Informative evolution:
In previous Bulletins we already mentioned the disastrous influence that the COVID-19 pandemic had had on other sectors of science, with the closure of laboratories, increased unemployment in the researchers sector, diversion of budgets from traditional projects. related to the coronavirus, and also the chameleonic attitude of some groups that, without belonging to the sector, in order not to lose economic bellows, became virologists. In this context, the fall in the number of scientific publications in multiple disciplines throughout 2020 is undeniable, with the dramatic rise in work on COVID-19 in the last year, with variable value and quality. 91,000 were published in 2020 studies on COVID-19 and so far in 2021, 60,000 works have already been published. To serve as a comparative example, 2,800,000 cancer studies have been published since 2000; 228,000 in 2019, 250,000 in 2020, and 113,000 in the first 5 months of 2021. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world, with an average of 10 million deaths per year. About 3.54 million people have died from COVID-19 to date. As is normal in science, not all publications about COVID-19 are homogeneous or coincident; there is a multitude of contradictory data and, of course, there are dissenting voices, which have not received the same degree of media attention. There is a general clamor in the scientific world against the media bias of the information, polarized in government or interested messages and not in scientific data. An important sector of science considers that the information bias generates confusion, uncertainty and doubts that harm people's health by not being able to efficiently manage their health conditions in the face of the pandemic.
Anti-COVID-19 pharmacogenetics Both deaths from COVID-19, as well as the good or bad response to drugs, once contracted the disease, are related to the genetic profile of the infected people, the concomitant diseases and the type of medication they receive. Since last year, 60 scientific papers have been published on the pharmacogenetics of COVID-19 and all the data points in the direction of the importance of the genome when it comes to tackling the fight against infection and the response to drugs. one year to the most advanced research groups in the world, a group of researchers from the EuroEspes Medical Center, led by Dr. Ramón Cacabelos and Dr. Juan Carlos Carril, developed the COVID-19-GenoPredictor as a predictive instrument for risk of disease severe pulmonary disease and consequent hospitalization in coronavirus-infected patients, as well as a pharmacogenetic predictor to be able to personalize treatment in hospitalized patients and in outpatients. The use of the COVID-19-Genopredictor allows the uninfected to identify the risk of infection and lung damage, and is the only instrument available at the medical level to personalize drug treatment in those patients who require medication to fight the infection. -19-GenoPredictor provides the genotype of the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 genes, responsible for lung vulnerability to coronavirus infection, as well as the genotypes of a set of genes responsible for the immune response and the geno-phenotypes of metabolic genes responsible for safety and efficacy of medications that a patient may receive for the treatment of COVID-19.
References Takahashi T, Luzum JA, Nicol MR, Jacobson PA. Pharmacogenomics of COVID-19 therapies. NPJ Genom Med. 2020 Aug 18; 5:35. doi: 10.1038 / s41525-020-00143-y. PMID: 32864162; PMCID: PMC7435176.Ragia G, Manolopoulos VG. Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 entry through the ACE2 / TMPRSS2 pathway: apromising approach for uncovering early COVID-19 drug therapies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020Dec; 76 (12): 1623-1630. doi: 10.1007 / s00228-020-02963-4. Epub 2020 Jul 21. PMID: 32696234; PMCID: PMC7372205.
Preventing Adverse Reactions to Vaccines Right now, people are concerned about both COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. The information is confusing and needs professional clarification and analysis (see previous Bulletins). All drugs and all vaccines cause side effects, more or less severe, depending on the pharmacogenetic profile of each patient. None of the available vaccines are safe (see Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines). Knowing the most prevalent side effects of each vaccine, doctors should advise their patients which type of vaccine is most suitable for them, especially in those who suffer from chronic ailments, strokes and allergic reactions. From a professional point of view, the only way to predict (and avoid) the risk of adverse effects is by performing a global pharmacogenetic profile (EuroEspes Smart Pharmacogenetic Card) and a selective pharmacogenetic profile (COVID-19-Genopredictor). People who are taking drugs continuously and have to be vaccinated are candidates for a global pharmacogenetic profile, while those who lack a relevant pathological history or do not consume drugs, with a selective pharmacogenetic profile would be enough to predict risks and be able to choose the best immunogenic option (type of vaccine).
How to know if we are immunized Getting vaccinated is not enough.
Getting the vaccine does not guarantee immunity. Approximately, depending on age, sex, use of drugs, menstrual phase and associated pathologies, 25-50% of people do not respond to any vaccine. The antibody response differs markedly from one vaccine to another and increases three to four times after the second dose with all vaccines, but none generates an antibody titer similar to an active infection. The only way to know if the vaccine has been effective or not is by analyzing the antibody titer generated. As an example, an infected patient in the active phase shows an antibody level of 20,000 to 80,000 U / mL. No vaccine generates this level of antibodies.At 3 months, the level of antibodies is reduced by half, and half a year after infection, in more than half of the patients, the antibodies begin to disappear, with which the The patient can be infected again if he is in contact with the virus.According to currently available data, it could be estimated that people with an antibody level lower than 1000 U / mL, one month after the second dose of the vaccine or 2 months after the single-dose vaccine, they are not properly immunized and could become re-infected. If this is confirmed in millions of cases, the health passport (for vaccinated), without a 24-48 hour PCR, is a high risk fallacy.
You can see the full report by following this link: https://mk0euroespesnewu49pn.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Boletin-Medico-EuroEspes-Healt ... or by visiting the EUROESPES website: https: / /euroespes.com/boletin-medico/