Neutrophils - Conclusions or New Directions

Thanks for visiting!

To translate this page, select your

language from the dropdown menu below:


Here's a recitation of what follows:



“One bright day,

In the middle of the night,

Two dead boys,

Got up to fight.


Back to back,

They faced each other,

Drew their knives,

And shot each other.


A deaf Policeman,

Hearing the noise,

Got up and shot,

The two dead boys.”


QI-HT-1972, cropped


















This site tries to serve those who have participated, or are considering participating, in the studies defined here, of "Long-term" COVID-19 (LTC) and an intervention with light.


The goal of that intervention is to help those with LTC to feel better.

That may seem small in comparison with "curing LTC." 

We've seen where cures from the Pharmaceutical/ Medical Industry have got us to: for Breast Cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, and others. And the 'Race(s) for the Cure(s)' have certainly attracted supprt, participants, sponsors and revenues. 'The cure is just around the corner! Don't give up hope! Don't give up your donations!" I can only wish them well with their work.


So here to begin with, we're after "feel better."


Don't be surprised when it looks like we're moving beyond that, once "feeling better" has been attained.


Results of studies that relate to neutrophils, the most numerous type of the White Blood Cells (50 to 70% of leukocytes), have already been presented elsewhere on this site.


Those results have been summarized in a Table of Contents, linked to here as well.


"And so ? ..."


The results touch on

  • the multi-functional "heterogeneous" nature of Neutrophils 
  • measurements of their size
  • measurements of their shape
  • the influence of parameters or variables of:
    • brief moderate exercise
    • an intervention with light
    • effects of an acute viral illness, but especially its more chronic presentation
      • and each compared with results from subjects considered "normal controls."
  • a look at a presumably different illness, the most commonly occuring auto-immune disease, multiple sclerosis, to appreciate how important neutrophils are in that entity.
  • a look at a well known anti-inflammatory drug: colchicine. To see how it might fit, through its effects on neutrophils, into what has been exposed through the study's results.


Are these results, as presented, understandable to the reader ?

This page starts with a nonsense Nursery Rhyme.


While amusing for children, hopefully our presentation of the study of neutrophils in the setting of "long-term" COVID-19, makes more sense, amusing or not.


Why wouldn't those presentations of results make sense?


Because numerical results and their statistical analysis sometimes seem to obscure, rather than shedding light. They are quickly challenging and tiresome when presented, and especially when presented by someone else. Often in reviewing these at one's personal leisure, insight comes more easily, even if not at breakneck speed!


And as the volume of results increases, sometimes the nonsense seems to increase as well, or at times, a deepening fog.


So here is a final thought or two that may help to disentangle things.


  1. The size and shape of neutrophils sampled from the circulation can be measured.
    1. That was done and the results obtained were further studied.
  2. Those participants with "long-term" COVID-19 (LTC) had results that were usually very different from results of participants accepted as "normal" controls." Specifically,
    1. the neutrophils of those with LTC were much smaller in size to begin with.
    2. Size increased towards normal with the intervention with light.
    3. No change in size was seen in the control group with the same light intervention. What was normal, stayed normal. Exercise reduced mean circulating neutrophil size in controls, the opposite was observed in those with LTC.
  3. Neutrophil shapes are known to be associated with level of activity or response to immune stimulus. Sometimes these might be bacteria, and at other times various substances that change the cells' shapes in a transformative way referred to as "priming." Physiologic changes, like exercise, also have a "priming" effect. And priming is followed by a whole host of potential interactions, effects and results, both good (usually)  and sometimes bad for one's health. And if an illness affects how normal priming happens (or doesn't), well that too is part of the illness. Our results reflect that.
    1. Once again, shape changes in response to brief exercise or an intervention with light in our study, gave quite different results for neutrophil shape distributions (and presumed related activity levels) in those with LTC compared with controls.
  4. Piecing together what is known from other related domains (e.g., M.S., colchicine) while potentially adding to one's knowledge about neutrophils, may not add certainty to an understanding of the results that we obtained. So often that leads to conclusions about causation of observed differences, like: "Why? We do not know!"  That's Okay.


"Why is that 'Okay'?"

The results obtained here were usually statistically quite distinct. 

That makes it less likely that a participant in the LTC group would get confused with a participant from the normal control group.


This site exists to help individuals with LTC feel better (to stay real simple in stating the goal) by applying an intervention with specific wavelengths of light. Pursuing that objective and its applied methodology grew out of our work in 2020 and after, and still found at


But how can one tell if someone has LTC?

Very frequently the accepted response is that no test exists that can give that diagnosis with certainty. Others have said: "if she/he says she/he has it, she/he probably does."


A finger stick sample of capillary blood is a pretty easy test for the participant.


And by translating that air-dried, fixed, and stained peripheral smear into measurements of neutrophil size, morphology (shape), and repeatedly measured in response to exercise, and response to an intervention with light, the findings when compared with normal controls doing the same interventions, are usually pretty dramatic in their differences. 


And when the statistical methods conclude that an apparent difference in one of these variables has less than a 1 chance in 10 thousand probability of having appeared by chance, as some sort of fluke or as a result of bad technique, ... well we like those odds.


And when results lead to a statement like: "You know, these results really don't fit with your having LTC..." That may also prove useful for a participant.


And when participants spontaneously report that the intervention has helped them feel better, that usually fits size and morphology findings, and we like that too.


How long the beneficial effects will last is a question for further study, and is ongoing. If you prefer to ignore such subjective "testimonials" of benefit, no problem.


Just look over the rather striking objective data that has been offered in the various articles.




Objectively moving from tests before an intervention, through the intervention period, and testing after the intervention is certainly scientifically laudable. Especially if one takes the time and makes an effort to keep the results as "clean" as possible.


And when differences are identified that prove to be "statistically significant," well that usually provides more than just a quick chuckle. It's the source of energy to keep on challenging those next null hypotheses.


But when the feedback is: "Well yes. I do feel better..."

that too provides more than just a chuckle. 







<<< Home



0 Poster un commentaire

A découvrir aussi