authorities, still see a gap in the data that must be filled.

As expressed by Dr. Butler with Oxford “…There’s a gap in the data. There’s not been a really rigorous trial.”

For that matter, neither does Rockstar Principal Investigator Peter Horby, also with Oxford. Dr. Horby led the RECOVERY trial, proving that dexamethasone could reduce COVID-19 death rates, at least in severe scenarios. According to this world-renowned principal investigator, the data covered in the meta-analyses was “interesting, perhaps encouraging, but not yet convincing,” reported Blakely with The Times.

The Study

First, TrialSite commends University of Oxford, the British government and Dr. Butler for progressing this study. No matter the critique that follows, Oxford and the Butler study team were the first to declare the intention to take on this mission-critical effort among the highly industrialized nations of the “West.” That the PRINCIPLE Trial’s leadership embrace both Ivermectin and Favipiravir is a big deal.

In a quest to finally establish safety and efficacy for a low-cost drug that can work earlier–that is, right when COVID-19 symptoms appear, Professor Butler and team seek to establish if Ivermectin can prevent viral replication, thus stopping the SARS-COV-2 pathogen from entering the human host, reports The Times.

Called The PRINCIPLE Trial (ISRCTN86534580), study details can be found here.

The study will employ a number of channels to recruit patients, from GPs and online to contact-tracing systems in Britain to find patients that are either A.) 65 and up or B.) 50 and up, experiencing health conditions that could pose a greater risk.

Study Flaw?

The Times reports that some experts such as Penny Ward, visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at Kings’ College London critiques the study, sharing with The Times’ Rhys Blakely that, “They’re allowing a recruitment window 14 days from the onset of symptoms, but the virus peaks on day three—and it’s too late to use an antiviral after the peak of virus replication.”

Dr. Ward continued for The Times, “And if you don’t intervene very rapidly with an antiviral, you will have a failed trial—even though the drug itself might, in fact, have been effective if given correctly. If they do get the skates on and get patients into those trials within two or three days of the first onset of symptoms, then there’s a fighting chance that one or two of those might actually be effective.”

Ethics of this Study Questioned by Some?

On Saturday TrialSite interviewed the head of the FLCCC Dr. Pierre Kory on their position on this study. He shared that although they were pleased that The Times reporter considered their point of view, their full quotes from Dr. Paul E. Marik were precluded from the article.

The FLCCC is adamant about the need for more Ivermectin research; however, based on the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, Kory articulates, “it’s unethical to use a placebo-based study when the evidence is clear that a medicine actually works.” Because that means that people can become more ill and even die with the foreknowledge that the medicine could be used to save those very lives. 

In the interview, Dr. Kory was very clear that the evidence favors immediate emergency use of Ivermectin at least, and that any study should be designed as a dose-finding study, for example, and well-designed observational study establishing the anti-parasite medicine as standard of care, measuring the differing outcomes utilizing sophisticated propensity matching and access to Big Data for full analytics.

Discussion with the FLCCC about Why LMICs Clinical Trials Not Accepted

TrialSite raised the present challenges to the findings of the existing studies. Referring to those studies that have been conducted around the world and that are captured in the meta-analysis efforts led by the FLCCC, another effort in the UK led by Dr. Andrew Hill, and even another one in Britain led by Tess Lawrie.

Why do Dr. Butler, Dr. Horby and so many other scientists and researchers not accept the evidence that’s been generated to date? It comes down to a few key factors such as the following:

  • The present studies don’t include enough patients
  • They are not well-designed trials
  • Variability in dosing in the studies

In regard to the number of patients, Kory noted that at least 2,000 patients are now covered by the meta-analyses created in both America and the UK. He shared that a meta-analysis—that is, an analysis of many underlying Ivermectin-based COVID-19 clinical trials—represents the strongest form of evidence.

He pointed out that the meta-analysis is stronger than any single underlying trial. The FLCCC’s reading of their meta-analysis of Ivermectin studies is clear: the low-cost medicine has a significant impact on mortality, viral clearance and viral transmission.

But what about the critique that these studies from LMIC’s are not “well designed?” For example, the dosage amounts vary across the dozens of studies. Dr. Kory shared this critique is strange, if not senseless. He pointed out that dosage variability schemes are actually good; they evidence differing forms of efficacy and actually contribute to the quest for the ultimate dosing strategy. Kory suggested compelling research at this point would be a dose-finding study.

Okay, on to the critique that the underlying LMIC-based studies were not well designed? Some of the Ivermectin studies, critics point out, were open-label, leading to possible bias.

That these studies could be influenced by subjective bias because some of them were open-label, for example? Kory acknowledged that open-label studies could lead to bias and hence, influence subjective outcomes. But he hammered on the point that the objective outcomes identified cannot be influenced by this kind of bias—that is, the actual reduction in mortality rate, viral clearance and the like are objective measures regardless.

Heavy Burden

Because the FLCCC physicians are convinced the meta-analyses research from both sides of the Atlantic points to a clear case of efficacy, they worry about the control group patients. As the group maintains that the existing evidence for Ivermectin is overwhelmingly indicative that the medicine is highly effective in reducing hospitalization, inhibiting transmission and lowering COVID-19 death rates as well as accelerating viral clearance, they cannot morally support a placebo-controlled study at this point.

They believe it’s a mistake and that the Oxford PRINCIPLE Trial should be designed as a dose-finding study and/or sophisticated observational study. Kory told TrialSite, “It is grossly unethical to enroll patients in a placebo-controlled trial. Such a study will lead to harm to the control group.” What he means is that from their perspective, because the drug is known to work, purposely not giving the control group that drug brings a heavy burden on those funding and designing the study.

Conclusion

TrialSite has emerged as a prominent objective, unbiased online daily for clinical trials, emphasizing transparency, accessibility and a focus on the trial site organization (that is, the investigational site at the hospital, clinic or commercial center).

With the aim of advancing biomedical research, TrialSite has led all media in identifying and tracking Ivermectin studies during the pandemic. TrialSite isn’t a scientific journal, nor does it exist to promote one opinion or perspective. Nor is it an authority on what is evidence. It’s merely a daily online news channel for those interested in research. The goal is to identify, track and monitor research, with the aim of helping empower more health care consumers, physicians and healthcare professionals with daily updates to research.

Consequently, TrialSite cannot opine on whether the PRINCIPLE Trial is ethical or not. TrialSite commends Dr. Butler, University of Oxford, and the UK government for funding this important research endeavor. It’s the very first major clinical trial in the G8, for example, to embrace Ivermectin. As mentioned previously, a TrialSite founder sent an urgent request letter to the NIH, only to receive no response. 

On the other hand, the FLCCC is too commended by TrialSie for their commitment, dedication, and passion to saving lives during this pandemic. FLCCC members are putting their careers on the line for the mission-critical cause of saving lives during this pandemic, which has already taken over 400,000 in America and over 2.1 million deaths worldwide.

Hopefully, Dr. Butler and team can execute the trial to conclude early should sufficient efficacy data be observed early on. And get on with treating people when and if they deem such evidence sufficient.

Lead Research/Investigator

Chris Butler, BA MBChB, DCH, CCH, MD, FRCGP, (Hon)FFPH, FMedSci, Professor of Primary Care, Nuffield Department of Primary Care, Health Services, Co-Chief investigator

Call to Action: TrialSite follows studies across many different therapeutic areas. Have any requests? Contact us.

https://trialsitenews.com/oxfords-principle-trial-bringing-ivermectin-directly-into-the-developed-world-in-the-battle-against-covid-19-2/


Trending News

Latest Podcasts


Healthwise: Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, 31 July 2020

Important Updates of COVID19 Treatment - MUST READ

From Feb 2020 to June 2020

By Dr. Yu Kang, Neighbor

 COVID 19
COVID 19
As time passes in a pandemic there's a greater chance of survival for those gettingi nfected 3 months later like June 2020 than those who got infected 3 months earlier say February 2020. The reason for this is that Doctors and scientists know more about Covid-19 now than 3 months ago and hence are able to treat patients better. I will list *5 important things* that we know now that we didn't know in February 2020 for your understanding.
1. COVID-19 was initially thought to cause deaths due to *pneumonia- a lung infection*- and so Ventilators were thought to be the best way to treat sick patients who couldn't breathe. *Now we are realising that the virus causes blood clots in the blood vessels of the lungs* and other parts of the body and this causes the reduced oxygenation . Now we know that just providing oxygen by ventilators will not help but we have to prevent and dissolve the micro clots in the lungs. This is why we are using drugs like *Asprin and Heparin ( blood thinners that prevents clotting) as protocol in treatment regimens in June 2020. *
2. Previously patients used to drop dead on the road or even before reaching a hospital due to reduced oxygen in their blood- OXYGEN SATURATION. This was because of *HAPPY HYPOXIA*- where even though the oxygen saturation was gradually reducing the COVID-19 patients did not have symptoms until it became critically less, like sometimes even 70%.
**Normally we become breathless if oxygen saturation reduces below 90%.
**This breathlessness is not triggered in Covid patients and so we we're
getting the sick patients very late to the hospitals in February 2020.
Now since knowing about happy hypoxia we are monitoring oxygen
saturation of all covid patients *with a simple home use pulse oxymeter
and getting them to hospital if their oxygen saturation drops to 93% orless*. This gives more time for doctors to correct the oxygen deficiency
in the blood and a better survival chance in June 2020.
3. We did not have drugs to fight the corona virus in February 2020. We were only treating the complications caused by it... hypoxia. Hence most patients became severely infected. 
```**Now we have 2 important medicines
FAVIPIRAVIR & REMDESIVIR**```
Which are ANTIVIRALS that can kill the corona virus . By using these two medicines we can prevent patients from becoming severely infected and therefore cure them BEFORE THEY GO TO HYPOXIA. This knowledge we have in JUNE 2020... not in February 2020.
4. Many Covid-19 patients die not just because of the virus but also due the patients own immune system responding In an exaggerated manner called *CYTOKINE STROM*. This stormy strong immune response not only kills the virus but also kills the patients. In February 2020 we didn't know how to
prevent it from happening. Now in June 2020, we know that *easily
available medicines called Steroids,* that doctors around the world have
been using for almost 80 years (Dexamethasone)
*can be used to prevent the cytokine storm in some patients*.
5. Now we also know that people with hypoxia became better just by making them lie down on their belly- known as prone position. Apart from this a few days ago Israeli scientists have discovered that a chemical known as Alpha Defensin produced by the patients White blood cells can cause the micro clots in blood vessels of the lungs and this could possibly be prevented by a drug called Cholcicine used over many decades in the treatment of Gout. So now we know for sure that patients have a better chance at surviving the COVID-19 infection now in June 2020 than in February 2020 for sure.
Going forward there's nothing to panic about Covid-19 if we remember
that a person who gets infected later has a better chance at survival
than one who got infected early.
Let's all follow simple precautions like
-6 feet distancing from others
-Wear proper masks
-Work from home whenever possible
-Order delivery and take away of food groceries and vegetables
- Stay at home during lockdown
- Hand wash & hygiene
With this we can beat the virus .
If someone tells you every one is going to get infected, tell them that you are willing to n can afford to wait a bit longer.... as each day passes we understand more about COVID infection.

Healthwise: Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)