What Has Worsened The Covid-19 Pandemic? Have alcohol-based sanitisers had a negative impact? Dr Harley offers us answers…
An eminent group of experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO) recently visited Wuhan in China. Their aim being to determine how likely it was that the COVID-19 virus came from the local laboratory. They concluded that laboratory was very unlikely to be the source.
Unfortunately the WHO experts were unable to suggest where SARS-CoV-2 did arise. Conspiracy theorists found that lack of guidance very helpful.
I enjoy conspiracy theories as they are usually plausible. I like ‘old wives’ tales’ for the same reason. A new disease killing over three million people has me looking deeper.
The text below is an update from a 29th June 2020 text. The mortality numbers have been updated. I chose to call it a thesis as it presents a sequence of plausible steps without the need for conspiracies. It’s based on my understanding of the laws of Nature relating to viruses in new hosts.
Thesis on how SARS-CoV-2 arose…
In nature when a virus infects a new host there may be significant deaths in the host species. The virus then finds a way of co-existing and the mortality rate falls. A form of subtle parasitism develops. That’s Nature’s way and in many cases the new virus becomes part of the host biome. Then only virologists and historians need consider the virus which has concealed itself.
In late 2002 a novel coronavirus caused SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). The severity and rapid spread induced strong international collaboration. It was shown the virus had moved from bats via civet cats to humans. The novel virus was named SARS-CoV. The virus attacked Alveolar Type II cells (AT2 cells) in alveoli, deep within our lungs. To do so, the SARS virus first attached to the ACE2 receptors on the airway-facing side of the AT2 cells. Those receptors are protected by a mucus called pulmonary surfactant which is produced by those cells.
The SARS epidemic faded and the world moved on. Had the virus remained in humans?
If so it needed somewhere to hide. That would be predominantly in people with less effective pulmonary surfactant.
The human group which suits that definition best is the elderly. Advanced age is known to reduce pulmonary surfactant integrity. For the balances of Nature to be maintained the virus would not cause mortality in its new host sub-group. However sufficient virus particles would be breathed out to infect sufficient new people.
In late 2019, long after SARS disappeared, a new coronavirus arose. Because the virus caused a disease virtually identical to SARS it was named SARS-CoV-2. The subsequent pandemic caused many more deaths than SARS.
Both viruses gain entry by attaching to the ACE2 receptors on AT2 cells deep within the lungs.
The key differences in the two coronaviruses relate to the proteins on the ends of the viral spikes. The more recent virus has a much tighter fit with the receptors. It also has a new way of arranging its spike proteins.
Is SARS-CoV-2 actually SARS-CoV with two significant protein changes?
If so, how did the virus remain concealed for seventeen years? Perhaps its effect was being masked by a common condition of the elderly.
Elderly people often die of bacterial pneumonia, a particularly ‘messy’ condition. A virus subtly lurking in pneumonic lungs could easily and justifiably be missed. Common things occur commonly. Clinicians should be concentrating on what their patients are showing rather than looking for the unknown.
It’s known the elderly make pulmonary surfactant of lower integrity. That means the innate defences of the AT2 cells are weakened. That would have made it easier for the virus to attack. Each attack allows it to progressively adapt its spike proteins to better fit the receptor.
As the virus adapted it will have infected more AT2 cells. Fewer cells would be available to make defensive pulmonary surfactant. That meant less protection of the ACE2 receptors on other AT2 cells.
Was there a combination of factors looming before the pandemic?
The combination being:
- less effective innate protection because the elderly produce pulmonary surfactant of lower integrity,
- reduced amounts of the surfactant was being produced because there were fewer AT2 cells,
- inferior innate defences made it easier for the virus to attack nearby AT2 cells and
- the virus would have been multiplying in ever greater numbers.
Slight differences in the symptoms of the elderly with pneumonia would have emerged. Initially such changes would have been very subtle. Yet patients will have been exhaling progressively more adapted virus.
Clinicians with extensive experience of SARS would have been the first to notice this slight change. Especially in Wuhan where the main bat virus laboratory is located. They would be the most likely to recognise similarities to SARS.
Their proper reaction would have been to enhance best practice in infection control. That meant using more alcohol hand sanitisers. The vapour from those alcohol products will have been breathed in by the elderly patients. Alcohol vapour dissolves pulmonary surfactant. So vapour from the alcohol sanitisers would have reduced even further the surfactant protection. That would lead to the infection of more AT2 cells. Then even less pulmonary surfactant would be present. The cycle of ever decreasing defences favoured the virus.
Patients would have begun showing symptoms even more reminiscent of SARS.
Hospital teams should have intensified the use of best practice and used even more alcohol hand sanitisers. They will have been seeking the protective effect of the liquid alcohol on hands. They had no reason to consider the vapours arising from their warm hands. That vapour would be exacerbating the demise of their patients.
I suggest SARS-CoV slowly adapted over seventeen years. The virus had settled into the subtle parasitic balance expected under the laws of Nature. That avoids the need to explain where a new virus arose. New viruses are very rare. An existing virus which adapted to its host is easier to explain.
The new SARS-like disease killed more elderly people. Medical staff will have been scared for their own lives. They will have used more and more alcohol sanitisers. That will have been generating more and more alcohol vapour. More vapour will have been dissolving the defensive mucus favouring the virus.
SARS-CoV, the original virus, caused a disturbing number of deaths. The disease it caused was rapidly restricted. Nature’s rules meant SARS-CoV-2 would have been in balance with its host. There is no logical biological reason for it to suddenly kill millions of people. Something artificial and beyond Nature’s usual rules was involved. High levels of solvent alcohol vapour deep within the lungs of infected patients is artificial. It is certainly beyond Nature’s boundaries.
Did alcohol vapour, an ignored byproduct of sanitisers, artificially tip balance into pandemic?
Alcohol vapour can enter the lungs of people using alcohol sanitisers. Alcohol vapour passes into the blood, or is breathed out again. Little attention seems to have been paid to whether it reduces innate anti-viral defences.
The progressive adaptation of a virus to one specific receptor suggests we must pay attention.
Now the vapour was further damaging already impaired defences favouring the adapted coronavirus.
For seventeen years the virus had remained concealed in common bacterial pneumonia. Nobody will have had reason to search for it. Only signs reminiscent of SARS made clinicians wonder. By then the correct reaction will have been to use more alcohol sanitisers.
For all previous diseases that was the best reaction as prescribed by the World Health Organisation.
For COVID-19 it will have been the worst possible thing to do.
This thesis needs to be debated and challenged. Until it is proven wrong it stands as being correct. It is based on solid proven science. To see more of the science please read Coronoia® Alcohol sanitisers fuel the pandemic? available here and on Amazon.
It is extremely unwise to continue subjecting patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 to alcohol vapours. Alcohol hand sanitisers in COVID-19 wards should be replaced immediately. Effective alternative products that do not release solvent vapours are readily available.
Failure to replace alcohol sanitisers will leave the authorities seriously exposed. Millions of people have died from COVID-19, many in the presence of solvent alcohol vapours. The increasing death toll makes this especially pertinent.
Should I be proven wrong, I’ll work on adapting my thesis. Until then I will continue to champion one question.
Are alcohol hand sanitisers playing a significant role in COVID-19 deaths?
If so, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was in balance with its host. It was the use of alcohol hand sanitisers which turned balance into pandemic. Continued use will continue to fuel the pandemic.
The virus will remain as something humanity lives with. The virus/alcohol combination may be something many people die with.
Could it be that Nature had the virus in balance and alcohol vapours took the virus into pandemic?
Was it balance slowly over many years and pandemic suddenly in a few months?
An obvious human response will be to apportion blame. My preference is to avoid judgement and seek inclusion. As with the SARS crisis, now is a good time to unite against one adversarial virus. Many conspiracy theories abound and each presents plausible points. I prefer to find a sequence which fits the well established laws of Nature.
In the years between SARS and COVID-19 did everyone do what they should have done? Yes, they utilised best practice and followed the most appropriate scientific evidence.
- The world came together to end SARS.
- Doctors helping elderly patients dying from typical bacterial pneumonia did their job.
- SARS-like symptoms arose & alcohol hand sanitisers were used.
- Wuhan authorities recognised the new symptoms and took appropriate action.
- Other nations acted accordingly with the resources available to them at the time.
I suggest the pandemic arose through ignoring a side effect of alcohol sanitisers. The liquid alcohol, often in gel form, is the antimicrobial active. The focus is on the hands. The vapour was never part of anyone’s infection prevention process. If the virus had not adapted in the way it has, the vapour might still be ignored.
I prefer that no blame be apportioned in the sequence presented above.
That changes if this thesis gains plausible credence. Alcohol vapour is favouring the virus leading to more COVID-19 deaths. We cannot fail to replace these alcohol sanitisers. Alternatives are being used around the world. My company has one and I can refer people to others.
The COVID-19 deaths are happening in full public view. This would be a very bad time to keep doing more of the same. That just achieves more of the same; more deaths. Well over three million COVID-19 deaths warrant something different.
Now is one of those times to work together. The SARS virus did not go away. Just as authorities are saying the COVID-19 virus will not go away. The latter already has an excellent hold in one sector of the human population.
Continuing to favour the virus by using alcohol hand sanitisers is ignoring the science.
Collective action to remove alcohol vapours from the COVID-19 setting is essential.
Still the most plausible thesis?
This thesis was presented first when the global COVID-19 death toll was approaching half a million. Has there been a more plausible idea on the origin of Sars-Cov-2 since? I have not seen one in either the scientific or general press.
This thesis has stood the test of time. Until the WHO experts prove otherwise, this thesis represents the most plausible origin of the virus. The thesis is based on:
- the Laws of Nature,
- proven scientific fact and
- an extensive knowledge of how human populations react to what they perceive as a new threat.
I once again commend the thesis for global discussion at the highest level.
NewGenne uses nature to keep you clean. Find out how we can do this without the use of harsh chemicals and alcohol here.