06 October 2021

And inside her neonka (C)

How "remote virus suppression" threatens Healthcare

Alexander Panchin

I was recently invited to the Biotechmed Medical Forum as a speaker. Due to a number of circumstances, I was unable to voice in my short speech the problem for which I came to Gelendzhik to discuss, so I will voice it in text.

Moreover, a new illustration of the problem has appeared – a "medical device", a "remote coronavirus suppression device" has been registered in the Russian Federation. More on this below.

It is no secret that in Russia a huge percentage of the population does not trust domestic vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and refuse to be vaccinated. This, in turn, contributes both to the deterioration of the epidemiological situation and to an increase in the risk of the emergence and spread of new varieties of the virus.

Traditionally, there is a small stratum of fanatical opponents of any vaccines. Their motives are not rational, and their arguments are ridiculous. But they are not the only ones who oppose vaccination with Russian vaccines.

I myself was vaccinated with the Sputnik V vaccine, and later revaccinated with Sputnik Lite. My parents did the same, and I would like more people to follow my example. But I cannot deny that there is some rational link in the distrust of vaccines from Russia and this is a problem that needs to be solved.

For people who know English, biology and have basic ideas about the scientific method and statistical analysis, it is not difficult to get acquainted with the data of clinical studies on a particular vaccine, understand scientific publications and decide to get vaccinated. But most people have never been interested in these issues and are forced to operate with heuristics. For example: "is the drug approved for use in Russia", "is it approved abroad", what do experts say about it?

Specialists in Russia have been overtaken by a crisis of scientific reputations. The low level of qualifications of some people working in the field of science and medicine leads to the fact that a real doctor of medical sciences comes out and seriously tells how vaccines will make you a GMO. And then we have to explain that people face the same adenoviruses all the time, and with full-fledged, and not with neutralized vectors. So, according to this logic, we are already all GMOs. And the very thesis that GMOs are something bad, we hear from other doctors of sciences who believe that men descended from hermaphrodite Amazons. Let's add to this some corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences who suggests treating diabetes with homeopathic sugar. In short, formally, you can find a specialist who will carry absolutely any nonsense. And the expertise itself is often, alas, not about knowledge, but about dubious, easily forged or purchased regalia and mentions in the media. It is necessary to combat such fakes and a more accurate selection of experts.

The situation is no better with trust in the state. If I go into a pharmacy, I see that more than half of the drugs on display are, to put it mildly, questionable. There is homeopathy from duck liver, and release-active drugs, and badges from coronaviruses, and all kinds of dietary supplements without proven effectiveness. If you take a random registered drug and try to guess at random whether it works or not, it is more likely that it does not work. Against this background, a rational person has a question: if something is approved in Russia, is it at least some kind of weighty argument? And the answer is: no. And this applies, including to vaccines. A huge number of intelligent people refuse to be vaccinated because they quite rightly do not trust the regulator.

Is the regulator trying to rectify the situation and restore its reputation, at least by symbolic attempts to revoke the registration of the most obvious pseudo-medical drugs and products? No. Instead, they bury themselves even more.

Let's take a recent story about the registration of a medical device "Noninvasive electromagnetic therapy device TOR". In a good way, I cannot imagine a competent person who would not understand that this is obvious nonsense at the first glance at the name.


But let's formally analyze: on the official website of the device yesterday it was written that 87% of patients have negative titers of immunoglobulin M. It's like having a negative number of dumplings in the refrigerator. When everyone laughed about it, the wording was corrected: 87% of patients have a negative PCR titer. PCR is a polymerase chain reaction. She doesn't have a title. And even if there was, it again could not be negative. Stupidity sits on stupidity and drives stupidity.

The website of the Granit concern, which produces the device, says: "The principle of operation of the device is to create a wave antidote to the spectrum that emits SARS-CoV RNA-2. This method of wave "noise" successfully suppresses the coronavirus."

Again, anyone with minimal knowledge of biology understands that this is a meaningless set of words.

Firstly, there is no spectrum emitted by SAS-CoV-2 RNA. RNA is not an emitter. And the mechanism of action of the virus is not in this. With the RNA of the virus, its proteins and other RNAs are synthesized, and not magic spectra. There are no wave antidotes. And the creators did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Incredible statements require incredible confirmations. We see that there are theses for a couple of Nobel prizes, but only two articles in the journal Polymers are given as evidence, where there is not a word about the suppression of viral infections.

The concern's website writes about the TOR that "this remote portable device, when connected to the network, generates broadband electromagnetic radiation on low-intensity high-voltage pulses, under its influence the virus loses the ability to actively replicate (reproduce)."

I don't even know if it's appropriate to ask where they got it from? After all, the only observation that is given as proof of effectiveness:

"The results of using the TOR device in medical institutions showed that on the fifth day in hospitalized patients with coronavirus infection, IgM antibody titers indicating the development of the disease become negative, and the dynamics of discharge of patients with COVID-19 from hospitals increases from the 2nd – 3rd week of use by 30-50%."

We have already discussed the confusion between antibody titers and PCR, from which it is quite obvious that the project did not have a scientific consultant with an elementary understanding of biology or medicine.

But let's think even purely logically. The device is designed to prevent coronavirus infection by irradiating areas up to 10,000 square meters. But they tell us (apparently?) about the irradiation of patients admitted to the hospital. Moreover, all these people on the fifth day either have antibody titers, or the results of the PCR test become negative, but for some reason they are discharged after 2-3 weeks. And not all of them. Unfortunately, I did not find the full text of the "study", but I do not need to look at it to make an obvious verdict.

And this device is registered in the Russian Federation as a medical device. And then who will believe in the effectiveness of some really working domestic device or drug? It seems to me that such stories cause direct harm to the entire healthcare system. And the perpetrators must answer for it.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru

Found a typo? Select it and press ctrl + enter Print version