Health & Fitness

The number of nursing homes has remained relatively stable since the Kaiser Family Foundation began publishing data in 2003.¹ In 2018² there were 52 million people over the age of 65 and about 1.4 million who lived in nursing homes in 2019.³ In this video, the chief compliance officer of CommuniCare talks about the processes in place in their senior care facilities to combat COVID-19.

As I've shared in the past, if you want to stay healthy, it’s important that you stay away from all hospitals, except in an emergency. This pandemic has proven that the spread of infectious disease is also rampant in other types of health care facilities such as nursing homes.

Remember that people living in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities are more susceptible to infectious diseases. Mild to moderate changes in the immune system, combined with comorbidities and metabolic changes, increase susceptibility in older adults.⁴

Comorbid conditions can include Type 2 diabetes, renal insufficiency, cardiovascular disease and arthritis. Not each of these is directly related to an increase in susceptibility, but they can contribute to overall frailty.⁵ So, it comes as no surprise that nursing home residents have made up a large part of the COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. and Italy. What is surprising, is how it happened.

Italy Creates Perfect Storm in Nursing Homes

In mid-April 2020, Italy had the highest death toll in Europe from COVID-19.⁶ By early June they had dropped to No. 3 as recorded by the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Resource Map, with nearly 235,000 deaths recorded in early June.⁷ Many occurred in the Lombardy region in Italy, their economic center.

The story likely began in early March when hospital beds were scarce and the president of Lombardy, Attilio Fontana, issued a resolution to send hospital patients with COVID-19 into nursing homes. Facilities were offered 150 euros ($163) per day for accepting these patients.⁸

The goal was to open hospital beds for people who were more severely ill. By late April, Italian authorities started investigating the high number of deaths of elderly residents in nursing homes. When the resolution was published, Luca Degani, president of a trade organization for 400 rest homes in the Lombardy region, was shocked. He spoke with a reporter from TRT World:⁹

"We read it twice, we did not want to believe what we read. The virus affects everyone indistinctly, but its lethality and gravity take a very significant logarithmic curve if people are aged and suffer multiple pathologies.

The fact that in our facilities we had people at greatest risk was a fact that had to be considered. These structures are made to let the elderly socialise and be provided with adequate care. They are not made to respond to an acute disease caused by a pandemic infection."

The deaths of nursing home residents are being called “lambs to the slaughter” and a “massacre” since health care workers were told they could not wear masks and other personal protective equipment for fear of alarming the residents.

The investigation into Pio Albergo Trivulzio, one of the largest homes in Milan, was launched when staff claimed that management downplayed the risk to them and the residents, and that they listed causes of death other than COVID-19 for those who died.¹⁰

Italian authorities have 600 other facilities under investigation and fear there are a large number of unaccounted deaths from coronavirus in nursing homes. While Fontana and the counselor for welfare are under a microscope for their actions, TRT World reports they are pointing the finger at the local Health Protection Agencies, claiming they were responsible for transferring the patients.

The chief of the Higher Health Institute in Italy believes that from early February until mid-April, more than 7,000 people died in nursing homes and that coronavirus was responsible for at least 40% of the deaths.

Experts think the actual figure may be higher since only a portion of the nursing homes were surveyed and few residents were tested.¹¹ One health care worker from the Trivulzio described the situation to a TRT World reporter:¹²

"The epidemic arrived in our facility on March 13 — but we were not aware of that — when 17 patients from Sesto San Giovanni hospital (on the outskirts of Milan) were admitted with the aim of easing the pressure on hospitals that no longer had beds.

On the 17 on March we placed them in a non-Covid ward: we were not afraid because we were told by the hospital administration that they were not infected. Since then, the contagion has started spreading among doctors, nurses and health workers. In the blink of an eye, it reached, of course, the residents of the structure: the elderly."

Some States Ignore CDC Warning and the Elderly Suffer

Not every state in America has posted the same percentage of nursing home deaths. In the absence of comprehensive data, in early May The New York Times¹³ found that at least 28,100 residents and workers in nursing homes had died.

In the U.S., the story began March 8, 2020, when the past head of the CDC wrote to CNN that “nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are ground zero.”¹⁴ By March 18, New York Post reported the CDC told health officials, "Substantial morbidity and mortality might be averted if all long-term care facilities take steps now to prevent exposure of their residents to COVID-19.”¹⁵

Seven days later, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an order that no one should be denied admission or readmission to a long-term care facility based on a COVID-19 infection, whether confirmed or suspected. Six days after that, Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey issued a similar order.

The orders did not allow the nursing homes to even ask whether patients had the virus. This didn't give long-term care facilities enough information to care for their patients appropriately. While all states had the same information, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis used a different tactic.

With the understanding that older adults are more likely to be at a higher risk, he allowed long-term care facilities to reject referrals of individuals who were infected and infectious. New York Post reported that as of mid-May, there were 5,500 deaths in nursing homes in New York state alone. This accounted for more overall deaths than any other state except New Jersey.

Nursing Home Deaths From COVID-19 Up to 80% in States

By comparison, Florida, which has a large number of long-term care homes, reported less than 750 deaths across the state, which is known for attracting retirees. In the face of these numbers, Cuomo defended his decision, and then six weeks later reversed the ruling while still insisting that the policy, which likely killed more than 5,000 people, had worked.

New York Post reported that executives from nursing homes in New York had complained that the governor should have known the mandate would kill thousands. They were unwilling to go public, however, because they feared fines and getting their licenses revoked.

The New York Times reported they identified 14 states in which more than 50% of the deaths from COVID-19 had happened in nursing homes or long-term care facilities.¹⁶

The data show that 60% of all deaths in Virginia occurred in long-term care facilities (LTCs); in Delaware, it was 66%; Rhode Island saw 75% and Minnesota attributed 81% to those in LTCs. As you can see from the map using data collected by May 12, those percentages continue to evolve.

Across the U.S., the number of deaths in nursing home residents account for 43.4% of all COVID-19 deaths.¹⁷ This is a staggering number since the 1.4 million in nursing homes account for less than 1% of the total U.S. population.

The global data remind us that we need to do a better job protecting the elderly from all infectious diseases. The BBC reports that, by far, the greatest majority of those who died in England and Wales were older than 65.

In a study from Edinburgh University, scholars argue that heavy restrictions could be lifted if greater attention were paid to shielding vulnerable populations. Professor Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease, was part of a team who evaluated data and spoke to BBC news, saying:¹⁸

"If it wasn't for the fact that it presents such a high risk of severe disease in vulnerable groups, we would never have taken the steps we have and closed down the country. If we can shield the vulnerable really well, there is no reason why we cannot lift many of the restrictions in place for others. The lockdown has come at a huge economic, social and health cost."

Rapid Spread in Hospitals Raises Number Infected

The lack of transparency in reporting illness and death from COVID-19 from nursing homes and long-term care facilities has left many shocked. As outlined in this short news report, even families are left in the dark — sometimes until after a loved one has died.

There are some clear reasons for the high number of deaths in nursing homes and other long-term care settings. Often, residents have poor overall health and weakened immune systems. They live in close quarters and receive frequent visitors and shared staff. Both visitors and staff can introduce pathogens that can spread quickly among residents.

The National Health Service (NHS) England released data reported by The Guardian suggesting that up to 20% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were originally infected at the hospital.¹⁹ Prime minister Boris Johnson went so far as to call the deaths from hospital-acquired COVID-19 an “epidemic.” The NHS reported that some infections were passed by hospital staff and others were passed by patients.

However, another rapid review of 40 studies in the literature indicates this number may be low. Regarding hospital-acquired infections, also called nosocomial infections, researchers noted “the incidence … can be expected to be high” since people who are potentially infected need to visit hospitals.²⁰

The study team used major international databases to find case reports and case series with which they conducted a meta-analysis on the data. They found nosocomial infections of confirmed cases was 44% for COVID-19.

Infection Control Issues Predate COVID-19

Infection control problems in nursing homes predate the current pandemic. For instance, during the 2017-2018 flu season, the CDC estimates there were 61,000 deaths. The CDC reports the burden that year was “atypical in that it was severe for all ages.” Of the hospitalizations for flu, 67% were in adults of nursing home age, who also accounted for 83% (50,630) of all deaths.²¹

In a recent report by Reuters, they cited information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office showing infection prevention and control deficiencies from 2013 to 2017 in 82% of nursing homes. Of those, 48% had citations in multiple years. The deficiencies included:²²

“… inadequate hand hygiene among staff, or the lack of preventative measures during disease outbreaks such as isolating sick residents and using personal protective equipment.”

Examples of actions in the nursing home included an incomplete list of those infected, lack of isolation, lack of screening for tuberculosis and allowing infected residents to continue to eat in the common dining room.

Low Vitamin D Levels Raise Risk and Mortality

May 11, 2020, Medscape.com²³ released a video of Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, professor of medicine and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Harvard Medical School, in which she discussed the protective role of vitamin D against COVID-19.

She pointed to evidence suggesting that vitamin D status may play an important role in the risk of getting the infection, as well as the severity of an illness. She noted vitamin D has:²⁴

"… an immune modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID and the cytokine storm that's been demonstrated."

Manson is not alone in her recommendations for attaining and maintaining adequate levels of serum vitamin D to protect your health. In my article, “Are Stay-at-Home Orders Decimating Vitamin D Levels?” you’ll find further evidence relating to higher mortality rates.

As the northern hemisphere begins to experience a short reprieve over the summer months from the number of infections, it is wise to test your vitamin D levels. If COVID-19 is seasonal, a resurgence is likely come fall, which is why the time for optimizing your vitamin D level is now.

To improve your immune function and lower your risk of viral infections, you’ll want to raise your vitamin D to a level between 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) and 80 ng/mL by fall. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) and 200 nmol/L.

This gives you time to take action if they are below 60 ng/mL. Your vitamin D status affects a wide range of health issues, so it’s vital to address this strategy and take control of your health. I encourage you to share this information with friends who have family members in nursing homes, people who work in long-term care facilities and even nursing homes managers.

While it’s difficult for most of us to get enough vitamin D during the winter, it’s nearly impossible for the elderly who live in nursing homes. You can have a significant impact on the health and welfare of a vulnerable population by sharing this information and taking responsible action yourself.

from Articles https://ift.tt/37BNOhf
via IFTTT

Big Pharma companies have worked hard to portray themselves as benevolent corporations that pour billions of dollars into the creation of drugs and vaccines. Biotech giant Gilead Sciences is no different. They manufacture remdesivir, the newest drug being hyped to treat SARS-CoV-2, which is discussed above in The High Wire video by Del Bigtree from Informed Consent Action Network.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), Anthony Fauci, along with the media, has been making public statements that cannot be scientifically supported.

In a press conference April 29, 2020, Fauci discussed the preliminary results of a remdesivir trial, and claimed the drug has a "clear-cut positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery. This is really quite important for a number of reasons."¹

Yet, the data from scientific studies do not support his claims. He went on to say that while a "31% improvement doesn't seem like a knock-out 100%, it is a very important proof of concept, because what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus."

Remdesivir Trial Stopped Early for 'Benefit'

The most recent data on remdesivir were published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).² Researchers concluded that the drug worked better than a placebo in reducing the amount of time it took adults to recover from COVID-19 while hospitalized. The study was stopped early for benefit.

However, as Peter Gøtzsche from the Institute for Scientific Freedom wrote, the benefit was not a reduction in mortality but, rather, in shortened hospital days — from 15 to 11 days.³ Bigtree and Gøtzsche (in the video) also pointed out there were several problems with the research design and, consequently, the data.⁴

The release of the study generated enthusiasm and triggered immediate action across many countries, including the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization May 1, 2020, for remdesivir, as the drug had not been approved for use. They said:⁵

"While there is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using remdesivir to treat people in the hospital with COVID-19, the investigational drug was shown in a clinical trial to shorten the time to recovery in some patients."

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar praised the speed at which the FDA approved the drug for emergency use, calling it "seamless cooperation between government and private industry" and an uncommon approval "two days after the National Institutes of Health's clinical trial showed promising results …"⁶

Gøtzsche⁷ began his written commentary by comparing the expense of remdesivir to Tamiflu, both of which have been touted for treating their respective illnesses. Swiss drug maker Roche claimed Tamiflu, used for influenza, could shorten hospital admissions by 61% and reduce the use of antibiotics to treat respiratory tract infections by 55%.

When the data were finally available for review, however, it turned out that the claims could not be supported. When Tamiflu is used at the first sign of symptoms, it only shortens the length of the illness by 17 hours. In a seemingly parallel journey, the data from the study published in the NEJM appears to have been manipulated to generate statistically significant results, as detailed by Bigtree.

Bigtree points out that Bill Gates said we need a "miracle" treatment that is 95% effective:⁸ Yet, as Bigtree says, and as has been documented by the CDC,⁹ the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford¹⁰ and corresponding studies,¹¹ the majority of healthy people will recover from SARS-CoV-2 without any secondary effects.

The Results Don't Live Up to the Promise

So, is Gates referring to the need for a 95% cure of the 5% who experience severe disease, since the majority don't experience significant illness? This must happen to stop the production of a vaccine that will not have the time to undergo placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized studies to prove safety, which Fauci clearly believed was needed in February 2020:¹²

"We urgently need a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Although remdesivir has been administered to some patients with COVID-19, we do not have solid data to indicate it can improve clinical outcomes. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard for determining if an experimental treatment can benefit patients."

In the video, Bigtree outlines the progress of the study, which includes several challenges:

• The study evaluating the efficacy of remdesivir was designed as an "adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study" performed by the NIAID, headed by Anthony Fauci.¹³ An adaptive study can be changed to protect patients when the results are obvious. This happens, for instance, if the participants receiving the intervention are doing so well that those on the placebo are moved to the intervention.
• Although Bigtree mentions a seve-point scale, the researchers wrote the initial measurement was an eight-point scale to evaluate the participant results, one of which was death.
• While Fauci has been claiming this study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, the placebo that was used was a lyophilized formulation containing hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide. The placebo group, in Bigtree's words, is receiving a known poison — not saline.
• One month after the study began, they increased the participants from 197 to 220 and then to 286 in each arm of the study: One received remdesivir and the other got the "placebo." At this point, there were 572 participants. By the end of the study they had increased the total group to 1063.¹⁴
• It was also noted that with the rising number of participants, if the group ran out of the hydrochloric acid placebo, they could substitute normal saline. As Bigtree pointed out, if the trial ran out of the substance being used as a placebo, they could use what should have been used in the first place, a substance without a known effect.

In the middle of the study (April 20, 2020), the researchers changed the primary outcome measures from eight¹⁵ to just three, none of which included measurement of mortality. The idea for the drug was to keep people from dying, but the researchers stopped measuring that important outcome. The final criteria were:¹⁶

• Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen — no longer requires ongoing medical care
• Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or requiring home oxygen
• Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities

Gøtzsche Believes the Results of the Study Are Suspect

The increasing number of participants, the "placebo" and the reduction in primary outcome measurements resulted in the conclusion that: "Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection."¹⁷

However, as Gøtzsche pointed out, physicians use highly subjective data to determine when their patient can be discharged home. He also reports that viral load was not measured by the research team and he questions how an antiviral can be successful if it doesn't decrease viral load.

Gøtzsche believes the researchers violated "good scientific practice to fish for subgroup results that tell a better story. But this is what the two Danish professors did."¹⁸ He went on to describe the difference between what the Danish researchers were proclaiming and what's evident from the statistical analysis, writing:

"What is important is that the trial statisticians tested if the primary outcome was different in the various patient categories, those who did not need oxygen, those who needed oxygen, those who needed noninvasive ventilation, and those who needed invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (the most severely ill patients).

There was no difference, which makes it even worse that the two Danish professors embarked on a fishing expedition in the data focusing on only 23 deaths in subgroup 5 out of a total of 86 deaths …"

Other Remdesivir Studies Don't Yield Positive Results

During the same time period, another team evaluated the use of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. They conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial and enrolled patients who were 18 years and older with lab-confirmed infection in 10 hospitals in China.¹⁹

The patients had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. The primary endpoint measurement was how long it took for clinical improvement, measured up to 28 days. Adverse events were reported in 66% of those receiving remdesivir versus 50% of those getting the placebo.

The drug was stopped early in 12% of the patients for adverse effects after researchers found there was no statistically significant clinical benefit to receiving it.

Before the release of the remdesivir study published in The New England Journal of Medicine and the second study in The Lancet, Bloomberg²⁰ reported that the World Health Organization accidentally posted results of a third study.

While the summary was removed, details were published that showed "the drug wasn't associated with patients getting better more quickly; and 13.9% of patients getting the drug died, versus 12.8% getting standard care."

Gilead Sciences quickly took action. Infectious disease expert Frederick Hayden, who was involved with the study, told a reporter, "That is not correct. My interpretation of them is not consistent with that headline."²¹

Gilead said the study was stopped because of low enrollment, adding that the "trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early," and it was expected that the following two studies would "add to a growing but still inconclusive body of evidence for remdesivir."

Gilead appeared to be referring to the study published in The Lancet, whose authors concluded that the drug was not effective, as well as the subsequent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which had several problems with the data.

Remdesivir Hype Lining Gilead's Pockets

On the same day The Lancet study was published — the one whose authors concluded the drug was not effective — Gilead announced "positive data emerging from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) study."²² This implies the company may be relying on the court of public opinion, which is swayed by public relations, as opposed to scientific data.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection²³ reports that Fauci has a vested interest in the development of remdesivir, and it was he who declared the results to be "highly significant." When he was asked about the results of the study published in The Lancet, he dismissed it as "not adequate."

Between the public relations campaign and the excitement Gilead has generated in investors and the public, they may reap a significant financial reward. The company has set up distribution in 127 countries and is expecting to begin commercial sales in June. The drug was initially developed as a potential treatment against Ebola using $79 million in U.S. funding.²⁴

The company donated 940,000 vials to the U.S. federal government, which is in turn sending them to state health departments. However, it is not enough to treat all patients.

The state of Virginia is holding a lottery for the most severely ill patients, while doctors in Alabama have set up a task force to identify those who should receive it. The initial scarcity and apparent "generosity" will likely help Gilead set its price on the medication.

Yet it's not the potential for price gouging that upsets most scientists. William Haseltine, a scientist whose life's work is studying viruses and who helped lead the government's response against HIV/AIDS, explains: "Remdesivir doesn't work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect. It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good."²⁵

You Have At-Home Choices

Buried in the hype of remdesivir was another recently released published study in The Lancet,²⁶ which showed that a combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir–ritonavir, and ribavirin was a safe and effective method of reducing viral shedding and lowering hospital admissions in those who had confirmed mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

You have options to protect your health and potentially lessen the severity of the infection if you do get sick. On my Coronavirus Resource Page you'll find some of the latest news stories and my top tips to help combat the virus. These include ensuring adequate serum levels of vitamin D, getting enough sleep, protecting your gut microbiome and using micronutrients that have demonstrated antiviral effects.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2YHnFtt
via IFTTT

The noose of censorship continues to tighten. I recently reported how Twitter now falsely labels Mercola article links as unsafe and malicious, warning potential readers my site might steal passwords and other personal data, or install malware on your computer.

It is absolutely false. On the contrary, my site now has a firewall preventing Google bots from indexing our pages, thereby protecting you from Google's intrusive data mining. Unfortunately, by declaring our pages dangerous, they successfully suppress about 95% of our Twitter views.

Google, of course, started banning Mercola content from its searches mid-2019. I wrote about this in "Shocking Proof How Google Censors Health News" and "Google Buries Mercola in Latest Search Engine Update." Facebook also suppressed our reach, and in August 2019, I made the decision to stop supporting their unscrupulous data mining efforts by leaving Facebook.

More recently, NewsGuard (again) classified mercola.com as fake news because we reported evidence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 virus could be a manmade virus leaked from the biosafety level 4 laboratory in Wuhan City, China, and two of my COVID-19 interviews have also been deleted off Spotify without recourse.

Spotify claims it only prohibits illegal content, hate content and infringing content. My interviews about coronavirus with Brian Hoyer and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., clearly do not fall under any of these categories, yet they were removed anyway.

YouTube Bans Competing Health Views

As expected, YouTube has now descended upon us and has started banning our videos, a majority of which are interviews with health experts sharing their medical or scientific expertise and viewpoints on COVID-19. They include the following videos that you can watch in full on the uncensored Bitchute that many alternative media sites are now using for their video content.

YouTube also banned my video discussing the World Health Organization, and one in which I provide information about and instructions on how to use hydrogen peroxide therapy as a prophylactic against COVID-19.

YouTube Fulfills Promise to Censor on Behalf of the WHO

While disappointing, this censorship was not unexpected, considering YouTube's CEO went on record saying they will censor anyone speaking against the World Health Organization. In an April 23, 2020, article,¹ Business Insider reported statements made by YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper:

"Wojcicki says the platform will ban content peddling fake or unproven coronavirus remedies. In an interview with CNN, she also suggested that video that 'goes against' WHO guidance on the pandemic will be blocked.

For example, she said, content that claimed vitamin C or turmeric would cure people of COVID-19 would be 'a violation of our policy' and removed accordingly. She continued: 'Anything that goes against WHO recommendations would be a violation of our policy …'"

It's important to realize that by banning anything that contradicts the WHO's recommendations, Wojcicki asserts that the WHO is infallible, which it clearly is not. There's no shortage of examples proving WHO has been wrong on many occasions, and should not be relied upon as the premier, let alone sole, source of information and medical instruction.

The WHO is beyond conflicted, and because of its existing funding fails to complete its initial mandate to promote the attainment of "the highest possible level of health" by all peoples. Since the U.S. government has withdrawn its support from the WHO, Bill Gates — with all of his drug company interests — is now its largest funder.

The WHO Has Deep Conflicts of Interest

The idea that the WHO is infallible and should be the sole source of information is incredibly dangerous. Where are the checks and balances to its power and influence? And why should we swallow everything it says without question, when it has previously been strongly criticized for its handling of other pandemics, such as the 2009 swine flu pandemic?²

In June 2010, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) concluded "the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a 'waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.'"³

Based on the data we now have, can anyone seriously say that large sums of money have not been wasted and that the narrative of the pandemic response has not pushed unjustifiable fears about SARS-CoV-2 health risks, as it pertains to a majority of the population?

Back in 2010, PACE concluded that the drug industry had influenced the organization's decision-making and had been a driving force behind its fearmongering.⁴ Again, there can be little doubt we're seeing the same influence in action right now, as we continue to be told life cannot go back to normal until we get a vaccine and inoculate the whole world.

Meanwhile, Big Tech — the surveillance capitalists backing the WHO and the drug industry and doing their bidding — are suppressing and outright banning preventive and alternative strategies, the most obvious examples being vitamin C, vitamin D, ozone therapy, hyperbaric oxygen and hydroxychloroquine, all of which I've discussed in recent articles.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the WHO is making correct, unbiased decisions. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction, and this is precisely why one must not silence experts who challenge and point out flaws in the narrative.

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which typically gets top billing when it comes to infectious disease expertise, has issued recommendations that conflict with those issued by the WHO over the course of this pandemic, such as whether healthy people should⁵ or should not⁶ wear a mask in public.

Egregious Examples of Censorship

The examples of censorship are so numerous at this point, it's impossible to present a full picture of just how much information is being ruthlessly removed. Here is but a small handful of recent examples that fortunately have received some measure of attention:

• The documentary "Plandemic" by Mikki Willis, featuring Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. was banned from social media platforms and hidden by Google. If you do an online search for it, all you find are dozens of pages with articles calling it a hoax, a fraud or the dreaded old "conspiracy theory." Google Drive even removed downloaded copies of the film from users' personal files.⁷
• A video by Knut Wittkowski, Ph.D., DSc, an epidemiologist and former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, was removed by YouTube. In it, he challenges the wisdom of lockdown orders.⁸
• A Full Measure News report⁹ in which award-winning news reporter Sharyl Attkisson interviewed doctors reporting good results with hydroxychloroquine was removed by YouTube. The segment also looked at the potential financial motives driving the mass media's disdain for the drug, while promoting remdesivir and as-of-yet-unavailable vaccines.¹⁰
• In April 2020, Twitter suspended the account of the publicly traded biotech company AYTU BioScience after it shared information about its novel UV light therapy for COVID-19, which it is developing in collaboration with Cedars-Sinai medical center.¹¹ YouTube also removed a video demonstrating how the technology works.
• YouTube also took down a viral video¹² by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, co-owners of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California, in which they questioned the accuracy of COVID-19 mortality statistics and the logic behind California's stay-at-home order. 

All of these examples are part of Silicon Valley's surveillance capitalism apparatus. It's really all about controlling entire populations and shaping public opinion to benefit certain companies, industries and/or political parties. And it's shockingly effective. Google's search algorithms alone have the power to shift 15 million votes leading up to the 2020 presidential election, according to calculations.

You can learn more about this in "Google — A Dictator Unlike Anything the World Has Ever Known," in which I interview Robert Epstein, Ph.D., a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google's manipulative and deceptive practices. 

Free Speech Being Decimated — Can We Live Free Without It?

Can health be maintained if you only have access to one point of view? Can democracy be maintained without equal access to all sides of an issue? Can what is right for individuals and the nation as a whole be ascertained without being able to hear differing points of view? I don't think so. Censorship is anathema to health and freedom across the board.

Now, even those who only a few months ago didn't care about the censoring of certain individuals or groups are starting to wake up to see the dangers of our current trajectory. Clearly, action must be taken if we are to maintain any semblance of personal liberty.

May 28, 2020, President Trump took the initial step of signing an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship,¹³ which requires the Federal Communications Commission to clarify regulations under Section 230¹⁴ of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is what, so far, has allowed social media platforms to pick and choose what they allow on their site while still being afforded legal protections. 

In simple terms, if you're an internet service provider, you're not liable for what users are posting on your platform, but you still have the right to block harmful content (such as pornography) provided it's done in good faith. If you're a publisher, on the other hand, you can be held legally responsible for the content you post, and therefore have free reign over the viewpoints you will or will not allow.

Social media giants like Twitter and Facebook have long asserted that they are internet service providers, and therefore not liable for content. Yet they systematically censor only certain points of view, which is the complete opposite of what Section 230 sought to achieve.

Within 60 days, the Secretary of Commerce, "in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)," is required to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC, and the FCC is asked to act "expeditiously" in presenting its regulations.

Who Decides What's Right and What's Not?

It's hard to fathom that in this 21st century we're on a fast-track into a new intellectual and scientific Dark Age. Just who is actually qualified enough to decide what content is misleading or what health practices are harmful?

Unequivocal scientific consensus is hard to find, no matter what we're talking about, and when it comes to a novel virus that is still being actively investigated, it seems foolish to ban any view, no matter how unpopular it might be with the scientific, industrial, military and political establishments.

How else can we possibly ever get to the truth and find out what works? As long as we have scientists looking into things, the science on any given topic will never be fully settled. For this reason, avoiding conflicting viewpoints and differing scientific findings will be virtually impossible. The alternative is to cease scientific inquiry altogether and surrender to opinion alone.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2ULIoLB
via IFTTT

“It’s a beautiful day outside,” you say, smiling. Your son replies, “It’s supposed to rain later.” You share, “That game was fun!” Your daughter adds, “I messed up one of my turns.”

If you find that your child tends to channel Eeyore from Winnie-the-Pooh and has difficulty seeing some of the bright moments in a day, below are some ways to help them interrupt a negativity loop. The first tip works well for all ages. Choose the other tools depending on whether your children are younger or older.

Start by validating emotions

Parents have a lot of wisdom to share with their children, and their advice often is filled with a lot of logic. Unfortunately, that logic tends to backfire when shared with someone experiencing an unhappy emotion, and can make the emotion even stronger. Both children and adults need to feel heard before their ears can open up and hear what else you have to say, so try to validate first before you try to help children appreciate positive aspects of a situation.

Validation allows us all to feel heard. You are not agreeing or disagreeing with the emotion; you’re showing that you see it. For example, if your daughter comes home sulking after scoring two goals in soccer and missing the final one, you might have the urge to say, “Why are you so sad? You scored two goals and looked like you were having so much fun while playing!” Your intention is kind, yet does not match your daughter’s experience. Instead, try reflecting how she is feeling by saying, “You’re disappointed that you didn’t make that final shot.” This acknowledges that your daughter is disappointed without agreeing or disagreeing with her.

Sometimes, it’s enough to leave it at that. When you think it’s important to have your daughter see another side of a situation, remember to use the conjunction “and” instead of “but” so you don’t negate or erase your validation. In this example, you could say, “You’re disappointed that you didn’t make that final shot, and I am really proud of you for trying your best for the whole game.”

Alternatively, you could add a question to help your daughter discover positive aspects of the experience herself. In this case, you could say, “You’re disappointed that you didn’t make that final shot, and I wonder if there were any parts of the game that you enjoyed?”

A few more tips:

• Say, “You’re [insert emotion here] because…” Some examples of emotion words include sad, angry, worried, disappointed, embarrassed, disgusted, jealous, guilty, and surprised. Try to be as specific as possible. For example, “Upset,” could be a mixture of emotions, so identify which ones, such as sadness and/or anger, might be at play.
• Try to avoid, “I understand that you’re feeling…” or “I know that you’re feeling…” As children get older, it will be developmentally on target for them to think that you could not possibly know what their experiences are like, and make you feel like you’ve entered a land mine by trying to relate to them.
• Instead, offer a validation tentatively, “You seem…” or “I wonder if you were…”

Reflect on positive events

• Younger children (under 8) may enjoy the High-Low Game, which helps them balance out negative experience reflections with positive ones. You can use the start of dinner time each night to have each family member share one high or positive experience in the day and one low or negative experience in the day. You even can have your son start off by sharing the low before the high, so that he ends on a high note. This is a way to hear about everyone’s day and see how your son views his daily experiences.
• Older children (8 and up) may prefer a positive events diary. If your son walks around in life as though wearing those sunglasses from the ‘80s that look like window blinds and only seem to let in the negative events of each day, try having him write down three positive experiences he had at the end of each day. Not only can this help him realize that his day was not all bad, it also can help him improve his mood.

Foster gratitude

• Younger children (under 8) may like playing this game during dinner. Have everyone practice identifying something for which they’re grateful that day. Practicing gratitude in this way can create a more positive tone at meals, and maybe — just maybe — you might even hear that your son is grateful for the meal you just prepared!
• Older children (8 and up) could try a daily gratitude log, and you can set the tone for doing this by writing in your journal each day, too. It can be a slippery slope once someone starts focusing on all the things going wrong that day. Fostering gratitude, an appreciation of experiences, people, or things that are at least partially outside of oneself or one’s own doing, can help your daughter form a different and more positive relationship with aspects of her day, and research has shown that gratitude can help improve one’s mood. Have your daughter take a step back and remind herself of a few things for which she’s grateful each day. She can use prompts, such as “Someone/Something I was grateful for today was…” to get her started.

The takeaways

When you are concerned that your child reacts more like Eeyore than like Tigger, remember that your child needs to feel heard before he can see another perspective. Validate first, and then you can help your child consider all aspects, both positive and negative ones.

If you find that your child remains stuck in a negativity loop and starts to show signs of depression, ask your child’s pediatrician for a referral for therapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, so that just like Eeyore, your child can learn tools to look for sunshine.

The post 4 parenting tips to break the negativity loop appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/30NHFgE

Learn why walking is great for both weight loss and toning from fitness guru Tiffiny Hall.

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/3hD4M3p

As COVID-19 restrictions ease, gyms are reopening around the world with strict social distancing rules implemented - and one fitness centre has even introduced "gainz pods". 

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/2YKj4qv

To get the most out of your run, wearing the correct type of shoe is very crucial. Running enthusiast Laura Hill shares her top five picks for different running scenarios- from everyday runs to race days. 

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/3hykrkH

One group of neurons controls various types of sighing, but they receive their instructions from different areas of the brain depending on the reason for the sigh, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3d84VIA

A new study reveals how symptoms indicating depression and anxiety are linked to brain function changes already in healthy individuals.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Y7P7Sg

Scientists built a computer model of a simple brain network based on that of a sea slug, taught it how to get food, gave it an appetite and the ability to experience reward, added a dash of something called homeostatic plasticity and then exposed it to a very intoxicating drug. To no one's surprise, the creature became addicted.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YJGYm5

A new study provides further evidence of the link between depressive symptoms and an increased risk of heart disease and early death.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2N0qh0b

Greater adherence to a variety of healthy eating patterns was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3e8HReb

Just months ago, who could have imagined that the world would be looking down the barrel of a spiraling health crisis and economic recession unlike any witnessed in our lifetime? Now, in a world gripped by the fear of a marauding virus, mental health is emerging as a key concern.

Diverse pathways to poorer mental health

The reaction of the media and governments to the epidemic served to fuel anxiety. The dramatic way the term “pandemic” was announced by the WHO after weeks of watching the epidemic unfolding around the world was a hair-raising moment. Apocalyptic messaging about millions of dead bodies littering our cities followed, even though experts had identified vulnerable populations — people who are elderly or chronically ill, and those who live in group facilities like nursing homes — early on.

The breathless questions mounted. When, if ever, would life return to a semblance of what we used to experience? Within the torrent of mixed messages about the science, what was real or fake? What might the post-lockdown scenario for containing the virus look like? All of this played on an endless daily newsreel, rounded out by rising figures on illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths around the world and close to home.

Not surprisingly, experiences of anxiety, fearfulness, sleep problems, irritability, and feelings of hopelessness are widespread. These are mostly the rational responses of our minds to the extraordinary realities that we are facing. But economic recession, widening inequalities, continuing uncertainty about waves of the epidemic still to come, and the emotional impact of physical distancing policies will continue to bite deeper into our mental health. A rise in clinically significant mental illnesses and suicides may well follow.

Unemployment, acute poverty, and indebtedness are strongly associated with poor mental health. A recent report documents “deaths of despair,” mostly through suicide and substance use, as the cause for increased mortality and reduced life expectancy in working-age Americans following the 2008 economic recession. The profound inequality in the US, coupled with its weak social security net, deeply polarized society, and fragmented health care system, are a toxic recipe for a similar surge of deaths of despair on this occasion.

Emerging evidence suggests that the lockdowns and the pivot of health care services to this one virus has seriously disrupted mental health care in many parts of the world. Access to mental health care — including vital continuing care — has not been available for many people experiencing new-onset episodes of depression and anxiety, or exacerbations of pre-existing mental health problems.

Transforming mental health globally

Fortunately, we know what needs to be done and how to achieve it. Further, we know the resources invested are excellent value-for-money. The pandemic presents a historic opportunity to reimagine mental health care.

The GlobalMentalHealth@Harvard initiative was launched in 2017 to marshal the rich, inter-disciplinary expertise within the university and to scale up this knowledge with a worldwide network of partners. In response to the pandemic, the initiative is prioritizing actions to transform and build resilient mental health care systems globally, using three strategies:

• EMPOWER deploys a range of digital tools to build a mental health workforce. It enables front-line providers, such as community health workers and nurses, to learn, master, and deliver evidence-based brief psychosocial therapies. Two examples are behavioral activation for depression and psychological first-aid for acute mental health crises.
• CHAMPIONS builds on time-tested executive leadership training, twinning it with hands-on mentoring by experienced faculty. It aims to build leadership capacity to scale up evidence-based mental health care. CHAMPIONS will create a global peer group of mental health leaders across the US and the world to take forward the critical work of building back — and improving — mental health services.
• COUNTDOWN is developing a set of common core metrics, such as availability of skilled providers and quality of care, to evaluate the performance of these mental health care systems and make them more accountable. COUNTDOWN can perform many roles in the context of the pandemic. A few examples are tracking population-level mental health across and within countries, identifying where the unmet need for services is greatest, and evaluating the impact of investments.

Together, these three essential, interwoven strategies can achieve the transformation of mental health care systems that the global community so urgently needs.

Only with significant resources can we realize such ambitious projects. But here we need to anticipate the pandemic’s biggest threat to mental health: pushing back, once again, mental health from the global health agenda.

Back in the 1990s, it appeared that the world’s leading development agencies would finally recognize mental health as a priority. Yet the Millenium Development Goals of 2000 left it off the table. Fifteen years later, mental health found its rightful place in the Sustainable Development Goals. Now, once again, all funding and health care action is pivoting toward one disease, as mental health risks are being shoved back into the shadows.

Investing in mental health enables each individual to regain hope for the future. It will also contribute to making societies healthier, economically productive, and socially cohesive. There cannot be a more important investment in the face of the most serious crisis to test the global population in a century. Let’s work together to realize our shared mission.

The post Global mental health in the time of COVID-19 appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/2AJFpwa

A new study looks into how and why certain individuals develop cancer and others do not.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3e70PBT

Prolonged exposure of the head to strong sunlight significantly impairs cognitively dominated functions and coordination of complex motor tasks shows a new study. This may have important implications for work safety and productivity.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3d4KrRi

Research out today identifies traits among high-risk adolescents associated with increased risk for gun use. Among high-risk adolescents, those with greater callous-unemotional traits were more likely to carry a gun and to use a gun during a crime over a four-year period following an initial arrest, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2MZ34eO

Innovators have created a novel wearable patch to provide an improved treatment experience for people with melanoma. The researchers developed a novel wearable patch with fully miniaturized needles, enabling unobtrusive drug delivery through the skin for the management of skin cancers.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2AFMk9N

Scientists may have found a cause for the sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in some children, they report. Pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders, or PANDAS, were first proposed in the 1990s. Thought to be triggered by streptococcal infections, they account for an unknown portion of youth OCD cases. But the biology underpinning this disorder has baffled scientists.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3d8olxg