The links below were posted in this comment by Iska on this thread at THEBURNINGPLATFORM <<
I stumbled across this layman’s Twitter feed and now I’m checking in several times a day. https://twitter.com/__philipn__
As he says – “not a doctor or medical professional”, BUT he seems
smart and via this feed has been collecting and disseminating theories
and studies about possible use of ACE inhibitors and “ARBs” (Angiotensin
II Receptor Blockers) against COVID19. The initial theory was that
since the virus attacks via the ACE2 receptor, an ARB like Losartan
might block that receptor and deny the virus access to the cell. Not
sure that will prove to be true, but ARBs and ACEi’s seem to generally
stymie viruses.
A few days ago The Lancet published an article that theorizes that ARBs and ACEi’s might put people at greater risk – since they “upregulate” (increase) ACE2 (which the virus uses to attack), but the counter theory is that having high levels of ACE2 is necessary to avoid sever lung and heart damage. This theory goes on that the virus -after using ACE2 to gain entry – “downregulates” (decreases) ACE2, leaving the patient at grave risk of serious heart and lung damage. Therefore, ACEi’s and ARBs (both of which upregulate ACE2) are likely PROTECTIVE – the exact OPPOSITE of what the Lancet article says.
There are plenty of rabbit holes at that Twitter account to go down if you’re so-inclined. Here’s a good start: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1238833421926858752
Hope Karl Denninger sees this. I got the Ban Hammer there long ago (LOL), but he should know that the Lancet article against hypertension meds is NOT universally accepted, by any means, and could have it EXACTLY backwards.
A few days ago The Lancet published an article that theorizes that ARBs and ACEi’s might put people at greater risk – since they “upregulate” (increase) ACE2 (which the virus uses to attack), but the counter theory is that having high levels of ACE2 is necessary to avoid sever lung and heart damage. This theory goes on that the virus -after using ACE2 to gain entry – “downregulates” (decreases) ACE2, leaving the patient at grave risk of serious heart and lung damage. Therefore, ACEi’s and ARBs (both of which upregulate ACE2) are likely PROTECTIVE – the exact OPPOSITE of what the Lancet article says.
There are plenty of rabbit holes at that Twitter account to go down if you’re so-inclined. Here’s a good start: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1238833421926858752
Hope Karl Denninger sees this. I got the Ban Hammer there long ago (LOL), but he should know that the Lancet article against hypertension meds is NOT universally accepted, by any means, and could have it EXACTLY backwards.
One of the retweets from Eric Topol (link above) references this map and NEXTSTRAIN
Nextstrain is an open-source project to harness the scientific and public health potential of pathogen genome data.
Here is a map showing 497 of 497 genomes sampled between Dec 2019 and Mar 2020.
Link to the map LINK<<<
Below is the twitter post embedded
Thanks to #opendata sharing by @UW @UWVirology & @GISAID, we've updated https://t.co/SDPCOcsnMX to include 7 new sequences from Washington State.— Nextstrain (@nextstrain) March 14, 2020
Most cluster w prev WA samples, but 2 do not. From the nearby seqs, these may indicate infection while travelling to Iran & Europe. pic.twitter.com/UKVtpuA2b8
There are definitely lots of rabbit holes to follow.............