Categories
Recommended

Remdesivir Is a Scam Like Tamiflu

The most recent large-scale study from the World Health Organization shows remdesivir does not produce promised results. As I’ve covered in the past, there are numerous scientists who question the official story about the COVID-19 pandemic and the baseless fearmongering driving changes to worldwide behavior.
Recently I shared a video interview in which British journalist Anna Brees spoke with Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., who is a past vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis.
Yeadon has over 25 years of experience working in the pharmaceutical industry and has consulted with over 20 biotechnology companies.1 In the interview, he talks about his concerns that widespread PCR testing is creating the false idea the pandemic is resurging, as the total mortality rate is completely normal. He also discusses his concerns with COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
PCR testing is generating needless fear, and likely helping to fuel a Big Pharma push for antiviral drugs governments may seek to stockpile, thus driving financial gain. One antiviral drug that proved disappointing in 2014, and again in 2020, is remdesivir. The path this drug is taking is eerily similar to that of another failed drug, Tamiflu.
To Know Tamiflu Is to Understand Remdesivir

In this video, Dr. Tom Jefferson is speaking at The Symposium about Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen. He describes the journey he and his team took to publish the only Cochrane review based solely on raw unpublished regulatory data.2 Ultimately, the results of the review showed Tamiflu shortened the duration of symptoms from flu by less than one day.
The struggle to get the data was nearly as eye-opening as the results. According to Jefferson, the journey began in 2009 when the team received what Jefferson characterized as a “HUGE amount of money — £5,000 — to commission a rapid update of our existing review of the drugs.”3 In his depiction of the funding that amounted to $6,675, his arms were spread wide as if he were unable to hold it.
In October 2009, Jefferson received a phone call from Melanie Sinclair, Ph.D., claiming to be a ghostwriter for Adis and responsible for writing the Kaiser meta-analysis. In other words, the study research that found Tamiflu could reduce the effects of pneumonia from flu was not penned by the scientists, but instead by a global publisher of over 30 medical journals.4
“This is vital to understand because it formed the major part of the rationale for stockpiling huge amounts of oseltamivir (Tamiflu),” Jefferson explained. During the process, the team also received a challenge from a pediatrician in Osaka who pointed out the key piece of evidence underpinning the Kaiser conclusions that Tamiflu had an impact on complications from influenza came from a study funded by Roche.
Four of the six authors were employed by the pharmaceutical company and a fifth was a paid consultant. The bulk of the data analyzing the effectiveness were unpublished. Jefferson described the climate of the time, saying:5

“So we were in the middle of a situation where there was an unfolding pandemic that everybody said would kill just about half the population on the planet, we had a HUGE pot of money — £5,000 — to update the review and we had this criticism, which under Cochrane rules we had to answer within six months.”

The team requested the unseen trial data but came up against many obstacles that took several years to overcome. In the meantime, a 2009 BMJ investigation by Deborah Cohen6 that is behind a paywall, uncovered interesting details from the lead researchers on two of the pivotal trials included in the Kaiser review:7

“John Treanor, lead author of a pivotal Tamiflu treatment trial, told The BMJ: ‘I did not perform an independent analysis of the primary data, which was not required or requested by JAMA at the time of submission, and I do not have access to the primary data, which I also never requested.’

When asked a similar question, [Karl] Nicholson, lead author of the other pivotal Tamiflu treatment trial, ‘said he did not recall seeing the primary data. He said that the statistical analysis had been conducted by Roche and he analysed the summary data.'”

Roche Protected Data That Showed Tamiflu Not Effective

By 2012, Jefferson and the team had not received the raw data from any of the researchers or from Roche, which had sent an open letter promising to send it. Jefferson then published open letters to:

GlaxoSmithKline
World Health Organization
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Roche
European Medicines Agency (EMA)

“These organizations had promoted the drug. They had pushed the drug in any way. And we were asking them how did you reach your conclusions? How did you support your policy?”

What Jefferson found was:8

“WHO was recommending Tamiflu use, but they’d never vetted the data. EMA had approved Tamiflu; they’d never vetted the full data set. CDC was promoting the use of the drug. They had never seen the data set.

CDC’s promotion was taking place despite the fact that the FDA — which HAD vetted the data — required Roche to add a statement on the label saying serious bacterial infections may begin with influenza-like symptoms or may co-exist with or without complications during the course of influenza.

Here comes the punch. Tamiflu has not been shown to prevent such complications. FDA was saying, this business about complications: no evidence of that.”

Four years after Roche promised the data, 150,000 pages were delivered to Jefferson’s team from which they determined “there was no convincing trial evidence that Tamiflu affected influenza complications and treatment or influenza infections in prophylaxis.”9
FDA Knew of Negative Trial Results but Approved Drug Anyway

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that was evaluated during the Ebola breakout in 2014. The development used at least $70.5 million in taxpayer money, and that number may be higher.10 After analysis showed disappointing results for treating Ebola, it was once again tested in the early months of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.11
A few of the remdesivir trials were stopped early after participants experienced significant side effects. Yet, some scientists believed the data suggested the drug could shorten recovery time.12 However, the drug has not produced adequate results and has not been proven to reduce the potential for death in those with severe disease. Worse, treatment comes with an added price tag of potential kidney damage.13
It seems remdesivir is following in the footsteps of Tamiflu. The story exploded when Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force and NIAID, made a promotional announcement from the White House, in which he called results that had not been peer-reviewed from a pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trial “highly significant” and remdesivir to be the new “standard of care.”14
WHO recently revealed the results from the SOLIDARITY trial15 showing remdesivir has little to no positive effect on mortality, length of stay or the need for ventilation.16
This supports what some doctors have been reporting and other studies have found, which I discuss in greater detail in the past article, “The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results.” Gilead, makers of remdesivir and the developer of Tamiflu, attempted to cast doubt on the results of the SOLIDARITY trial, writing:17

“The SOLIDARITY Trial is a multi-center, open-label global trial that provided early access to Veklury [remdesivir], among other investigational COVID-19 treatments, to patients around the world — particularly in countries where ongoing trials of investigational treatments were not available.

The trial design prioritized broad access, resulting in significant heterogeneity in trial adoption, implementation, controls and patient populations and consequently, it is unclear if any conclusive findings can be drawn from the study results.”

However, the endpoint measurements in the trial included mortality, length of hospitalization and ventilation requirements. These are more objective than most open-label clinical trials. As Dr. Srinivas Murthy from British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver, pointed out:18

“Mortality should not be affected by whether a study is open label or closed or placebo blinded for obvious reasons: you or your doctors can’t will yourself into staying alive by knowing you had the drug.”

Gilead also questioned the use of a heterogeneous group of patients from 405 hospitals across 30 countries. Yet, the SOLIDARITY team says this is a strength of the study as it demonstrates “how remdesivir performs in complex real-world environments beyond the controlled settings of the smaller clinical trials that came before.”19
October 22, 2020, one week after the trial results were made public, the FDA officially approved the drug as treatment for any hospitalized person over age 12. A press officer at the FDA acknowledged they were aware of the trial data, but based their decision largely on the two Gilead sponsored trials.
Gilead to Make Cheaper, Generic Version of a $10 Drug

Dr. Derek Angus, chief health care innovation officer at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, believes this approval may slow or stop further trials that may help identify the populations of people in which remdesivir may possibly have a potential positive effect.
The cost of treatment is another stumbling block since one five-day course costs the government $2,340 and private insurers $3,120. As more hospitals are looking to purchase remdesivir, Gilead reached agreements to develop a generic version that would be cheaper. This move was to help low- and middle-income countries.
However, according to a review by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) published in May 2020, a cheaper version may not be necessary. ICER is a nonprofit group that evaluates drug pricing. Initial estimates showed the total cost of producing a “finished product” at $10.20 This included packaging and a small profit margin and was based on the cost of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in the drug.
The cost estimate was based on research published in the Journal of Virus Eradication analyzing the cost of repurposing drugs for use with COVID-19 and included remdesivir. The data used global shipment record “costs of active pharmaceutical ingredients using established methodology, which had good predictive accuracy for medicines for hepatitis C and HIV amongst others.”
After three producers in Bangladesh and India reported a price range of $590 to $710 for a 10-day course of treatment,21 ICER revised their cost range, writing: “Given the $10 estimate from Hill et al, and the new information on early generic pricing in developing countries, we have chosen in this update to frame the cost recovery pricing for remdesivir as a range between $10 and a rough mid-point generic pricing figure of $600 per 10-day course.”
This means in order to lower the price from $3,120 for other countries, Gilead must make the drug cheaper than a range of $10 (estimated based on the known costs of the active ingredient) to $600 (estimated cost of manufacture in Bangladesh and India, when these prices already include a small profit margin).
Ultimately, the full story behind the clinical trials and use of the antiviral drug will likely not be known until Gilead releases the raw data from their clinical studies.
The Tamiflu Cochrane review began in 2009, but it was not until 2013 that Roche finally released the full clinical data. Jefferson said that it was only after analyzing the raw data that the team found Tamiflu could shorten influenza by only a few hours.22
Steps to Reduce the Risk of Severe Disease

Some health experts and the media are using the rising number of cases of COVID-19 diagnosed each day as a way of encouraging people to stay in place and wait for a vaccination. As I’ve written several times in the past months, PCR testing does not accurately diagnose an active infection.
I recommend that you proactively work to support your immune system using strategies evidence has demonstrated reduces your risk of severe disease. You’ll find several simple, yet significant strategies on my Coronavirus Resource Page.
As I have written, it has become apparent that optimizing your vitamin D level may be the least expensive, easiest and most beneficial strategy to minimize your risk.
It is also important to make simple lifestyle changes that have an impact on normalizing your blood sugar levels as this can reduce your risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections like flu.23,24
You may lower your risk of heart disease by following suggestions that affect your lifestyle and exposure to environmental toxins. In my article, “Cholesterol Managers Want to Double Statin Prescriptions,” I share a list to help minimize your toxic exposure and improve your body’s ability to maintain good heart health.
Additionally, in “Nearly Half of American Adults Have Cardiovascular Disease,” I summarize further strategies to improve microcirculation in your heart. I also talk about mitochondrial function and insulin resistance, which are related to strong heart health.
It is difficult to control Type 2 diabetes when you rely strictly on medication and do not change the underlying lifestyle factors that have caused the problem. If properly addressed, Type 2 diabetes can be entirely reversible in most people.
The reason is that Type 2 diabetes is a diet-derived condition rooted in insulin resistance and faulty leptin signaling. This means it can effectively be treated and reversed through dietary and lifestyle choices. I discuss this further, with suggestions for changes, in “Diabetes Can Increase Complications of COVID-19.”

Categories
Recommended

Weekly Health Quiz: COVID, Vaccines and Infections

1 A secondary analysis of the VITAL study found patients with no prior history of cancer who took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D per day reduced their risk for which of the following diseases by 17% (and 38% if of healthy weight)?
Cancer
A secondary analysis of the VITAL study found patients with no prior history of cancer who took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D per day reduced their risk for metastatic cancer and death by 17%. The risk was reduced by as much as 38% among those who also maintained a healthy weight. Learn more.
Heart disease
Parkinson’s
Alzheimer’s

2 The “effectiveness” of COVID-19 vaccines refer to:
The ability to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalizations
The ability to reduce symptoms of COVID-19, regardless of severity
None of the COVID-19 trials for which we have data is designed to find out whether the vaccine reduces hospitalization rates or deaths. They only look at whether it reduces symptoms if you do get infected. Learn more.
The ability to prevent COVID-19 related death
None of the above

3 Which of the following pandemic measures have been proven to prevent infection and lower mortality?
Universal mask wearing
Social distancing
Extensive PCR testing of asymptomatic people
None of the above
PCR tests cannot diagnose infection and therefore cannot tell us anything about the prevalence of infection. There’s also no evidence to suggest that social distancing and universal mask wearing prevent infection or lower mortality. Learn more.

4 Which of the following failed vaccination programs has been cited as the origin of the anti-vaccine movement?
The 2009 pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccination program
The 2005 bird flu vaccination program
The 1976 pandemic swine flu vaccination program
The 1976 swine flu vaccine program has been cited as the origin of the anti-vaccine movement. Fear of an impending swine flu pandemic led to the deployment of a fast-tracked vaccine that injured thousands and killed at least 300. Learn more.
The 1977 Russian flu vaccine program

5 Research has confirmed there’s an inverse relationship between which of the following?
Sun exposure (vitamin D) and seasonal influenza deaths
A scientific review published in 2006 concluded that epidemic seasonal influenza is most likely related to the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency during winter months. Since then, other studies have confirmed this theory. A 2010 study found there’s an inverse relationship between UVB sun exposure — which is how your body synthesizes vitamin D naturally — and influenza deaths. Learn more.
Cold weather and hospitalization for the common cold
Hotter temperatures and COVID-19 cases requiring intensive care
Sun avoidance and MERS deaths

6 At extremely high doses, vitamin C:
Should be avoided in all cases
Kills viruses by acting like an antiviral drug
Vitamin C at extremely high doses, however, acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses. Learn more.
Is too expensive to use clinically
Can turn your hair color grey

7 At a molecular level, high linoleic acid (omega-6) consumption:
Improves gut health
Preferentially kills neurons
Damages metabolism and impedes your body’s ability to generate energy in your mitochondria
At a molecular level, excess linoleic acid consumption damages your metabolism and impedes your body’s ability to generate energy in your mitochondria. Learn more.
Improves metabolic function and energy production

 

Categories
Recommended

Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment Reverses Signs of Aging

Hyperbaric oxygen treatment may be a practical method for slowing down the hands of time. At its foundation, aging represents a progressive loss of physiological capacity, researchers from Tel Aviv University and the Shamir Medical Center in Israel explained in the journal Aging.1
The biological deterioration leads to impaired functions and increased vulnerability to diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and others.
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT), the Aging study suggests, may target two cellular hallmarks of aging — shortening of telomeres and cellular senescence, or the loss of a cell’s ability to divide and grow — thereby reversing signs of the aging process in humans.2
Sixty Hyperbaric Oxygen Sessions Slow Down Aging

The research team has been exploring the benefits of exposure to high-pressure oxygen at different concentrations inside a pressure chamber for years, with studies showing such treatments improved stroke, brain injury and brain function that was damaged by aging.3
The current study looked at hyperbaric oxygen treatment on healthy adults aged 64 and over to determine its effects on the normal aging process at a cellular level.
Thirty-five subjects were exposed to a series of 60 hyperbaric oxygen sessions over a 90-day period. Blood samples, which were analyzed for immune cells, were collected before, during and after the treatments. Two exciting results were found:4

Telomeres at the end of chromosomes grew longer instead of shorter, at a rate of 20% to 38% depending on the type of cell
Senescent cells decreased significantly, by 11% to 37% depending on cell type

In a Tel Aviv University news release, study author Dr. Shai Efrati of the university’s Sackler School of Medicine, explained:

“Today telomere shortening is considered the ‘Holy Grail’ of the biology of aging. Researchers around the world are trying to develop pharmacological and environmental interventions that enable telomere elongation. Our HBOT protocol was able to achieve this, proving that the aging process can in fact be reversed at the basic cellular-molecular level.”

Telomeres and Cellular Senescence: Keys to Aging?

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences at the end of each chromosome. Sometimes compared to the plastic tip on a shoelace, telomeres help protect DNA, preserving chromosome stability and preventing “molecular contact with neighboring chromosomes.”5
Evidence suggests telomere length may predict morbidity and mortality, with shorter telomeres linked to an increased risk of premature death,6 but the link is controversial.
“This uncertainty is actually due to a kaleidoscope of biological and technical factors, including preanalytical issues (e.g., sample matrix), poor standardization of techniques used for their assessment, and dependence of telomere structure upon genetics, epigenetics, environment and behavioral attitudes, which may be present at a variable extent in various physiological or pathological conditions,” researchers wrote in the Annals of Translational Medicine.7
Still, despite the controversy, telomere shortening has been associated with a 23% higher risk of all-cause death, along with increased risk of certain cancers, including glioma, neuroblastoma, ovarian, endometrial, lung, kidney, bladder, skin and testicular.8
Telomere shortening is also said to represent a “major measurable molecular characteristic of aging of cells in vitro and in vivo,” which may have developed as a mechanism to protect against tumors in long-lived species.9
Dr. Amir Hadanny, chief medical research officer of the Sagol Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Research at the Shamir Medical Center, an author of the featured study, added that lifestyle modifications and intense exercise have previously been found to slow telomere shortening, but HBOT appears to be another viable option:10

“In our study, only three months of HBOT were able to elongate telomeres at rates far beyond any currently available interventions or lifestyle modifications. With this pioneering study, we have opened a door for further research on the cellular impact of HBOT and its potential for reversing the aging process.”

Cellular senescence is also known to play a role in cellular aging, and the accumulation of senescent cells is believed to be an integral part of the aging process, even potentially acting as a causal factor in age-related disease.11
Research is underway to develop therapeutic strategies to interfere with cellular senescence, including eliminating senescent cells,12 and HBOT has emerged as one potential strategy.
Not Necessarily a Clear-Cut Fountain of Youth

It’s important to take the study’s limitations into account when evaluating whether HBOT is truly a fountain of youth, as the researchers imply. It was a small study, which means the results should be replicated in a larger sample of subjects.
Also, as mentioned, the use of telomere length as a marker for aging is in itself controversial. The study also measured telomere length on immune cells called T cells, which may fluctuate depending on a number of environmental conditions, such as exercise.
It’s a positive sign that HBOT also decreased cellular senescence in T cells, but as noted by Steve Hill, who serves on the board of directors for LEAF, a nonprofit promoting increased healthy human lifespan:13

“The problem with interpreting these results as rejuvenation or age reversal is that T cells are a poor choice of cell type to use for this kind of thing due to their highly dynamic nature. Unfortunately, they are a popular cell type to use in these sorts of studies, due to the ease of collection from the bloodstream.

These particular immune cells can have large variance in their telomere length based on the demand for cellular replication at that particular time.

T cell populations replicate rapidly in the face of pathogens, and with each replication, the telomeres shorten, meaning that telomere lengths can vary in these cell populations from day to day. Infection and other environmental factors can play a key role in the status of T cell telomeres, and this is why they are not overly useful as aging biomarkers.”

This isn’t to say that HBOT isn’t useful, as other experts agree HBOT can have significant benefits for longevity. One of the reasons I’m fascinated by HBOT, in particular, is because of its ability to improve mitochondrial function.14 However, it should be viewed as one component of healthy aging, not necessarily a magic bullet that will stop it in its tracks.
How Does Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Work?

Download Interview Transcript

HBOT has long been used as a treatment for decompression sickness that can occur among scuba divers. When you sit in a hyperbaric oxygen therapy chamber, you breathe air that has two to three times greater air pressure than normal, which allows your lungs to absorb more oxygen.
This, in turn, increases the amount of oxygen in your blood, which is transported throughout your body, fighting pathogenic bacteria and stimulating the release of healing growth factors and stem cells.15
In my interview in the video above with Dr. Jason Sonners, a chiropractor who has worked with HBOT for over 12 years, he explains that oxygen can be viewed as a nutrient. Your body needs it to carry out its regular functions and, when tissue is injured, it needs even more oxygen for healing.16
Most healthy individuals have somewhere between 96% and 98% oxygen in their hemoglobin, which means your capacity to increase your oxygen level is between 2% and 4%, were you to breathe medical-grade oxygen, for instance. However, you can increase your oxygen level far beyond that if your body is under pressure. According to Sonners:

“Two main laws govern how that works: Boyle’s Law and Henry’s Law. Basically, as you take a gas and exert pressure on it, you make the size of that gas take up less space. As a result of that pressure, you can then dissolve that gas into a liquid.

An easy example is a can of seltzer. They’re using carbon dioxide and water. But basically, you can pressurize that can, so you can put carbon dioxide into that can. As a result of that pressurization, you can dissolve molecules of carbon dioxide into the water.

In the hyperbaric version of that, we’re using oxygen, and the can is the chamber. But as a result of dumping excess oxygen inside that chamber, you can dissolve that into the liquid of your body … directly into the tissue and the plasma of your blood.

The oxygen in your blood is carried by hemoglobin. The plasma that carries your red blood cells that holds the hemoglobin normally does not carry oxygen. We rely wholly on red blood cell oxygen-carrying capacity. But inside the chamber, you could literally bypass the red blood cell oxygen-carrying capacity altogether, and you can absorb oxygen directly into the plasma and tissue of the body.”

HBOT Fights Mitochondrial and Oxidative Stresses, COVID-19
HBOT can be used to help speed healing of any inflammatory condition, and it’s known to facilitate wound healing and cell survival.
A small study involving 10 healthy men also revealed that a single 45-minute HBOT session reduced levels of metabolic stress-related biomarkers, including attenuating mitochondrial and oxidative stresses and relieving metabolic burdens, which suggests it may be useful for treating metabolic diseases.17
The fact that HBOT protects against mitochondrial dysfunction18 is a major benefit, considering most chronic and degenerative diseases involve mitochondrial dysfunction. Unfortunately, conventional medicine still reserves HBOT for a limited number of conditions, such as certain brain injuries and serious wounds, as well as the following:19

Severe anemia
Brain abscess
Bubbles of air in your blood vessels

Burns
Carbon monoxide poisoning
Crushing injury

Deafness, sudden
Decompression sickness
Gangrene

Infection of skin or bone that causes tissue death
Nonhealing wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcer
Radiation injury

Skin graft at risk of tissue death
Traumatic brain injury
Vision loss, sudden

In the U.S., there are only 14 conditions for which insurance will pay for HBOT, whereas there are up to 100 approved indications for HBOT internationally, according to Sonners.
From my perspective, it’s medically reprehensible and inexcusable for a doctor to not treat patients with diabetic neuropathy, infections in the distal extremities or peripheral vascular disease with HBOT, as it will in most cases prevent the need for amputation. Other conditions that may benefit from HBOT include:

All autoimmune conditions

Neurological conditions, including concussion, traumatic brain injury, dementia and post-stroke

Musculoskeletal injuries, including broken bones, disk herniations, and torn muscles and tendons

Any condition involving mitochondrial dysfunction

Any condition involving damaged microcirculation or that can benefit from capillary growth

Chronic infections such as Lyme disease, and subacute infections that cause damage over time

Cancer co-management — As noted by Sonners, researchers are looking at HBOT in cancer treatments in a number of different ways. For example, doing it may allow you to use less radiation or chemo and still get the same outcome. Or, it may allow the patient to tolerate higher amounts of radiation by speeding the healing between sessions. A third avenue of investigation is the use of HBOT in isolation.

HBOT is also showing promise for treating COVID-19 via a number of beneficial effects, including reversing hypoxia, reducing inflammation in the lungs, increasing viricidal reactive oxygen species, upregulating HIF-increasing host defense peptides and reducing proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-6.20
Typically, hospitals will only provide HBOT if you have one of the 14 approved indications. If you’re interested in HBOT for other medical or longevity purposes, you’ll need to look into the private sector for treatment. The International Hyperbaric Association21 (IHA) and Hyperbaric Medical International22 (HMI) are two organizations that may direct you to more local centers.
You can also learn more on HBOTusa.com, which is Sonner’s primary education website where you can find a list of treated conditions, research, the benefits of HBOT in athletics, testimonials and much more.

Categories
Recommended

COVID-19 Vaccination May Be Difficult to Avoid

While there’s considerable resistance against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, it appears avoiding it will be more than a little difficult for most. As detailed in “Global Vaccine Passport Will Be Required for Travel,” The Commons Project, the World Economic Forum and The Rockefeller Foundation have joined forces to create the CommonPass,1 a digital “health passport” framework expected to be adopted by most if not all nations.
The CommonPass will eventually be integrated with personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth, and if you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements. If you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.
The groundwork for CommonPass was laid out in an April 21, 2020, white paper2 by The Rockefeller Foundation, and based on this paper, it’s clear that proof of vaccination is part of a permanent surveillance and social control structure — one that severely limits personal liberty and freedom of choice across the board.
There’s absolutely no indication that proof of vaccination status will become obsolete once the COVID-19 pandemic is declared over, and the reason for this is because the pandemic is being used as a justification for the Great Reset, which will usher in a new system of technocracy that relies on digital surveillance and social engineering to control the population. Proof of vaccination allows for the rollout of a highly invasive form of tracking that will undoubtedly expand with time.
Tricks Used to Increase Vaccine Uptake

They have a significant problem, however, and that is how to get a majority of the global population to agree to this novel, fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine. According to a November 17, 2020, Gallup Poll,3 58% of Americans now say they’re willing to take the vaccine. In September, that percentage was only 50%.
Still, 58% is unlikely to satisfy the technocrats hell-bent on global control of resources and people. Typically, a much larger percentage of the population — probably between 75% and 90%, according to a November 2020 Lancet paper4 — would need to be vaccinated in order to achieve what is wrongfully described as herd immunity (a concept that only applies to natural infection, not vaccination).
As a result, we’re now seeing all sorts of tricks being employed to increase vaccine uptake: among them, a proposal to pay each vaccine recipient $1,500.5 The suggestion was raised by U.S. Representative John Delaney.

“The faster we get 75% of this country vaccinated, the faster we end COVID and the sooner everything returns to normal,” Delaney told Alabama news site AL.com.6 “We have to create, in my judgment, an incentive for people to really accelerate their thinking about taking the vaccine.
If you’re still afraid of the vaccine and don’t want to take it, that’s your right. You won’t participate in this program. But guess what? You’re going to benefit anyhow, because we’ll get the country to herd immunity faster, which benefits you. So I think everyone wins.”

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and economic adviser N. Gregory Mankiw have made similar propositions, suggesting the government make a $1,000 pandemic stimulus payment incumbent on COVID-19 vaccination.7,8
Is Risking Your Health Worth $1,500?

If this sounds unfair to you, you’re not alone. I’m sure there are many out there who are struggling to survive right now and could use that stimulus check, yet aren’t keen on playing Russian roulette with their long-term health to get it. As explained by Dr. Meryl Nass in a December 4, 2020, blog post:9

“If you are injured by a vaccine or other ‘countermeasure’ designated by the DHHS Secretary as intended for a pandemic or bioterrorism threat (COVID-19, pandemic flu, anthrax, smallpox) your options for receiving any financial benefit are very limited.
First, everyone involved with getting the vaccine to you has had their liability waived under the PREP Act … Congress did create a program to compensate some victims, but it is much less generous than the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). (And no one ever accused the NVICP of being generous.) It is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).”

CICP Payments Are Insignificant and Hard to Get

As noted by Nass, the CICP is administered within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.
Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment. “DHHS therefore essentially acts as the judge, jury and defendant,” Nass writes.10
While the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees, for example.
According to the CICP director, the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime. CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case.
For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far, let alone a one-time payment of $1,000 or $1,500. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to be quick. Of course, a significant problem with the COVID-19 vaccine is that no one really knows what injuries might arise, or when, making tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. For all of these reasons, I agree with Nass when she says:11

“If you become injured after receiving a designated ‘countermeasure’ vaccine, do not anticipate that you will get help from the government nor from the manufacturers. Please inform yourself of the benefits and risks beforehand.”

Compulsory Vaccination as a Condition of Employment

To boost vaccine uptake, companies are also encouraged to make COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment. Rogge Dunn, a labor and employment attorney in Dallas, Texas, told CNBC that “Under the law, an employer can force an employee to get vaccinated, and if they don’t, fire them.”12
For years, I and others have warned that unless you get involved in protecting vaccine choice, even if and when it doesn’t affect you personally, eventually it will indeed affect you and it’ll be too late to do anything about it.
We’re now at that point. This affects everyone, not just teachers and health care workers. It affects all ages. Any company can implement compulsory COVID-19 vaccination. No one is automatically excluded. Anyone could soon have to face the choice of vaccination or unemployment.
According to CNBC,13 antidiscrimination laws might enable some employees to get an exemption, but I would not count on it. Union workers may also have enough clout to prevent a mandate, provided the union is willing to take a stand against it. Dunn claims some of his corporate clients are already considering mandatory vaccination, including restaurant owners.

“They think it gives them a competitive advantage. They could say to their customers, ‘Hey, our restaurant is safe. All of our employees have been vaccinated,’” Dunn said.

Keep in mind that if your employer mandates the vaccine, they will not be liable for side effects. According to the experts CNBC spoke to, “claims would be routed through worker’s compensation programs and treated as an on-the-job injury.”
In the absence of a mandate, some companies are baiting staff to get voluntarily vaccinated by promising vaccinated employees will be able to forgo temperature checks and/or other PPE requirements. Others are considering giving out cash bonuses to those who get vaccinated.
Reducing Vaccine Hesitancy by Relabeling Side Effects

Yet another trick used to reduce vaccine hesitancy is an entirely semantic one. By renaming adverse reactions and referring to them as “immune responses” instead, they hope people will be less likely to be concerned if they end up feeling horrible after the shot.

A December 1, 2020, CNBC article,14 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions, noted that 10% to 15% of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “significantly noticeable” side effects.

Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member, who proposes the nomenclature of “serious adverse reaction” be changed to “immune response,” so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects, even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them.

Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care, has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated, as many will feel too sick to work.15 Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine’s side effects are “no walk in the park.”16
No Vaccine, No Entry — How Far Can It Go?
In related news, Canadians who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine should be prepared to comply with a mandatory mask rule and to be restricted in their ability to move about society, according to Ontario’s chief medical officer, Dr. David Williams. As reported by Summit News December 4, 2020:17

“Williams acknowledged that ‘we can’t force someone to take a vaccine,’ but [went] on to explain how people who didn’t take it would have their freedom of mobility severely restricted …
‘What may be mandatory is proof of … vaccination in order to have latitude and freedom to move around … without wearing other types of personal protective equipment’ … As we previously highlighted, governments do not have to make the vaccine mandatory, they can simply make life unlivable for people who refuse to take the vaccine.
If bars, restaurants, cinemas, sports venues, airlines, employers and others all make the vaccination a mandatory condition of service, anyone who refuses to take it will be reduced to a personal form of de facto lockdown with their social lives and mobility completely stunted.”

Indeed, if vaccination is a condition both for employment and enjoyment, just how voluntary is it? The tactic of restricting personal freedom to coerce people into getting vaccinated is no different from a vaccine mandate that has no exceptions.
It’s blackmail, pure and simple, and it will disproportionally affect the middle and lower classes who can’t afford to remain unemployed for any length of time and can’t pay for the care that might be needed should something go wrong.
Overall, this kind of coercion is a disaster in the making, and it’s particularly egregious considering SARS-CoV-2 infection poses a minuscule risk to the vast majority of the population, as detailed in “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetuated on an Unsuspecting Public.”
What Can You Do?

If this information in this article concerns you, as I believe it should, then I would strongly encourage you to consider joining the NVIC vaccine portal.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

This is a large number of dedicated individuals that you can connect with in your local community to make a difference with your local legislature. It is the best shot you have to make a difference in preventing these draconian tyrannical short-sighted mandates that will inevitably devastate the health of many and take many other lives prematurely.

Categories
Recommended

The Remarkable Benefits of Low-Dose Naltrexone

Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.

In this interview, we review some of the remarkable benefits of low-dose naltrexone (LDN), including the surprising benefits of microdosed LDN. The two experts featured in this interview are Linda Elsegood, a Briton who founded the LDN Research Trust1 in 2004, and Dr. Sarah Zielsdorf, who has a medical practice in the Chicago area in the U.S.
Elsegood, who was diagnosed with MS in 2000, has been involved in LDN research and public education for 16 years. LDN is a powerful, safe and effective treatment for many autoimmune diseases, yet few, including most health care professionals, know anything about it. Remarkably, LDN may even be helpful in the fight against COVID-19, as it acts to normalize your immune system.2
Elsegood recently published a book on LDN called “The LDN Book, Volume Two: The Latest Research on How Low Dose Naltrexone Could Revolutionize Treatment for PTSD, Pain, IBD, Lyme Disease, Dermatologic Conditions and More.” Each chapter is written by a medical professional with clinical knowledge of the drug’s use. Zielsdorf is one of the contributing authors. Elsegood also hosts a radio show called The LDN Radio Show.3
In the interview, she tells the story of how she discovered LDN and the dramatic benefits she has experienced from it. In summary, beneficial effects became apparent after about three weeks on the drug and, after 18 months, her condition had significantly improved.
We use LDN for nearly all autoimmune conditions, as an adjunct for cancer, and as a treatment for chronic pain. We also use ultra-low dose naltrexone to help potentiate pain relief for people who are on opioids and help them to be less dependent on opioid medications. ~ Dr. Sarah Zielsdorf
Zielsdorf — who has an undergraduate degree in microbiology and a master’s degree in public health microbiology and emerging infectious disease — also has a personal health story that brought her to LDN. She was diagnosed with hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in 2003. Ten years later, she was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s, an autoimmune disorder that affects the thyroid.

“I learned about functional nutrition and triggers for autoimmunity, and started to do all of the things I needed to do to optimize my biomarkers, remove systemic inflammation, and was able to return to my [medical] training. I had been told that I could never have children and surprisingly became pregnant and had a daughter in my second year of training.

After having her, I [had a flareup]. It was then, in 2014, that a doctor put me on LDN. It changed my life … Once I graduated from residency, I started treating patients with a variety of issues with LDN. I’ve treated thousands of patients with LDN.”

Naltrexone — A Rare Gem of a Drug
Naltrexone in low or even microdoses is one of the few pharmaceutical drugs I wholeheartedly endorse. Not only is it remarkably safe, it’s also a profound adjunctive therapy for a wide variety of conditions. As explained by Zielsdorf:

“Naltrexone is one of the few things that actually enables our own bodies, our own immune systems, to be able to function better and really restore function.

After World War II, they were looking for more opioid medications. By accident, scientists figured out how to block the opioid receptor. They did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do, which is to find morphine analogs for soldiers.

[In] the 1960s, they were able to synthesize naloxone and naltrexone … FDA approved it in the 1980s for opioid addiction at a dose of 50 to 100 milligrams, and then in the 1990s for alcohol dependence.

But it was Dr. Bernard Bihari and Dr. Ian Zagon in the 1970s that had this amazing idea that if you took a very small dose of naltrexone, compounding it in a clean way [down] to a few milligrams, if would briefly block the opioid receptor in the central nervous system — very briefly kissing that receptor and then unblocking it.

This upregulates the body’s immune system by increasing the opioid receptor’s own production of beta-endorphin and met-enkephalins. Beta-endorphins help with mood, pain, sleep and the immune system, and met-enkephalins are also known as opioid-derived growth factor, and there are receptors for these on many different tissues, including the thyroid.

We now use it for nearly all autoimmune conditions, as an adjunct for cancer, and as a treatment for chronic pain. We also use ultra-low dose [microdosed] naltrexone, which I wrote about, to help potentiate pain relief for people who are on opioids and help them to be less dependent on opioid medications.

I’ve actually been able to get patients off of fentanyl patches and get them off chronic oxycodone or Norco use where their pain specialists said, ‘You will never ever get off these pain medications.’ It’s been an incredible journey and I’m a huge advocate of it.”

Naloxone Versus Naltrexone
Naloxone (Narcan) is what is carried on ambulances and used in ERs and trauma bays as an antidote to an opioid overdose. When given at a high enough dose, naloxone or Narcan acts as a complete opioid blocker, which is why it’s used acutely when someone has taken too high a dose of an opioid.
Naltrexone blocks the opioid receptor only briefly, and by a different mechanism. When used in low dosages as LDN, the chief benefit is actually in the rebound effect, after the opioid receptor has been briefly blocked.
Foundational Treatment Strategies for Autoimmune Diseases

With regard to autoimmune diseases, it’s important to realize there are other, equally important, foundational strategies that will benefit most patients with a dysfunctional immune system. These include optimizing your vitamin D level and omega-3 index, for example.
It’s also important to eliminate potential triggers. The reason why people have an autoimmune disease is because they’re exposed to something in the environment which serves as an antigen that their body recognizes as a foreign invader, and as a result attacks it. If you can avoid those antigens, you can often suppress and frequently eliminate symptoms without anything, because you’ve removed the stimulus.
One common autoimmune trigger is lectins, found in many otherwise healthy vegetables. Zielsdorf will typically place her autoimmune patients on a Mediterranean-style paleo diet or an oligoantigenic elimination diet to optimize detoxification, liver and kidney function, and the microbiome.
Others may be placed on a nose-to-tail carnivore diet. As noted by Zielsdorf, it’s “a way of offloading and simplifying what antigens the body is seeing.” Other helpful diets in this respect include the autoimmune paleo diet and the low-histamine or low FODMAP diet.

“I am a microbiologist and I do a ton of advanced testing, and then we start looking deeper at triggers,” she says. “I used to put everybody on LDN first, but now we know that certain patients will flair because their immune system is so suppressed due to co-infections.

We see it most with Lyme disease and with yeast overgrowth. If I suspect or I have tests confirming that a patient has one of these things, or their immune system is super suppressed … I’ll work on their microbiome before I start LDN …

I test everybody’s gut, and what I see universally is you get this hyper intense intestinal permeability in these cases … What’s so interesting is a leaky gut equals a leaky brain, and we overwhelm our immune system. I do see this. The first step is getting them off the most common triggers, and sometimes I’ll be testing for lectins too.

Universally, for all of my autoimmune patients, is that they can’t eat wheat. There are over 150 antigens in wheat that you can be sensitive to … It is also desiccated with Roundup, glyphosate, right before processing, so we get that extra toxicity. I test my patients for their environmental toxic load, and I see a lot of patients with glyphosate toxicity.

The wheat that we used to eat 10,000 years ago at the beginning of agriculture is not the wheat [we now eat]. It’s not even the same chromosome number as what our bodies ate in small amounts as hunter gatherers.”

Why You Should Avoid Monogastric Animal Meats
As mentioned by Zielsdorf, a nose-to-tail carnivore diet can be an excellent intervention in some cases, especially for those whose immune function is severely suppressed. However, you should avoid monogastric animals, meaning animals that have only one stomach.
Whereas cows have two, chickens and pigs have only one. The reason for this recommendation is because conventionally factory farmed chicken and pork will be very high in the omega-6 fat linoleic acid. This is because they are typically fed corn, which is high in this type of fat. And a high linoleic acid diet can metabolically devastate your health. So, a diet high in chicken and bacon is not doing your body any favors.
Animals with two stomachs are able to fully process omega-6-rich grains and other foods, as they are equipped with gut bacteria that can break it down into a healthier fat. Aside from cows and steer, this includes buffalo, beef and lamb.
What Can LDN Treat?
Aside from autoimmune diseases, LDN is also used in the treatment of the following conditions. Bear in mind this is not a complete list. Some of these conditions have been featured in various documentaries4 produced by the LDN Research Trust. You can find links to those documentaries in the references.

Cancer5 — Research by professor Angus George Dalgleish and his colleague Dr. Wei Lou showed LDN could bring cancer cells into remission using pulse dosing.6 LDN also works synergistically with cannabidiol (CBD), and works well for cancer, autoimmunity and pain conditions

Opioid addiction, dependence and recovery7 — Using microdoses of 0.001 milligrams (1 microgram), long-term users of opioids who have developed a tolerance to the drug are able to, over time, lower their opioid dose and avoid withdrawal symptoms as the LDN makes the opioid more effective.
For opioid dependence, the typical starting dose is 1 microgram twice a day, which will allow them to lower their opioid dose by about 60%. When the opioid is taken for pain, the LDN must be taken four to six hours apart from the opioid in order to not displace the opioid’s effects

Lyme disease and its coinfections8

Fibromyalgia

Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO)

Restless leg syndrome

Depression

Dermatological issues

Infertility

General Dosing Guidelines

Dosing will, of course, depend on the condition being treated, but there are some general guidelines that can be helpful. Downloadable guides can be found on the LDN Research Trust site, and are available in several languages. Keep in mind that LDN is a drug, not something you can buy over the counter, and you need to work with a knowledgeable physician who can prescribe it and monitor your health.

“With a general pain condition, we may use 1.5 to 3 or 4.5 mg. With Hashimoto’s, we start lower and slower because patients with Hashimoto’s may actually have to reduce their thyroid hormone medication if they’re on it because they get reduction of that inflammation and they can produce more of their own thyroid hormone. So, we usually start at 0.5 mg.

For patients with mood conditions … 0.5 to 1 mg. There was an important paper that came out showing LDN is an important agent for depression, for patients who fail those meds or as an adjunct to antidepressants. PTSD patients may have to go higher. There are all sorts of strategies and you just need to find a doctor who’s well-versed in that condition.”

More Information
The LDN Research Trust’s website is an excellent resource for all things LDN. It has a variety of resources to guide patients, prescribing doctors and pharmacists alike. It also has a page where you can find LDN-literate prescribers around the world.
Of course, to learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of “The LDN Book, Volume Two: The Latest Research on How Low Dose Naltrexone Could Revolutionize Treatment for PTSD, Pain, IBD, Lyme Disease, Dermatologic Conditions and More,” and/or “The LDN Book: How a Little-Known Generic Drug ? Low Dose Naltrexone ? Could Revolutionize Treatment for Autoimmune Diseases, Cancer, Autism, Depression and More,” which is the first of the two volumes.
Both books are also available on the LDN Research Trust website, along with videos featuring all of the doctors that contributed chapters to the books. You can also check out The LDN Radio Show.9 Last but not least, LDN Research Trust is a nonprofit that depends on public donations, so if you would like to contribute to the Trust’s LDN research and education efforts, please make a donation.

Categories
Recommended

How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health

In this interview, Tucker Goodrich and I discuss what will be the topic of my next book, namely linoleic acid (LA), which I believe is likely the leading contributing cause of virtually all chronic diseases we’ve encountered over the last century. Unfortunately, this is a topic that most clinicians and health care practitioners who focus on natural medicine have only a superficial understanding of.
Goodrich has a business background as a stockbroker and asset manager, and developed an IT risk management system used by two of the largest hedge funds in the world. A string of health crises in his late 30s and early 40s prompted him to apply his research and troubleshooting skills to medical research.
As noted by Goodrich, “It was a very upsetting time in my life and medical professionals really weren’t any help at all in trying to figure out what caused things.” After a lot of reading and researching, he decided to cut out seed oils from his diet, and in just two days, his 16-year-long bout with irritable bowel disease started to dramatically improve.
“I started immediately feeling better,” he says. He also lost a significant amount of weight over the next two months. After that, he stopped eating carbs and realized he must have had a severe case of gluten intolerance.

“Being an engineer by trade, I did a lot of experimenting. What can I eat? What brings back the symptoms? What do I have to avoid to keep the symptoms away? And it was a transformation that made everybody I worked with comment on what a difference they saw in me. It was a very quick change,” he says.

Avoiding Omega-6 Fats Is Key for Good Health

While considered an essential fat, when consumed in excessive amounts, which over 99% of people do, LA (an omega-6 polyunsaturated fat or PUFA) acts as a metabolic poison.

Most clinicians who value nutritional interventions to optimize health understand that vegetable oils, which are loaded with omega-6 PUFAs, are something to be avoided. What most fail to appreciate is that even if you eliminate the vegetable oils and avoid them like the plague, you may still be missing the mark.
Chances are you’re still getting too much of this dangerous fat from supposedly healthy food sources such as olive oil and chicken (which are fed LA-rich grains) — a topic covered in “Why Chicken Is Killing You and Saturated Fat Is Your Friend.”
Another common mistake is to simply increase the amount of omega-3 that you eat. Many are now aware that the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio is very important, and should be about equal, but simply increasing omega-3 can be a dangerous strategy. You really need to minimize the omega-6. As explained by Goodrich:

“The ratio is not really what’s important. What’s important is avoiding the omega-6 fats. There are disease models, like age-related macular degeneration (AMD), where that’s starting to be clearly understood, and you can find papers saying explicitly that the important intervention that prevents AMD from progressing is reduction of omega-6 fats, and you can’t prevent it by increasing your omega-3 fats.
I’ve got papers that show, in animal models, very nasty outcomes, such as liver failure, with a lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, but high absolute levels of both fats still allows pathology to progress.”

LA Is a Primary Contributor to Chronic Disease
When we talk about omega-6, we’re really referring to LA. They’re largely synonymous, as LA makes up the bulk — about 60% to 80% — of omega-6 and is the primary contributor to disease. Broadly speaking, there are three types of fats:

Saturated fats, which have a full complement of hydrogen atoms
Monounsaturated fats, which are missing a single hydrogen atom
PUFAs, which are missing multiple hydrogen atoms

The missing hydrogen atoms make PUFAs highly susceptible to oxidation, which means the fat breaks down into harmful metabolites. OXLAMS (oxidized LA metabolites) are what have a profoundly negative impact on human health. While excess sugar is certainly bad for your health and should be limited to 25 grams per day or less, it doesn’t oxidize like LA does so it’s nowhere near as damaging.
Over the last century, thanks to fatally flawed research suggesting saturated animal fat caused heart disease, the LA in the human diet has dramatically increased, from about 2 to 3 grams a day 150 years ago, to 30 or 40 grams a day. Goodrich cites research showing LA used to make up 1% to 3% of the energy in the human diet and now it makes up 15% to 20%.
In my mind, this radical change has had the most catastrophic impact on human health in the history of the human race, as it is the complete opposite of what you need for optimal health. This dietary change has undoubtedly killed millions, probably hundreds of millions, prematurely and still continues to do so because people don’t understand this.

“I’m a speed reader and I love reading medical journals … but what nobody’s really done is connect all the dots. There are a lot of people who understand little sections of [the science], but they haven’t gone on to coalesce everything into a common explanation for these pathologies across different disease states.
I think that’s what I’ve been able to do, and I think that’s the key insight that makes this message really compelling,” Goodrich says.

On a side note, do not confuse LA with conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). While most think CLA and LA are interchangeable, they’re not. CLA has many potent health benefits and will not cause the problems that LA does.
How Excess LA Consumption Damages Your Health

At a molecular level, excess LA consumption damages your metabolism and impedes your body’s ability to generate energy in your mitochondria. There is a particular fat only located in your mitochondria — most of it is found in the inner mitochondrial membrane — called cardiolipin.
Cardiolipin is made up of four fatty acids, unlike triglycerides which have three, but the individual fats can vary. Examples include LA, palmitic acid and the fatty acids found in fish oil, DHA and EPA. Each of these have a different effect on mitochondrial function, and depending on the organ, the mitochondria work better with particular kinds of fatty acids.
For example, your heart preferentially builds cardiolipin with LA, while your brain dislikes LA and preferentially builds cardiolipin in the mitochondria with fats like DHA. Goodrich further explains:

“To give you an idea of how important this is, 20% of the fat in your entire body is contained in cardiolipin. So, for anybody who doesn’t understand mitochondria, mitochondria are what distinguish us from bacteria. It’s what allows us to be a multi-cellular creature. They are what produce the energy in your body, what’s known as ATP, which is a chemical carrier of energy.
To give you an example of how important it is, cyanide, which we all know is highly toxic, breaks your mitochondria, and that’s why it kills you so fast. It prevents mitochondrial respiration and therefore your entire body shuts down almost instantly.
So, [mitochondria are] something we want to take good care of because they’re everywhere, in almost every tissue except for red blood cells … There are studies showing that cardiolipin is directly controlled by dietary intake of fats. That is, to an extent, true. Obviously, different tissues build cardiolipin in the mitochondria out of different fats.
But they can vary that composition in fairly short order through changing the diet in rat models, like in the order of weeks. So, you can see changes pretty quickly. I notice things happening in days. What’s unique about LA is that it is very susceptible to oxidation when it is in the cardiolipin molecule.
Two LAs that are adjacent to each other can oxidize each other. They’re also attached to proteins in the mitochondria that contain iron, and that iron can catalyze the oxidation of cardiolipin. This is a pretty fundamental process in the body.”

Oxidation of Cardiolipin Controls Autophagy

Oxidation of cardiolipin is one of the things that controls autophagy. In other words, it’s one of the signals that your body uses when there’s something wrong with a cell, triggering the destruction and rebuilding of that cell. Your cells know that they’re broken when they have too many damaged mitochondria, and the process that controls this is largely the oxidation of omega-6 fats contained within cardiolipin.

Animals typically develop cancer once the LA in their diet reaches 4% to 10% of their energy intake, depending on the cancer.
So, by altering the composition of cardiolipin in your mitochondria to one that’s richer in omega-6 fats, you make it far more susceptible to oxidative damage. Goodrich cites research showing that when the LA in cardiolipin is replaced with oleic acid, another fat found in olive oil, the cardiolipin molecules become highly resistant to oxidative damage.

“That is basically what I think we need to go back to,” he says. “We evolved with low levels of LA in our diet and therefore in our cardiolipin. One of the neatest papers I’ve ever seen looking at this, something that encapsulated this whole model that I’m talking about, fed rats either a regular high carbohydrate diet, or they added PUFAs to their diet.
Just adding the omega-6 fats to the diet caused the mice to become diabetic. They became insulin resistant, leptin resistant, obese, and the differences are pretty stark between the fat mice and the skinny mice on the high carbohydrate rat diet …
The high-PUFA diet caused a breakdown in the cardiolipin content in the mitochondria in their hearts. So just adding seed oils caused heart damage through a change in the cardiolipin composition.”

As mentioned, the primary problem is the OXLAMS, the oxidized byproducts. One of them is 4HNE, which is relatively easy to measure. Studies have shown there’s a definite correlation between elevated levels of 4HNE and heart failure. LA is broken down into 4HNE even faster when the oil is heated, which is why cardiologists recommend avoiding fried foods.
OXLAMS Trigger Cancer

Heart disease isn’t the only condition triggered by excessive LA intake and the subsequent OXLAMS produced. It also plays a significant role in cancer. As noted by Goodrich, to induce cancer in animal models, you actually have to feed them seed oils. “So, this is a really fundamental process that we’re talking about here,” he says.
Animals typically develop cancer once the LA in their diet reaches 4% to 10% of their energy intake, depending on the cancer. In the breast cancer model, cancer incidents increase once 4% of calories are in the form of seed oils. Disturbingly, most Americans get approximately 8% of their calories from seed oils. “So, we’re way over what these thresholds in the lab would suggest is a safe level of these fats based on the laboratory work in animals,” Goodrich says, adding:

“We’ve got this huge disconnect between what the lab science tells us we should be doing and what our dietary guidelines tell us we should be doing. The scientists are saying, ‘Oh, look, it’s poison. It causes all the chronic diseases,’ and the government’s saying, ‘Eat lots of it.’ That’s not a good thing.”

4HNE is a mutagen, in other words, a toxin that causes DNA damage. One of the primary genes it damages is the P53 anticancer gene. Mutations in the P53 gene is found in 15% of cancers, making it one of the most common. As noted by Goodrich, “P53 is literally a cancer prevention gene. It’s how your body regulates cancer. You can all draw your own conclusions about the wisdom of eating something that can cause that to break.”
On a side note, one of the major jobs of glutathione is to detoxify 4HNE. You can often tell that you have excess 4HNE if your glutathione levels are low, as this means it’s being used up detoxifying 4HNE.

LA and Obesity
High-LA diets also cause obesity. “If you feed mice lots of saturated fat, they don’t get fat and they don’t get sick. It’s only when you increase the LA in the diet from 1% to 8% that they become obese,” Goodrich says. Now, mice and rats are not exactly like humans, so how do we know all of this applies to us? Goodrich explains:

“What Alheim and Ramston observed is that, back in 2006, there was a drug introduced called Rimonabant, which was an anti-obesity drug. It was a bit of a miracle drug. I want to quote this exactly because it’s so important to understand the effects that this drug had on humans.
‘Large randomized trials with Rimonabant have demonstrated efficacy in treatment of overweight and obese individuals with weight loss significantly greater than a reduced calorie diet alone.
In addition, multiple other cardiometabolic parameters were improved in the treatment groups, including increased levels of HDL, reduced triglycerides, reduced weight circumference, improved insulin sensitivity, decreased insulin levels. And in diabetic patients, improvements in HBA1C.’
This paper was released in 2007. Unfortunately, Rimonabant had a side effect that it caused people to want to kill themselves. So, it was withdrawn from the market and it largely killed research for several years into that area.
But what Alheim did in 2012 was demonstrate that the mechanism behind Rimonabant is to block the metabolism of seed oils into the chemicals in your body and the endocannabinoid system that cause overeating. My experience when I stopped eating seed oils was that I forgot to eat carbohydrates.
The effect of Rimonabant in these mouse models is to make them crave carbohydrates and to stimulate them to eat sweet foods and carbohydrates. Everybody’s familiar with this effect. It’s called the munchies. And it’s what you get after you smoke pot, because the endocannabinoid system is the system that marijuana affects and the chemical that Rimonabant blocks is your body’s homologue to the THC in marijuana.
So essentially what we’ve done to ourselves is given ourselves a chronic case of the munchies, which is blocked by this unfortunately very harmful drug. This is as open and closed a case for causation as you’re going to find in the medical literature.
We have a human drug that treats this, and as I just read, it treats all these different aspects of this disease. And it works through this one pathway that we have a clear demonstration of in animal models. In this case, the drug is completely pointless because the dietary fix is well known and is simple.”

Increased LA Also Increases Your Risk of Sunburn
So, to summarize, the dramatic increase in LA — and the oxidative end products that cause the damage — is the primary cause behind the increase in chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Simply lowering your LA intake to what your great-great grandparents used to eat, you can essentially eliminate almost every single one of the diseases that is now prematurely killing us.

Interestingly enough, there’s even evidence showing eliminating seed oils from your diet will dramatically reduce your risk of sunburn, which is something Goodrich experienced first-hand. “Susceptibility to UV radiation damage is controlled by how much PUFAs are in your diet,” he says. “It’s like a dial. They can control how fast it happens, and how fast you get skin cancer.”
Seed Oils Raise Risk of ARDS and COVID-19
Considering the metabolic and mitochondrial damage caused by LA, there’s reason to suspect LA may also play a role in COVID-19, as some white blood cells convert LA into leukotoxin. Essentially, LA contributes to the inflammatory domino effect that eventually kills. Goodrich explains:

“Yes. That’s certainly what the conclusion that I drew. I did an enormous post on this, looking at the effects of LA in SARS COV-2 and SARS in general. SARS is a severe acute respiratory syndrome. SARS kills you by giving you acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
ARDS can be caused by lots of different things, not just these viruses. You can get it from influenza. You can get it from inhaling acid into your lungs. What’s fascinating is the human literature is quite clear that you can induce ARDS through feeding seed oils.
Very sick people who can’t eat are fed intravenously. It’s called total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Generally, this is used through a product called Intralipid, which is made out of soybean oil and sugar. When you start to understand all this stuff, it’s just mind boggling. Doctors did an experiment after they noticed that a lot of their patients who came into the ICU and got TPN then subsequently got ARDS.
So, they started playing with what they were feeding them, and what they discovered was this soybean oil formula increased the patient’s rate of getting ARDS. The fatality rate from ARDS is 30% to 60%. Feeding seed oils increased the rate of ARDS by seven times.”

As explained by Goodrich, the key toxin that produce the symptoms of ARDS is called leukotoxin, and leukotoxin is made from LA by white blood cells to kill pathogens. It’s toxic enough to where if you inject high-enough amounts of it into animals, it kills them in minutes. Leukocytes incubated with LA convert all of the LA into this toxin until there’s none left, so, a major part of the disease process in ARDS is the conversion of LA into leukotoxin. That is what ends up killing patients.

“It is often noted in the popular press that what kills people is this cytokine storm. What I’m describing is the mechanism of the cytokine storm. Leukotoxin is uniquely what causes the symptoms of ARDS, as has been clearly demonstrated in the animal models,” Goodrich says. “So, it seems to me that a sensible thing to do would be [to] change your diet. Why wouldn’t you want to do that?”

How LA Triggers Heart Disease

Goodrich also explains how high LA levels causes heart disease. One of the first things that happens in atherosclerosis is your macrophages, another type of leukocyte, turns into a foam cell, essentially a macrophage stuffed with fat and cholesterol. Atherosclerotic plaque is basically dead macrophages and other types of cells loaded with cholesterol and fat. This is why heart disease is blamed on dietary cholesterol and fat.
However, researchers have found that in order for foam cells to form, the LDL must be modified through oxidation, and seed oils do just this. Seed oils cause the LDL to oxidize, thereby forming foam cells. LDL in and of itself does not initiate atherosclerosis. LDL’s susceptibility to this oxidative process is controlled by the LA content of your diet.

“That’s a result that’s been repeated several times, so subsequently, the definition of an atherogenic lipid in your blood is one that contains oxidized omega-6 fats. That’s the definition,” Goodrich says.
“The standard explanation of why you get heart disease and why it progresses the way it does is because the omega-6 fats in your blood get oxidized and become toxic, and progress you all the way through atherosclerosis until it finally kills you.
That’s the standard explanation for what causes heart disease. I can’t tell you how many cardiologists I have talked to who don’t understand that that’s what the medical literature says is causing this disease.

Now, it’s worse if you’re also on a high carbohydrate diet. A ketogenic diet is somewhat protective against the negative effects of this, but I can’t stress enough that this is the standard explanation for cardiovascular disease in the medical literature — that seed oils oxidize and that’s what causes the pathology.”

Understanding Olive Oil
As mentioned, olive oil also contains LA, but it also has other healthy fats. This makes olive oil a bit tricky. The main fat in olive oil is oleic acid, which is one of your body’s favorite fats. Your body actually makes, it, which is why it’s not considered an essential fat. Oleic acid is much more resistant to oxidation than LA, which is why olive oil is a pretty decent cooking oil.
According to Goodrich, oleic acid is protective against both cardiolipin oxidation and LDL oxidation. Interestingly, oleic acid can also replace LA in LDL. Other fats, such as palmitic acid, cannot do that. The problem with olive oil is that it also has a fair amount of LA.
“The percentages that I’ve seen quoted in literature range from 2%, which is awesome, to 22%, which is not good,” Goodrich says. The other problem is the olive oil market is hugely corrupt and fraught with fraud. Many olive oils are cut with cheaper seed oils, which raises the LA content.
So, in summary, if you’re using olive oil, I strongly recommend keeping close track of your total LA intake. Anything over 10 grams a day is likely to be problematic (although the exact cutoff is still unknown, so this is merely an educated guess).
If you really want to be on the safe side, consider cutting LA down to 2 or 3 grams per day, to match what our ancestors used to get before all of these chronic health conditions became widespread. If olive oil puts you over the limit, consider cooking with tallow or lard instead. Beef tallow is 46% oleic acid and lard is 36% oleic acid.
High-LA Sources to Avoid

As Goodrich suggests, if you want to protect your health, you’d be wise to avoid all concentrated sources of LA. Top sources include chips fried in vegetable oil, commercial salad dressings, virtually all processed foods and any fried fast food, such as french fries.

“What amazes me is people who go to all these measures and I’ll hold up my girlfriend as an example. She was a vegan when we got together, had a farm and grew organic food and went to extremes to avoid toxins in food and then went home and cooked with seed oils,” Goodrich says.
“There are so many people who are like this, who are genuinely trying to do their best to have a healthy diet and then they’re chugging down LA that turns into a metabolic toxin in your body, and they wonder why they can’t lose weight.
By the way, after I told her, what I just said here: Avoid seed oils, avoid refined carbohydrates, eat animal food and animal fats, she lost 56 pounds in two and a half months and her autoimmune disease, fibromyalgia, went into complete remission.”

The Importance of Carnosine

Beef, even conventional grain-finished beef, has low LA. Grass fed beef has higher DHA and CLA, which makes it a healthier option. Beef is also the primary source of carnosine, which has been shown to be anti-atherogenic.
Carnosine is also a mitochondrial stimulant, a sacrificial scavenger of advanced lipooxidation end products (ALEs), which is very similar to advanced glycation end products (AGEs). AGEs is another name for HNE and all the other reactive oxygen species generated from oxidizing LA.
Carnosine is the most effective scavenger for HNE. Carbonylation of proteins is basically the process through which proteins in your body get damaged and become ineffective. HNE damages 24% of the proteins in your cells, so carnosine can go a long way toward warding off this cellular damage. As explained by Goodrich:

“In heart failure, Alzheimer’s and in AMD, one of the things they see is an inability of the cell to produce enough energy. The mitochondria are getting damaged. HNE does that damage. It damages 24% of the proteins in the cell, primarily around energy production.
One of the worst cancers is glioblastoma, a brain cancer. A researcher up in Boston, [Thomas Seyfried], decided to try and figure out why the mitochondria are getting damaged in glioblastoma, and found they all have oxidized cardiolipin. Every single cancer cell he looked at had damaged cardiolipin in it.
One of the ways your cells produce energy is they basically ferment glucose into pyruvate outside of the mitochondria This is a perfectly normal part of metabolism and they produce something called pyruvate. A molecule called pyruvate dehydrogenase takes pyruvate into the mitochondria and converts it to acetyl-CoA so the mitochondria can burn it very efficiently for fuel.
Well, one of the things HNE does is it breaks pyruvate dehydrogenase, and they see this in Alzheimer’s where their cells are no longer able to produce enough energy. This is why your cells are dying in Alzheimer’s. The beta amyloid plaques in Alzheimer’s disease are induced by HNE. There’s a great model that came out of Harvard a couple of years ago showing that.
And in cancer, if you can’t get pyruvate out of the cell, out of the cytosol, the part of the cell surrounding the mitochondria, it has to ferment there and turn it into energy, which is what we call the Warburg effect, where you start shifting over to this damaged primitive fuel system. The evidence seems to be that that’s because you’ve broken your mitochondria.
Even the critical, the most important part of the mitochondria, complex 5ADP synthase — which is what takes all the energy coming from your mitochondria and turns it into ATP, which is what fuels the rest of your body — is damaged by HNE. This is a huge issue. There’s no more fundamental problem in aging and health than protein damage.”

Take Control of Your Health by Lowering Your LA Intake
As you can see, the evidence strongly suggests excessive LA is driving all the killer diseases today. The solution is simple though. Just lower your LA intake. There’s an easy way to do this. You don’t have to send all your food out for analysis. Simply use an online nutritional calculator such as Chronometer to calculate your daily intake.

Chronometer will tell you how much omega-6 you’re getting from your food down to the 10th of a gram, and you can assume 90% of that is LA. Again, anything over 10 grams is likely to cause problems. Since there’s no downside to limiting your LA, you’ll want to keep it as low as possible, which you do by avoiding high-LA foods.
Keep in mind you’ll never be able to get to zero, and you wouldn’t want to do that either. So, just what should you eat to keep your LA intake low? Goodrich summarizes his own diet:

“I eat mostly beef. I eat vegetables. I cook mostly in butter. I eat a little bit of fruit. I eat occasional grains. Occasionally I’ll have corn, a little bit of rice and potatoes. I’m mostly on a cyclical keto diet. Once you fix your metabolic system, then you can go back and forth a lot easier and I don’t see any reason to be on strict keto long term. I think [cyclical keto] is healthier.
They looked at a ketogenic diet in rodents and found they were protected. The reason they were protected is because they were able to burn HNE as fuel. But if you add a little bit more insulin into the system, then it turns off fat-burning and HNE goes out of the mitochondria and does more damage.”

This is yet another reason for working out in a fasted state, which Goodrich also recommends. “I think working on a fasted state is one of the most important health things that you can do, without question,” he says. Goodrich also points out that the reason a strict ketogenic diet can cause liver failure is due to the omega-6 fats in the diet. It’s crucial to make sure the fats you eat are actually healthy.

Goodrich is currently in the process of writing a book about this, as am I, in which all of this information will be laid out in even greater detail. In the meantime, you can learn more by visiting Goodrich’s blog, Yelling-Stop, or follow him on Twitter. In closing:

“I can’t say anything that you haven’t already said in this talk, honestly,” Goodrich says. “You want to eat like your ancestors ate because your ancestors were healthier and they were not eating industrial seed oils. They were not eating industrial processed carbs in high quantities.
They were making sure that they got lots of animal meat and animal fat and they were getting exercise. I mean, it doesn’t really matter what kind of exercise you’re doing, just as long as you’re doing it.
I think I have helped many people in many different ways by telling people this. And it’s typically a short conversation, like my girlfriend who cured her autoimmune disease, fibromyalgia. She’d been in constant pain for almost 30 years and it went away in a couple of weeks. I mean, that’s amazing, and it’s so simple to do.
This is, I believe, the fundamental problem with our modern health — this issue of LA. There are lots of other things that play into it. There’s no doubt about that, but that’s the fundamental thing. If you fix that, you can get away with doing a lot of other things that aren’t exactly optimal, but still be healthy.”

Categories
Recommended

Vitamin C Treatment for COVID-19 Being Silenced

In the video above, Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, presents valuable information on the importance of vitamin C for disease treatment, including COVID-19 — information that’s being widely silenced via organized censorship.1
His Tokyo presentation, “Orthomolecular Medicine and Coronavirus Disease: Historical Basis for Nutritional Treatment,” highlights the fact that when used as a treatment, high doses of vitamin C — often 1,000 times more than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) — are needed.
It’s a cornerstone of medical science that dose affects treatment outcome, but this premise isn’t accepted when it comes to vitamin therapy the way it is with drug therapy. Most vitamin C research has used inadequate, low doses, which don’t lead to clinical results.
“The medical literature has ignored over 80 years of laboratory and clinical studies on high-dose ascorbate (vitamin C) therapy,” Saul notes, adding that while it’s widely accepted that vitamin C is beneficial in fighting illness, controversy exists over to what extent. “Moderate quantities provide effective prevention,” he says, while “large quantities are therapeutic.”
Three Pioneers of High-Dose Vitamin C Therapy

Vitamin C is perhaps most well-known for its antioxidant properties — properties it maintains because of an ability to donate electrons to oxidized molecules. Even in small quantities, vitamin C helps protect proteins, lipids and DNA and RNA in your body from reactive oxygen species that are generated during normal metabolism as well as due to toxin exposure (such as to cigarette smoke and air pollution).
Vitamin C is also involved in the biosynthesis of collagen, carnitine and catecholamines, according to Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D., and as such, “vitamin C participates in immune function, wound healing, fatty acid metabolism, neurotransmitter production and blood vessel formation, as well as other key processes and pathways.”2

Vitamin C at extremely high doses, however, acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses. While it does have anti-inflammatory activity, which helps prevent the massive cytokine cascade associated with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, its antiviral capacity likely has more to do with it being a non-rate-limited free radical scavenger. Three pioneers of high-dose vitamin C therapy include:

1. Dr. Claus Washington Jungeblut — A professor of bacteriology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Jungeblut was a pioneer polio researcher and the first to report that vitamin C is an antiviral antitoxin. Vitamin C was used as prevention and treatment for polio, an idea first published by Jungeblut in 1935.3

“It’s astonishing to many that if vitamin C were proven to be an antiviral, even in small doses, back in the 1930s, that interest would be there now, in the COVID pandemic, to use vitamin C as a preventive and, indeed, as a treatment for viral disease at the present time,” Saul says.
2. Dr. Frederick Robert Klenner — For decades, Klenner, a North Carolina-based board-certified chest specialist, treated patients with injections of vitamin C ranging from 300 milligrams (mg) to 1,200 mg per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day, successfully treating polio, pneumonia and other serious viral diseases.4

Klenner, the first physician to use vitamin C therapy with 40 years of medical practice, said, “When proper amounts are used, ascorbic acid will destroy all virus organisms.”
3. Dr. Robert F. Cathcart III — Cathcart was a California physician and orthopedic surgeon who developed the value of vitamin C as an antiviral and used oral and IV doses of up to 200,000 mg per day. Beginning in the late 1960s, Cathcart used large doses of vitamin C to successfully treat viral illnesses including influenza, pneumonia, hepatitis and AIDS.

It’s often asked how you can determine if you’ve taken too much vitamin C, and Cathcart described this in great detail in a paper in 1981.5 With oral doses, when you’ve had all the vitamin C your body can handle, you’ll develop loose stools. With intravenous vitamin C, however, this doesn’t occur. Liposomal vitamin C will also allow you to take much higher dosages without getting loose stools.

You can take up to 100 grams (100,000 mg) of liposomal vitamin C without problems and get really high blood levels, equivalent to or higher than intravenous vitamin C. This should be viewed as an acute treatment, however.

Fact Checkers Flagged Expert Vitamin C Opinion as False
Cathcart, a physician with decades of experience using vitamin C to treat viral illness, said, “I have not seen any flu yet that was not cured or markedly ameliorated by massive doses of vitamin C.” Saul believes this would apply to any viral illness, including COVID-19. He posted the quote on Facebook, which quickly flagged it as “false information” according to its fact-checkers:

“Some so-called fact-checkers, employed by Facebook, decided that this statement is false. I do not understand how the opinion of a medical doctor can be considered false. You can disagree with it, but it’s not false. If this is what the doctor observed, if this is the doctor’s professional opinion, it is a valid point of view. But not on Facebook.”

February 12, 2020, Saul made the statement on Facebook that based on the research of Jungeblut, Klenner and Cathcart, “The coronavirus pandemic can be dramatically slowed, or stopped, with the immediate widespread use of high doses of vitamin C.” Facebook immediately blocked his post claiming it was false, based on the opinion — again — of anonymous fact-checkers, most of whom have no formal medical training.
He responded, “Preventing and treating respiratory infections with large amounts of vitamin C is well established. Those who believe that vitamin C generally has merit but massive doses are ineffective or somehow harmful would do well to read the original papers for themselves.”
Saul adds that while other nutrients are also important, he believes vitamin C is the most important “crisis therapy” for those who find themselves in the intensive care unit, extremely ill and at risk of dying from COVID-19. It’s also the least expensive preventive for the general public.
“After I posted that one mention about vitamin C and COVID,” Saul said, “vitamin C started selling out and disappearing from shelves in stores around the world. So I guess the fact-checkers were a little bit late. But ultimately, they did shut down the spread of this information — information about viruses being treated with vitamin C.”6
Chinese Physicians Recommend Vitamin C Treatment for COVID

Saul also highlights a study, published in Chinese, that detailed the accounts of four patients admitted to Xi’an Jiaotong University Second Hospital with COVID-19, who recovered in February 2020.
“High-dose vitamin C achieved good results in clinical applications,” the researchers noted, adding, “Vitamin C treatment should be initiated as soon as possible after admission,” and, “High-dose vitamin C can not only improve antiviral levels, but more importantly, can prevent and treat acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress.”
Although Saul shared this information, it was not picked up by the media. Another quote from Dr. ZhiYong Peng, chief of critical care at Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, reads:

“In my department and other hospitals we highly recommend the patients use 12,000 milligrams to 24,000 mg a day of vitamin C. That works for significant reduction of COVID becoming a severe case. In my hospital, all the medical professionals are given vitamin C powder, to take 1,000 to 2,000 mg. I heard that the majority of the major hospitals in Wuhan are giving vitamin C powder to their medical professionals.”

Further, according to Saul, the government of Shanghai, China, officially recommends treating COVID-19 with intravenous vitamin C at a dose of 200 mg per kg of body weight per day, an adult intravenous dosage of approximately 16,000 mg/day. The protocol was published by the Chinese Medical Association.7 Facebook and its fact-checkers, again disagreed, flagging the information as “partly false.”
“They never contacted me to check my sources … They never contacted the hospitals … or anyone in China … They never contacted the experts that we quoted, and they never contacted the government of Shanghai,” Saul said. “They simply decided it was false news, and that was the end of it. I believe withholding vitamin C treatment information from the public withholds it from the patient. I accuse the media of negligence.”
Lancet Suggests High-Dose Vitamin C as ‘Rescue Therapy’

Even a commentary published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine in March 2020 states, “Rescue therapy with high-dose vitamin C can also be considered”8 in patients with respiratory failure from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19. “Very little has been done with this, unfortunately,” Saul states, despite it having been published in the earliest months of the pandemic.
Other articles and YouTube videos from physicians supporting the use of vitamin C for COVID-19 have also been censored or removed completely. One objection sometimes given is that high-dose vitamin C is dangerous, but as Saul notes, it’s one of the most studied therapies in history.
In 2007, a study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Harri Hemila, considered to be an authority on vitamin C, called potential harms of large doses of vitamin C “unfounded,” and stated that patients with pneumonia can take up to 100 grams a day of vitamin C without developing diarrhea, “possibly because of the changes in vitamin C metabolism caused by the severe infection.”9
Past research by Hemila and colleagues found that 17,000 mg/day of intravenous vitamin C shortened intensive care unit stays by 44%.10 According to Saul, Dr. Richard Cheng, a Chinese American physician, further reported that about 50 moderate to severe cases of COVID-19 infection were treated with high-dose vitamin C, involving 10,000 mg for moderate cases and 20,000 mg for more severe cases, for seven to 10 days.
Not only did all of the patients improve, but there were no side effects reported from the vitamin C therapy. “You guessed it,” Saul said, “Fact-checkers said it’s false. Facebook said it’s false. The media said it’s false. And this report, by a physician direct from Shanghai, who personally worked with the chief of emergency medicine of a major hospital, right there, and had success … all of this was called false information and banned from Facebook.”
‘This Is Organized Censorship’

In February 2020, Saul reports, the World Health Organization met with about a dozen tech companies, including Google, Amazon and YouTube, instructing them to stop the spread of coronavirus misinformation. The group, which planned to meet every few months, has been targeting information related to natural health treatments like vitamin C, calling them fake news and conspiracies.11
But in reality, Saul said, the labeling of vitamin C for COVID-19 as fake news is “organized censorship. This does fit the description of conspiracy. They are trying to stop the information on vitamin C from getting out. And, unfortunately, to a large extent they have succeeded.”
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, on the record in 2016, “Take vitamin C. It can enhance your body’s defense against microbes.”12

Then, during the pandemic, he mentioned it again, in an Instagram interview, where he said that vitamin D will help your body resist infection, and added, “The other vitamin that people take is vitamin C because it’s a good antioxidant, so if people want to take a gram or so of vitamin C, that would be fine.”13,14
Cheng also interviewed a family in Wuhan, China, which took large doses of vitamin C and didn’t get COVID-19, despite close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 patient. The video was removed by YouTube. “I can’t believe this is happening,” Cheng said.

Dr. Paul Marik has also shown a protocol of intravenous vitamin C with hydrocortisone and thiamine (vitamin B1) dramatically improves survival rates in patients with sepsis. Since sepsis is one of the reasons people die from COVID-19 infection, Marik’s vitamin C protocol may go a long way toward saving people’s lives in this pandemic.

That protocol calls for 1,500 mg of ascorbic acid every six hours, and appears radically effective. However, I would recommend taking even higher doses using liposomal vitamin C if you’re taking it orally.
Personally, I discourage people from taking mega doses of vitamin C on a regular basis if they’re not actually sick. I view high dose vitamin C as a very safe and effective intervention for acute upper respiratory infections largely because it converts to hydrogen peroxide, which your body uses to fight infections.
I don’t believe it is necessary to take high doses for long periods of time, however. Vitamin C’s potential for treating severe illness, and helping to prevent it, is something that should be widely shared, not silenced.
For more information and further reading, Saul’s Orthomolecular Medicine News Service has an archive of several dozen news releases on COVID-19 and nutrition that you probably have not seen in the media.15

Categories
Recommended

Is Talc in Your Makeup? There’s Probably Asbestos in It Too

In 2019, the beauty industry had reached a value of $532 billion and is projected to rapidly rise in the coming years.1 Personal care products are benefiting from targeted pricing, social media and companies aiming at sustainable alternatives. In other words, personal care products and cosmetics is big business.
At least since the times of ancient Egypt, women have been using products to enhance or alter their appearance.2 With this long-lasting growth, toxins such as formaldehyde, parabens and phthalates have made their way into personal care products.3
One compound you may not have considered toxic is talcum powder. One of the largest companies to sell talcum is Johnson & Johnson, which launched their iconic baby powder in 1894. By 2018, their total annual sales were more than $81.6 billion.4
What’s in Your Makeup May Give You Cancer

The powdery ingredient that the beauty industry uses can be listed as talcum powder, talcum, cosmetic talc, or magnesium silicate. Talc is a mineral, which when crushed is particularly useful in a wide variety of products.5 The unique qualities include the ability to absorb odor, lubricate and resist high temperatures. This made it useful in cosmetics, powders, crayons, children’s toys and even in roofing materials and polished rice.
The New York Times reports it’s also used in pharmaceutical pills, supplements and chewing gum.6 Groups that test children’s toys have found it in crime scene kits and crayons. Until the 1990s, it was used in surgical gloves and condoms.
A recent study published in Environmental Health Insights by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has once again linked personal care products talcum containing with exposure to asbestos.7 One of the products tested in the study was designed specifically for use by children. So how does asbestos, a known carcinogen, contaminate talc?
Asbestos is the term given to six naturally occurring minerals that are made of flexible fibers. When these fibers are inhaled or ingested, they can be permanently trapped in your body. Over time they trigger inflammation and eventually genetic damage that can lead to an aggressive form of cancer called mesothelioma.
In nature, asbestos minerals are found with talc minerals so, during processing, there’s a significant risk talcum can become contaminated with asbestos. When you think of asbestos you might first imagine home insulation, as that’s where it was primarily used for consumers. But the qualities of the product made it useful to the military, heavy construction and shipbuilding, as well. It became part of the beauty industry due to its ties to talcum.
Talcum can be found in over 2,000 personal care products including blush, face and body powders and eyeshadow. In their study, the EWG found 14.2% of the cosmetics that were tested were contaminated with asbestos. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., was one researcher in the study and scientist at EWG. She spoke to ZME Science about the results saying:8

“The prevalence of asbestos found in cosmetics from this study is troubling given that most people don’t expect asbestos to be in their make-up, especially not in children’s toy make-up. This highlights the lack of adequate screening of talc.”

Baby Powder Is Dangerous for Babies

The lack of adequate screening places the public at risk. The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrances Association, which represents the personal care product industry, stated in 1976 that all cosmetic products sold in the US “should be free from detectable amounts of asbestos according to their standards.”9
But, as ZME Science points out, testing is not standardized, and this became a loophole the industry exploited.10 Additionally, the testing that is done on talcum powder is voluntary by the manufacturers and the FDA has no authority to recall products when contamination is found.
The testing the industry uses currently is not sensitive enough to detect contamination, which is why the EWG is lobbying for a more reliable method to be used across the U.S. Talcum powder is the main ingredient in Johnson & Johnsons core baby product. However, while most parents would presume it’s safe for babies because it’s labeled for babies, the American Academy of Pediatrics has warned parents of baby powder dangers since 1969.11
In March 2020, the FDA released the results of a year-long study in which they tested 52 cosmetic products and found nine to be contaminated with asbestos.12 One of those products was Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. Three others were makeup sold by Claire’s and the remaining five were makeup sold by City Color.
The FDA (17.3%) and EWG (14.2%) tests found a similar percentage of personal care products were contaminated with asbestos. Another study published in 2014, found anthophyllite and tremolite, two asbestos minerals, in one brand of talc tested for litigation after a woman died from mesothelioma.13
The study did not name the brand of talc the woman had used for years, but the researchers wrote that a study published in 1976 found this same brand of talc had the highest level of asbestos of 20 commercial brands tested.14 The scientists in the study published in 2014, wrote:15

“Furthermore, we have traced the asbestos in the talc to the mines from which it originated, into the milled grades, into the product, and finally into the lung and lymph nodes of the users of those products, including one woman who developed mesothelioma.

Based on the testing and re-testing conducted by the authors, it is evident that this product line has been consistently contaminated with asbestos tainted talc derivatives. The amount of asbestos was variable based on the time of manufacture and the talc source.

In conclusion, we found that a specific brand of talcum powder contained identifiable asbestos fibers with the potential to be released into the air and inhaled during normal personal talcum powder application.

We also found that asbestos fibers consistent with those found in the same cosmetic talc product were present in the lungs and lymph node tissues of a woman who used this brand of talc powder and developed and died from mesothelioma.”

Johnson & Johnson Aware of the Issue Since 1957

In a 1995 letter to the editor published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, two physicians wrote of the health risks women faced when their partners used condoms covered in talcum powder, namely infertility and ovarian cancer.16 The doctor’s interest in talc began when they found it was an unwanted contaminant in 70% of the silicone gel breast implants they evaluated.
Johnson & Johnson was well aware of the health risks associated with talcum powder long before this. It wasn’t until the company was sued by over 11,000 plaintiffs, who all claimed the baby powder had asbestos, that the full extent of their knowledge came to light.
In the documents the company had to be forced to release, it was revealed that they were aware of tainted samples in 1957 and 1958 when they asked an external lab to do an analysis.17 As reported by Reuters, when the FDA questioned Johnson & Johnson about asbestos contamination in the talc, the company issued a statement in which they denied any knowledge, saying:18

“Our fifty years of research knowledge in this area indicates that there is no asbestos contained in the powder manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.”

Despite indisputable evidence that asbestos is linked to cancer,19 and over 40 years of evidence that talcum powder can be contaminated with asbestos,20,21,22 some experts continue to waffle on whether talcum powder can be dangerous.
For example, the American Cancer Society acknowledges that talc with asbestos is “able to cause cancer if it is inhaled.” But continues: “The evidence about asbestos-free talc is less clear.”23
They make no mention of the lack of standardized testing, how to determine if the talc you’re buying has been tested and go on to say: “There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder.”24
Company Uses Pandemic as a Reason to Pull Baby Powder

A study released in January 2020 pulled data from four cohort studies of 252,745 women. The results made headlines because the scientists asserted there “was not a statistically significant association between use of powder in the genital area and incident ovarian cancer.”25
However, when carefully read,26 the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN) found the participants were not asked about the type of powder used (talc or cornstarch) and the researchers acknowledge “specific exposure windows could not be examined, nor could type of powder used” [limitations].
Yet, the authors extrapolated the results to all powder, including talc. The NWHN goes on to reveal several more discrepancies that do not warrant the researchers’ conclusion.
Another study in the International Journal of Toxicology calls the talc and asbestos relationship “commonly misunderstood”27 and “Industry specifications state that cosmetic-grade talc must contain no detectable fibrous, asbestos minerals.”
Johnson & Johnson continues to assert that talcum powder is safe, and their No. 1 reason is because “talc has been used for centuries.”28 Then, in February 2020, the company announced they would voluntarily take their baby powder off the shelf in the U.S. and Canada.29
USA Today reported the company did this “to focus on products with a higher priority during the coronavirus pandemic.” In other words, the company is using the pandemic response as a smoke screen to pull baby powder from the shelves.
The plan is to only remove it from the U.S. and Canadian market, which represent 0.5% of their total consumer health business.30 Forbes reports this market was $13.8 billion in 2018.31

“Demand for talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising.”

Take Care With Your Personal Care Products

Unfortunately, many still believe that if a product is sold in the stores, it is likely safe for use. But, as this fight to remove cancer-causing talcum powder blatantly shows, manufacturers are willing to pay millions to make billions. The thousands of pending lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson are a reminder that it’s a buyer beware market when it comes to personal care products.
Women may be exposed to an average of 168 chemicals daily and men, 85.32 Many of these have been linked to cancer, reproductive toxicities, asthma, allergies and other health problems.
There is no safety testing required before these personal care products hit the grocery store shelf and few chemicals have been banned in the U.S. since the industry is largely self-regulated. In other words, it’s like the fox guarding the hen house.
You do have choices and the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep33 database can help you make those choices. It contains a list of ingredients and safety ratings for close to 75,000 cosmetics and personal care products. This is an important step, since your skin is an excellent drug delivery system. What goes on your body is as important as what goes in your mouth.
Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients. Be aware that products boasting “all-natural” labels can still contain harmful chemicals, so be sure to check the full list of ingredients.
Better yet, simplify your routine and make your own products. A slew of lotions and hair treatments can be eliminated with a jar of coconut oil, for example, to which you can add a high-quality essential oil, if you like, for scent.
When it comes to talcum powder, my recommendation is to avoid it altogether. Also remember that adult women are not the ones most commonly exposed to talc. Most parents generously apply baby talcum powder to their baby’s bottom at each diaper change, exposing both the parent and baby to inhaling the powder.

Categories
Recommended

German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation

Reiner Fuellmich,1 who has been a consumer protection trial lawyer in California and Germany2 for 26 years, is a founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,3 or ACU),4,5 launched July 10, 2020.
Fuellmich is leading the committee’s corona crisis tort case — an international class-action lawsuit that will be filed against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world.
He estimates more than 50 other countries will be following suit. In the video above, Patrick Bet-David interviews Fuellmich about how and why the group was formed and the status of this work.
The Backstory

Early on, as Fuellmich started hearing concerns from family and friends in Germany about a new respiratory virus, one particular name kept popping up: professor Christian Drosten, Ph.D., a German virologist.
As head of the Institute of Virology at the University of Bonn Medical Centre, Drosten is best known for developing the first diagnostic test for SARS in 2003. He also developed a diagnostic test for the swine flu,6 and in 2009 helped drum up panic with doomsday prophesies about H1N1.
When COVID-19 initially emerged in early 2020, Drosten kept saying there was no cause for concern. Then, seemingly overnight, he changed his tune, “as though someone had given him a signal.” All of a sudden, Drosten was saying that this virus was extremely dangerous and that drastic measures to contain it had to be implemented.
Based on whistleblower testimony, the German government relied on the opinion of Drosten alone when deciding on their pandemic response, which included the lockdown of healthy citizens and the suspension of constitutional rights for an indefinite period of time.
Interestingly, Fuellmich’s team recently discovered that Drosten’s Ph.D. dissertation is a fraud. It was only created this year when people began investigating his background.
Aside from Drosten, other individuals who have prominent roles include Lothar H. Wieler, the head of the German equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the World Health Organization and Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College of London.
Unsure of what was going on, Fuellmich contacted an old friend, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German Congress and the Council of Europe. Wodarg urged him to investigate and suggested some names of experts to look into, such as professor John Ioannidis at Stanford University and professor and Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt.
The more he investigated the facts available, the more Fuellmich realized COVID-19 was being grossly oversold. Eventually, he started making inquiries to see if there were any other lawyers out there raising questions about the legality of the pandemic and the global response to it.
He discovered that Beate Bahner, an attorney specializing in medical law, had in fact spoken out, arguing that Germany’s quarantine measures were unconstitutional. She was arrested and held in a psychiatric ward for a number of days. Needless to say, that wasn’t an encouraging start.
Separation of Power Has Been Breached

Disturbingly, while the governments of many nations have the same separation of power as the U.S., where you have separate legislative, judiciary and executive branches, we are now finding that this separation has been breached and nearly destroyed in most places.
Rather than being run by the legislators that we voted into power (and who have the legal power to make law), we’re being ruled by the executive branch, such as our local governors, who are creating rules and regulations without having the legal and constitutional power to do so.
They may issue emergency orders for a few days, but really that’s the extent of their legal power. After that, the legislature must be brought in. Yet here we are, several months into the pandemic, and local governors and mayors all over the world are still issuing long-term mandatory mask and social distancing orders, many of which call for the arrest of those who don’t follow the rules.
We now have plenty of data showing its lethality is on par with the common flu and that the absolute risk of death is equivalent to the risk of dying in a car accident.
As noted by Fuellmich, the judiciary branch must step in, and now, finally, they are starting to do so. In Austria, the constitutional court issued an order November 12, 2020, not only clarifying the separation of powers and stressing that the legislative branch must be involved, but also that there must be a comprehensive discussion where both sides are heard. There are other scientists besides those anointed by the government, and their opinions must be considered as well.
Suing the World Over Faux Pandemic

As noted by Bet-David, there are several important questions that must be answered:

What caused the pandemic?
Who started it?
Who needs to be held accountable?
In what way must they be held accountable?

Fuellmich agrees, saying that answering these questions is the reason for why ACU was formed. Governments appear unwilling to investigate the answers to these questions, and that’s why he and three other attorneys decided to take on the task of preparing class-action lawsuits. The primary questions the ACU seeks to answer are:

How dangerous is the virus, really?
How trustworthy is the PCR test; what does a positive test really mean?
How much damage do the anti-COVID measures inflict to the economy and the health and well-being of the population?

What Do We Now Know?
The last question is easily answered, Fuellmich says. Evidence shows pandemic measures have caused tremendous harm, killing more people than the virus itself by restricting routine medical care to people with acute and chronic health conditions that have nothing to do with COVID-19.
As for the danger of SARS-CoV-2, we now have plenty of data showing its lethality is on par with the common flu7,8,9,10,11 and that the absolute risk of death is equivalent to the risk of dying in a car accident.12,13 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same.
According to Fuellmich, even the WHO has now admitted that the mortality of COVID-19 is on par with seasonal influenza. In October 2020, the WHO also reversed its stance on lockdowns, stating they no longer recommend using lockdowns as a primary control method.14
Several experts have also stressed that there is no excess mortality,15,16 meaning we’ve had an average number of deaths during the pandemic as would normally die anyway. And, if there’s no excess mortality, how can there be a lethal pandemic? It doesn’t add up.
Fraudulent Testing Is Driving Pandemic Narrative

Of the three questions, the second one is perhaps the most important, as mass testing is driving the narrative that we’re in a lethal pandemic. As explained by Fuellmich, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several weaknesses that appear to be taken advantage of to create needless fear.
The fact is, 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.17 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. 
Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” 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, 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.
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.
According to Fuellmich, the consensus is that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible. Yet Drosten’s test and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.18,19,20
When 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,”21,22 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. For this reason, Fuellmich and his team are primarily focused on the PCR test issue.
They’ve taken testimony from a number of well-respected immunologists from around the world, all of whom agree that the PCR test is incapable of telling us anything about the transmission of COVID-19.
The Panic Paper

According to Fuellmich, the sole reason the PCR test is used, and used in an incorrect way, is to create enough fear that no one will question the pandemic measures being put into place and simply do as they’re told. He goes on to review the so-called “Panic Paper,”23,24 written by the German Department of the Interior.
This classified paper, which was leaked to the press, reveals there was an intentional plan at the level of the German government to drive people into a panic.
One of the strategies laid out in the paper was to guilt children into compliance, to make them feel responsible “for the tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow the anti-corona regulations.” According to Fuellmich, what we have is a staged PCR test pandemic. It’s not a lethal virus pandemic, “and I can prove this in court,” he says.
What’s the End Game?

As noted by Fuellmich, more and more people around the world are now starting to wake up to the fact that the restrictions put into place under the guise of protecting public health are not going away anytime soon. They’re part of a much larger, long-term plan, and the end goal is to usher in a new way of life, devoid of our previous freedoms.
The judicial branch is “the last anchor of democracy,” Fuellmich says. He brings up an important point. The WHO, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations are all private corporations, yet they wield tremendous power over the governments of the world.
The World Economic Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab, is incredibly influential and lobbies politicians around the globe. Together, private corporations and politicians have in some instances usurped power from the government and are acting above the law of the land.
Big Tech plays an important part in this usurpation of power. The most important human right around the world is the right to free speech. It’s foundational for any democracy. Yet the tech giants have all banded together to censor certain segments of the global population.

“We have to take back the power from them and put it back where it belongs, with the government, and we have to take a really close look at who is in government and who became too close to these corporations,” Fuellmich says.

Key Players

While the full picture is still being put together, Fuellmich and his team have some ideas of who the key players are, at least in Germany. They include the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) of Germany, Drosten, Wieler (the head of the German equivalent of the CDC), Ghebreyesus (head of the WHO), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.
These individuals have repeatedly met over the years, including in May 2019, at which time they discussed plans for a coming pandemic. During this meeting, Drosten explained how his PCR test would be used to identify infections — “A blatant lie, as we now know it,” Fuellmich says.
These were the same individuals who in 2020 rolled out the narrative for the COVID-19 pandemic and pushed for the global implementation of PCR testing, mask wearing, social distancing and the shut-down of economies around the world.
According to Fuellmich, Germany is at the center of this global fraud, and three of the key criminals in this case appear to be Drosten, Wieler and Ghebreyesus — and the organizations behind them.
That said, he also admits there must be others behind these public marionettes that are pulling the strings. Fuellmich believes that through pretrial discovery, these shadowy figures will eventually come to light.
Battle Plan

As mentioned earlier, we must now push the judicial branch of our government to step in. Fuellmich explains:

“We have the power [to ask] courts of law to step in, but we have to show in a court of law that this is not a corona pandemic but rather a staged PCR pandemic, which was made up — invented — for completely different purposes, for these corporations.
We do not know exactly who is responsible, but we see that some of the corporations that are now censoring us are in part responsible; we know some people — such as Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab or Blackrock — were investing their money into pharmaceutical and technical companies. Also, the mainstream media, they [have been] brought into line and are not going to report on the other side of the story.
In order to bring out this story, we have to have a court of law that will take a look at the evidence that is there … And that’s what we’re doing right now. We’re doing this both in Germany and in the United States … The U.S. and Canada are so important in this because they are the two countries that have class-actions.”

At present, class-action lawsuits are being prepared in the U.S. and Canada. Lawsuits are also being prepared in Germany. Germany does not permit class-actions so, there, the process is being done a bit differently. ACU is also working on the creation of legal guidelines and data caches that attorneys around the world will be able to use to file their own lawsuits.
As for the average person, Fuellmich urges everyone to, first of all, don’t give up, and secondly, ask lots of questions. Continue asking questions because the more questions are asked, the more answers will come to light. Continue to counter the censorship by asking questions. Once court hearings begin, the information will start to spread more quickly.
To learn more, all ACU meetings are live-streamed and available on the Committee’s YouTube channel25 (at least for now). Fuellmich can be contacted via www.fuellmich.com, and the Corona Inquiry Committee via corona-ausschuss.de. Information in multiple languages should also be available on www.ACU2020.org.

Categories
Recommended

Can Humidifiers Help Prevent COVID?

Controlling the humidity level in your home, or even simply in your bedroom while you sleep, may lower your risk of contracting infectious diseases like influenza, colds or possibly even COVID-19 during the winter months.1 Humidity is an often overlooked factor in the spread of viruses, which become more transmissible in cold, dry winter climates.
This is why many viral diseases are seasonal in nature, peaking during the colder, less humid winter. Dr. Stephanie Taylor, a graduate of Harvard Medical School who also has a master’s in architecture, believes so strongly in the role of humidity in infection control that she’s petitioning the World Health Organization to make relative humidity part of standard recommendations for indoor air, along with other air quality measures like pollution and mold.
Taylor, along with researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, collected data from 125 countries regarding pandemic responses, COVID-19 cases and environmental data, including estimates of indoor relative humidity.
They analyzed the data for a period of three months, revealing that indoor relative humidity had the most significant correlation with daily new coronavirus cases and daily COVID-19 deaths.
In the northern hemisphere, as indoor humidity levels rose in the summer, COVID-19 deaths had a sharp decline. Likewise, in the southern hemisphere, COVID-19 deaths rose as humidity levels declined during the winter months. “It’s so powerful, it’s crazy,” Taylor told Wired.2 Though the research hasn’t been published yet, years of research support the importance of humidity levels when it comes to warding off infectious disease.
Dry Air Impairs Respiratory Tract Defenses

Back in 2011, researchers found that SARS, another type of coronavirus, was more stable in low temperature, low humidity environments compared to those in higher temperatures and relative humidity.3 It’s also been found in animal transmission studies that when relative humidity is kept in the “Goldilocks” zone of 40% to 60%, viruses become inactivated.4
“It is assumed that temperature and humidity modulate the viability of viruses by affecting the properties of viral surface proteins and lipid membrane,” researchers wrote in the Annual Review of Virology. “… An ideal humidity for preventing aerosol respiratory viral transmission at room temperature appears to be between 40% and 60% RH (relative humidity).”5
The mucosal surface of your respiratory tract is involved in part of a multi-tiered defense system against inhaled pathogens. Your mucus can catch bacteria and viruses, allowing you to expel them via a cough or swallow them before they’re able to enter your cells.
However, proper mucus hydration is required for this to work efficiently, and when you breathe dry, low humidity air it dries out the mucus layer and immobilizes cilia, hair-like structures that help move pathogens out of the body with their wave-like motions.6
Airway epithelial cells act as the second line of defense after the mucus layer, acting as a physical barrier within your respiratory tract. Inhaling dry air has been found to lead to “epithelial cilia loss, detachment of epithelial cells, and inflammation of the trachea” in animal studies, and may also impair epithelial cell repair in the lung after infection with influenza.7
Mucociliary clearance (MCC) is another one of your lungs’ defense mechanisms, which helps eliminate inhaled pathogens and irritants from the epithelial surface in your respiratory tract. Inhaling cold, dry air also impairs MCC, leading to impaired viral clearance following infection with influenza, for example. As noted in the Annual Review of Virology:8

“Given that the MCC depends on the maintenance of double mucus layers with two different viscosities and a delicate osmotic balance, proper mucus hydration is required for an efficient mucus transport.

A review on the relationship between temperature and humidity of inhaled air and properties of airway mucosa found that 100% RH at core temperature is the optimal condition for the efficient mucosal functions and airway defense in humans. Mucus dehydration caused by breathing air of low humidity leads to decreased MCC.”

Exposure to low humidity may even affect your antiviral innate immunity, including the expression of interferon-stimulated genes that help induce an antiviral state.9
Low Humidity in Hospitals, Schools Increases Infections

Considering the strong seasonality of influenza, and the fact that flu outbreaks have been associated with reductions in absolute humidity, researchers decided to raise humidity levels in a preschool to see if it would affect influenza infections. Humidifying classrooms from January to March to approximately 45% RH led to a significant reduction in influenza A virus, both in the air and on objects.10
The control rooms, which were not humidified, had 2.3 times more cases of influenza-like illness than the humidified rooms.11 Taylor, in an interview with the editor-in-chief of Engineered Systems, also described research showing that changing humidity levels in hospital rooms altered the rate of infections:12

“Starting in 2012-2013, I was involved in some research that was initially done in hospitals that clearly pointed to the correlation between low relative humidity in patient rooms and an increase in bacterial and viral infections.

I was startled by this. Subsequent studies in nursing homes, schools, and in offices have shown that people are much healthier, obtain fewer infections, have increased productivity, and sleep better at night with this range of humidity.

So, in doing more and more research on the relationship between 40%-60% indoor relative humidity and human health and decreased infections, it’s absolutely a rapid, holistic, and effective disease infection control strategy.

And, now, here comes COVID-19 and it’s more important than ever that we decrease transmission of respiratory viruses. Relative humidity in that range is so effective and, in my opinion, it should be mandated.”

Humidity Between 40% and 60% May Be Ideal

Many studies point to humidity levels between 40% and 60% as a key range for lowering infection risk. In a study on mice, those housed in a low-humidity environment were more susceptible to influenza and had more severe disease.13
Mice exposed to an aerosolized influenza virus and housed at 20% relative humidity, for instance, had more rapid weight loss, drop in body temperature and shortened survival compared to mice housed at 50% relative humidity.
The dry air compromised the mice’s resistance to infection, and those housed at lower humidity levels had impaired mucociliary clearance, innate antiviral defense and tissue repair function, the study found.
The results from another animal study demonstrated that raising relative humidity to 50% decreased mortality from flu infections,14 while yet another study found maintaining indoor relative humidity greater than 40% could significantly reduce the infectivity of influenza virus in the air.15
Studies on the survival of influenza virus also show a humidity connection, with one suggesting that aerosolized influenza survived the longest when the relative humidity was below 36%.16
In an opinion piece published in the Journal of Global Health, it’s again highlighted that indoor relative humidity greater than 40% will significantly reduce the infectivity of aerosolized influenza virus particles. Unfortunately, humidity in residential and commercial spaces in the U.S. is often below 25%,17 which enhances viral transmission. Even in the summer, when humidity levels are naturally higher outdoors, air conditioning limits humidity indoors.
The article, which was written by a collaboration of Croatian, U.S. and German researchers, also suggested that humidified air could be a solution to protecting hospital patients and fighting COVID-19:18

“In addition to being a protection against initial infection, functional mucosal barrier is also important in suppression of viral progression in already infected patients. Since many hospitals have very dry air, providing humidified air to patients in early stages of the disease may be beneficial.

… Considering the evident detrimental effect of dry air on our mucosal barrier and its role of the first line of defense against infection, in a situation of rapidly progressing COVID-19 pandemics it would be essential to aggressively promote active re-humidification of dry air in all public and private heated spaces.

Furthermore, wherever possible patients on ventilators should be ventilated with humidified air.”

Put a Humidifier in Your Bedroom

Using a portable humidifier in your bedroom during the winter months could reduce the survival of influenza virus in the air, according to a study published in Environmental Health.19 A model of a two-story residential residence was used under two ventilation conditions: forced hot air and radiant heating.
Portable humidifiers were used to control moisture content in the air, which was monitored for absolute humidity and concentrations of influenza virus. The addition of a portable humidifier with an output of 0.16 kilograms of water per hour in the bedroom increased absolute humidity 11% and relative humidity 19% during sleeping hours compared to having no humidifier present.
Along with the increases in humidity came a decrease in the survival of influenza virus, by 17.5% to 31.6%. The distribution of water vapor through the whole home was also beneficial, with increases of 3% to 12% AH/RH associated with reductions in influenza virus survival of 7.8% to 13.9%.20
The results suggest that not only could adding a humidifier to your bedroom prove to be an easy way to protect against the flu and other infections, but increasing humidification in public settings could also be beneficial for public health.
In fact, when Japanese researchers used the Fugaku supercomputer to model the transmission of virus particles in indoor environments, they found air humidity of lower than 30% led to more than double the number of aerosolized particles than occurred at humidity levels of 60% or higher.21
How to Monitor Humidity Levels

It should be noted that higher isn’t always better in the case of humidity. If your home’s humidity is higher than 60%, it increases the risk of mold and fungal growth.22 So, you’ll want to keep the level within the 40% to 60% range for ideal health benefits. The best way to test levels in your home is with a hygrometer. This device looks like a thermometer and measures the amount of moisture in the air.
Some humidifiers come with a built-in hygrometer, or humidistat, to help the humidifier maintain relative humidity in your home at a healthy level. If not, you can purchase a hygrometer at most hardware stores.
In one study, adding a humidifier to the bedroom occasionally resulted in relative humidity levels that exceeded 60%, especially when radiant heat was used,23 so you may need to adjust accordingly to keep levels in the optimal range. A dirty humidifier can also lead to the growth of mold and bacteria, so keeping it clean is important.
A hydrogen peroxide solution and soft bristle brush can be used to clean your humidifier, which should be done every three days. If your humidifier has a filter, be sure to change it at least as often as the manufacturer recommends and more if it’s dirty.24