The biology of coronavirus COVID-19 - including research and treatments

+…?

 

What a cheap cop out, to use the "novelty" of the virus but to use 2 years, as a point where symptoms improve in some but not all, when it's already been 4. Which of course ignores the fact that this problem has been known for decades.

Medicine is really putting out a masterclass in how to destroy the credibility of experts. Of all experts, sadly. This is explicitly using professional credibility to lie to and mislead people, with clear intent and purpose.

 

Preprint showing hydroxycholoroquine may have been a bad idea, upregulating endothelial ACE2 expression.

Chloroquine Up-regulates Expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptor Angiotensin Converting Enzyme-2 in Endothelial Cells
Hien C Nguyen; Shuhan Bu; Lynn Wang; Aman Singh; Krishna K Singh

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) posed a serious threat to global public health. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which is a derivative of Chloroquine (CQ), was a WHO-recommended drug to treat COVID-19 with mixed effects. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the plausible mechanisms of HCQ actions behind its observed mixed effect.

KEY RESULTS
We demonstrate that CQ-treatment significantly up-regulates mesenchymal markers and SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 in cultured endothelial cells.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS
The detrimental effect of HCQ in seriously ill COVID-19 patients might be due to CQ-induced increased expression of endothelial ACE2 exacerbating the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study warrants further investigation in animal models and humans and caution while prescribing HCQ to patients with an impaired renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as in hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, or chronic kidney disease; particularly with ACE-inhibitors or statin therapy.


Link | PDF (Preprint: BioRxiv) [Open Access]

 

Sabine Hossenfender — Unapproved Trial for Discredited COVID Cure: Scandal In France

"In 2020, French physician Didier Raoult claimed that hydroxychloroquine was a cure for Covid-19. The results could later not be reproduced, but tens of thousands of people died because they did not receive or not seek treatment that might actually have helped them. Unbelievable as it sounds, the story of his unethical practices continues to this day. I have the summary."

 

Mainly USA:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/covid-summer-2024-surge-symptoms_l_6679820de4b0d2f6354efe63

"The FLiRT variants are offshoots of JN.1, which was the dominant variant in the U.S. this past winter.

This family of variants appears to be very contagious, thanks to mutations in the spike protein that may improve the virus’s ability to bind to human cells. “When we look at their molecular profile, some of those mutations potentially could allow the [virus] to escape from previous immunity,” Hopkins explained."

 

Covid-19: First coronavirus was described in The BMJ in 1965

The history of coronaviruses since 1931
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1547/rr-2

I also wondered if coronavirus have been modified for biological warfare if there maybe a mk1 and mk2 or just natural evolution

What happens if you are modified with a coronavirus (like Cytomegalovirus causing birth defects)

Does infection with coronavirus activate EBV to do endothelial damage
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292739/

 

Could be a significant evolutionary mechanism .
Reinstatement of previous deletions , not possible with stepwise evolution , but via a previous lineage without deleted variations .
Does this happen in any other virus ?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1736526826179092781


The ∆69-70 pendulum is in the midst of yet another swing.
What makes the alternation from ∆69-70 to S:H69+ S:V70 even more remarkable is that deletions are one-way mutations. They essentially cannot be reversed. There has never been an insertion at S:69-70 in SARS-CoV-2. 1/5

So how, after repeated deletion of S:69-70, have S:H69 + V70 been restored? This cannot happen via stepwise evolution/antigenic drift.

But it can if a new variant derives from an old, vanished lineage that's never had ∆69-70 & has spent months evolving in a single person. 2/5

There has been great work on deletions in the NTD region of spike by @GuptaR_lab, @EnyaQing, @GroveLab, & others, some of which I tried to describe in the thread below.
But a precise explanation for the ∆69-70 pendulum remains elusive. 3/5
x.com/LongDesertTrai…. Thread link reference https://twitter.com/user/status/1569025039109873668


Is SARS-CoV-2 the only virus in which successive dominant variants derive from long-term intrahost evolution in individual hosts?
It seems so, but with better genetic surveillance, perhaps we'll find others—Norovirus is a candidate. Maybe noro guru @Chris3Ruis can elaborate? 4/5

I wrote the thread below in April 2022, incorporating some history of science, in an attempt to decipher if the ∆69-70 pendulum was a real phenomenon that would continue or, like so many other things, just an odd, meaningless coincidence. 5/5
x.com/LongDesertTrai…

Related thread
https://twitter.com/user/status/1722352486638354663