The heavily censored video above, "Perspectives on the Pandemic: Episode Nine," features an interview with retired Army Sergeant Erin Olszewski, a nurse turned private citizen journalist who for the past few months has cared for COVID-19 patients in Florida and New York. In this must-see interview, she shares her experiences at the two facilities. Elmhurst Hospital Center, a public hospital in Queens, New York, has been "the epicenter of the epicenter" of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. Few areas have been as hard hit as central Queens. The question is why? Initially, a shortage of ventilators was blamed for the exaggerated death toll. But it didn't take long before doctors recognized that mechanical ventilation did more harm than good in a majority of cases. Olszewski addresses a number of problems at Elmhurst, including the disproportionate mortality rate among people of color, the controversial rule surrounding Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, lax personal protective equipment (PPE) standards, and the failure to segregate COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients, thereby ensuring maximum spread of the disease among noninfected patients coming in with other health problems. Olszewski accepted a temporary transfer from Florida to New York and spent nearly four weeks at Elmhurst. What she witnessed spurred her to become an undercover reporter and whistleblower. She secretly recorded happenings in the hospital and posted warnings on social media. The standard of care at Elmhurst is so poor, Olszewski compares it to "a third-world country hospital." COVID-Negative Patients Placed on VentilationThe first topic Olszewski approaches is Elmhurst's case numbers. Patients who repeatedly tested negative for COVID-19 were still listed as confirmed positive and placed on mechanical ventilation, thus artificially inflating the numbers while more or less condemning the patient to death from lung injury. According to Olszewski, most patients who had difficulty breathing were immediately placed on mechanical ventilation. Many of these cases were likely nothing more than anxiety, she says. But why? Financial incentives appear to be at play. Elmhurst, a public hospital, is able to charge Medicaid and Medicare a lot more for COVID-19 patients than for other diagnoses. According to Olszewski, the hospital receives $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatments. Making matters worse, many of the doctors treating these patients are not trained in critical care. One of the "doctors" on the COVID floor is a dentist. Residents (medical students) are also relied on, "and they have no idea what they're doing," Olszewski says. Not only are they not properly trained in how to safely ventilate, residents are also unfamiliar with the drugs being used and are making errors — none of which are being investigated simply because we're in a pandemic. One resident instructed Olszewski to administer a dangerous drug at four times the safe speed — an error that would have killed the patient, had she followed the resident's instructions. According to Olszewski, residents are essentially using these patients for practice purposes, in many cases performing invasive procedures that are not necessary and will harm the patient. Interestingly, while the elderly are the most at-risk for COVID-19 worldwide, a majority of COVID-19 patients in Elmhurst hospital are in their 40s and 50s — very few are over 80 — and Olszewski guesses that only about half of those being treated for COVID-19 have actually tested positive. Elmhurst Purposely Allows COVID-19 TransmissionWhat's worse, Elmhurst is mixing these patients together, meaning patients who have actually tested positive for COVID-19 are interspersed among patients with negative test results. "They're banking on the fact that they'll get it," Olszewski says, "because they're already immunocompromised." This despite the fact that they now have enough rooms in the hospital to separate these patients. In her undercover video, Olszewski talks about how a stroke patient ended up contracting the disease due to being placed in the same room as a COVID-positive patient. He ended up on mechanical ventilation, drastically increasing his chances of dying due to lung damage. Improper use of PPE further facilitates the spread of the virus. Elmhurst is also not using the rapid test, which gives you your test results in 45 minutes. It's more expensive, so they're not using it. Instead, they use a test that has a four- to five-day turnaround. In the meantime, infected and noninfected patients are being comingled, as patients suspected of having COVID-19 are admitted straight into the COVID unit. Elmhurst Patients Are Denied CPRShe also discusses and plays recordings of arguments between nurses and a cardiac fellow (a fellow is a medical student who is one year away from practicing without direct supervision) in which the nurses are told to not resuscitate a 37-year-old patient in respiratory distress (who did not have COVID-19 yet was treated for it), even though he did not have a DNR order in place. The question is why? No answer was given, other than these orders were coming "from the top." "It's murder," Olszewski says. "It's setting these people up for failure — based on money." She's convinced that the 37-year-old man died as a direct result of being vented, and on top of it he was denied CPR. Part of why mechanical ventilation is so dangerous is because you are given sedatives and paralytics. You're essentially asleep for the duration, which could be up to a month. "There's no way you can recover from something like that," Olszewski says. What's worse, many patients are not even told that they're going to be sedated. In a chilling conversation, a physician states that not a single patient has been successfully extubated and released since the pandemic began. All patients who are put on ventilation die, and that's a majority of patients at Elmhurst, regardless of their actual infection status. Is it any wonder, then, that this Queens hospital is the "epicenter of the epicenter" of the pandemic? It's not due to rampant COVID-19 though. Stark Contrast — Private Hospital in FloridaOlszewski's experience in a private hospital in her home state of Florida is in stark contrast to that of Elmhurst. In Florida, they would treat each patient as needed, rather than driving them toward ventilation as quickly as possible. They also did not treat uninfected patients as if they had COVID-19. One of the treatment protocols used on COVID-19 patients in Florida was hydroxychloroquine and zinc. Not one patient died. When asked why she thinks hydroxychloroquine has been demonized in the media, she says, "Because it works and then people won't need vents." Meanwhile, New York Gov. Cuomo restricted the dispensing of hydroxychloroquine. In New York, the drug can only be dispensed:1 • When written as prescribed for a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved indication; or ◦ As part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19 ◦ As part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19. (Positive COVID-19 test result must be documented as part of the prescription.) Cuomo has prohibited the use of hydroxychloroquine for experimental prophylactic use, which is what President Trump was using it for. Cuomo "wants to be right," Olszewski says. "They got all these [ventilators]; they want to use them." Cuomo has also granted New York hospitals immunity from malpractice lawsuits during the pandemic. All of this is now moot, however, as the FDA revoked emergency approval of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 on June 16, 2020.2 Could it be that a course of treatment is about $100 with hydroxychloroquine while that of its popular antiviral competitor, Remdesivir, is around $4,000? The Hydroxychloroquine Cover-Up Blows UpThe video includes statements from doctors who vouch for the safety and effectiveness of the hydroxychloroquine regimen against COVID-19, and discusses the fraudulent study in the Lancet, used by detractors to drive the narrative that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and can be dangerous. It even stopped hydroxychloroquine trials from proceeding around the world, and the World Health Organization and governments altered their COVID-19 policies based on this fraudulent paper. Once experts blew the whistle, demanding the paper's authors provide evidence that the data were reliable, the paper was withdrawn. The New England Journal of Medicine retracted another hydroxychloroquine paper for the same reason, as the data came from the same suspect organization: Surgisphere. As reported by STAT news June 2, 2020:3
Surgisphere Fraud Runs DeepSince then, investigations into Surgisphere and its chief executive Desai has revealed the deception runs far deeper than those two studies. According to The Guardian:6
Other Surgisphere employees include a science fiction editor, a fantasy artist and an adult content model. The company's Twitter handle has fewer than 170 followers and up until recently, its website contact link redirected visitors to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency site.7 Just how did a paper originating from this obvious sham of a company end up carrying so much weight within the WHO? Government Should Not Dictate Medical TreatmentOlszewski brings up an important point, which is that government should never have gotten involved in issuing COVID-19 treatment directives. The treatment should be personalized to the patient, based on the symptoms they're presenting, and politicians should have no say in what treatment is chosen. "It's none of their business," she says. Aside from hydroxychloroquine and zinc, which needs to be administered in the early stages of the disease, Olszewski talks about how she inquired about the use of high-dose vitamin C, which Asian studies have shown to be effective in cases of severe COVID-19. A secret tape recording reveals the mindset of an Elmhurst physician, who roundly dismisses any and all treatments aside from ventilation as useless, since he expects 90% of his patients to die anyway. It's a chilling conversation. There is much to learn from this pandemic. One take-home is that top-down pandemic treatment directives are ill advised. The WHO and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have turned out to be less than reliable and trustworthy in this regard, and the decisions by some political heads of state have been disastrous. Why have governors not relied on the input of medical professionals who are actually working with patients and reporting excellent results? Why have so many doctors and scientists been suppressed and censored rather than listened to? Why are inexpensive and readily available remedies that are proving effective being dismissed and ridiculed? The ineptitude and callousness demonstrated by top level leadership during this pandemic has been staggering, and future pandemic planning clearly needs to rely less on big pharma pushers like Bill Gates and WHO, and more on local critical care teams. Unfortunately, we're now on a speeding train toward totalitarianism ushered in under the guise of a pandemic response, and the question is, can we stop it? I believe we must try. If we don't, things will only get worse from here. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/27/elmhurst-hospital-coronavirus.aspx
0 Comments
Not soon after China revealed the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 in their country, scientists around the world began acting. This was a different type of coronavirus than had been studied since at least 1980.1 One difference is the gain of function potential capabilities the virus is believed to have2 that have been used in lab settings to alter the function of cells "as powerful tools to understand basic bacterial and viral biology and pathogen-host interactions."3 The U.S. had banned this research in 2014, but in 2017 it was quietly lifted and4
The novel coronavirus appeared to trigger a wide range of symptoms in people. Some had only a mild affliction; others were sick for weeks and still others suffered such serious respiratory debilitation that they required the assistance of a ventilator.5 Your Blood Type May Reveal Risk ProfileAfter the SARS outbreak of 2003, researchers found that one specific blood type, Type O, had a potential protective effect against that strain of the coronavirus.6 Scientists have also been looking at what genetic factors may impact infection and its severity for people exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The home-based genetic testing company 23andMe released preliminary results from a study they conducted using the information of more than 750,000 people.7 Their early results suggest that a person's blood type has an influence on their susceptibility to the virus. In addition to the information they used from among the millions who have sent their DNA to the company,8 they want to add data from 10,000 hospitalized patients who are not already part of their database.9 The company reported that the percentage who tested positive for COVID-19 by blood type was 4.1% for blood group AB.10 The differences reported in the study showed that those with type O had a 9% or 18% lower potential for testing positive for the virus when compared to those with blood types A, B or AB.11 In a separate study, researchers found that individuals with blood type O Rh positive had the best protection.12 23andMe did not find any differences between the two RH factors, positive or negative.13 It's important to note that data were collected from self-reported information, which may reduce the validity of this study.14 In an investigation from China, researchers compared the blood types of 2,173 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.15 The results demonstrated that those with blood type O had a lower risk of infection and those with blood type A had a higher risk. The results of this study are early, and the researchers warn they should be used only as a guide. A different group of researchers evaluated the health information of people who had respiratory failure; in addition to reviewing the data from a control group, they studied individuals who were patients at seven hospitals in Italy and Spain.16 In the final analysis, 835 people from Italy and 775 people from Spain who tested positive for the virus were included. The researchers analyzed 8.5 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms, which are genetic variations.17 They found statistically significant genetic differences in blood groups. They also found a higher risk for individuals who have A-positive blood and a lower risk for those with blood type O. It's important to remember that the results do not demonstrate there is absolute protection or risk with blood type, only that those with blood type O may have a lower risk and those with blood type A may have a slightly higher risk. The results from Italy and Spain add to a growing body of evidence indicating that blood type has some impact on a person's susceptibility to the SARS-CoV-2 infection.18 Laura Cooling from the University of Michigan said that the current data don't match the epidemiology of the disease pattern in the U.S.19 She pointed out that blood type O is more prevalent in the population of African-Americans, who are experiencing a disproportionately higher number of infections. This suggests that blood type may be less of a risk factor compared to others, such as comorbidities known to increase the risk of severe conditions and disease such as vitamin D deficiency, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.20 What's Important About Blood Type?Blood type has an impact on emergency care and transfusion; a successful transfusion requires that the person receiving the blood gets the same type from a donor. Your blood type is determined by the presence or absence of antigens on the surface of every red blood cell. These give your blood specific characteristics, including blood type. The four major types that are determined by two specific antigens, A and B, include A, B, AB and O. Another factor, Rh, may also be present. The most common blood types are O-positive and A-positive. The approximate distribution of blood types ranges from type O-positive at 38% of the population to type AB-negative at 1% of the population.21 At this time, it's not understood how blood type may play a role in susceptibility to COVID-19. Professor Andre Franke from the University of Kiel is an author of the study from Italy and Spain.22 He found the gene to type blood is near a gene that controls a protein for a strong immune response. The overreaction of the immune system, called a cytokine storm, is primarily what causes a massive inflammatory response and lung damage with COVID-19. Theoretically, this genetic variation may have an influence over the immune system and explain the link to blood type. Consider These Risks Before Taking a Home DNA TestThe number of people using at-home DNA tests to track their ancestry, confirm their heritage or get information on blood type grew through 2019, as demonstrated by the large population that 23andMe used in their study.23,24 Although 23andMe.com saw recent growth, that company, along with Ancestry.com, which also collects your DNA, began losing sales in 2019. However, these tests are not risk-free. They still hold the data on everyone who's sent them information, however.25 The potential use for DNA ranges from mapping your family tree and helping find genetic indicators to identifying health conditions and solving crimes. The last two are usually done in highly regulated labs, while DNA to identify your family tree is not. The at-home test kit allows you to check your results online.26 In so doing, you have to give the company permission to store your information in their database. This is the same database 23andMe used to perform the recent comparison of blood type and COVID-19 infection. Information may also be used in other ways, depending on the rules of the company. With some, your use of their services allows them to sell your genetic data to third parties without your consent and without profit sharing. Pharmaceutical companies, as an example, need large DNA data sets to develop new drugs. These data are typically sold for millions of dollars, but those who provide the data realize none of the profits.27 That irony is compounded by the fact that consumers have to pay about $99 to get their DNA tested, which then becomes freely available for corporate use and profiteering, among other things, over which the donors have no control. Your DNA is your most personal set of information, which can be used and manipulated in several ways. In an era when companies have difficulty keeping your usernames and passwords safe, it isn't unrealistic to think your DNA data may also be at risk. In 2013 researchers published a paper demonstrating that it was possible to identify people participating in genetic research studies by cross-referencing their data with information freely available on the internet.28,29 Scientists are excited about the potential information that may be gleaned from large DNA databases, but it poses a problem for your privacy. Direct-to-consumer DNA testing companies are not bound by HIPAA regulations, which means your personal health information is not protected.30 Even if there is no leak, your genetic information may be used by employers, life insurance organizations and health insurance companies. In fact, in 2013, 23andMe admitted that the goal of their company was to collect massive amounts of DNA data to use without donors' consent.31 Steps to Optimize Your Health and Support Your Immune SystemIt is helpful to know your blood type, but that is likely not a strong factor in your ability to withstand a viral infection. The number of people who are dying from COVID-19 lies somewhere between the World Health Organization's estimate of 3.4%32 and a study in Nature Medicine indicating 1.4%.33 With many cases going unreported or untested, many of the mild and asymptomatic cases are likely not included in the figures. This means the death rate would be lower. In a study from Italy's national health authority, 99% of the deaths in Italy were in people who had underlying medical conditions.34 Of those reported, 48.5% had 3 or more comorbidities.35 This points to the importance of addressing any underlying conditions you may have. It's important that you work to optimize your health in ways that don't also result in unwanted side effects or conditions related to taking a drug. Comorbid conditions with higher rates of death and severity are cardiovascular disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic respiratory diseases and cancer.36 Of the five conditions in this list, four are significantly affected by metabolic dysfunction. The common denominator is insulin resistance, which is triggered by a diet of high amounts of carbohydrates and processed foods. When your body is insulin resistant it is also not metabolically flexible. As Dr. Sandra Weber, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted:37
What and when you eat has a strong influence on your ability to beat insulin resistance. Intermittent fasting promotes insulin sensitivity and improves blood sugar management. This strategy helps to resolve Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and other conditions affected by metabolic dysfunction. To read more about how intermittent fasting affects insulin sensitivity, see "Intermittent Fasting Instead of Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes." Researchers have also found compelling evidence that maintaining optimal levels of vitamin D helps to lower your risk of severe disease. Since scientists anticipate a second wave of illness in the fall, you have a known "deadline" to raise your vitamin D level to at least 60 ng/mL and up to 80 ng/mL by that time. Importantly, research published April 28, 2020 showed vitamin D insufficiency is prevalent in severe cases of COVID-19.38 They also found 100% of people under age 75 admitted to the intensive care unit had vitamin D insufficiency. For a more in depth discussion of how your vitamin D level will impact your risk and how to optimize your levels see "Your Vitamin D Level Must Reach 60ng/mL Before the Second Wave." So, how do you go about optimizing your vitamin D level? First, you need to find out what your base level is, which is done using a simple blood test. An easy and cost-effective way of doing this is to order GrassrootsHealth's vitamin D testing kit. Once you know what your blood level is, you can assess the dose needed to maintain or improve your level. Again, the ideal level you're looking for is above 40 ng/mL, and ideally between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (European measurement: 100 nmol/L or, ideally, 150 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L). Next, you can fine-tune your dosage further by taking into account your baseline vitamin D level. To do that, you can either use the chart below, or use GrassrootsHealth's Vitamin D*calculator. To convert ng/mL into the European measurement (nmol/L), simply multiply the ng/mL measurement by 2.5. Along with intermittent fasting and optimizing your vitamin D levels, you'll find a list of more strategies you can simply incorporate into your daily routine at "Want to Defeat Coronavirus? Address Diabetes and Hypertension." from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/27/can-blood-type-predict-virus-infection-risk.aspx In the top 10 leading causes of death listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes and high blood pressure contribute to or are the cause of five — heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and kidney disease.1 In 2017, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association redefined the parameters for high blood pressure.2 The change wasn't arbitrary. It was based on data showing that people with blood pressure measurements once considered normal were experiencing some of the same health complications as those who had high blood pressure. When the new high blood pressure marker was lowered from 140/90 to 130/80, the American Heart Association estimated the number of people with high blood pressure jumped from 32% of the U.S. population to 46%. This change was similar to a 2004 move by an international committee of experts who lowered the diagnosis of prediabetes from a blood glucose of 110 mg/dl to 100 mg/dl.3 As one researcher writes in Diabetes Care:4
In 2018, there were 34.2 million in the U.S. with diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association. Of these, 26.8 million had been diagnosed and 7.3 were estimated to be undiagnosed. As with many chronic conditions, diabetes is found more frequently in older adults. Out of the 10.5% of the overall population with diabetes or prediabetes, 14.3 million people over 65 have one of the two chronic conditions.5 However, the overall numbers may be higher since data from 2019 showed that 87.8% of the U.S. population were metabolically inflexible,6 indicating some degree of insulin resistance,7,8 the hallmark of diabetes. High Blood Pressure Increases Risk of Dying From COVID-19Doctors in China quickly realized after beginning to treat patients with COVID-19 that nearly half of those who were dying also had high blood pressure (hypertension).9 Researchers used retrospective data from a hospital dedicated only to the treatment of the infection in Wuhan, China, to evaluate the association.10 An analysis of 2,877 patients was done; this included 29.5% of whom had a history of high blood pressure. They found that those with high blood pressure had double the risk of dying compared to those who didn't. This included patients who had a history of high blood pressure but were not taking any medications. Reports from other countries have also shown that people with high blood pressure are at higher risk from COVID-19.11 In the past it's been suggested that ACE inhibitors, which are medications to treat high blood pressure, can increase an individual's risk of severe disease. More recent research has shown this is not the case.12 This is supported by a recent study published in the European Heart Journal. Scientists found the death rate among individuals using medications that affect the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS), which include ACE inhibitors, are similar to those who do not take RAAS inhibitors. The researchers concluded:13
As reported by Reuters,14 the researchers were surprised the results of their analysis showed a trend in favor of patients using ACE inhibitors. They included their data with past studies and found a blood pressure medication may be associated with a reduced risk of mortality. Diabetes Increases Your Risk of Severe COVID-19A second comorbidity with an increased rate of severe disease and mortality is diabetes. Researchers gathered data from the National Health Service England to characterize the features of U.K. individuals who may experience severe COVID-19.15 The information came from 166 hospitals from February 6, 2020, to April 18, 2020. The researchers used a preapproved questionnaire from the World Health Organization that reported many of the study participants were also enrolled in other clinical trials and interventional studies. The data showed the median age of individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 was 72 years with a hospital stay of about seven days. The most common comorbidities were chronic heart disease, diabetes and chronic pulmonary disease. Thus far, it's been unclear as to whether people with diabetes are more likely to get infected, but what is clear is that a disproportionate number with diabetes are hospitalized with severe illness. It's been estimated that 6% of the U.K. population has diabetes,16 but data from the NHS England showed that 19% of those hospitalized had diabetes,17 which is nearly three times the number in the general population. It's also important to note that while people with Type 2 diabetes have double the risk of dying from COVID-19, people with Type 1 diabetes are 3.5 times more likely to die from the virus than people without diabetes.18 In another study of 174 patients, scientists found that those with diabetes had a higher risk of severe pneumonia, excessive uncontrolled inflammation and dysregulation of glucose metabolism.19 They concluded that their data supported the idea that those with diabetes may experience a rapid progression of COVID-19 and that they will have a poor prognosis. Early Data Suggest Baldness May Predict COVID-19 SeverityOne team from Brown University believes the reasons behind certain people being hit harder by the virus may be a function of androgenic activity, which has to do with male hormones. The team conducted two studies in Spain.20 In the first, they evaluated the results of 41 Caucasian males who were admitted to the hospital with bilateral pneumonia and who were positive for SARS-CoV-2. In this group, 71% had clinically significant androgenic alopecia (AGA).21 The prevalence of AGA in Spanish Caucasian males is unknown; however, the researchers expected a prevalence of up to 53%. In this study, the researchers only visually diagnosed AGA and did not speak with the individuals. They hypothesized that if AGA could be confirmed as a risk factor, then an anti-androgen therapy may help reduce the severity of symptoms:22
Recognizing the initial study had a small sample size, the research team undertook a second analysis of data that were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.23 In this study, a dermatologist diagnosed AGA in a cohort of 175 individuals, 122 of whom were males and 53 of whom were females; 79% of the men had AGA and 42% of the women had it. It's important to know that the median age of the women was 71, whereas with men it was 62.5 years. Again, the researchers found a substantial percentage of people in the hospital with severe disease had AGA. AGA is also known as male pattern baldness, and in women it's called female-pattern hair loss.24 Diagnosis is made on a history and examination evaluating for risk factors, which include advancing age, polycystic ovary syndrome, insulin resistance and prostate cancer. Insulin Resistance the Underlying TriggerThe underlying factor common to each of these chronic health conditions associated with severe COVID-19 is insulin resistance. The researchers from Brown University acknowledge their patient population included older adults, who are known to be at higher risk of severe disease. In other studies, researchers have identified obesity as a prominent risk factor, as it doubles the risk of hospitalization in people under 60 with COVID-19.25 While obesity is at the top of the list, another investigation shows individuals with more severe disease have more than one underlying health condition. A study involving 5,700 New York City patients26 produced results showing that the most common comorbidities were high blood pressure,27 obesity28 and diabetes, all of which are related to insulin resistance. In the study group, 56.6% had high blood pressure, 41.7% were obese and 33.8% had diabetes. In the group of patients who died, the researchers found that those who had diabetes had a higher likelihood of being on mechanical ventilation or placed in the ICU compared to those who did not. Interestingly, those who had high blood pressure were less likely to have been on a ventilator or in an ICU before they died, compared to those who did not have high blood pressure. Higher glucose levels, a hallmark of Type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, appear to play significant roles in viral replication and the development of cytokine storms, which are known to occur in severe COVID-19. For further discussion and more information, see "The Real Pandemic Is Insulin Resistance." Restore Your Insulin Sensitivity to Reduce Long-Term RiskIt appears that people have come to accept the growing number who suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases as a normal part of living in Western society. However, these chronic diseases are not normal at all, regardless of age. To survive the next pandemic, whatever that might be, improving public health must be the priority. It's unreasonable to wait for a drug or vaccine to cure what your body can naturally fight. Instead of throwing drugs at symptoms, it's time to address the underlying causes of illness and disease. Supporting a robust immune function is necessary to effectively combat COVID-19, flu, the common cold and most other infectious diseases. Addressing insulin resistance is the key to reducing chronic disease and improving health. To do that, it's necessary to dramatically cut down on processed foods and increase the amount of whole foods eaten. Dr. Sandra Weber, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, commented in the New York Times:29
For details on what and when to eat to reverse insulin resistance, see "Want to Defeat Coronavirus? Address Diabetes and Hypertension." In that article, I also summarize several key strategies for getting and staying healthy and metabolically fit. For additional COVID-19 remedies and top tips, see my Coronavirus Resource Page. If you'd like a more in-depth understanding of how to become metabolically flexible and eliminate insulin resistance, consider getting a copy of my book. "Fat for Fuel." It goes into detail, providing a comprehensive program to help optimize metabolic flexibility and strengthen your immune system. Both are crucial components of health and disease prevention. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/26/high-blood-pressure-increases-covid-19-death-risks.aspx As lockdowns have kept people at home and out of medical facilities, infant vaccination rates have dropped. As you might expect, this is bad news for the drug industry, which is likely why they’ve started promoting baseless claims that childhood vaccinations might prevent COVID-19 deaths. Baseless Claims Seek to Bolster Vaccine UptakeThere’s absolutely no evidence for this, yet, in March 2020, they started pushing the TB vaccine, claiming it might “steel the immune system” against SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Science:1
In April 2020, the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine was touted as a “major breakthrough” against COVID-19. The British Express reported:2
In June 2020, it was the polio vaccine’s turn in the spotlight. According to The Hill,3 tuberculosis and polio vaccines are being examined “for possible protection against COVID-19.” Jeffrey D. Cirillo, a professor of microbial pathogenesis and immunology at Texas A&M Health Science Center, went so far as to state, “This is the only vaccine in the world that can be given to combat COVID-19 right now.” Based on what? Based on vaccination rates in countries such as Pakistan, “where most of the population is vaccinated for tuberculosis and death rates for COVID-19 have been extremely low.” That’s it. Meanwhile, discussions and evidence showing the benefits of vitamin C and vitamin D — as well as many other therapies — are banned and censored. This, despite significant scientific evidence actually backing their use and showing the biology by which these nutrients and therapies can prevent and/or treat this particular infection. Talk about travesty. The oral polio vaccine, by the way, is now the primary cause of polio paralysis in the world, not wild polio.4,5 This is an inconvenient fact that is completely ignored by most mainstream media. Common Cold May Provide Long-Term Immunity Against COVID-19In related news, June 12, 2020, the Daily Mail,6 Science Times7 and others8 reported findings from a Singaporean study9 led by professor Antonio Bertoletti, an immunologist with the Duke-NUS Medical School, showing common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years. In addition to the common cold, OC43 and HKU1 — two of the most commonly encountered betacoronaviruses10 — are also known to cause bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia in all age groups.11 As reported by the Daily Mail:12
In other words, if you’ve beat a common cold caused by a OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. According to the researchers:13
Other Studies Show Similar ResultsOther studies have also discovered that many appear to have prior resistance to SARS-CoV-2. For example, a study14 published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell, found 70% of samples obtained by the La Jolla Institute for Immunology from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-19, as well as 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to the virus, had resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level. According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” Like Bertoletti’s study above, the Cell study found that exposure to coronaviruses responsible for the common cold appear to allow your immune system to recognize and fight off SARS-CoV-2 as well. May 14, 2020, Science magazine reported15 these Cell findings, drawing parallels to another earlier paper16 by German investigators that had come to a similar conclusion. That German paper,17 the preprint of which was posted April 22, 2020, on Medrxiv, found helper T cells that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in 15 of 18 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. As reported by Science:18
Statistician Believes Majority Are Resistant to COVID-19These studies add support to the latest COVID-19 mortality models suggesting widespread resistance and prior immunity. Freddie Sayers, executive editor of UnHerd, recently interviewed professor Karl Friston, a statistician whose expertise is mathematical modeling, who believes prior immunity across the global population might be as high as 80%. Sayers reports:21
These statistics really throw the idea of social distancing being an unavoidable part of the post-COVID-19 “new normal” into question. What’s more, once sensible behaviors such as staying home when sick are entered into Friston’s model, the effect of lockdown efforts vanish altogether, so global lockdowns were likely completely unnecessary in the first place. Nobel-Prize Winning Scientist Debunks Growth ProjectionsMichael Levitt,22 a professor of structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine who received the Nobel Prize in 2013 for his development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems, has also presented strong evidence that supports Friston’s model. According to Levitt, statistical data reveals a mathematical pattern that has stayed consistent regardless of the government interventions implemented. While early models predicted an exponential explosion of COVID-19 deaths, those predictions never materialized. As reported by Sayers in the video above:
Levitt believes prior immunity plays a significant role in why we simply don’t see an exponential growth pattern of COVID-19 deaths, and that certainly seems to make sense. A majority of people simply aren’t (and weren’t) susceptible to the disease in the first place. He tells Sayers the indiscriminate lockdowns implemented around the world were “a huge mistake.” A more rational approach would have been to protect and isolate the elderly, who are by far the most vulnerable and make up the bulk of COVID-19 deaths around the world. Hopefully, these data will not be swept under the rug if or when a second wave of COVID-19 emerges this fall. Making that mistake once is bad enough. Let us not repeat it. Last but not least, to bolster your immune system and lower your risk of COVID-19 infection in the future, be sure to follow the instructions given in “Your Vitamin D Level Must Reach 60 ng/mL Before the Second Wave.” from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/26/what-is-vaccine-uptake.aspx According to some, Bill Gates prominently among them, social distancing is part of “the new normal.” Alas, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest social distancing and lockdowns will not be necessary at all, and were probably a bad idea in the first place. According to Nobel-prize-winning scientist Michael Levitt,1 the rate of SARS-CoV-2 mortality never experienced exponential growth, as was predicted, which suggests a majority of people may have had some sort of prior resistance or immunity. Levitt, a professor of structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, received the Nobel Prize in 2013 for his development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems. No Exponential Growth in MortalityStatistical data, he points out, reveal a mathematical pattern that has stayed consistent regardless of the interventions implemented. As reported by Freddie Sayers in the video above:
Quarantining the Healthy Was UnnecessaryNow, evidence for prior resistance to SARS-CoV-2 is emerging, adding support to Levitt’s suspicions that the lack of exponential mortality growth may be due to the fact that a majority simply aren’t (and weren’t) susceptible to the disease in the first place. A study2 published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell, found 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 still had resistance to the virus on the T-cell level. According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” In other words, exposure to coronaviruses that cause the common cold appear to allow your immune system to recognize and fight off SARS-CoV-2 as well. This is great news. Professor Karl Friston, another statistician whose expertise is in mathematical modeling, believes resistance or prior immunity could be as high as 80%. Sayers reports:3
Social Distancing Should Not Be Part of ‘New Normal’As noted by Sayers, this really throws the idea of social distancing being an unavoidable part of the post-COVID-19 “new normal” into question. What’s more, once sensible behaviors such as staying home when sick are entered into this model, the effect of lockdown efforts “literally goes away,” Friston says. According to Friston, the reason why Sweden and the U.K., for example, have had very similar mortality rates despite vastly different government interventions (Sweden did not impose mandatory stay-at-home orders or business closures while the U.K. did), is because Swedes who felt sick stayed home anyway. This is common sense for most people, especially during an active pandemic. When Sayer asks Friston to comment on Neil Ferguson’s now discredited Imperial College model4 that predicted the death of 2 million Americans and 500,000 Britons unless draconian lockdown and social distancing measures were implemented, he replied that Ferguson’s models were correct “under the qualification that the population they were talking about is much smaller than you might imagine.”
Pandemic Response Plan Has Been a Giant FlopWhy did U.S. public health officials persuade lawmakers to almost immediately shutter businesses and issue stay-at-home orders for most of our population rather than implementing traditional disease control measures that identify, quarantine and treat the sick? Remember, quarantining is normally reserved for those infected, not for the healthy. This is a question that deserves an answer. We’re unlikely to get it, however, because the answer would likely reveal that this pandemic has been yet another massive fraud to enrich multinational corporations at the expense of just about everything and everyone else. And, if it weren’t for the captured mainstream media, it would never have worked. At this point, we can clearly see that an all-encompassing global totalitarian plan had been quietly put together, piece by piece, behind the scenes, only to be put into action once a pandemic — real or imagined — emerged. A key player in the coordination of this plan has been Bill Gates, who stands to profit in any number of ways, both from vaccines and technological rollouts. As noted by investigative journalist James Corbett in his four-part Corbett Report on Gates,5 “every aspect of the current coronavirus pandemic involves organizations, groups and individuals with direct ties to Gates funding.” This includes the World Health Organization, of course, but also the two research groups responsible for shaping the decision to lock down the U.K. and U.S. — the Imperial College COVID-19 Research Team responsible for the grossly inaccurate mortality model, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation — as well as the National Institutes of Health, and the NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been leading the White House pandemic response team. Then, of course, there was Event 201, conducted six weeks before the infections started. This was a tabletop exercise staged in October 2019 in which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security got together to gauge the nation’s preparedness for a global coronavirus pandemic. While that exercise revealed “massive preparedness gaps,”6 we’ve seen no shortage of preparedness in terms of comprehensive plans for how to track and trace the infection and vaccine status of everyone using electronic means. Ditto for plans requiring everyone to carry vaccine records in order to regain the freedom to work, get an education, travel and engage in social activities going forward. I wrote about this elaborate proposal in “Rockefeller Foundation’s Plan to Track Americans.” As noted by Corbett:7
Medical MafiaIndeed, I wrote about this illegal setup in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” The Canadian citizen journalist who goes by the name "Amazing Polly," has also detailed how global health groups shamelessly use extortion and protection to achieve their goals, which have everything to do with building wealth and nothing to do with protecting or improving public health.8 For more details on this, see “Global Health Mafia Protection.” In Mafia protection racket schemes, people will pay extortion money when they are convinced bad things can or will happen if they don’t pay the fee. The same phenomenon is now seen with governments who might have been skeptical about an imminent pandemic until the arrival of COVID-19 and now want to pay for preparedness. All in all, it’s looking like a giant racketeering scheme. And to keep it going into the future, they need everything to fall in line with the idea that nothing can ever be the same as it was pre-COVID-19. Well, that is a lie. Throughout this pandemic, common-sense prevention strategies have been rebuffed and denigrated, helpful treatment strategies have been suppressed, and scientists and doctors have been censored for speaking out about the usefulness of alternative therapies or older, inexpensive drugs such as hydrochloroquine. All of this is evidence that public health is not a primary concern but transferring assets to the very wealthy certainly is. Many will be enriched from the global vaccination program and its tracking and tracing technologies, which will ultimately be tied to digital IDs and digital economies. Enough is enough. The global population needs to see the plan for what it is — a global, totalitarian power grab — and renounce it. We’ve allowed fear to dramatically alter our world. Let’s not make things worse by making those alterations permanent. As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher in her thought-provoking commentary, “How Fear of a Virus Changed Our World”:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/25/social-distancing.aspx Our hunter–gatherer ancestors didn’t have LED lights, iPads or street lights ablaze all night. Instead, they were dependent on the sun, the moon and fire for light. Consistent light cycles ensured that circadian rhythms, moods and hormones were in check. But today, it’s a different story. We’re exposed to bright lights well past sunset, and during the day, we often don’t get enough real sunlight. Light can increase our productivity, but too much light has consequences. Artificial light at the wrong times creates a mismatch between your genes and the environment, with potentially dire health outcomes. Reducing your exposure to light pollution can protect you from those negative health outcomes and help you sleep more soundly and feel more energized. Find out how to reduce light pollution and why it’s an important part of an ancestral health-based lifestyle. Light Pollution: Too Much of a Good ThingHumans have evolved alongside 24-hour day/night cycles, and our bodily functions have synced up with these cycles in what we call circadian rhythms. Most endocrine hormones exhibit a recognizable daily rhythm, including:1,2,3,4
These hormones regulate daily patterns of bodily processes like digestion, metabolism, and sleep.5,6,7 For example, cortisol should be highest in the morning to keep us alert and gradually decrease throughout the day, while melatonin should be highest at night to encourage sleep and low during the day. In fact, exposure to bright 480-nm light in the morning helps determine when the pineal glands will start releasing melatonin at night.8 Light, at the appropriate times and intensities, is the most potent regulator of our circadian rhythms. When bright light hits our eyes, photosensitive cells communicate with a region in the hypothalamus called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), which is thought of as the body’s “central clock.”9 The SCN regulates clock genes found in cells throughout our bodies. However, growing evidence shows that light can also regulate mood, learning and other functions without affecting circadian rhythm.10,11 12 Health Consequences of Light PollutionLight pollution is a major problem in the developed world. At 10 p.m., our hunter–gatherer ancestors may have been settling down for the night under the moon, which emits a mere 0.1 to 0.4 lux of light.12,13 Compare that to home indoor lights at about 100 to 300 lux, or the bright lights in a store that can reach 1,000 lux.14 All night long, street lights and store lights create light pollution that prevents more than 99% of people in the U.S. and Europe from experiencing natural light.15 Light pollution messes with the body’s circadian rhythms, which can disrupt hormones and sleep. Light pollution can also affect mood and cognition without noticeable changes to the circadian rhythm. Whether indirectly or directly, these changes can cause myriad health problems. 1. Inflammation -- Exposure to light at night, whether from shift work or binge-watching Netflix, increases inflammatory cytokines and decreases proper melatonin levels at night.16,17 Chronic inflammation contributes to the development of almost every chronic disease that plagues modern societies today. 2. Immune Suppression -- Adequate sleep is vital for robust immune function, and facets of the immune system are under circadian control.18 Light exposure at night and disruptions in circadian rhythm both alter the body’s immune responses, making it more susceptible to infection.19,20,21 3. Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis Disruption -- The HPA axis controls the stress response. When cortisol and other hormones are out of whack from too much light, circadian disruption and not enough sleep, overall cortisol levels rise and the HPA axis is impaired.22,23,24 4. Gut Problems -- Because digestion is under circadian control, any disruption to this rhythm can promote the growth of inflammatory gut bacteria, decrease beneficial microbes, and upregulate intestinal permeability and lipopolysaccharide transport into the systemic circulation.25,26 This also helps explain why people who are jet-lagged experience diarrhea or constipation. 5. Thyroid Issues -- Thyroid hormones have circadian rhythms, too. Sleep deprivation from ill-timed light is associated with abnormal thyroid function.27,28,29 6. Obesity -- Night owls and people with sleep deprivation tend to eat more and gain more weight.30,31 Exposure to light at night, jet lag and shift work are all associated with an increased risk of obesity.32,33 7. Diabetes -- Obesity itself is a risk factor for developing diabetes. Circadian misalignment and sleep deprivation have both been linked to increased insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance.34,35,36,37 8. Fertility and Menstrual Problems -- From premenstrual syndrome to fertility, circadian disruptions can influence a woman’s reproductive health. Shift work and lack of sleep correlate with increased cortisol levels, decreased melatonin levels at night, and disrupted HPA axis, which can all wreak havoc on female fertility.38,39 Sleep disturbances may negatively influence male fertility, as well.40 9. Cardiovascular Disease -- Evidence shows that disrupted circadian rhythms and sleep disorders are linked to cardiovascular disease risk.41,42 In one interesting study, “light-at-night” exposure in 700 subjects correlated with the level of progression of carotid atherosclerotic vascular disease.43 10. Depression and Mood Disorders -- A clear connection between dark winter months and seasonal depression has already been demonstrated.44 Light exposure at the wrong times, in any month, can influence mood and depression risk. Poor quality sleep, which can result from abnormal light cycles and circadian disruption, is a risk factor for depression.45,46 In mice, light exposure at night altered gene expression in brain regions involved in emotional regulation, including the hippocampus.47 In a human trial, those exposed to just 5 lux of light at night had an increased risk of developing depression over 24 months of follow-up, compared to those who had less than 5 lux of light at night.48 11. Cognition and Memory Deficits -- Were you ever told to get a good night’s sleep before a test? Sleep loss and jet lag are clearly associated with poor learning capacity and neurocognitive performance.49,50 Aberrant light exposure, which can lead to circadian misalignment and sleep disruption, resulted in memory and learning deficits, including reduced hippocampal neurogenesis in rodents.51,52,53 12. Cancer -- Bright light at night suppresses melatonin and may increase the risk of certain cancers including breast and prostate cancer.54,55,56,57,58 Sleep deprivation, which can be caused by aberrant light exposure, is also linked to cancers.59 In fact, shift work, where workers’ sleep schedules don’t coincide with natural light cycles, is considered a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.60 Ecological Consequences of Light PollutionThe effects of light pollution extend beyond human behavior and disease. Animals and plants also have evolved along with predictable light patterns, and messing with light timing has ecological impacts. Melatonin, which is suppressed by bright light at night, directly influences the seasonal breeding of animals.61 Light pollution disrupts animal reproduction, species biodiversity, plant flowering and much, much more.62 Light pollution affects many plants and animals, including:63
How to Reduce Light Pollution at HomeYou don’t have to abandon all electronic activity to mitigate the harmful effects of light pollution at home. Focus on increasing exposure to bright, natural light in the morning and reducing exposure to it in the evening. You will sleep more soundly and feel more energized when your body’s rhythms are synced up with the sun. Here are some helpful tips to get started. Go Outside, EarlyOn average, people spend 93% of their time indoors or in a car — it’s no wonder our circadian rhythms are out of whack!64 Once you get out of bed in the morning, open all window shades to let in the morning light. Ideally, spend 20 to 30 minutes outside in the early morning. If that’s impossible, a 10,000 lux full-spectrum light box may suffice if you spend a good 30 minutes nearby. If you commute to work, try to drive without sunglasses to increase your light exposure. Avoid Bright Lights Later in the DayThere are many ways to facilitate this:
Sleep in the DarkDarken your bedroom at night — the darker, the better. Even dim light at night can disrupt circadian rhythm.68,69 Nix the night light, install blackout curtains and remove that bright blue digital clock. Your mood, sleep and health will thank you! How to Reduce Light Pollution at the Community LevelLight pollution negatively affects mood, sleep, ecosystems, and public health. Most of the developed world isn’t able to view the Milky Way at night. Some businesses, like hospitals, might not be able to shut down completely at night, but communities and cities can take steps to reduce light pollution. In fact, at least 17 of the 50 United States already have laws limiting light pollution.70 Some laws require street lights to point downward, while others require low-wattage lighting at night, and even others limit the lights allowed at night. In England, almost a quarter of communities turn off street lights between midnight and 4 a.m. or 5 a.m.71 And, although it may seem counterintuitive, less light at night doesn’t seem to increase crime.72,73 For information on how to take action in your community, check out the International Dark Sky Places. This great resource provides educational materials about light pollution, and also gives tips and examples for how to talk to neighbors, communities and even legislators. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/25/how-to-reduce-light-pollution.aspx If you need further proof that the mainstream media is censoring truthful news, look no further than Forbes’ June 7, 2020, article on a Norwegian report that claims to present proof that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation. The article was initially published with the headline “Norway Scientist Claims Report Proves Coronavirus Was Lab-Made.”1,2 Shortly thereafter, that headline was altered to “Controversial Coronavirus Lab Origin Claims Dismissed by Experts.”3 Forbes Pulls a 180As revealed in the side-by-side screenshots below, the 180-degree turnaround is being justified by citing “scientific consensus on COVID-19” — a consensus that most certainly does not exist as of yet — and evidence showing SARS-CoV-2 is lab-created is being roundly dismissed as “rumor and conspiracy.” If this doesn’t show you just how complicit the media is driving a pre-established narrative, I don’t know what will. Here's a sample of the changes. The original article states:4
The updated article now reads:5
Why All-Natural Narrative Is so Important to MaintainUndoubtedly, the fear of exposure is real, and if you see the words “consensus” or “conspiracy theory,”8 you are likely seeing an attempt at a cover-up. What are they afraid of? Well, there are many reasons for protecting the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 is of a natural origin. If it is proven to be a lab creation, the public may demand biosafety/biowarfare research into dangerous pathogens be stopped. Thousands of scientists involved in such research would lose their jobs if funding came to a halt and biosafety level 4 laboratories were to be shut down to prevent another global manmade pandemic from occurring. These laboratories pose probably one of the greatest of any threats to mankind, and we deserve to have a serious debate about their risks and benefits. Aside from threatening the future of biosafety/biowarfare research in general, many could potentially face life in prison for violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.9 China, of course, has every reason to quell evidence that the pandemic originated in its first BSL4 laboratory, as it could be held legally responsible and restitution claims from affected nations would likely run in the trillions of dollars.10,11 According to tech analyst Ray Wang, founder of Constellation Research Inc., colleagues within the Chinese scientific community told him they were prohibited from discussing the “new strain of flu” that had emerged in China in January 2020, because the Chinese Communist Party wanted to prevent the outbreak from becoming publicly known. According to Wang:12
But American scientists and health organizations would also be implicated, as the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded coronavirus gain-of-function research being done in Wuhan, China. So, to say there’s a lot at stake would be a serious understatement. The U.S. doesn’t want to implicate its own agencies in the creation of this virus, which is why government officials focus on the source of the leak — China — rather than the fact that it’s engineered. Clearly, if it’s engineered, everyone associated with its creation, including those funding it, would be responsible. So, when discussing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it’s important to be crystal clear on what the problem is, namely the existence of dangerous bioweapons/biodefense research. It’s not a condemnation of the Chinese population or its government per se, although critique of China’s handling of the outbreak is getting louder. Even Fauci has stated, “I think the Chinese authorities that did not allow the scientists to speak out as openly and transparently as they could really did a disservice."13 However, while we may eventually be provided with unequivocal proof that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan lab, genetic manipulation will undoubtedly continue to be denied past any point of believability. If SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered manmade virus, it is proof positive that gain-of-function research poses tremendous risks to humanity and that those risks far exceed any potential gain. Virtually all other threats to humanity — environmental toxins, pesticides, GMOs, pollution — pale in comparison to the danger posed by biodefense/bioweapons research. Natural Evolution Argument Fails for Lack of EvidenceWhat we’re seeing now is an ever-widening gulf between scientists and drug-industry-run media. While a majority of the press corps insist there is a “consensus” on the natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, scientists keep publishing evidence to the contrary. For example, a June 8, 2020, paper14 by Daoyu Zhang argues against zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, stating genetic analyses of pangolin samples used to support zoonotic transference appear to be contaminated:
One nowadays rare mainstream news article15,16 that dares look at both the engineering and leaking issue was published in The Wall Street Journal May 29, 2020. As noted in this article, “New research has deepened, rather than dispelled, the mystery surrounding the origin of the coronavirus responsible for Covid-19.” Indeed. In his article,17 “So Where Did Covid Come From?” foreign reporter Ian Birrell also points out “It’s not mere conspiracy theory to ask if this new coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab.” Meanwhile, CNN continues to push the zoonotic narrative by airing a special on the connection between bats and COVID-19.18 As noted in the April 2020 paper, “Is Considering a Genetic-Manipulation Origin for SARS-CoV-2 a Conspiracy Theory That Must Be Censored?” by Deigin and Rossana Segreto:19
Deigin and Segreto go on to review evidence of a cover-up at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I recently interviewed molecular biologist and virologist Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., about this as well. For the details of this story, see “Cover-Up of Wuhan Virus Exposed.” Deigin and Segreto’s paper20 is also an excellent read. In short, SARS-CoV-2 may not be a new virus after all. A highly conserved close ancestor was already in the database under the name BtCoV/4991. The question is, why has this been covered up? The fact that some scientific findings are being censored wholesale while others are being promoted as “consensus” is extremely dangerous and undermines the field of science as a whole. When the press corps is no longer free to report facts and is instead used as an industry and political propaganda machine to the exclusion of truth, it can only lead to a devolution of society. Is that really what we want? The COVID-19 pandemic, and the economic and social disaster brought in its wake, is a wakeup call to the world in more ways than one. What’s clear is we cannot afford to continue dangerous gain-of-function research on pathogens. We need to get to the bottom of its origin, so that steps can be taken to ensure something like this does not happen again. If we don’t, repeats are virtually guaranteed, and the next time, we may not be so lucky to get a virus with a mortality rate as low as SARS-CoV-2. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/24/forbes-censorship-of-coronavirus.aspx Disease screening and testing are among the most basic tools in public health and preventive medicine. Women receiving prenatal care undergo a variety of tests to protect the health of their unborn child. Newborn children are tested for inborn errors in metabolism so that early intervention may reduce the risk of damage. Adults are screened for cardiovascular disease while influenza testing helps determine the spread of infectious disease during flu season. Inadequate testing for COVID-19 during its early months has been blamed for widespread transmission. Early testing potentially could have helped contain the virus without the need for extensive shutdowns. Soon after China announced it identified a novel coronavirus, German scientists developed the first diagnostic test. By February 2020, the World Health Organization had shipped 250,000 tests around the world to 159 laboratories.1,2 However, instead of using the WHO test, the U.S. CDC and FDA decided to create their own. During past outbreaks of Ebola and Zika, the U.S. made similar moves. William Schaffner, an adviser to the CDC and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, spoke to a reporter from Business Insider:3
In other words, pride may well have stood in the way of U.S. officials distributing early testing. February 6 and 7, the CDC shipped a mere 90 test kits to state-run labs public health labs and by February 12th problems with those tests were announced. At the end of February 2020, the planned use for the tests was only on “symptomatic patients with a travel history.” The FDA waited until February 29, 2020, before it released academic hospital labs to develop testing. In a country with more than 330 million individuals,4 enough tests for 1.5 million were shipped on March 4, 2020. Yet, despite the number of, or lack of, testing kits, the decisions being made can only be as successful as the accuracy of the test. Inaccurate Tests Raise Public Health RisksMultiple stories are being told of individuals who have received false positive or false negative tests. NBC News tells the story of Sarah Bowen, a 31-year-old therapy consultant from Portland, Oregon.5 She is employed at a doctor's office and her trouble began with a sore throat. The next day she felt significantly worse and was able to get a test for COVID-19. When the results came back negative, her doctor thought the symptoms were related to allergies or a different type of virus. Bowen reported she started to get short of breath and her symptoms continued to get worse. She took another test, and again it came back negative. Despite her symptoms, which were consistent with COVID-19, her doctor did not believe she had the novel coronavirus. At the time of the report at the end of May 2020, Bowen’s diagnosis was still unclear. For Danielle Fried, whose story is told in The Wall Street Journal,6 her positive test sent her into quarantine until her symptoms subsided. Not long after, her antibody test came back positive indicating her infection was inactive. To return to her job she was required to get another test, which was positive for an active COVID-19 infection, which required another two-week quarantine. Yet, it isn’t clear if she had another infection or if the test was a false positive. Contradictory tests are not unusual as Zalman Goldstein has found after six COVID-19 tests showed three positive and three negatives. Two were taken on the same day and came back with conflicting results. Goldstein is 74 years old and needs a medical procedure to address a kidney illness. The hospital requires a negative test before proceeding, yet with each test, Goldstein's results are contradictory. Timing Your Test May Be ImportantTest results may be unreliable or inconsistent when samples are taken too early or late during the disease. Robert Wachter, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, spoke with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, saying: “Situations like this are occurring with distressing frequency and are confusing to patients and their doctors.”7 He went on to explain that the tests may show inaccurate results if a person is tested too early in the disease. Yet, as Stephanie Zeidenweber discovered, her tests for COVID-19 — taken within days of her first symptom and weeks later — were both negative. Later, she took two antibody tests on the same day to determine if she had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. One came back negative and the other was positive. Dr. Alan Wells from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center believes some false negatives are due to how the specimens are collected and not the tests themselves. He explained to NBC News:8
A second type of test collects saliva in a test tube where it's evaluated in a lab. Wells said the results of these tests may be worse, explaining pharyngeal swabs are used to test tissue where the virus is known to replicate. Saliva tests may be missing up to 50% of asymptomatic positive cases. Using a literature review and a pooled analysis of seven studies, one team found that proper timing of the test was also essential. The results showed a probability of 100% false negative on day one, which fell to 67% by day 4.9 PCR Testing Isn’t Accurate for Active InfectionsHowever, even when samples are taken at the ideal time, the results can still be incorrect. An article in the Mayo Clinic proceedings criticized public health reliance on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. To illustrate the point, the authors of the paper wrote:10
One of the problems with getting false negatives, as Wells points out, is that you “create a false sense of security.”11 Dr. Priya Sampathkumar is an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic and one of the authors of the paper. She commented:12
As I've described before, the PCR test traces genetic material of the virus that may be from a dead cell or from a live virus. Scientists are finding the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaves dead fragments that can take months to clear after an infection.13 This can lead to a number of false positives of an active infection. Some Hospitals Decide ID NOW Tests IneffectiveAbbott Labs developed another type of diagnostic test that produces results in five to 13 minutes. Called the ID NOW point-of-care test, it uses a method that is different from PCR.14 The Abbott test kit uses isothermal nucleic acid amplification, which was found to potentially return nearly 50% false negatives, according to the authors of one study from New York University15 and as reported by NBC News. May 14, 2020, the FDA issued an alert that data from the Abbott test may return false negative results.16 Although they said the test could still be used, negative results should be confirmed with an additional test. In response to this, the FDA reported “Abbott has agreed to conduct post-market studies for the ID NOW device that each will include at least 150 COVID-19 positive patients in a variety of clinical settings.”17 May 21, 2020, Abbott published a press release in which they reported results from three separate Abbott Labs sponsored studies. The results of one showed that an “Urgent care clinic study shows ID NOW test performance of ≥94.7% positive agreement (sensitivity) and ≥98.6% negative agreement (specificity) compared to lab-based PCR reference tests.”18 Most importantly, Abbott stated the full results of these studies and analysis are not yet complete. Until the data are released, it's difficult to determine whether the results are accurate. Some hospitals aren’t convinced the results are accurate or they may not want to use the test altogether, when a second is required to confirm a negative test. An NBC News reporter called 10 U.S. medical facilities and found that seven were not using the test. Each cited accuracy as the reason, including Vanderbilt University Medical Center, whose representative told the NBC reporter, “No patient at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has been tested via the Abbott ID NOW rapid test. Here, there were concerns about the sensitivity of that test.”19 As demonstrated in previous studies, industry funding can exaggerate outcomes. Researchers have found this to be true in several industries.20 The authors of a paper published in Jama Network came to the conclusion that:21
Confusing Data Feed Fear Without ScienceWithout accurate testing data, large corporations and the media can continue to feed public fear. As I've written about in the past, one of the key players in this process is a man without any medical education whose sole qualification appears to be that he's a billionaire. Bill Gates has proposed plans that go far beyond mandating a vaccine: His proposal includes digital surveillance to track and monitor people, riding on the coattails of COVID-19. Once in place, global disease surveillance systems will be next to impossible to dismantle and will naturally transition into other functions under the auspices of creating a world where disease can be tracked to improve health. And who doesn’t want a healthy world? There is also every reason to believe a digital tracking system this intricate will be combined with digital identification and an economic system to enforce compliance. In my series on Bill Gates linked below, I outline some of the steps currently being taken to quietly and surreptitiously go after a surveillance regime monitored and run by organizations with their financial future in mind. In the past, behavior could change under the threat of war or terrorism. The current acts of terrorism that trigger behavior change are identity fraud and infectious diseases. The Gates Foundation has direct ties to funding the World Health Organization as well as other groups that shape decisions in the U.K. and the U.S. This is a moment in history when we will look back and recognize it was a time in which decisions were made that protected or exposed our personal rights and public health. The role of government does not include creating mandates that eliminate personal decision making with regard to vaccination, medical testing and autonomy. It is your right and responsibility to take control of your health. Giving control to government or large organizations will eventually strip people of their personal freedoms, with devastating consequences. I encourage you to get educated on the decisions being made “for” you and learn how you can make a difference for yourself and your community.
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/24/inaccurate-covid-19-tests.aspx According to the Albany Herald,1 two prominent spokesmen for the pro-vaccine movement are now expressing concerns about the messaging used when promoting Operation Warp Speed — the name given to the White House effort to manufacture and launch a COVID-19 vaccine (as well as other potential therapeutics) at a record-setting pace. The two long-time pro-vaccine advocates, Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, and Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, fear communication about the accelerated vaccine program may fuel safety concerns that could dampen vaccine uptake. Albany Herald writes:2
Well, the fact of the matter is that steps are being skipped, and there can be serious ramifications when doing so. Simply changing the narrative will not change that. Big Pharma Executives Rake in MillionsHotez also criticized drug company executives for being too obvious in their greed. As reported by Albany Herald:3
Indeed, the message sent by Zaks' and Kim's share sales is a terrible one that is not likely to garner public confidence in their product. According to Moderna, the sales were done under automated trading plans called 10b5-1, which means neither needed to take any action for the sales to occur. But that hardly matters. What people see is Moderna leadership getting rich quick off vaccines that are being rushed through and skipping crucial safety checks. There's no evidence whatsoever right now that the company's novel vaccine will actually work, let alone be safe. According to director of research services at Equilar, Andrew Gordon, the only way the trades would be deemed illegal would be if Zaks or Kim created or modified their 10b5-1 plans "while in possession of material insider information."4 Whatever the truth of that may be, what appears clear is the pair raked in nearly $25 million in the days between Moderna's press release5 announcing its phase 1 trial a success and vaccine safety experts pointing out just how troublesome the results actually were. Even Hotez said he's "not convinced that this is really a positive result."6 As reported by Fort Russ News:7
Moderna's Phase 1 Trial AnnouncementModerna's phase 1 trial for its mRNA-1273 vaccine, which is being led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and championed by NIAID chief Dr. Anthony Fauci, involved 45 healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 55. According to the company's May 18 press release:8
1 in 5 Subjects Suffered Serious Systemic EventsHowever, two days later, May 20, 2020, vaccine safety advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned "the clinical trial results … could not be much worse." He writes:9
A May 26, 2020, article10 in STAT news tells the harrowing story of Ian Haydon, one of the study participants who suffered severe side effects requiring hospitalization. While Haydon says he still has confidence in the vaccine, it's important to recognize that he is a healthy 29-year-old. He recovered from the side effects, which included a raging fever, fainting, nausea, muscle pain and generally feeling "as sick as he'd ever felt." But just imagine what such side effects might do to an elderly person, an infant, young child or someone who is metabolically compromised or has an underlying condition such as a heart problem. For them, the reactions could be far worse. Oxford Safety Trial Is Not Using Inert PlaceboA question worth asking here is, if there are no biologically plausible mechanisms for vaccine reactions, why do they always occur in trials? Importantly, as noted in The Daily Mail,11 which reported the launch of Oxford University's vaccine trial for a vaccine known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, the COVID-19 vaccine is not being compared to a true placebo (an inert substance such as saline), as is the gold standard for drug safety research. Instead, it's being compared to a meningitis vaccine. As discussed in "Dangerous Placebos Used in Medical Trials," using an active substance such as another vaccine can hide any number of side effects. This is just one way in which vaccine makers "cheat" in their safety studies to minimize the appearance of adverse effects. All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Have FailedWhat Kennedy refers to in his May 20 article about Moderna's phase 1 trial results is coronavirus vaccines' well-recognized tendency to cause paradoxical immune enhancement. He explained this in my interview with him, featured in "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Explains Well-Known Hazards of Coronavirus Vaccines." A short clip of that interview is included above. Coronavirus vaccine development began after three SARS epidemics had broken out, starting in early 2002. Chinese, Americans and Europeans all started working on a coronavirus vaccine and around 2012 — after 10 years of development — there were about 30 promising candidates. As explained by Kennedy, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. Kennedy explained what happened next:
Coronavirus Vaccines Are Known to Present Unique HazardsThe problem, it turns out, is that coronaviruses produce not just one but two different types of antibodies — neutralizing antibodies12 that fight the infection, and binding antibodies13 that cannot prevent viral infection. Incapable of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can instead trigger a "paradoxical immune response," or "paradoxical immune enhancement." What that means is that everything looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease much, much worse. As noted by Kennedy:
Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in the running — including Moderna's vaccine — are using mRNA to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells. The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will commence production of antibodies, without making you sick in the process. You may have noticed Moderna's press release specifies "binding antibodies" and "neutralizing antibodies." It's important to remember the difference between those two when you read these trial results. Again, the binding antibodies are the ones suspected of triggering paradoxical immune enhancement, and according to Moderna, it was the binding antibodies that were "seen at levels seen in blood samples from people who have recovered from COVID-19." At the time of that press release, data from 25 of 45 participants showed this "positive" binding antibody result. Meanwhile, neutralizing antibody data were only available for eight of 45 participants, and the neutralizing antibodies are likely to be the most important, considering they are the ones that actually fight infection. Considering the problems caused by binding antibodies in previous coronavirus vaccine trials, these results are hardly comforting. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/23/moderna-vaccine-coronavirus.aspx The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has been working tirelessly to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water due to fluoride's neurotoxicity. Now, thanks to the support of readers like you, a groundbreaking trial is underway, challenging the U.S. water fluoridation program. The lawsuit, filed by FAN, Food and Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation and five individuals against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), began June 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. The suit has been years in the making. In 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the TSCA, the EPA evaluates risks from new and existing chemicals and is supposed to act to address any “unreasonable risks” such chemicals may pose to human health and the environment.1 However, the EPA has maintained that because fluoride supposedly prevents cavities — a “benefit” that’s been disproven — it justifies adding the chemical to water, even though scientific research shows it poses significant risks.2 The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the consumer advocacy group and partners to file a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.3 EPA’s ‘Go-To Man’ Provided Testimony on Fluoride’s ToxicityAccording to FAN, the lawsuit represents the first time in its 44-year history that a suit has progressed to trial under TSCA. Paul Connett, Ph.D., executive director of FAN, stated:4
This may soon change, considering one of the neurotoxicity experts who testified during the trial was Dr. Bruce Lanphear, who was described in a news release as “the EPA's ‘go-to-man’ on lead's neurotoxicity, and his work shaped their lead standards.”5 Similar to fluoride, in 2016, a lawsuit against the EPA, brought by Earthjustice, called on the EPA to reduce the amount of lead allowed in household dust to protect children. The suit resulted in a change to the EPA’s lead standards,6 and Lanphear’s research was instrumental in the process. Dr. Howard Hu, former founding dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, who is now the chair of the department of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, also testified regarding fluoride’s potential to lower IQ in children. Twelve-Year Study Demonstrates Fluoride’s Risks to ChildrenHu was the lead investigator on a 12-year study that showed higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, at the age of 4 and 6 to 12 years.7 The study involved 299 pairs of women and their babies. Mexico does not fluoridate their drinking water, but the study participants were exposed to fluoride via fluoridated salt and varying levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water. While previous studies have used measurements of fluoride levels in drinking water to estimate a population’s exposure, Hu’s study used urine samples — in both the mothers and their children — to determine fluoride exposure. The researchers then compared fluoride levels with each child’s intelligence, assessed using the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities at age 4 and again between the ages of 6 and 12 years using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI).8 While the children’s fluoride levels at ages 4 and 6 to 12 were not associated with their intelligence, the study found that exposure that occurs prenatally was linked to lower intelligence scores. In fact, women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence. Specifically, each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s GCI and WASI scores, respectively. The EPA previously attempted to block FAN not only from obtaining internal EPA documents but also from using this new research on fluoride’s toxicity in the trial. Fortunately, the court denied the EPA’s motion, which meant the 12-year study could be used in the case. According to Connett:9
Another EPA ‘Go-To Man’ Confirms Fluoride’s ToxicityDr. Philippe Grandjean, an internationally known expert in environmental epidemiology, with ties to both Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark, was the sole witness on the trial’s second day. According to FAN, Grandjean is the EPA’s go-to-person on mercury’s neurotoxicity10 and has warned about the risks of exposing children to neurotoxicants during early life and in utero. Grandjean has also researched fluoride, including a 2012 meta-analysis that found a lowering in IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure.11 During the trial, the Plaintiffs asked Granjean to review the literature since his 2012 meta-analysis. FAN reported:12
Dozens of Studies Link Fluoride Exposure to Lower IQEvidence presented at the trial will show not only that neurotoxicity is a hazard of fluoride exposure, but also that the hazard exists at the doses ingested in fluoridated areas.13 This risk is unreasonable and provides cause to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water systems in the U.S. While the initial lawsuit complaint states that more than 50 studies link fluoride to cognitive deficits in humans, 15 more such studies were published since then, making it a total of 65 studies showing that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans.14 A sample of the compelling research includes:15
The Time Has Come to Stop Water FluoridationDrinking fluoridated water, which poses risks to your brain and overall health when ingested, makes little sense, especially since any benefits it provides to your teeth occur from topical exposure. When you drink fluoridated water, 99% of the fluoride goes down the drain and into the environment.23 If you want fluoride for your teeth, use fluoridated toothpaste — don’t drink fluoridated water, trading your brain health for your teeth. That being said, I don’t recommend fluoridated toothpaste either, as there are ways to keep your teeth healthy that don’t involve neurotoxic agents like fluoride. It’s worth noting that Japan and 97% of western Europe do not fluoridate their water, and in the U.S., more Americans drink fluoridated water than in the rest of the world combined.24 It’s time for the U.S. to end this harmful and obsolete practice. Let’s hope that, with this lawsuit, FAN and partners get their victory in the form of fluoridated water finally being outlawed — a victory that would benefit children for generations to come. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/23/your-support-against-fluoridated-water-helps-epa-lawsuit.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |