You may have seen reports about COVID-19 patients who seem unable to fully recover. Some complain of lingering chronic fatigue symptoms. Others struggle with mental health problems. In fact, a study1,2 from Oxford University published online November 9, 2020, in The Lancet Psychiatry, found 18.1% of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 also received a first-time psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days afterward. Most common were anxiety disorders, insomnia and dementia. A similar trend was also observable after COVID-19 relapses. Interestingly, people with pre-existing mental illness were also found to be 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 than those who did not have a pre-existing psychiatric problem. Now, while this may sound terrifying, I would point out that, given the fearmongering surrounding COVID-19, it's not surprising that receiving a diagnosis would trigger anxiety and insomnia in many. It doesn't mean you end up with a chronic psychiatric disorder. It just tells us that getting a COVID-19 diagnosis is very stressful, even if you remain asymptomatic. The link to dementia is interesting, however, and likely needs to be looked into further. This also applies to the higher risk of COVID-19 if you have a pre-existing mental health problem. It's possible that people struggling with depression, anxiety and similar disorders are simply more likely to get tested for COVID-19 — and end up receiving false positive diagnoses. As discussed in "Asymptomatic 'Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear," mass testing of asymptomatic people doesn't tell us anything of value since the test cannot discern between an active infection and the presence of nonreproductive (harmless) virus. It only makes the pandemic appear graver than it is. That said, going through a severe bout of COVID-19 is also going to take a mental toll. As reported3 by a 40-year-old previously healthy man who underwent an apparent recurrence of COVID-19, after three weeks of fatigue, he started feeling "completely overwhelmed" and for the next 72 hours, he "felt unwell in a way that was bordering on not coping." He says he "felt physically exhausted" and "mentally drained." Severe illness will do that. He says it took him nearly eight weeks before he started feeling "close to my normal self again," but even then, he still struggled with "fatigue to the point of having to sleep in the day" and an inability to exercise. COVID-19 'Long-Haulers'He's not alone in reporting such symptoms. An estimated 10% of patients treated for COVID-19 report fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog and/or chronic pain for three weeks or longer.4 This phenomenon occurs even among patients who had mild cases of COVID-19. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data5 show the rate of COVID-19 patients who continue experiencing lingering health problems after recovering from acute COVID-19 may be as high as 45%. Only 65% report having returned to their previous level of health within 14 to 21 days after receiving a positive test result. The flowchart6 below, published in the European Respiratory Journal, is a tool you can use to measure your functional status over time after recovery from COVID-19. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Treatment Guidance for Post-Acute COVID-19The good news is that, according to an August 11, 2020, article in The BMJ,7 which provides post-acute COVID-19 primary care guidance, many of these "long COVID" patients do spontaneously recover — albeit slowly — "with holistic support, rest, symptomatic treatment and gradual increase in activity." To support recovery, the article suggests that:8
The following graphic from that BMJ article10 provides a visual summary of the recommended assessment and management recommended for patients with lingering symptoms after recovering from acute COVID-19. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Chronic Fatigue in the LimelightAs reported by Time magazine,11 that many COVID-19 patients report lingering fatigue, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) has gained new attention. It seems many of these post-acute COVID-19 patients fit the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which has been linked to viral infections. For years, people with ME/CFS were disregarded as faking it. Many were told it was "all in their head." The fact that COVID-19 patients are now reporting the same problem strengthens the theory that ME/CFS really is rooted in some sort of chronic infection.
In May 2020, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin introduced a bill13 to provide funding to study the connection between SARS-CoV-2 and ME/CFS. The bill, HR 7057 (The UCS ME/CFS Act) has not yet cleared the U.S. House of Representatives. It has no corresponding bill in the Senate. However, studies are already underway, and "COVID-19 longhaulers" can volunteer for them on the You + ME registry.14 A significant hurdle remains though: Few doctors are familiar enough with ME/CFS to treat these patients. If the pandemic results in a massive influx of ME/CFS patients, the medical system will be ill equipped to handle it and countless patients are bound to suffer without much hope. According to Time magazine:15
The Gut ConnectionWhile conventional medicine has no cure to offer ME/CFS patients, there's compelling evidence suggesting your gut health can play a significant role in this condition. Research published in 2017 linked both chronic fatigue and Parkinson's to gut bacteria. People with ME/CFS have distinctly different gut microbiomes than healthy controls,16 as determined by serial sequencing of bacterial RNA, and research17,18 has found 35% to 90% of ME/CFS patients "report abdominal discomfort consistent with irritable bowel syndrome." In related news,19 researchers have also discovered a link between COVID-19 and gut problems. A likely reason for this is because SARS-CoV-2 uses the ACE2 receptor to gain entry into the cell, and the greatest number of ACE2 receptors are found in the cells that line your gut. According to one review,20 18.6% of COVID-19 patients had gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. In another study,21 as many as 50.5% of COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital had one or more digestive symptoms. Abdominal pain is rare at just 1.9%,22 and theories of why COVID-19 would cause stomach pain include inflammation of the nerves in the gut23,24 and/or sudden loss of blood supply to abdominal organs resulting in tissue death.25 Incidentally, your gut microbiome is also known to influence your mental health, and has been linked to depression26 and anxiety,27 and a large portion of your immune system also resides in your gut. All of these links between viral infection, gut problems, mental health issues, immune function and ME/CFS suggest restoring your gut health may be a crucial strategy if you come down with COVID-19. How to Boost Your Gut HealthTo optimize your gut microbiome, consider the following recommendations. Also keep an eye out for my interview with health scientist Rodney Dietert, which will be published shortly. In it, we discuss the connections between COVID-19 and gut health and review the importance of your gut for a well-functioning immune system. • Avoid processed vegetable oils (polyunsaturated fats or PUFAs), as they promote inflammation, damage your endothelium (the cells lining your blood vessels) and your mitochondria, and lower your antioxidant defenses by stripping your liver of glutathione. For more details, see "The Case Against Processed Vegetable Oils." • Avoid processed foods and conventionally raised meats and other animal products as they are routinely fed low-dose antibiotics and genetically engineered feed grown with glyphosate, which is known to kill many beneficial bacteria. • Increase your soluble and insoluble fiber intake. Short-chain fatty acids produced by bacteria that feed on plant fiber are major epigenetic communicators. In other words, they actually communicate with your DNA, thereby providing protection against a number of different diseases. If using a fiber supplement, make sure its unprocessed, such as organic whole husk psyllium. Processed supplement fiber does not provide gut bacteria with what they need. • Avoid chlorinated and/or fluorinated water and antibacterial soap as all will kill off healthy bacteria. • Eat plenty of traditionally fermented foods such as lassi, natto, fermented vegetables and fermented grass fed organic milk products like kefir and yogurt, and/or take a probiotic supplement. This is particularly important after a course of antibiotics. Additional Advice for ME/CFS and 'COVID-19 Long-Haulers'In addition to addressing your gut health, there are many other strategies that can be helpful for ME/CFS, and yet others that appear extremely beneficial for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 specifically. Important treatment strategies for ME/CFS include but are not limited to:
Lastly, recommendations that can be helpful to prevent and treat COVID-19, both in the short and long term include the following. Some of these also tie in with ME/CFS while other don't: • Improve your insulin sensitivity by adopting a diet high in healthy fats and low in processed carbs, implementing a time-restricted eating schedule and avoiding food for at least three hours before bed. Research shows insulin resistance is a primary and independent risk factor for severe COVID-19, which makes sense when you consider it both increases inflammation and lowers immune function. You can learn more about all of this in "The Real Pandemic Is Insulin Resistance." Ketones — produced when you eat a cyclical ketogenic diet and/or intermittently fast — also appear to be very helpful against COVID-19, which adds further support for these lifestyle strategies. • Supplement with: ◦ Lumbrokinase, an enzyme that helps combat blood clots (another symptom associated with more severe COVID-19) and breaks down biofilms associated with Lyme disease, an infection also linked to ME/CFS. ◦ Quercetin and zinc. Like hydroxychloroquine, quercetin helps shuttle zinc into the cell, thereby stemming viral replication. COVID-19 patients with low zinc levels have a higher risk of poor outcome and death.28 Quercetin also boosts type 1 interferon, which signals infected cells to produce proteins that stop the virus from replicating. In addition, quercetin works synergistically with vitamin C, which is another powerful COVID-19 prophylactic. ◦ Vitamin D. More than 80% of COVID-19 patients are vitamin D deficient, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that raising your vitamin D level above 40 ng/mL can go a long way toward preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, reducing severity, lowering the risk of death and improving outcomes overall. • Use nebulized hydrogen peroxide. Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide into your sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body's natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infections and can be used both prophylactically after known exposure to COVID-19 and as a treatment for mild, moderate and even severe illness. Buy a desktop nebulizer and stock food-grade hydrogen peroxide and some saline. That way, you have everything you need and can begin treatment at home at the first signs of a respiratory infection. Keep in mind food grade hydrogen peroxide must be diluted down to a 0.1% dilution before use. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/20/the-truth-about-covid-19-long-haulers.aspx
0 Comments
As coronavirus testing takes place en masse across the U.S., many are questioning whether the tests are accurate enough to trust, especially in people who are asymptomatic. Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several drawbacks that make mass testing problematic and rife for misleading fearmongering. For starters, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.1 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others. The PCR Cycle Threshold MattersSecondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” To understand why the false positive rate for PCR tests is so high, you need to understand how the test works.2 The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, because the genetic snippets are so tiny, they must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold. Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Some experts say nothing above 30 cycles should be used,3 yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.4,5,6 When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else. ‘Casedemic’ Fuels Needless FearWhen labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic,”7,8 meaning an epidemic of false positives. Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a “case” refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as “cases,” the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is. “The goal is to keep you scared, isolated and demoralized for a purpose,” says PJ Media.9 “Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next.” And that next step is a reset of America as you know it, with the UN’s one-world Agenda 2030 at the helm. To learn more, be sure to read “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.” As reported by Global Research in “The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a ‘Test’ to Lock Down Society”:10
COVID Testing Fraud Fuels ‘Casedemic’In the video at the top of this article, Del Bigtree breaks down how excessively high test sensitivity leads to falsely elevated “case” numbers that in reality mean nothing. He rightly points out that missing from the COVID-19 conversation is the death rate. “If COVID is a deadly virus, what should we see when cases increase?” he asks. The answer, of course, is an increase in deaths. However, that’s not what’s happening. The two have virtually nothing to do with each other. In the video, Bigtree features a November 4, 2020, tweet11 by White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas showing the number of positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue and COVID-19 related deaths in red, since the start of the pandemic up until the end of October 2020. As you can see, there’s no correlation between so-called cases and deaths. A second graph tweeted12 by Atlas shows the number of U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day, based on New York Times data. It too indicates that the death rate is steadily dwindling. Worldwide, we see the same phenomenon. The first graph below, from Bigtree’s video report, shows the worldwide daily new cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The second graph shows daily COVID-19 related deaths, worldwide. While the number of positive tests have risen, fallen and risen again, the number of deaths have fallen off and do not appear to be rising in tandem with positive test rates any longer. Shocking Data Reveal Inaccuracy of PCR TestsCircling back to the PCR cycle threshold and its influence on positivity rates, Bigtree reviews research13 showing that to really maximize accuracy, PCR tests should use far fewer cycles. At just 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. In other words, 17 cycles would likely be the ideal CT. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. This is the graph from that study.14 Other data presented by Bigtree shows that your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result. By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually nonexistent. Rapid Test Is Less Sensitive and May Be Better for MostTo address some of the shortcomings in PCR testing, most notably the time it takes to get the result, rapid tests have been developed that can provide an answer in minutes. These tests also appear to be less sensitive, which is actually a good thing. One such rapid test, called the Sofia by Quidel, looks for the presence of antigens (coronavirus proteins) rather than RNA. In a recent comparison of PCR and the Quidel rapid test, University of Arizona researchers discovered that while the rapid test can detect more than 80% of the infections found by slower PCR tests, when used on asymptomatic individuals, that rate dropped to just 32%. (The study has not been published yet but was reviewed by experts solicited by The New York Times.15,16) While a 32% detection rate may sound terrible, appearances can be deceiving. Remember, if labs are using a cycle threshold (CT) of, say, 40 cycles, the number of positive PCR results will be vastly exaggerated. According to The New York Times,17 researchers have been “unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR tests had CT values above 27.” If the virus cannot replicate, you will not get ill and are not infectious, so you cannot spread it to others. When all PCR tests with a CT value over 30 were excluded from the comparison, the rapid test was found to detect more than 85% of the SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by the PCR tests, and this held true whether the individual had symptoms or not. Mass Testing Shown To Be Ineffective at BestWhy are we still testing asymptomatic people? According to a study18,19 in the October 21, 2020, issue of PLOS ONE, mass testing is at best ineffective and at worst, harmful.
In an August 28, 2020, interview with The Post,21 Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford, stated mass testing is “a huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs … It’s great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it’s not doing anything good.” Fauci Admits CT Over 35 Renders PCR Test UselessEven Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the PCR test is useless and misleading when run at “35 cycles or higher.”22 He made this comment in a July 16, 2020, “This Week in Virology” podcast:23
That then begs the question, why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the test be run at a CT of 40?24 Why are Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization set to 45 cycles? As noted by author and investigative journalist Jon Rappaport:25
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/covid-testing-fraud-fuels-casedemic.aspx Major depression is a common mental health disorder in the U.S. for which many have been prescribed antidepressants. Results from a small study using the mushroom compound psilocybin coupled with psychotherapy revealed 67% of participants had a positive response to the intervention by the first week of treatment and 71% by the fourth week.1 This is a better and faster response than in those taking antidepressants.2 In 2017, the National Institute of Mental Health estimated 17.3 million adults living in the U.S. experienced at least one episode of major depression, which was 7.1% of all adults.3 The prevalence was higher in females than in males and highest in those aged 18 to 25 years. Yet, as arresting as those numbers are, in the current pandemic, experts believe the numbers are rising even further. As early as April 2020, just three months after the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S.,4 a mental health index showed 27% of people surveyed were uncertain of their ability to cope with the coming changes.5 The same index gave America a mental health score of 67, which places a typical American in the lowest 7% of a customary benchmark. A study published in August 2020 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also showed rising numbers of people experiencing mental health concerns. In their survey, 40.9% of the respondents were struggling with anxiety, depression or symptoms of trauma- and stressor-related disorder (TSRD) attributed to the pandemic.6 Disturbingly, 13.3% reported new or increased substance use as a way of managing stress and 10.7% of the adults surveyed said they had seriously contemplated suicide within the past 30 days. Mental health deterioration has also increased the use of sleep drugs to the point some experts have named the condition COVID-somnia.7 Psilocybin Helps Treat Major DepressionPsilocybin is a hallucinogenic compound found in certain mushrooms.8 When improper doses are administered, the compound can produce a list of side effects, including nausea and vomiting, panic attacks, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, psychosis and even death. However, a recent study shows that the compound can be useful in certain situations and when carefully monitored. A small randomized clinical trial used psilocybin coupled with psychotherapy in patients who had a major depressive disorder (MDD). This study followed other studies that have suggested one or two administrations of psilocybin coupled with psychological support could generate antidepressant effects.9 The trial was conducted at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center with 24 adults aged 21 to 75 who had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The participants were not on antidepressant medications at the time of the study and did not have a history of psychotic disorders, a serious suicide attempt or hospitalization. The participants had two sessions using psilocybin coupled with supportive psychotherapy. The primary outcome measure of the study was the severity of depression assessed in the participants using a rating scale, comparing preintervention with post-intervention and again at one week and four weeks after treatment. In the group, 67% of the participants demonstrated clinically significant responses to the psilocybin at one week and 71% at four weeks. The researchers believe the:10
Follow-Up Shows Antidepressant Effects Over Six MonthsThe scientists plan to follow the study participants over a year to determine how long the effects of the intervention might last.11 A past study published in The Lancet also administered two doses of psilocybin seven days apart in 12 individuals who had been diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depression.12 The study had no control group and, like the current study, the participants received psychological support along with the mushroom compound. Assessments made from one week to three months after treatment revealed the symptoms were significantly reduced within one week and remained consistent after three months. The participants also reported “marked and sustained improvements in anxiety and anhedonia [inability to feel pleasure].”13 The participants in the study were evaluated for adverse events during the sessions and in their subsequent follow-up appointments. The researchers found no serious or unexpected adverse events. A second study was published with data from six months post-treatment, finding no unexpected adverse events and continued positive results with reductions in symptoms of depression.14 In 2018 and 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted “breakthrough therapy” designation for psilocybin.15 Breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA was developed to speed the development of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions and the subsequent review by the FDA. To achieve the designation, there must be early clinical evidence the drug produces substantial improvement on at least one endpoint measure over other available therapies.16 Alan Davis, Ph.D., was one scientist in the study who is quoted in a Johns Hopkins press release, saying:17
Roland Griffiths, Ph.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, said he was pleasantly surprised by the results since “there are several types of major depressive disorders that may result in variation in how people respond to treatment.”18 Effectiveness and Adverse Events With Usual TreatmentConventional treatments for major depressive disorders typically have limited success and difficult patient compliance “as demonstrated by the number of patients failing to achieve remission.”19 In one literature review of interventions that are typically thought of as “treatment as usual,” data from 38 studies, including 2,099 people, were broken into three groups, depending on how many quality criteria the studies met.20 Overall, the analysis found a range of 27% to 33% of patients responded to treatment. The outcome measure was symptom reduction by at least 50%, well below the outcome found in the psilocybin study. The literature review also found 12% of the group experienced more severe depressive symptoms and a deterioration in mental health. Conversely, the results from the most recent psilocybin assisted intervention demonstrated no serious adverse events during the trial.21 Other non-serious side effects that were reported during the trial included feelings of fear or sadness, and physical effects such as trembling and mild to moderate transient headaches. Yet, “most if not all antidepressants can cause bothersome adverse events,” and patients who stop taking the medication can be as high as 60%, which is “probably governed by a trade-off between perceived benefits and drawbacks.”22 Measurements of depression in older adults before the pandemic showed from 10% to 15% struggle with depressive symptoms, even though they have not been diagnosed with major depression.23 A study published in The British Journal of Psychiatry found there had also been a major rise in the number of antidepressant medications prescribed for older adults, without a concurrent increase in the number diagnosed with depression.24 This study also suggests that seniors may be overprescribed antidepressant drugs. This may have serious implications for their health, based on the number of side effects associated with the drugs in combination with a population that also struggles with other physical and mental health concerns. According to a 2013 study in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, major depression may be vastly overdiagnosed and overtreated.25 The data revealed of the 5,639 participants with clinician-identified depression, only 38.4% of them actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and in seniors over the age of 65, only 14.3% met the criteria. What Is Major Depression?Clinical depression or major depressive disorder is more than feeling a little sad. Symptoms occur nearly every day and can include feelings of:26
People who are depressed may also experience:
Major depressive disorder creates a long-term financial burden on society, the total of which is estimated to be close to $210.5 billion each year, rising 21.5% between 2005 and 2010.27 A 2019 study found those who experience relapse or recurrence of a major depressive episode had higher costs associated with an increase in inpatient services, emergency department visits and admissions.28 Dietary Changes That Lower Inflammation Help Major DepressionThe positive results of using psilocybin to treat major depression have been achieved under supervision and only with accompanying psychotherapy during the intervention. It is crucial you don’t try this treatment at home as other data reveal that the positive effects only happen with a quality experience that can be clinically managed.29 However, you have other options to help reduce your risk of depression. Since inflammation increases your risk of depression, one way to reduce your risk is to employ strategies that reduce the inflammatory response in your body. In one analysis, scientists reviewed the safety and effectiveness of anti-inflammatory agents in people suffering with major depression. Agents that they found can play a role in reducing inflammation and ultimately symptoms of major depressive disorder included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) and omega-3 fatty acids.30 A second meta-analysis found similar results.31 Inflammation is the root cause of many conditions and reducing inflammation can help improve your mental and physical health, and there are nonpharmacological options that help to reduce depression by reducing the inflammatory response in your body. As you consider the following suggestions, remember they do not have to be done all at once and you can achieve beneficial results no matter your age or current physical abilities. The journey to better health begins with taking small permanent steps. • Exercise -- Exercise normalizes your insulin and leptin sensitivity, which in turn reduces inflammation. For example, adipose or visceral fat produces proinflammatory responses in the body, but exercise helps reduce adipose tissue and subsequently inflammation. Exercise also increases vagal tone, which some experts believe has an influence on inflammation.32 As research from the University of California demonstrated, just one 20-minute exercise session could produce an anti-inflammatory response.33 • Sleep -- In past articles I’ve covered some of the powerful effects sleep has on your health. Acute sleep loss increases inflammation. Even healthy subjects showed subclinical shifts in inflammatory cytokines after sleep had been restricted by 25% to 50% of an eight-hour slumber.34 Sleep also enhances your immune system. Sleep disturbances can have a significant effect on that regulation, contributing to an inflammatory response and dysregulation of the viral response.35 • Nutrition -- There are several nutritional factors that affect your mood and emotions, not the least of which is eating too much sugar. Excessive amounts of sugar disrupt your leptin and insulin sensitivity,36 affect dopamine levels and damage your mitochondria,37 all of which affect your mood. Nutrients such as omega-3 fats, magnesium and B vitamins influence your mood and brain health. • Light therapy -- Light therapy is an effective treatment for seasonal affective disorder, and researchers find it is also effective against moderate to severe nonseasonal major depressive disorders.38 One method is to use a white lightbox for 30 minutes each day as soon as possible after waking up. • Mindfulness meditation or Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) -- In one study of moderately to severely depressed college students, students were given four 90-minute EFT sessions.39 Those who received EFT showed significantly less depression than the control group when evaluated three weeks later. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy also shows promise in helping to prevent recurrent episodes of depression.40 from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/benefits-of-medicinal-mushrooms.aspx In 2018, the baby bottle market across the world was valued at $2.6 billion. The plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share,1 but if you’re currently using plastic bottles for your baby, you may want to switch to glass after research revealed concerning microplastics may be released into their contents.2 Overall, it appears we have an addiction to plastic. In nearly every corner of your local store, products are covered in or made with plastic. Not only is it difficult to get rid of plastic without damaging the environment, but it appears our addiction is to all things disposable. Across the world, 299 million tons of plastic were produced in 2013, much of which ended up in the oceans, threatening wildlife and the environment.3 In 2017, the U.S. alone generated 35.4 million tons of plastic and sent 26.8 million tons to landfills, which accounted for 13.2% of all municipal solid waste.4 Chemicals found in plastic products are known to act as endocrine disruptors, the most pervasive and well-known of which includes phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA).5 Endocrine disruptors are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, and they interfere with the normal functioning of those hormones in your body.6 This poses a particular problem for children who are still growing and developing. According to Pete Myers, Ph.D., adjunct professor of chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University and founder, CEO and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, there is evidence that plastic chemicals are harming the health of future generations through intergenerational endocrine disruption.7 He points out that no plastic has ever been thoroughly tested for safety, and that testing currently used is based on “16th-century principles.” As researchers continue to measure the amount and type of plastic we are ingesting, one team analyzed the number of microparticles that may be released in plastic baby bottles. Plastic Baby Bottles Release Microparticles During UseJohn Boland, Ph.D., Trinity College Dublin, and colleagues analyzed the release of microplastics from plastic baby bottles to which infants may be exposed while consuming formula.8 To collect their data, the scientists initially cleaned and sterilized new polypropylene bottles. Once the bottles had air-dried, the scientists added heated purified water that had reached 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit). This is the temperature for making formula recommended by the World Health Organization.9 The bottles were then added to a mechanical shaker for one minute. The team filtered the water and analyzed the contents, discovering the bottles leaked a wide range of particles per liter of water, numbering up to 16.2 million plastic particles. The average number in the bottles tested reached 4 million particles for every liter of water. The experiment was repeated with baby formula and the results were the same. Boland commented on the study:10
The data also revealed the number of microplastics shed was dependent on water temperature and mechanics. The higher the temperature of the water when it reached the bottle, the more microplastics were released. When the temperature was higher, the bottles released up to 55 million particles of microplastic.11 The experiment also demonstrated that shaking the bottles increased the number of microplastics released. Boland continued:12
Infants May Ingest Up to 4.5 Million Particles a DayThe researchers predicted that, globally, infants up to 12 months old may be exposed to 14,600 to 4.55 million microplastic particles a day, depending on region, which is higher than previously recognized due to the widespread usage of polypropylene baby bottles.13 Whether or not this exposure poses a risk to infants’ health presents an “urgent need,” they added, and made several recommendations for parents who continue to use plastic baby bottles to help reduce the amount of microplastics their baby ingests. The suggestions include reducing the bottle’s exposure to heat and shaking by preparing the formula in a glass container and transferring it to the baby bottle after it has cooled.14 Breastfeeding, if possible, would be an even better alternative that eliminates the need for bottles; however, glass baby bottles are also available. For the study, the researchers used purified water and not standard drinking water. This means they may have even underestimated the number of plastic particles babies are exposed to. A study from the University of Newcastle looked at the “existing but limited” literature estimating the average amount of plastic ingested by humans.15 Calculations were made based on 33 studies of the consumption of plastic from food and beverages. The researchers estimated that the average person consumes 1,769 plastic particles from drinking water each week.16 Plastic particles are found in many water sources. In the U.S., 94.4% of all tap water samples contained plastic fibers, as did 82.4% of samples from India and 72.2% from Europe. DARPA Awards Grant to Make Food From PlasticIf the inadvertent consumption of plastic is not enough, the abundance of manufactured plastic has turned the eyes of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) toward how to make plastic into food. DARPA awarded Iowa State University and partners a $2.7 million grant to make food from plastic and paper waste.17 They intend to use the resulting “food products” to improve military logistics in the field. The idea is to help with short-term nourishment for soldiers in the field and improve logistics for long missions. By the end of the project, they estimate the grant may reach $7.8 million. Other partners include the American Institute of Chemical Engineers RAPID Institute, the University of Delaware and Sandia National Laboratories. The idea is to convert paper waste into sugars and plastics into fatty acids and fatty alcohols. The byproducts of these would then be processed into single cell biomass in the field. Other examples of single cell proteins include Vegemite and nutritional yeast. Although DARPA has initiated the project for use by the military, it is not a stretch to think that such a system would be proposed as a means of providing inexpensive foodstuffs for others. As explained in the press release from Iowa State University, the process could “go a long way toward solving looming problems of plastic disposal and ensuring a viable global food chain.”18 Principle investigator Robert Brown explained that the process under investigation would speed biodegradation of plastics “by raising the temperature a few hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The cooled product is used to grow yeast or bacteria into single cell protein suitable as food.”19 Lifetime Average Consumption of Plastic Is ShockingAlthough drinking water is the largest source of microplastics in food and beverages, it is not the only source. Bottled water may contain even more plastic than tap water, and research has suggested those who drink bottled water exclusively “may be ingesting an additional 90,000 microplastics annually, compared to 4,000 microplastics for those who consume only tap water.”20 After testing 259 bottles of 11 bottled water brands, researchers found on average 325 pieces of microplastic per liter.21 The brands tested included Aquafina, Evian, Dasani, San Pellegrino and Nestle Pure Life. Based on findings from the World Wildlife Fund International study, Reuters created an illustration demonstrating how much plastic a person would consume over time.22 According to these estimations, you may consume 44 pounds of shredded plastic over 79 years. To put this in perspective, one car tire weighs about 20 pounds.23 So a lifetime supply of plastic consumption would be like slowly eating 2.2 car tires. The long-term health risks of ingesting plastic particles are unknown. However, there is reason to be concerned. For instance, microplastics used for textile fibers make up 16% of the world's plastic production.24 These plastics contain contaminants such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic, causing DNA damage that can lead to cancer. The plastics also contain dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to toxic effects, including carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. Since humans are exposed to a heavy toxic burden, it's difficult to link health problems back to microplastics. However, many of the chemicals used in their manufacture are also known to disrupt hormones and gene expression and cause organ damage. Research has also linked them to obesity,25 heart disease26 and cancer.27 To read more about the risks associated with plastic ingestion, see “How Do We Stop Our Dangerous Addiction to Plastic?” Would You Like Some Plastic With Your Tea?If you are working to reduce your exposure to plastics in your food and beverages, it may be surprising to learn where plastics are also lurking. Tea has been an important beverage in many cultures around the world and recognized for centuries for the dramatic and positive effects it has on health. A soothing cup of hot tea may be just what your body needs to boost phytochemicals and other nutrients. But did you know that you may also be drinking 11.6 billion microplastic pieces and 3.1 billion nanoplastics with every cup of tea? Researchers from McGill University analyzed plastic pollution released from tea bags and found when the leaves were removed, the tea did not have plastic microparticles.28 However, the empty bags dumped billions of particles into the hot water, which researchers found at levels thousands of times greater than reported with other food and beverages. There are a significant number of health benefits in tea, so it is wise to continue drinking it, but consider substituting loose leaf tea for tea bags. Yet another everyday item that carries more microplastics than you may have anticipated is sea salt. One study looked at salt sampled from around the world to analyze the geographical spread of microplastics and the correlation to where the pollution is found in the environment. Only three brands from Taiwan, China and France did not have microplastic particles in the sea salt. Data showed the highest quantity of plastics were found in salt gathered off the coast of Asian countries.29 Research has also found tiny plastic particles in fruits and vegetables. The data showed apples had an average of 195,500 plastic particles in each gram. Pears came in second with 189,500 particles per gram. Earlier studies had demonstrated plants are absorbing nanoplastics through the roots, and fruits and vegetables can accumulate these microplastics. Greenpeace campaigner Sion Chan explained:30
What You Can Do to Reduce Your UseConsidering research confirms that environmental estrogens have multigenerational effects,31 it is wise to take proactive steps to limit your exposure. This is particularly important for younger people who have more years to accumulate plastic pollution and may be more vulnerable to its effects during development. While it's virtually impossible to steer clear of all sources, you can minimize your exposure by keeping some key principles in mind. Start the process slowly and make the changes a habit in your life so they stick.
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/18/plastic-baby-bottles.aspx With more than 180 COVID-19 vaccines currently in development1 — 53 of them undergoing clinical trials in humans2 — manufacturers are racing to be the first to reach the market. Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, may have just taken the lead, with an announcement that their mRNA-based vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, was “more than 90% effective” in a Phase 3 trial.3 BNT162b2 was selected to move forward to a Phase 2/3 trial after an earlier version of the vaccine, BNT162b1— another mRNA-based vaccine candidate — resulted in considerable adverse events,4 including fever, which occurred in 50% of individuals who received the highest dose (100 micrograms), fatigue, headache and chills. Side effects were even more common following the booster dose, after which more than 70% of participants experienced a fever at the mid-range (30 microgram) dose. In fact, those in the high-dose group didn’t even get the booster dose after the side effects were deemed to be potentially too severe. While the vaccines are similar, with the BNT162b2 vaccine, mRNA encodes the full-length spike protein. A spike protein is a glycoprotein protruding from the envelope of a coronavirus that allows entry into the cell.5 In an earlier study, while BNT162b2 appeared to cause fewer side effects, antibody titers were lower in a group of older individuals, ranging in age from 65 to 95 years, than in younger individuals.6 Geometric mean titers (GMTs), which are used as a measure of immune response, were about 40% lower among older individuals given Pfizer’s BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine than they were in younger age groups, a concerning finding considering it’s the older individuals who are most at risk from severe COVID-19. Is Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Really 90% Effective?In a Phase 3 efficacy trial, a vaccine is given to thousands of people, while researchers wait to see how many end up infected compared to those given a placebo.7 Pfizer’s Phase 3 clinical trial began July 27, 2020 and enrolled 43,538 participants8 to date ranging in age from 12 years to over 55, with a minimum of 40% of participants in the over 55 age range.9 Participants received either a two-dose series of BNT162b2, given at the 30-microgram dose 21 days apart, or a placebo. Initially an interim analysis was set to be conducted after 32 COVID-19 cases, but “after discussion with the FDA,” they increased it to after a minimum of 62 cases. According to Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO, in a press release:10
Bourla added the caveat, “As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary.” In fact, there are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the reported 90% efficacy rate. While Pfizer did release a clinical protocol of its trial,11 data for the interim analysis have not been released. "This is science by public pronouncement," William Haseltine, an infectious disease expert and former Harvard medical professor, told Business Insider.12 COVID-19 Vaccine Trials ‘Designed to Succeed’In September 2020, Haseltine criticized COVID-19 vaccine trials, including Pfizer’s, saying their protocols reveal that they’re “designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal.”13 He points out that prevention of infection is a critical endpoint in a normal vaccine trial, but prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for COVID-19 vaccines in development by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson. According to Haseltine:14
He also explains that while most people expect that a vaccine will prevent serious illness in the event they’re infected, “Three of the vaccine protocols — Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca — do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.”15 Pfizer Didn’t Release Key Vaccine DataWhile Pfizer is touting its vaccine as more than 90% effective based on 94 cases in their trial, "There are many, many outstanding questions which are left unanswered," Haseltine said.16 One of the main unanswered questions has to do with asymptomatic infections, which aren’t regularly being tested for in Pfizer’s trial. It’s possible, then, that those who have been vaccinated could still be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19, spreading the disease to others. "That's a major point that I don't think most people appreciate," Haseltine told Business Insider. "It doesn't mean an end to the epidemic."17 It’s also unknown whether the vaccine reduced the number of cases of serious disease, hospitalizations and deaths, as no distinction was made between serious COVID-19 cases and those causing only minor symptoms. Also missing from Pfizer’s press release is how the vaccine fared in different age groups, a key data point since older people are those most at risk of serious disease outcomes. It also remains to be seen how long any protection offered by a vaccine may last, as the study just began in July. As for side effects, Pfizer’s Bourla said, “The DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns and recommends that the study continue to collect additional safety and efficacy data as planned.”18 Again, however, it’s far too soon to know whether the vaccine is safe. The timeline of the experimental COVID-19 vaccine is unprecedented as, on average, it can take 10 to 12 years for a vaccine to be developed and go through the normal licensing process.19 "We don't know anything about groups they didn't study, like children, pregnant women, highly immunocompromised people and the eldest of the elderly," Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, told NBC News.20 As for potential adverse effects, in their clinical protocol Pfizer listed the following, noting that the first five participants in each group in phase 1 would be monitored for four hours after vaccination to assess adverse effects, while others would be observed for “at least 30 minutes.”21
Coronavirus Vaccines May Enhance DiseaseEven Pfizer acknowledged in their clinical protocol that COVID-19 disease enhancement is a real risk following certain vaccinations.22 In what’s known as antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, or sometimes called paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE). In these scenarios rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.23 Th2 immunopathology, in which a vaccine induces a faulty T cell response, triggering allergic inflammation, poorly functional antibodies and airway damage, is another serious risk. Both ADE and Th2 immunopathology occurred in the 1960s when a vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was being developed, resulting in the death of two toddlers and serious illness in several other children who received the experimental vaccine.24 Similar concerns again surfaced in testing for a potential vaccine against another coronavirus, SARS, about 20 years ago. At the time, even long-time pro-vaccine advocate 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, was shaken. According to a feature published in PNAS:25
Despite years of additional research and alternative development strategies, immune enhancement concerns remain, and, as explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in our 2020 interview, coronavirus vaccines remain notorious for creating paradoxical immune enhancement. mRNA Is a Novel Vaccine TechnologyPfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is relying on novel mRNA technology that has never previously been used in vaccines.26 It essentially instructs your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what 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 be stimulated to produce antibodies, without making you sick in the process. However, another key question that needs to be answered is which of two types of antibodies are produced through this process. Coronaviruses produce both neutralizing antibodies,27 also referred to as immoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, that fight the infection, and binding antibodies28 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection. Instead of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can trigger an abnormal immune response like ADE or PIE. In trials of Moderna’s experimental COVID mRNA vaccine, 25 participants who received two doses of its low or medium dose vaccine had levels of binding antibodies — the type that are used by the immune system to fight the virus but do not prevent viral infections — at levels approximating or exceeding those found in the blood of patients who recovered from COVID-19.29 Data for the more significant neutralizing antibodies, which stop viruses from entering cells, were reported for only eight people. Pfizer Has $1.95 Billion Deal With US GovernmentWhile the results of Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial remain murky, as part of Operation Warp Speed the drug giant has already struck a $1.95 billion deal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to provide Americans with 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine after it is licensed — at no cost to recipients — with an option for 500 million additional doses.30 The agreement is part of Operation Warp Speed. Pfizer and BioNTech also have a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million initial doses.31 The FDA’s guidance for a vaccine to receive Emergency Use Authorization requires only a median of two months of safety data following the second dose, which Pfizer expects to have by the third week of November. At that point, they’re hoping to bring the experimental vaccine to market, with promises to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses, globally, in 2021.32 Upon Pfizer’s announcement that their vaccine showed 90% effectiveness, shares rose 16%. The next day, CEO Bourla sold 62% of his stock, an amount worth about $5.6 million.33 Does the Pfizer CEO know something we don’t? If and when the vaccine does become available, be sure to carefully weigh the risks versus the benefits before making a choice of whether or not to receive it. It may help in your decision to know that if you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection34 — and you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/18/first-covid-19-vaccine-90-percent-effective.aspx U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health nonprofit group, has filed a lawsuit1 against the National Institutes of Health after the agency failed to respond to the USRTK's July 10, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to the NIH, records were withheld due to them being part of an ongoing legal investigation. The USRTK's lawsuit seeks access to nonexempt records of gain-of-function experiments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with and funded the Wuhan Institute.2 According to the USRTK's November 5, 2020 press release:3
Flawed Studies Form Base of Zoonotic TheoryUSRTK is also concerned about new claims that PLOS Pathogens and Nature published key papers on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 despite being flawed. I discussed these disturbing findings in "Top Medical Journal Caught in Massive Cover-Up." It appears data sets were changed without notices of correction being published. November 9, 2020, USRTK published a series of emails4 they'd sent to the lead authors and editors of the papers in dispute. The questions raised5 by the responses they received "put in doubt the validity of these key studies," USRTK writes. As noted by USRTK reporter Carey Gillam:6
• Liu et al. did not publish or share (upon being asked) raw and/or missing data that would allow experts to independently verify their genomic analyses. • Editors at both Nature and PLoS Pathogens, as well as Professor Stanley Perlman, the editor of Liu et al., have acknowledged in email communications that they are aware of serious issues with these papers and that the journals are investigating them. Yet, they have made no public disclosure of the potential problems with the papers.
Why We Need to Know the Origin of SARS-CoV-2In a November 3, 2020, PNAS opinion,11 Dr. David Relman — a microbiologist and professor of medicine, microbiology and immunology at Stanford12 — explains why it's so important to identify the origin of SARS-CoV-2:
Relman goes on to review the top three contending origin hypotheses:
As noted by Relman, we've thus far been unable to identify the immediate parent or parents of SARS-CoV-2, and this is a key piece of information needed to unlock the full puzzle. The two closest relatives — RaTG13 and RmYN02 — aren't close enough to have mutated into SARS-CoV-2. It's quite possible that there is more than one ancestral lineage. Recombination between different viruses is common both in nature and in laboratory research, and to determine which route the virus took, we need to identify the starting point. Relman's opinion ends with the following comment:13
Unfortunately, evidence suggests data scrubbing and cover-ups have already occurred, which makes establishing SARS-CoV-2's origin all the more difficult. The question is, why was this done? Was there a political purpose behind it? Was this a purposely engineered virus released to provide justification for the globalist "reset" plan? Was it an accidental release that was covered up to protect the future existence of dangerous gain-of-function research? Indeed, pinpointing the virus' origin is key to answering these important questions, and no one but the ones responsible for the attempted cover-up have anything to gain from shielding the public from the truth, whatever it might be. Anomalies AboundI've written several articles about the various hypotheses surrounding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Importantly, anomalies in its genetic structure lean toward it being a genetically manipulated virus, although the exact method remains unknown. What we do know is that there are many ways — including low-tech ones — in which a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 could have been created. According to the August 2, 2020, paper14 "HIV Man-Manipulated Coronavirus Genome Evolution Trends," written by Nobel Laureate professor Luc Montagnier and mathematician Jean Claude Perez, HIV/SIV sequences have been identified in a small localized region of SARS-CoV-2's genome that allows the virus to infect human cells. "This region has been 'manipulated' by humans," the authors state, adding that since deletions in this region have been observed in COVID-19 patients, "we can expect a faster genetic evolution of the virus toward a less pathogenic strain lacking this human-made region." Montagnier, who received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his co-discovery of the HIV virus,15 has previously gone on record stating he believes SARS-CoV-2 was manipulated — as it has elements of HIV in its genome — and that it was likely released by accident.16,17 In an April 2020 interview with the French media outlet CNews,18 Montagnier stated he believes "the HIV sequence was inserted into the genome of the coronavirus in an attempt to make an HIV vaccine." According to Montagnier and Perez, SARS-CoV-2's master code "shows optimal spike PRRA site inserts" that are also shared with RaTG13.19,20 Again, RaTG13 is one of the most closely related viruses to SARS-CoV-2. It was discovered by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2013 after it was reported that six miners had contracted a mysterious viral infection that resulted in severe pneumonia. Three of the miners died. Montagnier and Perez write:21
1. The insertion of 4 contiguous PRRA amino acids in the middle of SPIKE (then we show that this site was already an optimal cleavage site BEFORE this insertion). 2. An abnormal ratio of synonymous codons / non synonymous codons in the second half of SPIKE.
A study22 posted on the preprint server bioRxiv July 21, 2020 also discussed the PRRA found both in the RaTG13 spike and the SARS-CoV-2 spike:
Is SARS-CoV-2 the Result of Passage Through Transgenic Mice?This leads us to yet another possibility, namely that the SARS-CoV-2 virus might be the result of RaTG13 (or another close ancestor virus) being passed through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. As reported by The Jackson Laboratory,23 structural differences between the mouse ACE2 and the human ACE2 proteins make regular lab mice unsuitable for research relating to SARS-CoV-2, as the virus cannot readily infect them. However, there are transgenic mice that express human ACE2. The first of these transgenic mice, known as K18-hACE2, were developed in 2007. Other transgenic mice with human ACE2 have been created since then. At least two recent studies have shown that transgenic mice with human ACE2 are easily infected and killed by SARS-CoV-2:
In response26 to questions for a July 31, 2020 Science article, Wuhan Institute of Virology coronavirus researcher Dr. Shi Zhengli stated that:27,28
So, in summary, Zhengli admits experiments were done on transgenic mice using a bat-derived SARS-related coronavirus, which closely resembles SARS-CoV, in 2018 and 2019. (SARS-CoV is the virus responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), that broke out in 2003.) Could this be the missing intermediate species that explains why SARS-CoV-2 is so well-adapted to infecting humans via the ACE2 receptor? It's still too early to tell, but it's a possibility. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that other engineering methods were also used. Foxes Guard the HenhouseAfter months of stonewalling, investigative commissions are now being launched,29,30 ostensibly to get to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2's origin. Whether they will actually unearth the truth or simply bury it deeper remains to be seen, but based on key members' clear conflicts of interests, it doesn't look promising. For example, The Lancet's COVID-19 Commission is being led by Dr. Peter Daszak.31 Not only has Daszak already spoken out about his conviction that the virus is natural and shunned theories to the contrary, as the president of the EcoHealth Alliance he's also deeply conflicted from a business standpoint, seeing how EcoHealth Alliance received grants from the NIH for coronavirus research that was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak has every reason to make sure SARS-CoV-2 ends up being declared natural, because if it turns out to be a lab-creation, his own livelihood as a scientist is at stake. It would be naïve to believe that safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research wouldn't be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/17/lawsuit-coronavirus-laboratory-leak.aspx One study found a combination of colostrum and probiotics is more effective in preventing flu than vaccination.1 Colostrum is a nutrient-rich fluid produced by mammals immediately after birth that helps provide immune protection to the baby. In addition to flu prevention, colostrum has other benefits to your overall health. Many viral illnesses, like colds and flu, are seasonal. Although you can get sick anytime during the year, in the U.S. colds and flu are more prevalent from October through March. There are a variety of reasons that happens, not the least of which is related to your sun exposure and subsequent vitamin D production. The burden influenza has on society changes each year, as the virulence of the flu strain also changes. In the 2018 to 2019 season, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated 35.5 million people would be sick with flu in the U.S., resulting in 490,600 hospitalizations and 34,200 deaths.2 This was lower than the 2017 to 2018 season when 45 million were sick and 61,000 died.3 In an effort to reduce the effect flu has on the general population, many experts recommend you get a flu shot each year. Yet, this strategy has not been effective and does not warrant the massive public media push it gets each fall. Thankfully, you have other choices to support your immune system and significantly reduce the potential you’ll get sick. Probiotic and Colostrum More Effective Than VaccineThe endpoint measurement for success in vaccinations should be the prevention of the illness or condition. One published study compared the effectiveness of the combination of colostrum and Bifivir against flu vaccination in the prevention of flu in participants.4 Bifivir is a supplement containing five strains of bacteria and prebiotic fiber. In one study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the combination of probiotics and prebiotics in supplement form demonstrated effectiveness in “reducing the incidence and severity of respiratory diseases during the cold season.”5 In the study comparing the effectiveness of a combination of colostrum and Bifivir against flu vaccines, four groups of individuals were matched for age and sex distribution.6 In the control group, participants did not receive any preventive measures, which resulted in eight major episodes and 12 minor episodes of flu. Those who received only the vaccine showed a similar response with eight major episodes and 13 minor episodes. In the group receiving the flu vaccine and the immunomodulators Bifivir and colostrum, there were four who had a major episode and nine with a minor episode. The group that received only the immunomodulators faired the best. There were three with a major episode and eight with a minor episode. The researchers found the groups who received vaccinations and the immunomodulator and the group that received only the immunomodulators showed significantly lower rates of flu when compared against the other two groups. Interestingly, in those who were vaccinated the number of days they had the flu was two times higher when compared against the other groups. There was no problem tolerating the immunomodulators and no side effects were found during the study. The researchers concluded, “the administration of immunomodulators is very cost-effective and appears to be more effective than vaccination to prevent flu.”7 More Evidence Colostrum Benefits Your Immune SystemThis was not the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of colostrum on the immune system, nor was it the last. Bovine colostrum has been used to treat infections in the gastrointestinal tract and has been shown to support the immune system, musculoskeletal repair and growth.8 A significant portion of bovine colostrum survives the gastrointestinal tract and remains active in the lower intestines, where it impacts gut and immune health. It has proven safe, except for those who are allergic to milk, in whom it triggers an allergic reaction.9 One study analyzed the influence bovine colostrum had on the immune system of a group of highly trained road cyclists.10 The group was initially tested with a 40-kilometer (24.8 miles) time trial and then randomized to receive the intervention or to a control group. After five weeks of receiving the supplement, cyclists underwent another time trial and then completed five consecutive days of high-intensity training including a time trial at completion and another the following week. The researchers collected blood before and after each time trial and any upper respiratory symptoms were recorded. The cyclists receiving the bovine colostrum supplementation showed a modulation of the immune parameters measured and a trend toward reduced upper respiratory symptoms. More recently, a paper in Frontiers in Nutrition reviewed the current literature on the effect bovine immunoglobulin has on the human immune system.11 They describe the mechanism by which IgG from bovine colostrum neutralizes experimental infection, limits inflammation and binds to pathogens and allergens. They offer these mechanisms as an explanation of the effect bovine IgG from colostrum can have on humans and believe it offers an approach to supporting the immune system in vulnerable groups, including the elderly and immunocompromised. Colostrum Boosts Natural Killer CellsBovine colostrum raises the percentage of natural killer (NK) cells in the body.12 NK cells are a type of white blood cell and part of the innate immune system that helps control microbial infections and tissue damage.13 They also play a role in organ transplant, immunotherapy and autoimmune disorders. NK cells are a type of lymphocyte that respond quickly to pathogens in the body. They are best known for attacking viruses and controlling early cancer cells. The NK cells secrete cytokines that signal other immune cells and ultimately enhance your immune response. Scientists have found these cells can adapt and develop memory cells, which offers new insights into the role they play in the innate immune response protecting human health. These cells make up to 15% of the peripheral blood supply, but the majority are found in the spleen, bone marrow and lymph nodes.14 NK cell activity goes beyond immune surveillance and is activated with exposure to protein allergens. They can promote allergic sensitization and are involved in airway hyperresponsiveness. When the infection happens with an active allergic response, the NK cells raise the magnitude and contribute to the exacerbation of asthma.15 Flu Vaccine Fails Older AdultsOver 70% of respiratory flu-like illnesses during flu season are not caused by type A or type B influenza.16 Therefore, even if a flu shot is highly effective, it still cannot prevent the vast majority of respiratory infections that occur during flu season. However, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine typically does not reach a level of being highly effective. This may be related to the hundreds of flu viruses and the constant changes they undergo. This means each year health officials make an educated guess about the strains most likely to be circulating in the upcoming season. Three or four type A and type B flu viruses are chosen and added to the seasonal flu shot. This accounts for the varying and often disappointing results from the vaccine. It's often stated that flu vaccinations will reduce hospitalizations and deaths in the elderly,17,18 but a 2020 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine calls this statement into serious question.19 The researchers reviewed data from 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths in adults aged 55 to 75 between 2000 and 2014. The goal was to determine the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in elderly people living in England and Wales. The researchers concluded:20
Historically, regardless of how well-matched the vaccine is to circulating strains, your chances of getting influenza after vaccination are still greater than 50/50 in any given year. According to CDC data updated September 10, 2019, the 2018/2019 flu vaccine (all vaccine types) against influenza A or B viruses had an adjusted effectiveness rating of 29% for all ages. When broken down by age group, only young children came close to 50% effectiveness, which raised the overall effectiveness percentage above all other age groups:21
Boost Your NK Cells NaturallyIt’s important to remember you can take control of your health and support your immune system so you don’t need to rely on drug interventions against viral illnesses. The medical term for the degeneration of NK cells as you age is "immune senescence." This leaves you susceptible to disease, but the good news is you can counter this decline in several natural ways, including:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/17/colostrum-more-effective-than-flu-vaccine.aspx What is this “Great Reset” we’re now hearing about? In a nutshell, the Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance. As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report above,1 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life. It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, anti-humanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:2
The Grand PlanIn her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:3
Global Asset Reallocations Will Not Benefit ‘the People’These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand new financial instruments that can then be traded. An example of this was given by Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., in my interview with her. In it, she explained how India is headed toward Zero-Budget Natural Farming — a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow. There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general. Privacy protections, of course, are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy. In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing.
Stakeholder CapitalismAn October 5, 2020, Winter Oak article5 addressed the “technocratic fascist vision” of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets. In addition to being a staunch technocrat, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and he has spoken of a near future in which humans merge with machines and in which law enforcement will be able to read our mind.6 Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — points out that Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.” This is no conspiracy theory. The plan is out in the open. As noted by Time magazine,7 “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want.” The same statement has been delivered by a number of politicians and organizations around the world in recent months. Schwab’s book,8,9 “COVID-19: The Great Reset” also urges industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic” and “not letting the crisis go to waste.” Incidentally, the owner of Time magazine and founder of Salesforce, Mark Benioff, is also a board member of the World Economic Forum,10 so he’s clearly familiar with the reset plan. The problem is that while the plan is being sold as a way to, finally, make life fair and equitable for all people, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system. Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything. While technocracy is not a political system but an economic one, in practical terms it does resemble fascism. None of it is being sold under the banner of fascism, of course. Instead, they use financial terms like “stakeholder capitalism,” described by Forbes magazine11 as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.” In that same article, Forbes points out that this strategy has already been tried and failed. It failed because balancing conflicting stakeholder claims was near-impossible and only led to mass confusion and poor returns. The failure of this strategy is what led big businesses to focus on maximizing shareholder value instead. Now, at a time when big business finds itself under attack for “single-mindedly shoveling money to its shareholders and its executives at the expense of customers, employees, the environment and society as a whole,” the answer, they say, is to return to stakeholder capitalism. But if it didn’t work before, what makes us think it will work now? Great Reset Plan for Big FoodA November 9, 2020, article12 in The Defender, a new media platform by the Children’s Health Defense, also points out the problems with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan for the food industry:
Aside from the food industry, partners13 include data mining giants, telecommunications, weapons manufacturers, finance, drug companies and the biotechnology industry. Looking at that list, it should come as no surprise that the World Economic Forum insists the future of food and public health hinges on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laboratory-grown protein, drugs and industrial chemicals. The EAT Forum and the Rise of Food ImperialismTo further the fake food takeover, the World Economic Forum has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline. EAT currently collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods, which was cofounded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.14 As noted by The Defender, the ultimate aim is to “replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations.” To this end, EAT is working with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to establish global dietary guidelines and sustainable development initiatives. The “Planetary Health Diet”15 developed by EAT is a diet that is supposed to replace all others. Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels told The Defender:16
Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., has raised harsh critique against the proposed diet saying it “is not about nutrition at all. It’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.”17 The Defender adds:18
The Future of Food and Health CareYou can get a feel for where the future of food is headed by analyzing the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence map.19 As you can see, this top-down approach ties food production to a wide range of sectors, including biotech, the chemical industry, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and the digital economy. For more details on Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence plan, see Covert Geopolitic’s article,20 “Breaking Down the Global Elite’s Great Reset Master Plan.” If any of this raises your concern, you’re probably not going to like what the World Health Economic Forum has in store for health care reform either. As detailed on their website:21
Aiding the World Economic Forum in this health care transformation are the biggest corporate criminals in the history of the modern world, including Bill Gates, AstraZeneca,22 Bayer,23 Johnson & Johnson,24 Merck,25 Pfizer,26 Novartis27 and a host of others.28 These companies have at various times been found guilty of all sorts of crimes that they have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines for. They are also loaded with conflicts of interest in nearly every venture they are involved with. Yet we’re now supposed to believe these companies are going to put aside their profit incentives and fix the whole system? Build Back BetterAs noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,29 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer is to come up with stimulus measures, such as infrastructure development, that can allow countries to move forward. But while at it, countries are urged to make sure the economic system is “built back better.” Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. As reported by Fox News:30
Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital currency system, which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones. An August 13, 2020, article31 on the Federal Reserve website discusses the supposed benefits of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years. Many uninformed people believe that these new CBDCs will be very similar to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they would be mistaken. Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to opt out of the existing central bank controlled system, while these CBDCs will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks and will have smart contracts that allow the banks to surveil and control your life. The Great Reset Psyops GuideIt goes without saying that to achieve the kind of radical transformation of every part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool there is. As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, there’s an entire school of public health research that focuses on identifying the most effective ways to frighten people into accepting desired public health measures. By adding confusion and uncertainty to the mix, you can bring an individual from fear to anxiety — a state of confusion in which you can no longer think logically — and in this state, you are more easily manipulated. The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset. Social Engineering Is Central to Technocratic RuleIn closing, keep in mind that technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.” The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this first hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the World Health Organization, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine. If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. We simply must keep pushing for transparency and truth. We must insist on medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy. One fight in particular that I don’t see us being able to evade is the fight against mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. If we don’t take a firm stand against that and fight for the right to make our own choice, there will be no end to the medical tyranny that will follow. As noted in the Covert Geopolitics article:32
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/16/what-is-the-great-reset.aspx Niacin, also called vitamin B3, is a water-soluble vitamin that is found naturally in foods, is added to processed foods and can be bought as a supplement. Niacin plays a vital role in over 400 enzymes, and one study suggests that a diet rich in niacin could protect your skin against ultraviolet (UV) radiation.1 A severe niacin deficiency called pellagra is ultimately a lethal disease. While it was common in the early 20th century, pellagra is uncommon in industrialized populations where most processed foods are fortified with niacin. Currently, pellagra is limited to people living in poverty whose diets are low in niacin and protein.2 The disease is marked by the four D’s: diarrhea, dermatitis, dementia and death. Symptoms of the condition include a brown discoloration on skin exposed to sunlight, a bright red tongue and vomiting, constipation and/or diarrhea. Neurological symptoms include headache, fatigue, loss of memory and depression. Without treatment, the disease progresses until a person exhibits paranoid and suicidal behaviors with visual and auditory hallucinations and dies. Although this deficiency is rare in industrialized nations, insufficiency contributes to several disease entities and researchers have found:3
Niacin Protects Your Skin From UV RadiationThere are three main forms of niacin, which are dietary precursors to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD). These are nicotinamide riboside, nicotinic acid and nicotinamide.4 Researchers in Italy studied skin cells from nonmelanoma skin cancers and treated them with different doses of nicotinamide for 48, 24 and 18 hours, after which they were exposed to UV light. The lab studies showed the cells that were pretreated with nicotinamide were protected from oxidative stress, including damage to DNA from ultraviolet rays. In addition, the data showed niacin reduced local inflammation and the production of reactive oxygen species. Laura Camillo participated in the study and commented in a press release:5
The current lab study supported data from past studies demonstrating similar results. In an animal model, nicotinamide helps prevent photocarcinogenesis and protected the skin against UVA and UVB light.6 Researchers also tested nicotinamide supplements twice-daily in a human trial with people who had actinic keratosis, a precursor to skin cancer. The nicotinamide supplements reduced the actinic keratosis by 35% relative to the placebo used in the study when it was measured at two and four months. The results were presented at the 41st European Society for Dermatological Research Annual Meeting 2011. In a paper published in American Health & Drug Benefits, the author reported on one study investigating the use of oral nicotinamide in people who were at high risk for skin cancer.7 The data showed the supplement reduced the rate of new diagnosis of basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma after one year by 23% when the results were compared against a placebo. Niacin also lowered the risk the participant would develop actinic keratosis. It was estimated the use of this inexpensive supplement could reduce health care costs by approximately $4.8 million each year. The investigators stressed the results were in individuals who had been diagnosed with skin cancer in the past and may not apply to other populations. In addition, the researchers believe vitamin B3 could be used as a preventive strategy and not treatment. The lead investigator from the University of Sydney also warned the prevention did not take the place of routine care and skin examinations, commenting:8
Prevalence of Skin Cancer Is RisingApproximately 20% of people living in the U.S. will have skin cancer by age 70.9 Experts estimate nearly 9,500 people receive a diagnosis of skin cancer every day in the U.S.10 There are four main types of skin cancer, including basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma and melanoma. Of the nonmelanoma types of skin cancer, nearly 80% are basal cell, which develop more often on the head and neck. These types of cancer grow slowly and rarely spread. Nearly 20% are squamous cell carcinomas that can be found in areas of the skin that had been burned, exposed to X-rays or damaged by chemicals. Merkel cell is a rare and highly aggressive form of cancer. Experts estimate over 100,000 adults in the U.S. are diagnosed with invasive melanoma each year and it is the fifth most common cancer that can develop in any age person.11 From 1982 until 2011, the rate of melanoma in the U.S. doubled.12 Since then, the number of people diagnosed has continued to rise.13 Long-Term Heart Benefits of NiacinNicotinic acid has been used for more than 40 years to help control dyslipidemia.14 Supplementation with nicotinic acid from 1,000 milligrams (mg) to 2,000 mg have been used daily to increase HDL and lower LDL cholesterol in carefully monitored studies. However, doses this high can produce side effects. Some clinical trials have demonstrated patients on niacin therapy have a lower number of cardiovascular events and deaths. Other trials were not as positive. After a review of the literature, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded:15
As I’ve written before, it is the relationship between HDL, LDL and triglycerides that is a greater predictor of heart health and not the absolute numbers of each. This means the FDA statement supports lowering LDL cholesterol with dangerous statin medications but suggests altering HDL and triglyceride levels with an inexpensive and safe supplement would have no effect on heart health. In one study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers evaluated data from 1966 to 1975, looking at the effectiveness and safety of five drugs in a population of 8,341 men.16 Two medications were discontinued early in the study because of adverse events. The niacin treatment showed modest benefit in reducing the number of heart attacks, but did not reduce all-cause mortality. However, researchers followed up with the group 15 years later, nearly nine years after the participants stopped using the interventions. They found all-cause mortality was similar to the placebo group in all drugs except niacin. Nine years after the participants stopped taking niacin, it continued to have a positive effect on their health, lowering all-cause mortality by 11% over the placebo group. B Vitamins May Lower Risk of Worst COVID OutcomesIn the past, I have reviewed how nutrients such as vitamins C and D play a role in the treatment of COVID-19. A recently published paper has also highlighted the potential value of B vitamins.17 The paper was an international collaborative effort among researchers from the University of Oxford, United Arab Emirates University and the University of Melbourne Australia.18 Although there are no studies evaluating the efficacy of B vitamins on patients with COVID-19, the scientists advocate for research into the group of vitamins, stressing their importance to the immune system and immune competence. The paper does not suggest that B vitamins could prevent or treat COVID-19 alone. However, as scientists have discovered many times, a single vitamin or nutritional supplement does not work alone, but in concert with others. COVID-19 has been dangerous for those with underlying medical conditions or older adults as it triggers an overactivation of your immune system and a cytokine or bradykinin storm. Niacin and nicotinamide are important to your immune health as they are precursors to NAD+. This is a crucial signaling molecule that naturally declines with age. According to David Sinclair with Harvard Medical School, higher levels of NLRP3 inflammasomes are culprits in cytokines storms and are influenced by NAD+ levels.19 Niacin is a building block of NAD and NADP. This component is vital when combating inflammation, such as what happens during a viral infection like COVID-19. The scientists advocating for research into B vitamins explain:20
Be Aware of a Niacin FlushNiacin can be found in a wide variety of foods, including animal-based foods such as poultry, beef and fish, and nuts and grains.21 Many processed foods such as breads, cereals and infant formulas are fortified with niacin. One of the highest sources of B3 is grass fed beef liver, and even a half a cup of chopped onions has 0.1 mg of niacin per serving. Other rich sources include brown rice, beef, pork and sockeye salmon. If you are considering using a niacin supplement, be aware that one of the common side effects is a niacin flush. This most often happens when the vitamin is taken in large doses and usually only when using nicotinic acid. Niacinamide does not commonly produce the flushing side effect, but also does not have the same effect on cholesterol levels.22 A niacin flush doesn’t happen when you eat foods high in niacin. The condition is marked by symptoms of a burning or tingling sensation in the chest, neck and face.23 Your skin can feel warm to the touch and take on a flushed, red appearance. For some, as little as a 50 mg supplement can trigger the reaction. Although it is irritating, and sometimes alarming, it is nonetheless harmless. Some find using a time release supplement, taking it with meals or drinking plenty of fluid can reduce the flushing effect. Taking smaller doses spread throughout the day may also reduce the potential of a reaction. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/16/niacin-benefits.aspx 1 Which of the following are all risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease?
2 Evidence suggests a deficiency in the following can worsen COVID-19 severity:
3 When a vaccine causes antibody-dependent enhancement, it means:
4 What percentage of U.S. adults over the age of 18 report feeling lonely and socially isolated as a result of pandemic measures?
5 What does a PCR test tell you?
6 When it comes to universal mask wearing, the science backing up the recommendation is:
7 What is "fear appeal"?
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/16/week-156-health-quiz.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |