How ‘remote virus suppression’ threatens healthcare: scinquisitor – LiveJournal

Recently I was invited to the medical forum “Biotechmed” as a speaker. Due to a number of circumstances, I was not able to voice in my short speech the problem for the sake of discussing which I came to Gelendzhik, therefore I will voice it in text.

Moreover, a new illustration of the problem has appeared – a “medical device”, a “coronavirus remote suppression apparatus”, has been registered in the Russian Federation. More on this below.

It is no secret that in Russia a huge percentage of the population does not trust domestic vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and refuse to be vaccinated. This, in turn, contributes to both a worsening of the epidemiological situation and an increase in the risk of the emergence and spread of new varieties of the virus.

Traditionally, there is a small stratum of fanatical opponents of any vaccine. Their motives are not rational and their arguments are ridiculous. But not only they are against vaccination with Russian vaccines.

I myself was vaccinated with the Sputnik V vaccine, and later I was revaccinated with Sputnik Light. My parents did the same, and I would like more people to follow my example. But I cannot deny that there is some rational link in the mistrust of vaccines from Russia, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

For people who know English, biology and have a basic understanding of the scientific method and statistical analysis, it is not difficult to familiarize themselves with the data of clinical studies on a particular vaccine, to understand scientific publications and make a decision to be vaccinated. But most people have never been interested in the above-mentioned issues and are forced to operate with heuristics. For example: “is the drug approved for use in Russia”, “is it approved abroad”, what do the experts say about this?

Specialists in Russia were overtaken by the crisis of scientific reputation. The low level of qualifications of some of the people working in the field of science and medicine leads to the fact that a real doctor of medical sciences comes out and in all seriousness tells how vaccines will make GMOs out of you. And then we have to explain that people constantly encounter the same adenoviruses, moreover, with full-fledged, and not with neutralized vectors. So, according to this logic, we are already all GMOs. And the thesis itself that GMOs are something bad, we hear from other doctors of sciences, believers that men descended from hermaphrodite Amazons. Let’s add to this a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences who suggests treating diabetes with homeopathic sugar. In short, formally you can find a specialist who will carry absolutely any nonsense. And the expertise itself is often, alas, not about knowledge, but about dubious, easily faked or purchased regalia and mentions in the media. It is necessary to fight against such forgeries and a more accurate selection of experts.

See also  Up to 80% of rheumatoid arthritis patients are seropositive

The situation is no better with confidence in the state. If I go to a pharmacy, I see that more than half of the drugs on display are, to put it mildly, dubious. There is homeopathy from duck liver and release-active drugs and badges for coronaviruses and all kinds of dietary supplements without proven effectiveness. If you take a random registered drug and try to guess at random whether it works or not, it is more likely that it doesn’t. Against this background, a rational person has a question: if something is approved in Russia, is it at least some weighty argument? And the answer is no. And this also applies to vaccines. A huge number of intelligent people refuse to get vaccinated because they justly do not trust the regulator.

Is the regulator trying to rectify the situation and restore its reputation, at least by symbolic attempts to revoke the registration of the most obvious pseudo-medical drugs and products? No. Instead, they bury themselves even more.

Let’s take a recent story about the registration of a medical device “TOP device for non-invasive electromagnetic therapy.” In an amicable way, I cannot imagine a competent person who would not understand that this is obvious nonsense from the very first glance at the name.

But let’s formally analyze: on the official website of the device yesterday it was written that 87% of patients have negative titers of immunoglobulin M. It’s like having a negative amount of dumplings in the refrigerator. When everyone laughed at this, the wording was corrected: 87% of patients have a negative PCR titer. PCR is a polymerase chain reaction. She has no title. And even if it were, it again could not be negative. Foolishness sits on foolishness and drives you with foolishness.

The website of the Granite concern, which produces the device, says: “The principle of the device is to create a wave antidote to the spectrum, which emits SARS-CoV-2 RNA. This method of wave “noise” successfully suppresses the coronavirus. “

See also  three people hospitalized, the epidemic contained

Again, anyone with minimal knowledge of biology understands that this is a meaningless collection of words.

First, there is no spectrum emitted by SAS-CoV-2 RNA. RNA is not an emitter. And the mechanism of action of the virus is not in this. From the RNA of the virus, its proteins and other RNAs are synthesized, and not magic spectra. There are no wave antidotes. And the creators did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. We see that there is a talk about a couple of Nobel Prizes, but only two articles in the journal Polymers are given as evidence, where there is not a word about the suppression of viral infections.

The concern’s website writes about the TOP that “this remote portable device, when connected to the network, generates broadband electromagnetic radiation on low-intensity high-voltage pulses, under its influence the virus loses its ability to actively replicate (multiply).”

I don’t even know if it’s appropriate to ask where did they get this? After all, the only observation that is cited as evidence of effectiveness:

“The results of using the TOP device in medical institutions showed that on the fifth day in hospitalized patients with coronavirus infection, IgM antibody titers indicating the development of the disease become negative, and the dynamics of discharge of patients with COVID-19 from hospitals increases from the 2nd – 3rd week of use. by 30-50% “.

We have already discussed the confusion between antibody titers and PCR, from which it is clear that the project did not have a scientific consultant with a basic understanding of biology or medicine.

See also  In France, monkeypox infected a dog starting with humans

But let’s think even purely logically. The device is designed to prevent coronavirus infection by irradiating areas up to 10,000 square meters. But they tell us (apparently?) About the irradiation of patients who are admitted to the hospital. Moreover, on the fifth day of all these people, either antibody titers or PCR test results become negative, but for some reason they are prescribed after 2-3 weeks. And not all of them. Unfortunately, I did not find the full text of the “study”, but it is not necessary to look at it in order to make an obvious verdict.

And this device is registered in the Russian Federation as a medical device. And who will then believe in the effectiveness of some really working domestic device or drug? It seems to me that such stories directly harm the entire health care system. And the guilty must answer for this.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Social Media

Most Popular

On Key

Related Posts