Health & Fitness

The more data becomes available about SARS-CoV-2, the more obvious it becomes that the response to this pandemic has been grossly overblown. Fatality statistics^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7} from multiple sources, calculated in a variety of ways, show the risk of dying from COVID-19 is lower than your risk of dying from conventional influenza, at least if you're under the age of 60.

Overall, the data^8,9 also show that the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady this year and doesn't veer from the norm. In other words, COVID-19 has not killed off more of the population than would have died in any given year anyway.

Several studies also suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined, and that the threshold for herd immunity is far lower than previously estimated.

Most Are Already Immune to SARS-CoV-2 Infection  

Studies supporting the claim that widespread immunity against SARS-CoV-2 already exists include:

Innate and Adaptive Immunity

It's important to realize you have two types of immunity. Your innate immune system is primed and ready to attack foreign invaders at any moment and is your first line of defense. Your adaptive immune system,²⁸ on the other hand, "remembers" previous exposure to a pathogen and mounts a response when an old foe is recognized.

Your adaptive immune system is further divided into two arms: humoral immunity (B cells) and cell mediated immunity (T cells). The B cells and T cells are manufactured as needed from specialized stem cells. The graphs below are from my vitamin D report and will help you understand the components of these systems and their timing.

If you have never been exposed to a disease but are given antibodies from someone who got sick and recovered, you can gain humoral immunity against that disease. Your humoral immune system can also kick in if there's cross-reactivity with another very similar pathogen.

As you can see from the list above, in the case of COVID-19, evidence²⁹ suggests exposure to other coronaviruses that cause the common cold can confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2. 

On the flip side, there's a phenomenon known as viral interference, where exposure to one virus makes you more susceptible to another virus. Importantly, research³⁰ has found that those who received the influenza vaccine were 36% more susceptible to coronavirus infection.

Mathematical Models Add Support for Widespread Immunity

If it's true that a majority already have some measure of immunity against COVID-19 due to previous exposure to other coronaviruses, then we've probably already reached the threshold for herd immunity, and vaccinating every human on the planet (or close to it) will not be necessary.

Added support for the idea that herd immunity may already have been achieved in most countries comes from statisticians working with mathematical models. In June 2020, Freddie Sayers, executive editor of UnHerd, interviewed³¹ professor Karl Friston, a statistician who claims immunity against SARS-CoV-2, globally, might be as high as 80%, as reviewed in the video interview above.

Friston is credited with inventing a statistical parametric mapping technique that is now the standard for understanding brain imaging. As the pandemic erupted, he began applying this method of analysis (which he refers to as "dynamic causal modeling") to COVID-19 data, coming up with a model that predicts far lower mortality rates than earlier models.

The reason for this is because the "effective susceptible population," meaning those who are not already immune to COVID-19 and therefore at risk of infection, was never 100%. At most, it was 50% and most likely only around 20%.

Friston's model effectively vaporizes claims that social distancing is necessary, because once sensible behaviors such as staying home when sick are entered into it, the positive effect of lockdown efforts on "flattening the curve" simply vanish. In all likelihood, the global lockdowns were completely unnecessary, and certainly should not continue, now or in the future.

Signs of Herd Immunity Emerge in Sweden

One country that bucked the global lockdown trend was Sweden, and they now appear to be head and neck ahead of most other countries in terms of herd immunity, while having a death toll that is very similar to nations that destroyed their economy and sacrificed the population's mental health in the name of infection control.

Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden's coronavirus response, has stated³² he does not believe Sweden will see a second wave with widespread contagion as the country is seeing a rapid decline in positive tests, indicating herd immunity has been achieved.³³

He told The Guardian³⁴ that the primary goal was always merely to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming medical services. The intention was never to prevent infection from spreading altogether, which has indeed proven impossible.

This was in fact the original plan just about everywhere. But while Sweden stuck to the original goal, and by mid-September boasted all-time low infection rates,³⁵ other nations have twisted response plans to prevent infection transmission altogether, even among those for whom the risk of such an infection is vanishingly minor, such as school-aged children.

The two graphs from The Guardian,³⁶ below, show Sweden's infection rate and deaths per million, compared to other countries that enforced stricter lockdown rules.

Herd Immunity Threshold Likely Below 50%

As reported in "Herd Immunity 'Ahead of Schedule'" experts initially estimated that 70% of the population or more would need to be immune before herd immunity would be achieved. Now, more than a dozen scientists claim the herd immunity threshold is likely below 50%.

As stated earlier, if this is true — and as you can see by the studies reviewed, it appears a majority do have some level of immunity — then the need for a vaccine more or less vanishes.

Herd immunity is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.³⁷ R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who's infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise.

It's far from an exact science, however, as a person's susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community. The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19's herd immunity threshold were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community.

"That doesn't happen in real life," Dr. Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told The New York Times.³⁸ "Herd immunity could vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation," or even zip code. When real-world scenarios are factored into the equation, the herd immunity threshold drops significantly, with some experts saying it could be as low as 10% to 20%.

Researchers from Oxford, Virginia Tech and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine are among those that found^39,40 when individual variations in susceptibility and exposure are taken into account, the herd immunity threshold dips below 10%.

Independent news source Off-Guardian also cited⁴¹ data from Stockholm County, Sweden, which shows a herd immunity threshold of 17%,⁴² as well as an essay by Brown University professor Dr. Andrew Bostom, who noted:⁴³

"Lead investigator Dr. Gomes, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues concluded: "naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune."⁴⁴

Separate HIT [herd immunity threshold] calculations of 9%,⁴⁵ 10-20%,⁴⁶ 17%,⁴⁷ and 43%^48,49 — each substantially below the dogmatically asserted value of ~70%⁵⁰ — have been reported by investigators from Tel-Aviv University, Oxford University, University College of London, and Stockholm University, respectively."

Declaration Urges Implementation of Herd Immunity Approach

All in all, there are many reasons to suspect that continued lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates are completely unnecessary and will not significantly alter the course of this pandemic illness, or the final death count.

As reported by British Sky News,⁵¹ October 7, 2020, many respected scientists are now calling for a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, meaning governments should allow people who are not at significant risk of serious COVID-19 illness to go back to normal life. According to the article:⁵²

"The so-called Great Barrington declaration, signed by leading experts from the universities of Oxford, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Exeter, Cambridge, Sussex and York, suggests herd immunity as a way forward.

The declaration states: 'The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to coronavirus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this focused protection."

The declaration points out that current lockdown policies are having "devastating effects on short and long-term public health" that will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3j1loRP
via IFTTT

In the U.K., patient organizations are nonprofits made up of patients and caregivers that offer support and advocacy for those afflicted by certain health conditions.

Although they’re widely perceived as patient-oriented groups that serve the public, they often receive funding from pharmaceutical companies — a significant problem since such organizations are also increasingly involved in policy decisions and research.¹

In fact, according to researchers from the University of Bath in the U.K. and Lund University in Sweden, patient organizations are closely involved in drug development and appraisals of health technologies by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE),² which in turn provides guidance to England’s National Health Service (NHS).³

What’s more, the financial relationships between patient organizations and drug companies are often not transparent, with the pharmaceutical industry under-reporting payments.⁴

Payments Between Patient Organizations, Pharma Under-Reported

In order to evaluate the under-reporting of payments made by drug companies to patient organizations, the researchers compared payment disclosures from 87 companies to 425 patient organizations from 2012 to 2016. While 63, or 72.4%, of the drug companies reported payments, 84 of them, or 96.6% of them, were mentioned by patient organizations.

Further, while the drug companies listed 425 patient organizations, only 200 of them, or 47.1%, reported receiving payments. The number of payments reported by the drug industry was also higher, by 259.8%, than those reported by the patient organizations, as was the value of the payments, by 163.7%.⁵

“Both donors and recipients under-reported payments. Existing donor and recipient disclosure systems cannot manage potential conflicts of interest associated with industry payments,” the researchers concluded, adding that actual extent of under-reporting is unknown since there’s no definitive list of payments available.⁶

Drug Industry Largest Donor to Nonprofits

In separate research, the University of Bath and Lund University used drug company disclosure reports, patient organization websites and charity regulator records to look into donations made from 2012 to 2016. During this period, $73 million was donated by the drug industry to such organizations, with the annual sum more than doubling during the study period.⁷

Overall, 4,572 payments were disclosed by industry, which represented just one-sixth of funding to health care professionals and organizations in 2015 alone, and the number and value of payments to nonprofit patient organizations increased during the study period. While 20% of the total value was represented by the top five payments, small payments occurred most often.

Half the payments were about $6,369 annually or less, but as the researchers noted, “Small payments are potentially important, as findings from the U.S. show that even smaller amounts might affect physicians’ prescribing.”⁸

For instance, a New England Journal of Medicine study found that although doctors typically receive less than $1,000 a year in such perks, they may still influence opioid prescriptions. In fact, physicians who received perks from drug companies increased their opioid prescription rates by an average of 9% in the year after the payment.⁹

Further, the University of Bath and Lund University researchers noted, as is the case with payments to health care professionals, the largest donors to patient organizations were drug companies.¹⁰

Commercially Driven Conditions Prioritized

As for what activities got funded, those related to public involvement, such as communication related to advocacy, campaigning and disease awareness, were a top priority, receiving 31.2% of funds. Research activities were also well funded, receiving 24.6% of payments, while support for patients received only 5.9% of payments, followed by organizational maintenance and development, which received just 2.8%.

The priorities of drug industry funding were clearly based on PR, not patients, and are also apparently commercially driven, as conditions with the most commercial potential received the most funding. The researchers wrote in the BMJ:¹¹

“In drug discovery, the industry prioritises investing in some conditions over others based on their commercial viability. Cancer in particular has a privileged place.

Our data show a similar pattern: of the 30 condition areas (or their combinations), the top five accumulated £39 423 529 (68.8%), with neoplasms alone attracting 36.4%. The second category — endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases — received 11.3%, and infectious and parasitic diseases 8.0%.

The hierarchy of funding within each condition area also reflected the industry’s commercial priorities. In neoplasms, multiple myeloma attracted £7 495 729 (35.9%), followed by breast cancer (19.6%); 26 other types of cancer attracted less than 10% of funding. Diabetes received £3 741 181 (57.6%), the most of any endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic disease.

The bulk of funding for certain infectious and parasitic diseases went to HIV (37.4%) and viral hepatitis (23.6%). Importantly, the biggest donors in these condition areas have recently launched several high priced drugs. Key examples include Pfizer (palbociclib for breast cancer), Takeda (ixazomib for myeloma), Lilly (dulaglutide for diabetes), Gilead (emtricitabine/tenofovir for HIV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir for hepatitis C).”

Further, while 30 conditions were represented in the study, funding was concentrated to only a few nonprofits in each, with the top recipient getting an average of 65.6% of the funding within each condition area.¹²

US Nonprofits Also Heavily Industry-Funded

It’s worth noting that this isn’t a phenomenon that’s unique to the U.K. In the U.S., a 2017 study found that 67% of U.S. patient advocacy organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the National Organization of Rare Disorders — nearly all of which are nonprofits — received funding from for-profit companies.¹³

Among them, 12% received more than half of their funding from industry. In this case, pharmaceutical, device and biotechnology industries made up a median of 45% of industry funding.¹⁴ As in the U.K., the researchers noted that the findings question whether nonprofits are maintaining their independence and raise serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest:¹⁵

“Patient advocacy organizations engage in wide-ranging health activities. Although most PAOs receive modest funding from industry, a minority receive substantial industry support, raising added concerns about independence. Many respondents report a need to improve their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.”

The Sunshine Act Highlighted Drug Industry Influence

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, went into effect in 2013. For the first time, the Act required drug and medical device makers to collect and disclose any payments of more than $10 made to physicians and teaching hospitals. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is in charge of implementing the Sunshine Act, which it has done via its Open Payments Program.¹⁶

Using the online Open Payments Program from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, you can easily search to find out what (if any) payments your doctor has received from the pharmaceutical industry, along with the nature of the payments.

Investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker was instrumental in drafting and helping to pass the Sunshine Act. In a feature for the BMJ, he noted, “The Sunshine Act was congressional staff’s attempt to tackle many of the unseemly financial ties between physicians and industry that we kept uncovering when we examined problems with drugs and medical devices.”¹⁷

Since it was passed, global change has ensued and many other countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Scotland, Slovenia and Turkey, have passed or considered similar laws.¹⁸ “My concern,” however, Thacker noted, “is that we are spending too much time wringing our hands about disclosing conflicts of interest instead of tackling the well documented problem of financial influence itself.”¹⁹

Drug Industry Funding Is Corrupting Research, Public Health

The drug industry’s influence on science is also problematic. It’s no secret that academic research is often funded by corporations. Academia often claims that such funding allows for innovation and does not influence the outcome of the studies. Industry, too, claims that such relationships do not influence the scientific process.

In a tongue-in-cheek essay in the British Medical Journal, titled “HARLOT — How to Achieve Positive Results Without Actually Lying to Overcome the Truth,”²⁰ it’s wittily explained exactly how industry insiders can help make their agenda, in this case drugs, look good:²¹

• “Pairing their drug with one that is known to work well. This can hide the fact that a tested medication is weak or ineffective.

• Truncating a trial. Drugmakers sometimes end a clinical trial when they have reason to believe that it is about to reveal widespread side effects or a lack of effectiveness — or when they see other clues that the trial is going south.

• Testing in very small groups. Drug-funded researchers also conduct trials that are too small to show differences between competitor drugs. Or they use multiple endpoints, then selectively publish only those that give favorable results, or they 'cherry-pick' positive-sounding results from multicenter trials.”

Another trick used by the drug industry involves foundations. A foundation is a nongovernmental entity that is typically established to make grants to institutions or individuals for scientific and other purposes. Donors often give money to foundations instead of to the university itself, in part, because foundations have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the donor’s interest.

Money given to a foundation can be kept private in order to protect the donor’s identity and does not become public record.²² So, it provides the perfect opportunity for industry corporations to pay for research on their behalf without receiving any public scrutiny for doing so. Likewise, Thacker noted:²³

“Researchers have documented corporate influence skewing research in food, synthetic chemicals, risk analysis, pesticides, air pollution, genetic technology, and climate change.

Unlike medicine, these areas of science do not have the same volume of peer reviewed literature documenting corporate influence on academics, journals, regulatory bodies, and research. But these scientific disciplines have an enormous impact on public health.”

The BMJ is among those calling for a reduction in commercial influence in health care moving toward transparency and has launched a global initiative toward that end. In a press release, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Fiona Godlee, said:²⁴

“Patients and the public deserve to have evidence they can trust. Commercial influence has no place in scientific research, nor in the education and guidance of clinicians, nor in decisions about diagnosis and treatment. We hope that people around the world support our call for fundamental reforms.”

The journal plans to add more content to the collection to further understanding of the conflict of interest between commercial Industries and medical decisions.

They brought together experts from eight nations in medicine, law and philosophy to propose fundamental cultural changes with the intention of moving away from commercial influence. Hopefully this will prompt an emerging and widespread trend toward independence.

from Articles https://ift.tt/33WjJsL
via IFTTT

A recent announcement by the Australian government means that from October 9th the number of psychologist appointments covered by Medicare will double, from 10 to 20. 

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3jVFTkg

Early detection is the key to survival, but young Australian women are almost twice as likely to have advanced breast cancer because mammograms aren’t as effective for women under 50. It’s why checking yourself regularly and knowing what’s ‘normal’ is so important. For Breast Cancer Awareness month, Vered Keisar shares her story.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/33VMdmv

ICYMI, Pilates Interval Training (PIT) is the next biggest trend that will tone your entire body. Here's what you need to know about it, plus the perfect at-home workout to add to your weekly exercise routine.

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

Join Premium Pilates And Fitness on the mat for a 30 min pilates interval training session.

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/3nKmN2W

Athletes increasingly relying on a coach over the course of a season may be a sign that they aren't progressing in their development, according to new research.

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

A group of scientists provide insights into the molecular structure of proteins involved in the gliding movements through which the parasites causing malaria and toxoplasmosis invade human cells.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3dmXCi8

Scientists have estimated that the age of an individual does not indicate how likely they are to be infected by SARS-CoV-2. However, development of symptoms, progression of the disease, and mortality are age-dependent.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/34UutXS

Scientists have engineered powerful new antimicrobial molecules from toxic proteins found in wasp venom. The team hopes to develop the molecules into new bacteria-killing drugs, an important advancement considering increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/313r0oK

Researchers have identified two factors necessary for the production of memory B cells, the cells of the immune system that allow fast responses to re-infection. Without expression of the protein Bach2 and reduced mTORC1 signaling, B cells cannot become memory B cells, and are instead recycled. These findings could be useful for creating efficient vaccines that remain effective decades after initial infection.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3jWmr6S

Thanks to Amazon Prime Day, you can save hundreds on iconic fitness trackers from Fitbit to Garmin - but get in quick before the deals run out!

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/2GLLN9w

In the year before COVID-19, aside from mandates for children, fear mongering was the communication of choice to push people into vaccinating against measles, mumps and rubella and all types of other diseases and conditions. Media outlets were publishing angry editorials, spewing hate against parents who chose not to vaccinate their children and blaming them for others getting measles.¹

Some state and federal legislators were piggybacking on this rhetoric, proposing severe restrictions on the medical vaccine exemption and eliminating conscientious belief exemptions in state vaccine laws.² Throughout 2019, bills were proposed to either remove or restrict exemptions.

One of the most striking was in New York, which in a single day eliminated the religious exemption to vaccination, with no public hearings.³ Soon after, New York state health officials created stricter rules so doctors needed to complete a form giving specific medical reasons for a vaccine exemption.⁴

The National Vaccine Information Center found as of June 2019, “there have been no cases of measles reported among children attending school with religious exemptions” There are conflicting reports in media sources as Vox describes a cluster of measles infection in a close knit community in New York in April 2019.^5,6 Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center commented on the way the bill was passed, saying:

“This new law, which was rammed through the New York legislature without public participation violates the human right to hold religious and spiritual beliefs that honor and protect bodily integrity.

When a government has to resort to forcing parents to choose between violating their religious beliefs and conscience or giving their children a school education, that government has chosen to rule by fear and coercion and will lose the respect and trust of the people.”

Mumps Vaccine Has Had Serious Problems

In 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Merck drug company by two infectious disease experts who were previous employees of the company. They said that Merck lied about the effectiveness of the MMR II vaccine, which is supposed to immunize against measles, mumps and rubella. The doctors reported that the efficacy of the mumps portion of the vaccine had been artificially inflated.

To date, the lawsuit has not been resolved.⁷ The whistleblowers, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, allege several fraudulent tactics were used with the aim to "report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy."⁸

Artificially inflating the efficacy percentage has enabled Merck to maintain a monopoly over the mumps vaccine market. In 2015, the company was accused of stonewalling the process, which attorneys for Krahling and Wlochowski outlined in a letter to the judge. When writing about Merck’s refusal to reveal the actual efficacy of their mumps vaccine, they said:⁹

“Yet, Merck refuses to answer any questions on the subject, instead hiding behind a facade of confusion and obfuscation as to what efficacy means. Merck does so even though efficacy is a common term used throughout the industry to identify how well a vaccine works. It is also a term Merck has, until now, freely used throughout these proceedings to describe how well its vaccine works.

Either Merck knows the current efficacy of its mumps vaccine, or it does not. If it does, it should be required to answer Interrogatory No. 1 and the identified RFAs as posed. If it does not know the current efficacy, it should be required to answer the Interrogatory and RFAs accordingly.

Whichever the case, Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which is accurately represented on the product's label, but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is.”

People May Lose Immunity Years After MMR Vaccine

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there were 1,282 cases of measles in 2019, all of which were attributed to the wild type D8 or B3. However, 2019 was highly unusual as the number was more than triple that of eight of the previous nine years, and it was nearly double the other. Since 2010, in most years fewer than 200 cases of measles have been reported each year.¹⁰

Similarly, in another report it was noted that the number of annual cases of mumps had spiked, suggesting the strength of vaccine-induced immunity had weakened.¹¹ The authors of one study that was recently published in The Lancet performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in English from the inception of three databases — PubMed, Web of Science and Embase — through December 31, 2019.¹²

The researchers identified 3,615 studies, of which 62 met their eligibility criteria. A commentary published in the same issue described the study as a meta-analysis on the “overall data related to the immunogenicity and antibody persistence after immunization with trivalent MMR vaccines.”¹³

The researchers believe their data “provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure.”¹⁴ The researchers hope the information revealed from their meta-analysis will help public health experts identify groups of individuals who are vulnerable to infection. This may help to guide future vaccination strategies.¹⁵

However, as the commentary pointed out, a reduced number of natural vaccine boosts from exposure to people with measles acquired naturally will stop with universal vaccination. This also could exacerbate the problems with weakening immunity following the MMR vaccine.

Humoral Immunity Tested, Cellular Immunity Was Not

The authors of the commentary point out there is no standardization for serological tests for immunity, calling for a “gold-standard cutoff level of seropositivity” to allow accurate comparisons between labs.¹⁶

This would have made it challenging for the researchers to compare results from data published in 1900, which is how far Web of Science says they cover science publications.¹⁷ Embrace covers research from 1947¹⁸ and PubMed beginning from the 1940s,¹⁹ spanning over 60 years of medical and technological advancement.

The analysis included studies whose authors had only measured humoral immunity, not cellular immunity. This could also underestimate the real level of protection from vaccines:²⁰

“In this sense, low antibody concentrations do not necessarily correspond to a lack of protection. However, these are the best data available so far and, if correctly used, could be very useful in the assessment of future public health decisions.”

Humoral immunity and cell mediated immunity differ in their mechanisms of action. Humoral immunity is fast acting, using antibodies produced against protein antigens, whereas cell mediated immunity destroys pathogens and microorganisms inside an infected cell.²¹

As I’ve covered recently in “Vaccine Debate: Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz,” 1 in 40 people who get vaccinated will be injured by the medication, as opposed to the commonly cited 1 in 1 million people the media likes to report. So, to recap:

• The data implicates a reduction in the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in the years after a person was vaccinated.
• The measurements were done over 62 studies, yet there are no standardized serological tests.
• The researchers measured humoral immunity and not cellular immunity, which may not accurately reflect a person’s true immunity.
• Based on the vaccine weakening, experts recommend several boosters may be needed for all people.
• While recommending booster shots for a vaccine that has questionable efficacy, experts are not considering the number of vaccine related injuries, which will likely rise as more and more people stand get an annual or biannual booster.

How Lethal Are Mumps and Measles?

I will preface this with my belief that even one death is one too many. Yet, it seems that not all medical experts agree that mumps and measles are dangerous conditions. In fact, some don’t have a consistent message for their patients.

For instance, Penn Medicine recommends vaccinations because “If untreated, mumps can be fatal. However, deaths caused by mumps are very rare.”²² The same group also says “Mumps will eventually go away — typically in about two to three weeks — but there’s no medication or treatment to cure it.”

These two contradictory statements, which appear within a paragraph of each other, beg the question — if the condition is truly fatal when left untreated and there's no medication or treatment to cure it, then how can they say it can be treated to prevent death? If it sounds confusing, it is, especially when you consider that Penn Medicine also warns that people should be monitored for complications, such as meningitis.

However, unlike meningitis that is a complication of an ear or sinus infection, pneumonia or respiratory infections triggered by bacteria entering the bloodstream,²³ mumps is a viral infection. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control²⁴ says unlike bacterial meningitis, “Mumps meningitis is a mild and often asymptomatic disease with complete recovery.”

According to data published by the CDC in 2019, the last recorded measles-associated death in the U.S. was in 2015.²⁵ Even before the vaccine, the annual death toll from the measles in the U.S. was from 400 to 500 of the estimated 3 to 4 million cases of measles each year.

Any death, for any reason is tragic. However, after reviewing the statistics, the question remains — is it reasonable to mandate a vaccine for diseases with exceptionally low mortality rates, thus increasing the risk of adverse events for millions of children after exposure to the vaccine?

Disabilities, death, chronic poor health and brain damage are just some of the adverse events children experience after vaccination. For a deeper discussion of the public health ramifications of vaccines, see “Measles Propaganda Can Have Dire Public Health Ramifications.” In it is a short interview with a mother of three whose son is brain damaged following his infant vaccinations.

Vaccine Safety Concerns Growing

Public concern over the safety of vaccination is indeed growing. This is reflected in the number who are hesitant to receive a new coronavirus vaccine, even if it's free. In a recent USA Today/Suffolk poll, two-thirds of U.S. voters said they don’t plan to get the vaccine when it becomes available, and 25% said they will never get it.²⁶

This builds on what others were already finding, as Science magazine reported in June 2020 that just 50% planned to get a new COVID-19 vaccine.²⁷ While experts and journalists contemplate how to win over those who say they won’t take it under any circumstance, distrust is growing over buried evidence and the undertaking to meld human biology, technology and artificial intelligence — or the promise of becoming “Human 2.0.”

To raise the potential that more people will take the vaccine, a clinical study²⁸ announced on ClinicalTrials.gov is taking aim at the messages you read and hear about the vaccine. Led by Yale University, researchers are testing the most effective method to manipulate your mind using 10 options. These include your feelings about:

• Personal freedom
• Self-interest
• Economic benefit or freedom
• Guilt
• Trusting science

As legislators and scientists are pushing for mandatory vaccination programs that may or may not have significant and life-long effects, consider gathering your own information about vaccine injuries. You’ll discover more at:

• The NVIC International Memorial for Vaccine Victims,²⁹ where you can search for vaccine injury reports by state and by vaccine, or post a vaccine injury report yourself. You can also post your own video reporting a vaccine injury or death.
• Vaccine Injury Stories on Vaxxed.com.³⁰ Here, you can find nearly 125,700 written and recorded stories detailing people's vaccine injuries, sorted by state or by vaccine. To submit your own story, use this online submission form.³¹
• MedAlerts is a searchable database of vaccine injury reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and can be accessed through the website of the National Vaccine Information Center at NVIC.org.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3lFEZJ5
via IFTTT

The controversy over whether mercury overexposure can trigger autism is a long-standing one. A new meta-analysis of previous studies sheds much needed light on the matter, concluding there’s a “significant relationship” between the two.

The review,^1,2 published in the September 2020 issue of Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, looked at 18 studies conducted between 1982 and 2019 that examined the relationship between concentrations of copper, lead or mercury in blood, plasma, hair or nails and the prevalence of autism. While no relationship was found between autism and copper concentrations, a high degree of correlation was found for mercury and lead.

According to the authors,³ the relationship between mercury and autism is so strong that “the concentration of mercury can be listed as a pathogenic cause (disease-causing) for autism.” This held true even when outlier studies that might unduly influence the results were removed.

Mercury Is a Causative Factor

In the introduction, the authors point out that studies carried out in this area suggest mercury and other toxins are involved in the cause of autism, which include abnormal brain development that affects social interaction and communication skills.

“Metals’ biological effects are associated with their chemical properties, suggesting that excessive metal exposure can cause brain abnormalities around the world,” the researchers state.⁴

“Mercury is considered as a risk factor for autism since, according to previous studies, it has been recognized as a neurotrophic toxin. Reduction in mercury content in hair and teeth of the children with autism aroused the low disposal of mercury hypothesis.

Blaurock-Bush et al found that heavy metals are effective in the development of autism disorder. The role of mercury in the pathogenesis of autism has also been proven in other studies …

According to points raised in the present study … it would be quite reasonable to advise prevention of exposure to mercury and lead in children and provision of suitable conditions during the sensitive period of mothers’ pregnancy as vital measures to prevent the disease …”

A 2017 review paper,⁵ “The Toxicology of Mercury: Current Research and Emerging Trends,” details the “kinetics of this metal,” including “its metabolism, interaction with other metals, distribution, internal doses and targets and reservoir organs.” The paper cites several studies linking mercury and autism among its references, noting that:⁶

“Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been demonstrated to be accompanied by distorted metal homeostasis. The degree to which people are affected by the metals seems to be largely influenced by the individual genetic makeup.

Especially Hg [mercury] exposure has become a suspected causative factor for many pathological conditions, and several sources of exposure to Hg compounds can be listed, including dental amalgam fillings, seafood, vaccines and increasingly from energy saving light bulbs as well.”

Malfeasance in Research Showing Thimerosal Safety

In the video above, the University of Calgary faculty of medicine illustrate how mercury causes neuronal degeneration in your brain. While there are many environmental sources of mercury exposure, some of the most prominent ones include high-mercury fish, dental amalgam and thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative used in certain vaccines. While it has been removed from most childhood vaccines, it is still used in some multidose vials, meaning vials that contain more than a single dose of the vaccine.

Remarkably, while the fact that mercury is neurotoxic is noncontroversial, health authorities still insist injected thimerosal is perfectly safe and has never been linked to neurological dysfunction. How could that be?

In 2014, a review article⁷ in the BioMed Research International journal titled, “Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe,” noted that:

“The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism.

These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful … Many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Several studies, for example, including three of the six studies covered in this review, have found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for tics. In addition, Thimerosal has been found to be a risk factor in speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism.

Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies …

Importantly … five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias, since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC.

Conceivably, if serious neurological disorders are found to be related to Thimerosal in vaccines, such findings could possibly be viewed as damaging to the vaccine program.”

Aluminum Is Another Neurotoxic Poison

Today, the most commonly used vaccine preservative is aluminum, not thimerosal. It’s unfortunate that the Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics review did not include it, because it’s likely that aluminum has a similar impact on autism as mercury.

According to a 2018 study,⁸ people with autism were found to have high amounts of aluminum in their brains.

“The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) μg/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively,” the researchers noted.⁹

The lead author on this paper was Dr. Christopher Exley, a leading expert in aluminum toxicology. He and a team of international scientists have also published a paper¹⁰ in the (preprint) December 2020 issue of the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology.

In it, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants … must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”

As with thimerosal above, serious flaws and errors plague studies that claim aluminum in vaccines is safe. As reported in “Major Error Found in Vaccine Aluminum Safety Calculation,” a mathematical error found in a key U.S. Food and Drug Administration study has reignited concerns about its safety.

The FDA study,¹¹ published in 2011, compared aluminum exposure from vaccines in infants to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) safety limit of oral aluminum, concluding that:¹²

"… the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL.

We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns."

The problem, found by Physicians for Informed Consent, is that the FDA based its calculations on 0.78% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream instead of the value of 0.1% used by the ATSDR.

"As a result," Physicians for Informed Consent noted,¹³ "the FDA paper assumed that nearly 8 (0.78%/0.1%) times more aluminum can safely enter the bloodstream, and this led the authors to incorrectly conclude that aluminum exposure from vaccines was well below the safety limit." Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied the effects of injected aluminum, explained in a news release:¹⁴

"We knew that the [2011] Mitkus et al. paper modeling aluminum clearance had to be inaccurate since it was assuming that injected aluminum kinetics were the same as the kinetics of aluminum acquired through diet.

Now, in addition, we see that they did their modeling based on using the incorrect level of aluminum absorption. What is particularly striking is that despite all these errors, since 2011, Mitkus et al. is used by CDC and other entities as the basis for claiming that aluminum adjuvants are safe."

The Dangers of Lead

Lead is a naturally occurring metal that was once commonly used in gasoline, paint and children's toys, and is still a part of batteries, pipes, pottery, roofing materials and cosmetics. Due to environmental pollution, food and water has also become a source of this dangerous toxin.

If you live in an urban area or near a busy road, it's probably best to assume that your soil is contaminated with lead to some extent. This is also an issue if you plan to plant a vegetable garden, as vegetables can take up lead from the soil very efficiently.

Lead damages your brain and nervous system, and has been shown to lower IQ. Even small amounts can be dangerous, as lead builds up in your body over time. Children under 6 are especially at risk, as they absorb lead more easily than adults.

As detailed in “The Heroes Who Sunk Lead,” Herbert Needleman performed much of the foundational research showing even low levels of lead were dangerous. Another crucial crusader against lead was geochemist Clair Cameron Patterson, Ph.D.

It’s thanks to Patterson’s tireless work that lead was finally removed from gasoline, thereby saving untold billions of people from serious harm.¹⁵ He’s an unsung public health hero of the 20th century that most people have never heard of.

The video below is a short summary of the evolution of leaded gas, and ultimately, its removal, which was no small feat. Unfortunately, there are many other sources of toxic metals, and unless we address them all, we’re unlikely to get a handle on the autism epidemic. 

We’re Getting Mercury Out of Dentistry

As mentioned, dental mercury is one pernicious source of mercury. Here, there is good news. After years of pressure from Consumers for Dental Choice and its allies, the FDA has finally released a long-overdue safety communication on dental amalgam.¹⁶ September 24, 2020, the FDA issued a warning that mercury fillings may adversely affect:

Pregnant women and their developing fetuses

Women who are planning to become pregnant

Nursing women and their newborns and infants

Children, especially those younger than 6

People with pre-existing neurological disease such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease

People with impaired kidney function

People with known heightened sensitivity (allergy) to mercury or other components of dental amalgam

While the FDA downplays the importance of its changed recommendation by stressing that the benefits of dental amalgam likely “outweigh their risks for most patients,” this update is nothing short of monumental, and opens the door, finally, for the elimination of dental mercury for all patients in the U.S., as has been done in many other countries already.

Detoxifying Heavy Metals

Heavy metal detoxification is no simple matter. As explained in “The Three Pillars of Heavy Metal Detoxification,” glutathione is the dominant agent that binds to and helps move mercury and other heavy metals out of your tissues. Part of effective detox involves upregulating your biochemistry to facilitate the mobilization and elimination of metals. In summary, the three pillars of heavy metal detox are:

1. Cleanse and clear your GI tract of metals and toxins
2. Optimize glutathione
3. Upregulate detox genes

My mercury detox protocol is detailed in “Revised Protocol for Detoxifying Your Body from Mercury Exposure.” One way to help improve your glutathione is by taking N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which is a precursor to and rate-limiting nutrient for the formation of glutathione.

Glutathione is poorly absorbed so, in many cases, it's easier to raise your glutathione by taking NAC instead. You can learn more about this in “Glutathione and NAC Play Crucial Roles in Health and Fitness.”

In addition to upregulating your biochemistry to mobilize and eliminate heavy metals, sauna bathing can go a long way toward eliminating mercury and other toxins from your body. You can learn more about this in “How to Achieve Superior Detoxification With Near-Infrared Light.”

In January 2020, I also interviewed Boyd Haley, Ph.D., is a chemist specializing in the development of chemicals to chelate toxic metals. Haley has developed a nontoxic chelating compound called emeramide or NBMI (brand name Irminix), which tightly binds to mercury and free iron (which is also highly toxic), and acts as a potent antioxidant, as it has two glutathione arms.

Emeramid is still under drug development but can be obtained via expanded access, named patient use, compassionate use or special use, depending on the country you're in. An early access application and prescription, required by the EMA, is available on the company's website, EmeraMed.com.¹⁷

In closing, the evidence strongly suggests exposure to mercury, lead and aluminum are significant risk factors for autism and other neuropathologies. The simplest answer to the autism epidemic is therefore to prevent children from these kinds of exposures. That includes banning dental amalgam and getting thimerosal and aluminum out of all vaccines.

from Articles https://ift.tt/37199mg
via IFTTT