Health, Fitness,Dite plan, health tips,athletic club,crunch fitness,fitness studio,lose weight,fitness world,mens health,aerobic,personal trainer,lifetime fitness,nutrition,workout,fitness first,weight loss,how to lose weight,exercise,24 hour fitness,

09/16/20

Hearing loss is frustrating. It can lead to social isolation, depression and dementia. Regrettably, it is a growing health concern. The World Health Organization1 reports there are 466 million who have a disabling hearing loss, and they estimate this will increase to more than 900 million by 2050.

There are 37.5 million Americans over age 18 who have trouble hearing.2 But the phrase "trouble hearing" may refer to anything from slight hearing loss to a disabling condition. Statistics tell us that the rate of disabling loss increases with age.

Among people ages 45 to 54, only 2% have a disabling loss but the rate is significantly higher (nearly 25%) in the population of those ages 65 to 74 years. Half of those over the age of 75 have a disabling hearing loss. These statistics are concerning since they also increase the risk of developing dementia. Dr. Ronan Factora from Cleveland Clinic talks about this:3

"The cause behind this link is unclear. But one theory is that hearing loss tends to cause some people to withdraw from conversations and participate less in activities. As a result, you become less social and less engaged."

It was estimated that in 2018, 5.7 million Americans were living with dementia.4 The Lancet International Commission on Dementia Prevention and Care evaluated many of the modifiable risks, including high blood pressure, obesity, depression, diabetes and physical inactivity. Although the numbers of people who have dementia are rising, they found encouraging news:5

"We have brought together all this evidence and have calculated that around one third of dementia may theoretically be preventable."

The Commission found in all the risk factors they analyzed, hearing loss was the6 "largest modifiable risk factor for developing dementia, exceeding that of smoking, high blood pressure, lack of exercise and social isolation."

Hearing Aids May Protect Your Brain From Memory Loss

Fewer than 30% of individuals over 70 years of age who have a hearing loss will wear hearing aids.7 This is unfortunate because hearing aids also help protect brain functioning.

Data gathered by the University of Exeter and King's College London were presented in Los Angeles at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference.8 The data provide evidence that wearing an effective hearing aid could reduce the risk of developing dementia.

During the study, the scientists gathered 25,000 online participants who were older than 50. They split them into two groups. One group wore hearing aids and the other group didn't.

Both took cognitive tests every year for two years. At the end of the study, the scientists found the people who routinely wore hearing aids had better scores on tests that analyzed working memory and attention span than the participants who did not. One of the researchers, Clive Ballard, said:9

"We know that we could reduce dementia risk by a third if we all took action from mid life. This research is part of an essential body of work to find out what really works to keep our brains healthy.

This is an early finding and needs more investigation, yet it has exciting potential. The message here is that if you're advised you need a hearing aid, find one that works for you. At the very least it will improve your hearing and it could help keep your brain sharp too."

How Loud Noise Damages Hearing

Hearing is a complex function in which sound waves are converted into neurological signals that are transmitted and interpreted by your brain.10 During this journey, sound waves pass through the cochlea, where movements of small reed-like fibers create an electrical impulse. The movement from the hair cells sends an electrical impulse through the cochlear nerve, which in turn transmits the information to the cerebral cortex in your brain for interpretation.

At any point along this journey, damage to structures can change how you interpret sound, and even whether you can hear. Loud noise from chronic exposure or a single incident can affect one or both ears and the effect may be permanent or temporary.11 You might find you have difficulty understanding people when they speak, especially in a noisy room or on the telephone.12

When the hair cells in the cochlea are damaged it injures your hearing. By the time you notice it, 30% to 50% of these delicate cells may be destroyed. Repeated exposure destroys more hair cells, which increases hearing loss. Loud noises may also damage the auditory nerve. It all has a cumulative effect that may predict how well you'll hear as you get older.

The WHO recommends13 you protect your hearing by limiting the amount of time you spend exposed to loud sounds. The Hearing Health Foundation compiled a chart of approximate decibel (dB) levels to help you compare noise levels using common sounds in your environment:14

  • 30 dB — whisper
  • 60 dB — normal conversation
  • 90 to 100 dB — lawnmower, shop tools or truck traffic (90 dBs); wear protection and limit exposure to no more than eight hours. Snowmobile and pneumatic drill (100 dBs); limit to no more than two hours each day
  • 115 dB — car horn and rock concert should be limited to 15 minutes maximum without protection
  • 140 dB — gunshot or jet engine; noise causes pain with short exposure and will injure hearing

Tinnitus May Be a Signal of Hearing Damage

Tinnitus is the perception of noise or ringing in your ears. It is often chronic and it's estimated that it affects between 8% and 25.3% of people in the U.S.15 The condition can be disabling and can functionally impair your ability to sleep and concentrate.

It can also be caused by some of the same things that increase your risk for hearing loss, like exposure to loud noise or damage from a severe ear infection. Tinnitus can be triggered by smoking, medication side effects, arthritis or injuries to the head and neck.

If you have this condition, your experience may be different from that of other people who have it.16 Some say it sounds like high-pitched hissing or screeching; others say it sounds musical. You might hear it in one ear or both. Some people find it happens if they are in a completely quiet room, which makes sleeping difficult.

One of the most common causes of tinnitus is noise-induced hearing loss.17 After ensuring you have eliminated exposure to loud noises, there are some treatments you can consider that will help lessen the impact on your life.

Hearing aids may be helpful as they can be adjusted to control external sound. As you begin to hear better, it may reduce your perception of tinnitus. A relatively new strategy is called acoustic neural stimulation. It delivers sound that stimulates neural changes. The goal is to desensitize the brain to neural inputs that trigger tinnitus.

If you've had long-standing severe hearing loss with tinnitus, a cochlear implant may help bypass the damaged portion and control the symptoms. Wearable or tabletop sound generators are another option that help to mask the symptoms of tinnitus.

Ear Wax Buildup May Block Sound

A temporary problem that can trigger tinnitus or hearing loss is the buildup of earwax, also referred to as cerumen. It is not truly made of wax, but rather dead skin cells combined with secretions produced in the outer ear canal.18 Earwax plays an important role in protecting the skin inside your canal and providing natural antimicrobial action to help prevent bacterial infections.

As it makes its way down the canal, it picks up debris. If you use a cotton swab or any other small object to try and clean your ear canal, it can push the wax up against your eardrum and cause a temporary hearing loss. Another risk you take when you use something small in the ear canal is a traumatic perforation — a hole — in the eardrum.19

Researchers estimate there are 4,852 visits to the emergency room every year in the U.S. as the result of an injury to the eardrum. In most cases cotton tipped applicators were the culprit. When earwax builds up it reduces the amount of sound waves able to reach the eardrum, which is how it reduces hearing. You might also have an earache, a feeling of fullness, dizziness or tinnitus.20

The simplest and most effective way to get a buildup of wax out is to first soften the wax in your ear canal by adding a couple of drops of olive oil, coconut oil or water. Lie on your side with a towel under your head to catch anything that spills. Give the oil a few minutes to soften the wax and then add a capful of 3% hydrogen peroxide.

You will probably hear some bubbling and feel slight tingling. After five minutes, hold a paper towel in your hand and tip your head to let the solution and excess wax drain out. Repeat this for the other side.

While it is safe to use this method to remove excess wax, you shouldn't clean your ears frequently. There are other mistakes you might be making with ear hygiene that I discuss in "How To Clean Your Ears Without a Cotton Swab."

Active Strategies to Protect Your Hearing at All Ages

The cost of hearing loss is measured in financial burden, loss of health and social isolation. Psychologist Mark Hammel damaged his hearing in his 20s while serving in the Israeli Army. It wasn't until he was 57 that he got his first pair of hearing aids. He poignantly described his experience:21

"It was very joyful, but also very sad, when I contemplated how much I had missed all those years. I could hear well enough sitting face to face with someone in a quiet room, but in public, with background noise, I knew people were talking, but I had no idea what they were saying. I just stood there nodding my head and smiling.

Eventually, I stopped going to social gatherings. Even driving, I couldn't hear what my daughter was saying in the back seat. I live in the country, and I couldn't hear the birds singing. People with hearing loss often don't realize what they're missing. So much of what makes us human is social contact, interaction with other human beings. When that's cut off, it comes with a very high cost."

You can protect your hearing by reducing your everyday exposure to loud noises, such as music, noisy work environments and even items around the house and yard, such as lawn mowers. Nutritional imbalances may also play a role in hearing loss.

I discuss a number of dietary strategies in "How to Prevent Hearing Loss and Improve Your Hearing With Nutrition." Protecting your ears from noise pollution is a foundational principle to preventing hearing loss. The following suggestions may also help protect your hearing:

Turn down the volume on personal audio devices.

Try a decibel meter app for your smartphone, which will flash a warning if the volume is turned up to a potentially damaging level. Use carefully fitted noise-canceling earphones/headphones, which may allow you to listen comfortably at a lower volume.

Wear earplugs when you visit noisy venues, and if you work in a noisy environment, be sure to wear ear protection at all times.

Limit the amount of time you spend engaged in noisy activities.

Take regular listening breaks when using personal audio devices.

Restrict the daily use of personal audio devices to less than one hour.

If you live in a noisy area, you may want to consider moving. If that's not an option, consider adding acoustical tile to your ceiling and walls to buffer the noise. Double-paneled windows, insulation, heavy curtains and rugs can also help.

Use sound-blocking headphones to eliminate occasional sound disturbances such as that from traffic or lawnmowers.

Wear ear protection when using your lawnmower or leaf blower.



from Articles https://ift.tt/3kjs2Ea
via IFTTT

Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, is a top scientific collaborator, grant writer and spokesperson for virus hunters and gain-of-function/dual-use researchers, in labs both military and civilian.

Daszak works with dozens of high-containment laboratories around the world that collect pathogens and use genetic engineering and synthetic biology to make them more infectious, contagious, lethal or drug-resistant. These include labs controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense, in countries in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.

Many of these labs are staffed by former biological weapons scientists. (See Arms Watch's reports.1) Before the Biological Weapons Convention was ratified, this research was called what it is: biological weapons research. Now, it's euphemistically called gain-of-function or dual-use research.

Gain-of-function research to alter coronaviruses for the infection of humans2 goes back to 1999 or earlier,3 years before the first novel coronavirus outbreak. On behalf of the U.S. government, often the military, Daszak scours the globe for animal pathogens and brings them back to the lab to be catalogued, investigated and manipulated.

Daszak and others justify their research this way: If/When an outbreak of a new virus occurs, they can compare it to the ones in their labs, and maybe glean how the novel virus emerged. A recent Wired magazine article4 quoting Daszak described how a virus collected in 2012 was found to be a 96% match to SARS-CoV-2 in 2020:

"The search for the source of SARS – which killed more than 770 people two decades ago – has given us a headstart for the current hunt.

Wearing hazmat suits and equipped with mist nets, a team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, together with the ecologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak, ventured into limestone caves to collect faeces and blood samples from thousands of roosting bats before testing them for novel coronaviruses in the lab.

'At the time, we were looking for SARS-related viruses, and this one was 20 percent different,' says Daszak. 'We thought it's interesting, but not high-risk. So we didn't do anything about it and put it in the freezer.'

The group has found around 500 bat-borne viruses in China over the last 16 years, but only flagged those that most resembled SARS to the authorities – a lack of funding meant they couldn't further investigate the virus strain now known to be 96 percent genetically similar to the virus that causes Covid-19."

Interesting though that story is, it fails to explain how SARS-CoV-2 evolved. Some scientists say it would take 50 years5 for RaTG13 to turn into SARS-CoV-2. Others propose theories6 on how the virus might have evolved so quickly, yet still suspect that it escaped from the Wuhan lab.

Certainly, to learn that the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 has been in the care of the gain-of-function researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) for seven years does nothing to allay suspicions that the virus infected humans only after being tinkered with in a lab.7

Still, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is going all-in on virus hunting. The institute just announced a five-year, $82-million8 investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases, including gain-of-function experiments to "determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans."

Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance will receive $7.5 million9 from this grant. This is on top of $100.9 million10 that EcoHealth Alliance has received in government grants and contracts since 2003. (What was that Daszak said about how "a lack of funding meant they couldn't further investigate the virus strain now known to be 96-percent genetically similar to the virus that causes Covid-19"11)?

Critics12 of virus hunting say scientists like Daszak could make a greater contribution to human health by going after the viruses that commonly infect humans, not the ones that never have. According to a 2018 Smithsonian Magazine report:13

"Not everyone thinks that discovering viruses and their hotspots is the best way to prevent pandemics. Dr. Robert B. Tesh, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch, says we don't understand enough about zoonotic viruses to create predictive models. 'A lot of the stuff they produce is hype. … It's more PR than science.'"

Daszak's research might be more hype14 and public relations than science, but the Department of Homeland Security's National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) has chosen to rely on it. NBIC gave Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance a $2.2-million15 contract (2016-2019) to create a "Ground Truth Network"16 of "subject matter experts" who could provide "contextual information pertaining to biological events."

The context17 Daszak invariably provides is a compelling one. Destruction of forests and other encroachments on wildlife habitats, especially the hunting of wild animals and the sale of live animals in wet markets, is forcing humans and animals into uncomfortable proximity. This is bad for vulnerable and endangered species, as well as for humans who are at increasing risk for contracting novel zoonotic diseases.

Who isn't shocked and appalled to learn that people eat bats, or that marvelously strange and adorable animals you've never heard of ― pangolins, civet cats ― have had their habitats destroyed and are now being sold for meat at live animal markets? Daszak's framing of the issue ― what has come to be known as the One Health approach ― has been heartily embraced by the U.S. military.

But what if the stories being spun by Daszak and his fellow government-supported subject matter experts aren't supported by the evidence? Let's look at EcoHealth Alliance's story about Ebola and bushmeat.

False Narrative, Tragic Outcomes

From 2011 to 2014, Ecohealth Alliance had a $164,480 purchase order contract from the Centers for Disease Control in Pittsburgh for "Bushmeat." No more information than that is available on that contract (HHSD2002011M41641P18), but the money likely funded a paper Daszak and his colleagues published in 2012.

The 2012 paper,19 "Zoonotic Viruses Associated with Illegally Imported Wildlife Products," was used in August 2014, at the height of the West African Ebola pandemic, as the basis for a Newsweek article titled, "Smuggled Bushmeat Is Ebola's Back Door to America."20

The article, which quoted an EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson, spread a false (not to mention racist and xenophobic) narrative, one that subsequently would be thoroughly debunked,21 that bushmeat smuggled to the U.S. from Africa could transmit Ebola to Americans.

In January 2015, a meeting of the UK Bushmeat Working Group convened. The group countered Daszak's misinformation with the facts, in an article titled, "Ebola and Bushmeat: Myth and Reality."22 The article stated:

"As the Ebola virus can remain viable in untreated carcasses for up to 3-4 days, there is a risk of transporting it to bushmeat markets (although there is no evidence of this to date).

However, the risk of transmitting Ebola in bushmeat overseas to Europe or the USA is extremely low, given the total travel time and the fact that these carcasses are usually smoked (which probably inactivates the virus). The risk of spread to new areas lies with the movement of infected people, not infected meat."

Tragically, the misinformation about bushmeat as a primary cause of Ebola transmission had already been communicated to West Africans in the midst of the crisis, through international health organizations, including Daszak's funder,23 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Daszak's misinformation campaign overshadowed the truth — that the only way Ebola was actually being transmitted during the pandemic was via contact with the bodily fluids of people sick with Ebola, or with their corpses.

Perpetuating Mythical Theories

The SARS pandemic is another instance where Daszak's theories didn't pan out. It is commonly accepted that the SARS pandemic began in 2002,24 when humans caught a bat virus from civet cats at a wet market in Guangdong, China. But Daszak and his collaborators admit they have no evidence to explain how the virus leapt from bats to civets to humans.

SARS-CoV was found in civets at the Guangdong wet market, but civets aren't the natural reservoir of this virus. Bats are. Only the civets at the market — and no farm-raised or wild civets — carried the virus. None of the animal traders handling the civets at the market had SARS.

When Daszak and his collaborators at the WIV25 searched the cave in Yunnan for strains of coronavirus similar to human versions, no single bat actually had SARS. Genetic pieces of the various strains would have to be recombined to make up the human version. Adding to the confusion, Yunnan is about 1,000 kilometers from Guangdong.

So, how did viruses from bats in Yunnan combine to become deadly to humans, and then travel to civets and people in Guangdong, without causing any illnesses along the way during this 1,000 kilometer trip? No one knows. Just like no one knows how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, leapt from bats to pangolins to humans.

(The most recent study, "Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates"26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,27 showed that the SARS-CoV-2, which infects human cells through binding of the viral Spike protein to ACE2, has a "very high" binding affinity to ACE2 in "Old World" monkeys apes, and humans.

But in bats, the binding affinity is "low" and in pangolins it is "very low." The authors also noted that "neither experimental infection nor in vitro infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been reported for pangolins.")

Daszak continues to tell his bat-origin story,28 but the science doesn't back it up. That ― along with the fact that dozens of labs conduct "gain-of-function"29 research on bat coronaviruses and there are troubling safety issues30 at these labs ― is why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is investigating the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab.

Inquiring Minds at the NIH Want to Know

On July 8, the NIH sent a letter31 to Daszak asking EcoHealth Alliance to arrange for an inspection of the WIV by an outside team that would examine the facility's lab and records "with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019."

The WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health are listed as subcontractors for EcoHealth Alliance under a $3.7-million NIH grant32 titled, "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence."

The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6-million grant,33 "Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats," and under EcoHealth Alliance's largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant34 from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015-2020).

It's the $44.2-million PREDICT grant that EcoHealth Alliance used to fund35 the gain-of-function experiment by WIV scientist Zhengli Shi and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Ralph Baric.36

Shi and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a "new bat SARS-like virus ... that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans." Daszak described the work being done by Shi and Baric in a 2019 interview:37

"You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert it into a backbone of another virus, and do some work in the lab."

The work, "A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,"38 published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH's moratorium39 on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium (officially called the U.S. Government Deliberative Process Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS and SARS Viruses), and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH.

As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires40 authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn't deposited41 in GenBank until May 2020.

Why Stop With Wuhan?

NIH is right to require that the WIV's lab and records be opened to outside inspectors. But why is the government focusing on just one of EcoHealth Alliance's projects, when the organization has received $100.9 million42 in grants, primarily from the Department of Defense, to sample, store and study bat coronaviruses at labs around the world?

Coronaviruses, both those that have been collected from animals and those that have been created through genetic engineering and synthetic biology, at all of these labs should be compared with SARS-CoV-2.

Daszak's collaborators working under contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) aren't allowed to conduct gain-of-function research unless specifically approved to do so by the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) committee. This committee was set up as a condition for lifting43 the 2014-2017 moratorium on gain-of-function research.

The P3CO committee operates in secret. Not even a membership list has been released. The only information provided to the public is that Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec44 appointed HHS Senior Science Advisor Christian Hassell45 as its chair.

It's time to open the records of the PC3O committee's deliberations and decisions to examine all gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. And every lab manipulating these viruses should have their coronaviruses compared to SARS-CoV-2.

The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for its Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (now called the Biological Threat Reduction Program) isn't supposed to fund gain-of-function (what they call "dual-use"46) research at all.

It's time to determine whether this prohibition on "dual-use" funding has been adhered to, especially in light of the investments the Pentagon is making across the globe in the construction of new laboratories for the "consolidation and securing of pathogens." DTRA's mission was to dismantle the biological weapons programs of hostile or destabilized countries.

Instead it is being used to develop new biological weapons programs in dozens of countries around the world.

Even if these programs are purely defensive, they proliferate, around the globe, pathogens with pandemic potential, even though it's been difficult to keep these dangerous germs under control here in the U.S. (See "The Global Proliferation of High-Containment Biological Laboratories: Understanding the Phenomenon and Its Implications,"47 and the Government Accountability Office's reports, "Biological Select Agents and Toxins: Actions Needed to Improve Management of DOD's Biosafety and Biosecurity Program,"48 and "High-containment Laboratories: Comprehensive and Up-to-Date Policies and Stronger Oversight Mechanisms Needed to Improve Safety"49).

EcoHealth's Tentacles Reach Far and Wide

EcoHealth Alliance is very much involved in the Pentagon's proliferation of high-containment biological laboratories. It is conducting DTRA-funded work in the following countries, which are all participants in the Pentagon's Biological Threat Reduction Program.50

Tanzania — In Tanzania, a country that is considered only "partly free,"51 which has a history of foreign medical experimentation52 and which didn't ratify the Biological Weapons Convention53 until 2019, EcoHealth Alliance has a $5-million Pentagon contract,54 "Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever: Reducing an Emerging Health Threat in Tanzania."

Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF)55 is a tick-borne disease, originally only infecting animals, that was discovered by Ottis and Calista Causey while working for the Rockefeller Foundation in Nigeria. There was only ever one case56 of CCHF in Tanzania, and that was in 1986.

Gain-of-function research57 on CCHF is being conducted at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) to determine the "mechanisms of CCHF transmission including development of CCHF tick and animal infection methods and CCHF tick-animal transmission models." (The National Bio and Agro Defense Facility will take over the mission of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and become the lead facility for Foreign Animal Disease research.)

The National Bio and Agro Defense Facility Biosafety Level 4 (BSL4) Zoonotic and Emerging Infectious Disease team's CCHF Virus Surveillance Project58 is investigating "the interface between tick vectors, livestock and pastoralist and resource-poor farming communities in Tanzania" as well as the disease's "molecular pathogenesis."

Tanzania is the origin of chikungunya,59 a mosquito-borne virus that the U.S. has long cultivated60 as a potential biological weapon. according to a patent61 held by the University of Texas for a "chimeric" chikungunya virus created through genetic engineering and synthetic biology:

"The 39 documented laboratory infections reported by HHS in 1981 strongly suggest that Chikungunya virus is infectious via aerosol route. Chikungunya virus was being weaponized by the U.S. Army army when the offensive program was terminated."

Tanzania is one62 of the countries where bat coronaviruses were collected for the PREDICT63 project. Tanzania has one Biosafety Level 3 (BSL3) laboratory, the privately owned Ifakara Health Institute,64 which is partnering with PREDICT65 to launch "concurrent surveillance of wildlife and people in at-risk areas for viral spillover and spread."

South Africa — In South Africa, which had a notorious apartheid-era biological weapons program,66 EcoHealth Alliance has a $5-million Pentagon contract67 (2019-2024), "Reducing the Threat of Rift Valley Fever Through Ecology, Epidemiology and Socio-economics." This is on top of a $4.9-million grant68 (2014-2019), "Understanding Rift Valley Fever in the Republic of South Africa."

The last human outbreak69 of Rift Valley Fever in South Africa occurred in 2010, when the government reported 237 confirmed cases, including 26 deaths from nine provinces. But there were also a few cases70 in 2018 among farmworkers who slaughtered infected animals during an outbreak in livestock. The fever can spread from animals to humans if they come into contact with the blood and other body fluids of an infected animal.

The U.S. military has conducted offensive biological weapons research71 on Rift Valley Fever. South Africa's biological weapons program72 included the weaponization of Rift Valley Fever virus obtained from the U.S. government.

Known as Project Coast, South Africa's biological weapons program murdered anti-apartheid activists with narcotics and poisons, and attempted a genocide of the black majority by spreading AIDS73 and by developing pathogens and vaccines74 that would selectively attack black people with illness, death and infertility.

Dr. Wouter Basson,75 the project's top scientist, told Pretoria High Court in South Africa that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency threatened him with death, presumably to prevent him from revealing the deep connections between Project Coast and the U.S., which had forced President F. W. de Klerk to shut down the project and destroy its records.

Basson named the U.S. Centers for Disease Control as his source of eight shipments76 of Ebola, Marburg and Rift Valley viruses, but claimed that he had obtained the viruses by posing as a medical researcher and hiding his affiliation with the South African Defense Forces.

Surveys of bats in South Africa found no evidence77 of bats being natural carriers of Rift Valley Fever virus, but experiments have shown that bats can be infected78 with it in a laboratory setting.

A bat coronavirus collected79 in South Africa in 2011 was thought to be the closest known relative of the MERS-CoV virus that emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012, until a 100-percent match for MERS-CoV was detected by Daszak and his colleagues in viral RNA fragments from an Egyptian tomb bat80 found near the home of one of the first MERS victims in Saudi Arabia.

Liberia — In Liberia, which didn't ratify the Biological Weapons Convention until 2016,81 EcoHealth Alliance has a $4.91-million82 Pentagon contract,83 "Reducing the Threat from High-risk Pathogens Causing Febrile Illness in Liberia." Febrile illnesses include Ebola, which has been the subject of some of the most controversial dual-use research.84

While the U.S. has a sordid history of biological weapons experimentation on its own people — with conscientious objectors,85 military "volunteers,"86 and the general public87 as frequent subjects — there were some biological weapons tests88 the Department of Defense considered too unethical to perform within the continental U.S. Those tests were conducted in other countries, including Liberia.89

Likewise, mirroring medical experimentation90 on African Americans, there is a history of colonial medical experimentation in Liberia going back to 1926 when the Firestone91 tire company financed surveys of local diseases they feared could curtail the profitability of their rubber plantations.

More recently, a failed Pentagon-funded Ebola drug trial92 caused many Liberians to suspect that the subsequent Ebola outbreak was the fault of Tekmira, the pharmaceutical company that created TKM-100802. Doubt surrounded the official story, promoted93 by Daszak, that the West African Ebola outbreak happened because bats flew in with the Ebola Zaire virus from 2,500 miles away.

In January 2014, the Phase I trial94 for TKM-100802 was launched, but put on clinical hold by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration due to high cytokine release in participants. In a dose-escalation, healthy volunteer study, one (of two) participants dosed at the highest level of 0·5 mg/kg experienced cytokine release syndrome.95

Cytokine release syndrome96 is a pro-inflammatory reaction that occurs when activated lymphocytes and/or myeloid cells release soluble immune mediators following administration of certain therapeutic agents, especially monoclonal antibodies. Onset can be rapid (within hours of administration) and can be life-threatening.

Ultimately, TKM-100802 proved useless97 for Ebola patients, but the Pentagon's $140-million98 investment, and the boost99 Tekmira's stock experienced on speculation that Ebola would soon spawn the next $1-billion drug,100 made many investors rich.

Suspicions were raised because the TKM-100802 Phase I trial on healthy volunteers began in January 2014, before101 the first cases of the Ebola outbreak in March 2014.

Later, the World Health Organization's Pierre Formenty traced the first case102 back to late December 2013, in Meliandou, Guinea. There, 50 meters from the home of patient zero, another researcher, Fabian Leendertz,103 found DNA fragments that matched the Angolan free-tailed bat, a species known to survive experimental infections with Ebola.

Then, Daszak's EcoHealth team found viral RNA fragments104 of Ebola Zaire in a greater long-fingered bat, captured in 2016 in Liberia's Sanniquellie-Mahn District, which borders Guinea. There was a 1982 article105 in Annals of Virology in which a trio of Germans reported finding Ebola antibodies in 26 of 433 Liberians (6%). Bats aren't the only place to look for Ebola.

There's a BSL-4 lab that was handling Zaire Ebola before the pandemic in Kenema, Sierra Leone. This is where international law attorney Francis Boyle,106 a drafter of the U.S. Biological Weapons and Anti-Terrorism Act passed into law in 1981, believes the pandemic originated.

There's also Liberia's Monkey Island. As the Washington Post reported,107 that's where 66 chimpanzees have been since 2004, when they were abandoned by the American scientists at the Liberian labs of the New York Blood Center. From 1974 to 2004, the New York Blood Center captured wild chimps, engaged them in medical experimentation and then released them back into the jungle in a project known as Vilab II108 (Virology Lab II), which maintained a colony of 200 chimps.

Vilab II was built from the remnants of the Liberian Institute of Tropical Medicine. Built by Firestone in 1946, the Liberian Institute of Tropical Medicine had once employed 60 scientists, but by 1974, medical doctor Earl Reber109 was there alone with eight chimps. The roots of the Liberian Institute of Tropical Medicine go back to the research begun in 1926 by Harvard Department of Tropical Medicine chief Richard Pearson Strong.

Virus hunters like Daszak should have a keen interest in a population of chimpanzees that, for nearly 100 years, has been caught, injected with viruses and then released back into the wild, especially considering the work of the researchers who handled the chimps.

The New York Blood Center is at the center of a theory110 on the origin of HIV/AIDS, that it came from a contaminated Hepatitis B vaccine the center distributed to gay men from 1978-1981. The New York Blood Center also tested111 its vaccine on Liberians.

Richard Pearson Strong112 is infamous for killing 13 men when he infected a group of 24 inmates of Manila's Bilibid Prison with plague through a contaminated cholera vaccine. That was prior to his work113 in Liberia, which is only now being explored, and also involved experiments with humans as well as chimpanzees.

Georgia — EcoHealth Alliance has a $6.5-million Pentagon grant114 for "Understanding the Risk of Bat-borne Zoonotic Disease Emergence In Western Asia" (2017-2022).

Arms Watch115 reports that this grant involves genetic studies on coronaviruses in 5,000 bats collected in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Jordan. The studies were conducted at the Lugar Center, a $161-million Pentagon-funded biolaboratory in Georgia's capital, Tbilisi. Russia claims116 the Georgia lab is the site of a U.S. biological weapons program.

According to USASpending.gov,117 EcoHealth Alliance has received $2.88 million in grants for work in Georgia. The Lugar Center is one of the labs that hosts EcoHealth Alliance's Western Asia Bat Research Network.118

Malaysia — In Malaysia, which is only now in the process of creating a legislative framework119 for enforcing the Biological Weapons Convention, EcoHealth Alliance had a $1.6-million Pentagon grant120 (2017-2019) for "Serological Biosurveillance for Spillover of Henipaviruses and Filoviruses at Agricultural and Hunting Human Animal Interfaces in Peninsular Malaysia."

There are no known cases of filovirus infections in humans in Malaysia. But Malaysia is the origin of the Nipah virus,121 first recognized in 1999, during an outbreak among farmers and farmworkers in factory farms and slaughterhouses producing pork.

The virus spread to Singapore. In all, there were 265 cases of acute encephalitis with 105 deaths, and the billion-dollar pig-farming industry nearly collapsed. No new outbreaks have been reported in Malaysia since 1999.

Nipah virus, a zoonotic pathogen for which no treatments exist, is the inspiration for the film "Contagion."122 The virus can only be experimented on in BSL-4 laboratories. The National Bio and Agro-Defence Facility in Kansas will be the first biocontainment facility123 in the U.S. where research on Nipah and Ebola (a filovirus) can be conducted on livestock.

In 2019, Nipah Malaysia was among the deadly virus strains shipped124 from Canada's National Microbiology Lab to the WIV. Henipaviruses,125 in the paramyxovirus family, were the first emerging diseases linked to bats.

In June 2012, in the same Chinese cave126 (actually an old copper mine where workers doing cleanup had become sick and died) in which Daszak's WIV colleagues found SARS-CoV-2's most closely related coronavirus, another frequent collaborator of Daszak's, Zhiqiang Wu of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, found a new henipavirus-like pathogen in a rat, naming it the "Mojiang paramyxovirus,"127 after the county in Yunnan province where it was found.

Malaysia was the planned site of a BSL-4 laboratory run by the pharmaceutical company Emergent Biosolutions128 for the production of a halal version of the BioThrax vaccine. But that project failed.129

In addition to the Pentagon funding, Dazsak obtained $1.7 million in grants130 (2002-2005) from NIH's Fogarty International Center for "Anthropogenic Change & Emerging Zoonotic Paramyxoviruses." In 2012-2014, Daszak had a $569,700 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Service for "Development of a Great Ape Health Unit in Sabah, Malaysia."

Daszak has a new National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant,131 "Understanding Risk of Zoonotic Virus Emergence in EID Hotspots of Southeast Asia," for $1.5 million (2020). The grant is for an "Emerging Infectious Diseases - South East Asia Research Collaboration Hub (EID-SEARCH)" that "brings leaders in emerging disease research from the U.S., Thailand, Singapore and the three major Malaysian administrative regions together to build an early warning system to safeguard against pandemic disease threats. This team will identify novel viruses from Southeast Asian wildlife [and] characterize their capacity to infect and cause illness in people …"

Other Pentagon Contracts

EcoHealth Alliance had a $1-million Pentagon contract132 (2017-2019) for an Inbound Bio-event Information System (IBIS), "a web-based application and early warning system for global infectious disease bio-events that threaten the U.S. via international transportation networks."

EcoHealth Alliance also had another $4.5-million Pentagon contract (HDTRA115C0041133) for 2015-2017. No other information is available on this contract other than that it is for "Applied Research/Exploratory Development" in the "Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)."

Department of Homeland Security Contracts — EcoHealth Alliance has a $566,300 contract (2019-2021) with the Department of Homeland Security for the Rapid Evaluation of Pathogens to Prevent Epidemics in Livestock (REPEL) project134 "to apply biological-based, pathogen agnostic medical countermeasure vaccine and diagnostic platforms to develop foreign animal and emerging zoonotic livestock disease vaccines."

Department of Health and Human Services Funding — Daszak obtained a $300,000-grant135 in 2012 from NIH's Fogarty International Center for research on "Comparative Spillover Dynamics of Avian Influenza In Endemic Countries." While most of the research listed in the "results" section of the grant are flu-related, it also includes the WIV's paper,136 "Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-like Coronavirus that Uses the ACE2 Receptor."137

Daszak was given $3.7 million in grants138 (2002-2012) from NIH's Fogarty International Center for "The Ecology, Emergence And Pandemic Potential of Nipah Virus in Bangladesh."

The grants Daszak used to support the work of the WIV were a $3.7-million grant139 (2014-2020) "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence," and a $2.6-million grant140 (2008-2012) "Risk of Viral Emergence From Bats," each from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Funding

In Thailand, EcoHealth Alliance has a $647,200-grant141 for "One Health Workforce - Next Generation" (2019-2020).

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). www.organicconsumers.org To keep up with OCA's news and alerts, sign up here.



from Articles https://ift.tt/3mwXpgn
via IFTTT

A multi-layered, virus-specific immune response is important for controlling SARS-CoV-2 during the acute phase of the infection and reducing COVID-19 disease severity, with the bulk of the evidence pointing to a much bigger role for T cells than antibodies. A weak or uncoordinated immune response, on the other hand, predicts a poor disease outcome.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Ft9nas

Bioengineers have created miniature intestines in a dish that match up anatomically and functionally to the real thing better than any other lab-grown tissue models. The biological complexity and longevity of the new organoid technology is an important step towards enabling drug testing, personalized medicine, and perhaps, one day, transplantations.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2H8P4iT

Humans, like other animals, have the ability to constantly adapt to new situations. Researchers have utilized a mouse model to reveal which neurons in the brain are in command in guiding adaptive behavior. Their new study contributes to our understanding of decision-making processes in healthy and infirm people.

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

Azithromycin -- a commonly-prescribed antibiotic -- also is being investigated as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Researchers have found that azithromycin by itself is not associated with an increase in cardiac events; however, if the drug is taken with certain other drugs that affect the electrical functioning of the heart, then cardiac events increased.

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

Scientists have shown that pharmacological (drug) correction of the content of extracellular vesicles released within dystrophic muscles can restore their ability to regenerate muscle and prevent muscle scarring. The study reveals a promising new therapeutic approach for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), an incurable muscle-wasting condition, and has far-reaching implications for the field of regenerative medicine.

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

Conditions related to obesity, including inflammation and leaky gut, leave the lungs of obese patients more susceptible to COVID-19 and may explain why they are more likely to die from the disease, scientists say. They suggest that drugs used to lower inflammation in the lungs could prove beneficial to obese patients with the disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2ZGE4Qk

This 60-second advertisement for Trulicity, a medication for diabetes, is one of the most feel-good medication commercials I’ve ever seen. The narrator never uses the scare tactic of so many other ads, listing the terrible things that could happen if you don’t take the treatment. Instead, from start to finish, music, images, and spoken words deliver empowering, encouraging messages focused on helping your body to do what it’s supposed to be doing despite having diabetes.

There’s a lot of good information here, but as in most direct-to-consumer health marketing there’s also some that’s missing. Let’s go through it, shall we?

Three actors, three positive messages

The ad opens with uplifting music and statements by three people with type 2 diabetes (though all are actors, as noted in text at the bottom of the screen). A woman faces the camera to declare

“My body is truly powerful.”

So far so good! Then a man wearing a hard hat and holding blueprints at a construction site states

“I have the power to lower my blood sugar and A1C.”

More good news! By the way, he’s referring to hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), a molecule in the circulatory system that serves as a standard test of average blood sugar over the previous two to three months. A normal or nearly normal HbA1C suggests good diabetic control, while higher results indicate elevated blood sugar and poorer control of diabetes.

We then meet a third woman wearing scrubs, who works in the physical therapy department of a hospital. She says

“…because I can still make my own insulin and Trulicity activates my body to release it, like it’s supposed to.”

Well, that sounds good, too, right? Presented this way, Trulicity seems more natural, because it encourages the release of your body’s insulin rather than relying on injected insulin.

What is Trulicity anyway?

A voiceover tells us Trulicity is not insulin, it’s taken once weekly, and it starts acting from the first dose. Tiny print notes the generic name (dulaglutide) and the fact that it’s an injection “to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise.” Then we hear who should not take Trulicity, a list including children, people with Type 1 diabetes, and women who are pregnant. Possible side effects are described, such as nausea, low blood sugar, stomach problems, and allergic reactions (see full list here). The FDA requires this in all direct-to-consumer ads.

As the camera pans up to sun shining through leaves and a band plays in the background, we see the physical therapist again — having changed out of scrubs into regular clothes — at a picnic with her family. We hear a few more warnings about side effects and the risk of lowering blood sugar too much when taking Trulicity with other diabetes medications.

Standing in a beautiful park, the woman faces the camera and says

“I have it within me to lower my A1C.”

Finally, the voiceover makes the usual suggestion

“Ask your doctor about Trulicity.”

What this ad gets right

The description of dulaglutide as a non-insulin medication that stimulates the release of insulin is accurate. The text and spoken information about the medication, including who should and should not take it and the possible side effects, reflect the FDA-approved prescribing information. And the unspoken message — that people with diabetes can be active, working, social individuals — is also true (and, perhaps, underappreciated).

What’s missing from this ad

Some important information provided only in text is easy to miss. It appears only for a few seconds, and some of the print is quite small — they don’t call it fine print for nothing! For example, you could easily miss the fact that Trulicity is available only by injection. Similarly, you could overlook the text explaining that Trulicity is not a first choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and that diet and exercise are important in managing this condition.

Other missing information includes

  • the meaning and relevance of HbA1C
  • whether Trulicity reduces complications of diabetes, such as kidney disease, nerve damage, or visual problems, or improves quality of life or longevity; in fact, there is evidence it can reduce cardiovascular complications and death in high-risk individuals
  • whether Trulicity is better than other treatments for diabetes, including other injectable treatments that work in a similar way, oral medications, or insulin
  • the high cost of Trulicity: the “list price” is nearly $10,000/year, although health insurance or assistance programs may lower the out-of-pocket cost.

One other potentially misleading feature of the ad is the choice of actors. Excess weight is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Yet, two of the three actors portraying patients, including the physical therapist who makes multiple appearances, appear close to normal weight. The third appears only modestly overweight.

The bottom line

Advertisements can provide a lot of useful information, but they can also be misleading. While there are regulations around what can and cannot be included in ads for prescription medications like Trulicity, these regulations do not require commercials to paint a full picture.

If you or a loved one has type 2 diabetes, there are better ways to learn about the options for treatment than a drug ad. Yes, talk to your doctor. But don’t limit your conversation to something you heard or read about in a feel-good drug ad.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

The post Harvard Health Ad Watch: A feel-good message about a diabetes drug appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.



from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/2ZGIrL0

After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world. The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin,1 London2 and Dublin,3 protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters.

In the U.S., a protest took place August 30, 2020, in Boston, Massachusetts, against a new student flu vaccination mandate,4 and in Virginia, protesters gathered September 2 in opposition of unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates.5

These are just a few of the many demonstrations that have taken place in recent weeks around the world, as people are starting to realize their human rights are being stripped away over a virus with a lethality on par with that of seasonal influenza and other pandemic viruses, none of which was responded to with a global shutdown of economies and forced quarantining of healthy individuals.

COVID-19 — A Massive Brainwashing Scheme?

In recent weeks and months, more and more experts have come out sharing what they know about the roles of Big Tech, Big Pharma and global health organizations such as the World Health Organization in the creation of a new technocratic world order.

If you missed my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, in which he details the technocratic take-over plan, which has been in play for decades, be sure to review it now. Other articles shedding light on what’s happening behind the scenes include “Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook,” featuring a documentary with professor Shoshana Zuboff, and “Plandemic Part 2.”

When you start to put all the puzzle pieces together, it seems clear this pandemic is being used as a cover story for both a global wealth redistribution scheme, and for the implementation of a technocratic system of totalitarian rule by unelected leaders.

The WHO seems to be part and parcel of this global network. While the U.S. has severed ties with the organization, Big Tech is still promoting the WHO as a final arbiter of which views are acceptable and which are not — medical expertise and scientific achievements be damned.

As reported by Reclaim the Net,6 the WHO eavesdrops on everything you do online, from reviewing your social media interactions to analyzing your emotions. To counteract “spread of misleading information” about the pandemic — which was a key area of focus during Event 201 — the WHO has partnered with an analytics company that uses machine learning analysis to scan more than 1.6 million social media posts per week.

The aim of this “social listening approach”— a nicer term than good old-fashioned spying — is to counteract anything that doesn’t align with the WHO’s current narrative on illnesses, treatments, interventions and causes of disease.

Aiding them in this dystopian censoring process is the United Nations, which has launched an army of 10,000 digital volunteers who troll the internet for “false” information and opposing views.

On top of that, most social media platforms have their own highly biased "fact-checkers" who censor for all they’re worth. Back in April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, announced they would ban and remove any video from the platform that contradicts the WHO.7

Countless examples of wanton censorship of perfectly valid medical and scientific information across all social media platforms and Google can be found at this point.

Just How Deadly Is COVID-19?

According to groundbreaking data8 recently released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.

Six percent of 169,044 (the total death toll as of September 2) is 10,143. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC states. As reported by Rochester First,9 the top underlying medical conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, heart problems and renal failure.

However, the list also includes 5,424 intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning deaths, so basically, accidents and suicides in which the individual just happened to test positive (or was suspected of being positive for SARS-CoV-2) are also included in the grand total.

(Please note, these data were accurate as of this writing. The CDC does not notate when data is altered as new death certificates come in, so the numbers may therefore be different from what is reported here, depending on when you’re looking at it. For the most up-to-date figures, see the CDC’s website.10)

The fact that only 6% of COVID-19-related deaths are directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 is bad news when you’re trying to keep a doomsday narrative going. In what appears to be a blatant attempt to minimize exposure of these data, social media platforms have censored many trying to share it.11

As noted by independent news commentator Tim Pool in the video below, fact-checkers are digging into nitpicky semantics in their effort to censor the CDC data, and in so doing, they’re really stretching the “false” claim ultrathin.

Similar data have emerged from Palm Beach County, Florida, where an investigation by CBS 1212 I-Team revealed only 86 of the reported 658 COVID-19 deaths had “COVID-19 pneumonia” listed as the sole cause of death.

All others had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and dementia. As noted by CBS 12, “Most Palm Beach County COVID deaths cannot be attributed to COVID alone.”

While Dr. Terry Adirim, senior associate dean at the Florida Atlantic University College of Medicine, told the I-Team that “it makes sense to count them [people with comorbid conditions] toward COVID deaths because the virus may have made an otherwise nonfatal illness like a heart condition deadly,” the converse argument can also be made.

Had it not been for them having one or more serious comorbidities, the risk of the virus to these individuals would have been minuscule, and if they got sick at all, they’d probably have survived. So, ultimately, should the virus bear the brunt of the blame?

Infection Fatality Rate on Par With the Flu

Keeping the “killer virus” narrative going much longer is probably going to become even more difficult in light of a September 2, 2020 article13 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which points out that:

“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking, and that when calculating mortality rates from confirmed cases, you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio (IFR).”

The paper reads, in part:14

“To calculate a true infection fatality ratio, population prevalence data are needed from large geographic areas where reliable death data also exist … We combined prevalence estimates from a statewide random sample with Indiana vital statistics data of confirmed COVID-19 deaths.

In brief, our stratified random sample consisted of state residents aged 12 years and older. Known decedents and incarcerated persons were excluded. Because nursing homes were limiting residents' ability to leave and re-enter the facilities, their participation was unlikely.

Participants were tested from 25 April to 29 April 2020 for active viral infection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which would indicate prior infection … We calculated the IFR by age, race, sex, and ethnicity on the basis of the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths as of 29 April 2020, divided by the number of infections.

Although nursing home residents were not tested, they represented 54.9% of Indiana's deaths. Thus, we excluded nursing home residents from all calculations (that is, deaths and infections).

To account for all infections, we added the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the testing period and noninstitutionalized COVID-19 deaths into the denominator …

Our random-sample study estimated 187 802 cumulative infections, to which 180 hospitalizations were added. The average age among all COVID-19 decedents was 76.9 years.

The overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio was 0.26% … Persons younger than 40 years had an infection fatality ratio of 0.01%; those aged 60 or older had an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%. Whites had an infection fatality ratio of 0.18%; non-Whites had an infection fatality ratio of 0.59%.”

The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60.

All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you’re under the age of 60, your chances of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.

White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”15

Expect Massive Propaganda Campaign to Boost Vaccine Uptake

With death rates being as low as they are for everyone under the age of 60, it really weakens the rationale for vaccinating the entire world, including newborns, the risk to whom the virus poses is virtually nil.

The vaccine looking increasingly unnecessary is likely a reason for why the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign this fall, using carefully researched messages. As detailed in “Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” Yale University has conducted a trial16 to determine the type of message that will maximize acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Messaging slants evaluated in the investigation included:17

Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people's personal freedom and how working together to get enough people vaccinated can preserve society’s personal freedoms.

Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people's economic freedom and how, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom.

Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one's health, even if one is young and healthy, with the idea being that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.

Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones. The idea to promote is that the more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one's loved ones will get sick. The idea: Society must work together and all get vaccinated.

Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.

Guilt message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community, with the idea that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated, and that society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Embarrassment message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community. The idea to promote is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and subsequently spread the disease.

Anger message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community. The sales idea is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one's community. It promotes the idea that vaccination is backed by science, and that anyone who doesn't get vaccinated doesn't understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.

Not bravery message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave, and infers that those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.

The study, which was completed July 8, 2020, also sought to determine:

  • Participant’s confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine after hearing the message in question
  • Participant’s willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
  • Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
  • The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate

Prosocial Pressure Tactics Work Best

Harvard Business School in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have also published a working paper18 comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors.

Considering the messages we’ve been bombarded with over the past few months — calling people who don’t wear masks “grandma killers” and so on — it seems clear that results from these kinds of investigations have been capitalized on.

In that paper, “Don’t Get It or Don’t Spread It?” the authors review studies in which various types of messages were compared — messages highlighting the threat to self, versus the threat you might pose to others.

Overall, prosocial messages, i.e., messages that stress the importance of complying with prevention behaviors in order to protect others fared the best. According to the authors:19

“These results reveal that prosocial framing was more effective than self-interested framing, suggesting a potential primacy of prosocial motivations in supporting prevention intentions …

First, prosocial framing may have been relatively more effective not because prosocial motivations do more to drive prevention intentions, but rather because people believe that COVID-19 poses a greater threat to society than to themselves.

Indeed, subjects in Studies 1-2 did on average report that coronavirus posed a larger public than personal threat.

However, we find that the advantage of the Public treatment (relative to the Personal treatment) was not significantly moderated by ‘threat difference scores’ (i.e., differences between the reported personal vs. public threat of coronavirus), or significantly smaller among subjects who reported the personal threat of coronavirus to be as large or larger than the public threat …

Thus, we find evidence that the relative effectiveness of the Public treatment was not unique to subjects who saw COVID-19 as more threatening to society than to themselves.

A second possibility is that prosocial framing (which encourages people to avoid spreading coronavirus) was more effective than self-interested framing (which encourages people to avoid getting coronavirus) because people feel relatively more empowered to avoid spreading the virus.”

Stop Believing in the Lockdown

A powerful essay20 in the American Institute for Economic Research asks the question: Is the lockdown the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic? 

Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.

However, the vast majority of these “infections” or “cases” are asymptomatic. A rising “case” load does not mean people are actually getting sick and dying. The misuse of the medical term “case” is an egregious one, as historically, a “case” is defined as someone who has symptoms of a particular disease — someone who is actually sick.

Never in medical history has a “case” meant someone who is perfectly healthy and requires testing to determine whether they are infected with a particular pathogen. Would you get tested for the common cold or influenza if you had no symptoms? If the test happened to come back positive, would you with a straight face say you “have” a cold or the flu?

There are other myths, mostly scare tactics, that people are willingly believing that need to be stopped now, too, the author asserts — and it’s time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. I encourage you to read that essay in its totality.

The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism

Another article21 well worth reading is Mark Petrakis’ “The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism.” This one also starts off with an excellent quote by Cato the Elder: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” One of the first points he makes is that fascism is attractive because:

“… it requires so little from us, so little independent thought; just our basic belief and adherence to a limited set of popularly-shared directives and narratives that once fully accepted, relieve us of the need to address stubborn questions or to fret over subtle differences of opinion and feeling.

Propaganda reassures us that we are complete, that we know all there is to know, that we are rational, pragmatic and pure, that the science has been settled and that we are a part of something special.”

Petrakis goes on to discuss why propaganda and disinformation is required in order to maintain control in a fascist regime, and how truth is a liability that must be disallowed and penalized. In the end, the price we pay for this kind of intellectual laziness is “soul-crushing denial and disconnection.”

No one who has been paying attention this past year in particular can have missed that propaganda is in full swing, 24/7, and that both truthful facts and personal opinions that run counter to the established propaganda narrative are being censored and penalized in equal measure.

When it comes to COVID-19, the propaganda is so pervasive and widespread that it has actually shattered what Petrakis refers to as “the grandest illusion of all” that “must be maintained at all costs,” namely the appearance that the propaganda messages are randomly generated.

“It must always appear that the media’s coverage and the comments of experts are entirely free from any preconceived manipulation,” he says. Today, there is little doubt that the narrative we see is anything but free from bias. There’s little doubt that what we’re told is “weaponized storytelling,” to quote Petrakis yet again.

“Looking at our world, we can see that the reach and authority of the transnational global capitalists who run the world’s nation-sized casinos has been cemented. All systems are now in place, up and running LIVE on that criminal syndicate’s vast web of networks. Each one of us has by now been targeted by them for some form of surveillance and financialization …

The ‘A.I. control grids’ are all active and expanding. The technocratic agendas are now fully ready for prime-time.

We have been gradually ‘shepherded’ by propaganda and psychological torture techniques … under the ‘persistent’ control of A.I., which will guide the process of transmuting us into commodities, into plunderable assets, into digitally-regulated and genetically modified ‘livestock.’ Sadly, this is where decades of constant acquiescence to propaganda and institutional hypnosis has brought us …”

Ultimately, the economic system known as technocracy is tailor-made for the transhumanist revolution — which I touch upon in “Will New COVID Vaccine Make You Transhuman?” — where man is merged with technology and AI. As always, the lure will be greater convenience, self-improvement and “a better world for all.”

What’s never mentioned is the ultimate price. The price for all of it is complete subjugation to faceless leaders who profit from your every move, and therefore will dictate all of them.

COVID-19 Rules Mark ‘Hysterical Slide Into Police State’

I’ll end this with some observations by British Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who in a March 30, 2020, interview22 with The Post warned that COVID-19 rules are paving the way for despotism — the exercise of absolute power in a cruel and oppressive manner.

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.

That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognize here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.

Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.”

It is time to ask ourselves some very pressing questions. Is it reasonable to expect government to eliminate ALL infection and ALL death? They’ve proven they cannot, yet we keep relinquishing more and more freedoms and liberties because they claim doing so will keep everyone safer. It’s an enticing lie, but a lie nonetheless.

Remember, they sold us on the business shutdowns and home quarantining by saying we just need to flatten the curve of infection to avoid hospital overcrowding. Now the curve is in a visible nosedive and hospitals are far from overcrowded with COVID-19 patients, yet lockdowns remain in many areas and some — Australia being a prime example — have reached astonishing new heights. 

Sooner or later everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security? Circling back to where I started, the good news is that many are in fact starting to see the writing on the wall; they’re starting to see we’ve been “had,” and are starting to choose liberty over brutal totalitarianism in the name of public health.



from Articles https://ift.tt/3hzzXvi
via IFTTT

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget