"Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is and you must
bend to its power or live a lie" - Miyamoto Musashi
13th March 2020 - Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is the first specialist we met to understand the current crisis about the coronavirus.
14 April 2020 - I recommend an immediate stop and a thorough reconsideration of the use of chloroquine and high-dose intravenous vitamin-C for treatment or prophylaxis of Covid-19, and I urge the responsible agencies to examine this problem and to provide all medical units with adequate information.
A young doctor in an intensive care unit (ICU) in New York made an important observation . He saw several patients who showed no typical symptoms of pneumonia, but were extremely short of breath and cyanotic (blue skin).
"They weren't Covid-19 patients, they looked like passengers on an airplane at high altitude that was losing pressure."
My warning is based on the following observations:
It is known that chloroquine and high intravenous doses of vitamin C affect erythrocyte function with a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency ( G6PD deficiency / favism) damage. This is the most common enzyme defect worldwide. The defect is hereditary and the responsible genes are on the X chromosome. Since women have two X chromosomes, one of them might be fine. Therefore, this complication is less common in women.
Men have only one X chromosome and are therefore more at risk if this chromosome bears the defect. Most carriers of this genetic defect are found in countries where malaria is or has been endemic. Therefore, people with ancestors from such regions are at risk of lack of oxygen and dyspnea if they receive chloroquine derivatives or high doses of vitamin C intravenously. This effect is likely to be more common in countries with a higher prevalence of G6PD deficiency / favism and in regions with a large number of migrants from these countries.
I therefore ask the responsible authorities and bodies to clarify this problem immediately and, if necessary, to inform all medical facilities accordingly.
Dr. Drosten is quoted in the press as saying that the death rate in Germany is significantly lower than in Italy because the average age of the sick in Germany is lower.
One can ask how it was possible in Italy, and obviously also in Germany, to infect old and to a large extent bedridden nursing cases to this extent? Doesn't that speak for a high infection rate of the population with what the test measures?
By contrast, the average age of the deceased is almost identical, according to Dr. Wieler from RKI 81 years , as of March 25, in Germany and according to figures from Italy there for 78.5 years , as of March 20. (France 81.2 years , Booth 24.3 . ).
ECDC, “ Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: increased transmission in the EU / EEA and the UK –eventh update ”, 25 March 2020 , https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ documents / RRA-seventh-update-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-COVID-19.pdf
The high multimorbidity of the deceased in Italy is also addressed in the report, I had already referred to it based on Italian data . (See graphic on the Italy page)
It should be remembered that Dr. Wieler RKI on March 20th confirmed in a press conference that every (!) deceased with positive SARS-CoV2 evidence counts as COVID-19 death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5SnAirYLw&feature=youtu.be&t=985 [from 16 : 25 min]
"We consider a corona death to be someone who has been diagnosed with a coronavirus infection."
Given the multimodidity reported from Italy, this is a very dubious approach, unless the 80-year-olds in Germany were significantly healthier than in Italy. Nothing speaks for that at the moment. On the other hand, there is much to be said for poor and questionable statistics on the part of the RKI. It seems rather unusual for the population to make science aware of scientific standards.
What is this strange new virus that mostly affects old people in its dangerousness? And why is the risk that an old person so dies in Germany significantly lower than Italy or Spain?
In some countries, the curves currently deviate from the seasonal normal case . At the same time, there are indications from the affected regions - there are not all - of incorrect instructions for very old people and their intensive medical over-treatment by means of mechanical ventilation or with risky medication.
Outpatient care and treatment in connection with anxiety, which is severely hampered by the lockdown, is also leading to increased risky emergency rooms for elderly people in clinics.
b) The PCR tests [ nucleic acid tests ] and that of Dr. Drosten Diagnostics, which has been praised several times, should be referred to the following 2 sources, both of which show how faulty a detection of SARS-CoV2 with the PCR method is, cf.
Emily Feng, " Mystery In Wuhan: Recovered Coronavirus Patients Test Negative ... Then Positive ", NPR, March 27, 2020 , https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/27/822407626/mystery -in-wuhan-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-negative-then-positive
"In February, Wang Chen, a director at the state-run Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, estimated that the nucleic acid tests used in China were accurate at identifying positive cases of the coronavirus only 30% -50% of the time ."
We assume that it was in the Drosten / WHO test, also because there was no other test at this time. In a publication dated January 23, 2020, in which Dr. Drosten is the co-author, the Chinese Academy of Medical Science is thanked for the genetic data made available, cf.
Corman et al., " Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR .", Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan; 25 (3), 23.1.2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992387
The 2nd source for the faulty PCR test is
Li et al., " Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 for Hospitalized Patients Clinically Diagnosed with COVID-19 .", J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 26.doi: 10.1002 / jmv.25786, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32219885
“In the first test for all patients, 168 cases were positive (27.5%), one was weakly positive (0.2%), 57 were dubious positive (9.3%), and 384 were negative (63.0%) (Figure 1A, Table 1 ). Among the 384 patients with initial negative results, the second test was performed. For these patients, the test results were positive in 48 cases (12.5%), dubiously positive in 27 patients (7.0%) , negative in 280 patients (72.9%), and results were not available for 29 patients (7.6%). ”
“In the patients confirmed as COVID-19, 17 patients have positive RT-PCR results for pharyngeal swab specimens at first, and their PCR results turned to be negative after treatment for several days. However, again several days later when the patient's symptoms improved, their PCR results returned to be positive . (Figure 1D, Table 4). Among them, one patient's RT-PCR result turned positive after two consecutive negative tests (Figure 1D, Table 4). ”
Tables 3 and 4 of this work show a colorful sequence of negative, positive and undetermined test results. It remains completely open how one can speak of evidence based on these results.
A PCR test alone is usually not enough and the test appears to be far less sensitive and specific than by Dr. Drosten and propagated by the RKI. In view of the high prevalence of coronaviruses in humans and the high diversity of these viruses, further questions need to be asked as to what this test measures.
Dr Wodarg's website - Articles translated into English
The images in the media are frightening and the traffic in China's cities seems to be regulated by the clinical thermometer.
The carnival in Venice was cancelled after an elderly dying hospital patient was tested positive. When a handful of people in Northern Italy also were tested positive, Austria immediately closed the Brenner Pass temporarily.
Due to a suspected case of coronavirus, more than 1000 people were not allowed to leave their hotel in Tenerife. On the cruise ship Diamond Princess 3700 passengers could not disembark, congresses and touristic events are cancelled and economies suffer.
At the beginning of February, 126 people from Wuhan were brought to Germany by plane and remained there in quarantine two weeks in übeperfect health. Corona viruses were detected in two of the healthy individuals.
There have been several similar horror scenarios in the last two decades. But the WHO's "swine flu pandemic" was in fact one of the mildest flu waves in history and it is not only migratory birds that are still waiting for "bird flu". Many institutions that are now again alerting us to the need for caution have let us down and failed us on several occasions. Far too often, they are institutionally corrupted by secondary interests from business and/or politics.
If we do not want to chase frivolous panic messages, but rather to responsibly assess the risk of a spreading infection, we must use solid epidemiological methodology. This includes looking at the "normal", the baseline, before you can speak of anything exceptional.
Until now, hardly anyone has paid attention to corona viruses. For example, in the reports on ARI of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), they are only marginally mentioned because there was SARS in China in 2002 and because since 2012 some transmissions from dromedaries to humans have been observed in Arabia (MERS). There is nothing about a regularly recurring presence of corona viruses in dogs, cats, pigs, mice, bats and in humans, even in Germany.
However, children's hospitals are usually well aware, that a considerable proportion of the often severe viral pneumonia is also regularly caused or accompanied by corona viruses worldwide.
In view of the well-known fact that in every "flu wave" 7-15% of acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) are coming along with coronaviruses, the case numbers that are now continuously added up are still completely within the normal range.
About one per thousand infected are expected to die during flu seasons. By selective application of PCR-tests - for example, only in clinics and medical outpatient clinics - this rate can easily be pushed up to frightening levels, because those, who need help there are usually worse off than those, who are recovering at home. The role of such s selection bias seems to be neglected in China and elsewhere.
Since the turn of the year, the focus of the public, of science and of health authorities has suddenly narrowed to some kind of blindness. Some doctors in Wuhan (12 million inhabitants) succeeded in attracting worldwide attention with initially less than 50 cases and some deaths in their clinic, in which they had identified corona viruses as the pathogen.
The colourful maps that are now being shown to us on paper or screens are impressive, but they usually have less to do with disease than with the activity of skilled virologists and crowds of sensationalist reporters.
We are currently not measuring the incidence of coronavirus diseases, but the activity of the specialists searching for them.
Wherever such the new tests are carried out - there about 9000 tests per week available in 38 laboratories throughout Europe on 13 February 2020 – there are at least single cases detected and every case becomes a self-sustaining media event. The fact alone that the discovery of a coronavirus infection is accompanied by a particularly intensive search in its vicinity explains many regional clustersi.
The horror reports from Wuhan were something, that virologists all over the world are waiting for. Immediately, the virus strains present in the refrigerators were scanned and compared feverishly with the reported newcomers from Wuhan. A laboratory at the Charité won the race at the WHO and was the first to be allowed to market its in-house tests worldwide. Prof C. Drosten was interviewed on 23rd of January 2020 and described how the Test was established. He said, that he cooperated with a Partner from China, who confirmed the specific sensitivity of the Charitè-Test for the Wuhan coronavirus. Other Tests from different Places followed soon and found their market.
However, it is better not to be tested for corona viruses. Even with a slight "flu-like" infection the risk of coronavirus detection would be 7% - 15% . This is, what a prospective monitoring in Scotland (from 2005 to 2013) may teach us. The scope, the possible hits and the significance of the new tests are not jet validated. It would be intersting to have soe tests not only on airports and cruising ships but on german or italian cats, mice or even bats.
If you find some new virus RNA in a Thai cave ore a Wuhan hospital, it takes a long time to map its prevalence in different hosts worldwide
But if you want to give evidence to a spreading pandemic by using PCR-Tests only, this is what should have been done after a prospective cross sectional protocoll.
So beware of side effects. Nowadays positive PCR tests have tremendous consequences for the everyday life of the patient and his wider environment, as can be seen in all media without effort.
However, the finding itself has no clinical significance. It is just another name for acute respiratory illnesses (ARI), which as every year put 30% to 70% of all people in our countries more or less out of action for a week or two every winter.
According to a prospective ARI-virus monitoring in Scotland from 2005 to 2013, the most common pathogens of acute respiratory diseases were: 1. rhinoviruses, 2. influenza A viruses, 3. influenza B viruses, 4. RS viruses and 5. coronaviruses.
This order changed slightly from year to year. Even with viruses competing for our mucous membrane cells, there is apparently a changing quorum, as we know it from our intestines in the case of microorganisms and from the Bundestag in the case of political groups.
So if there is now to be an increasing number of "proven" coronavirus infections. in China or in Italy: Can anyone say how often such examinations were carried out in previous winters, by whom, for what reason and with which results? When someone claims that something is increasing, he must surely refer to something, that has been observed before.
It can be stunning, when an experienced disease control officer looks at the current turmoil, the panic and the suffering it causes. I'm sure many of those responsible public health officers would probably risk their jobs today, as they did with the "swine flu" back then, if they would follow their experience and oppose the mainstream.
Every winter we have a virus epidemic with thousands of deaths and with millions of infected people even in Germany. And coronaviruses always have their share.
So if the Federal Government wants to do something good, it could learn from epidemiologists in Glasgow and have all clever minds at the RKI observe prospectively (!!!) and watch how the virom of the German population changes from year to year.
Jonathan L Trapman is an author, creative writer and photojournalist who has spent the better part of his 45 odd years in public life, learning from his personal experiences, sharing them, listening to others, whose lives have allowed him to open his own mind to a beauty, even within horror, that is transforming and empowering. His written work endeavors to convey, through true tales and fiction, impressions thus garnered. Dreams and Realities can be purchased (signed by the author if wanted) here.