Where is the Science? Where is the Evidence in the COVID-19 Pandemic?
Effects of the coronavirus infection are variably uneven around the globe. Messaging on intervention measures is also featuring in two distinct dimensions, one (inclined towards the biomedical model)represented by countries such as the USA, the UK, Brazil, etc. is centred on long term plans for the search for therapeutic drugs and vaccines against COVID-19. The second dimension is aligned to alternative or integrative health intervention approaches, represented largely by counties in the Asian region including China, advocate for inclusion of natural health healing modalities (use of foods, nutritional supplements, herbs, etc.).
The challenge is: are the so called health experts and/or policy makers still guided by science-based evidence on their advisory messaging and if so, where is the science and where is the evidence to help the world contain the scourge of COVID-19 pandemic?
Here are a few highlights of emerging findings of some recent studies, in support or dismissing claims of usefulness of certain intervention measures against COVID-19:
Hydroxychloroquine: Suggested and even recommended by some heads
of states as an effective therapeutic or prophylactic drug, has
been proven to be ineffective by some studies including the most
recent study in Brazil in media headlines, “Brazil study finds no
hydroxychloroquine benefit for COVID-19” by AFP(2020), available at:
Remdesivir: An antiviral drug with an emergency use authorization from the FDA,
has been reported to have severe side effects, in a study titled “Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.” available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext
Side effects which included multiple organ failure in patients, were also reported by Grein, J., Ohmagari, N., Shin, D., et al. (2020), in a study titled “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19”, available at: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016
Surprisingly some countries with high incidences and mortality from COVID-19 are still advocating for use of drugs such as Remdesivir despite the reported side effects.
On the other hand, an analysis by Mercola (2020), found at: {https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/07/20/chinese-treatment-for-coronavirus.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20200720Z1&mid=DM600311&rid=920687375,), noted that in some regions of the world, where COVID-19 is less rampant, there are reports of success in use alternative therapies, indicating that alternative therapies seem to be working against COVOD-19 in Asian countries.
Other health researchers have indicated a discovery of the potential use of micronutrients to combat COVID-19 in a safe non-toxic manner. The report can be found at: https://www.jcmnh.org/effective-and-safe-global-public-health-strategy-to-fight-the-covid-19-pandemic-specific-micronutrient-composition-inhibits-coronavirus-cell-entry-receptor-ace2-expression/
Considering all the scenarios of intervention measures against COVID-19 provided above, where nations stand by there proposed intervention measures for unknown reasons, we then ask ourselves the questions: Where is the Science? Where is the Evidence in the COVID-19 Pandemic?
To help us answer these questions, I leave you with words of wisdom from Fry, T.C., in his course study material titled “The Life Science Health System”, which go as follows:
“Science that we can’t use and benefit by is hardly science. Life Science is the exploration and elaboration of those elements and influence we can invoke to exalt our lives and being. Certain truths are applicable to our being. Studying and systemizing these truths so that we can be guided by them is our aim here. That which begests correct results is scientific. That which begests wrong results is unscientific.”
Happy reading!
Comments
Post a Comment