Health & Fitness

As coronavirus testing takes place en masse across the U.S., many are questioning whether the tests are accurate enough to trust, especially in people who are asymptomatic. Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several drawbacks that make mass testing problematic and rife for misleading fearmongering.

For starters, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.¹ This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.

The PCR Cycle Threshold Matters

Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” To understand why the false positive rate for PCR tests is so high, you need to understand how the test works.²

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, because the genetic snippets are so tiny, they must be amplified to become discernible.

Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold. Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Some experts say nothing above 30 cycles should be used,³ yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.^4,5,6

When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

‘Casedemic’ Fuels Needless Fear

When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic,”^7,8 meaning an epidemic of false positives.

Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a “case” refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as “cases,” the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is.

“The goal is to keep you scared, isolated and demoralized for a purpose,” says PJ Media.⁹ “Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next.” And that next step is a reset of America as you know it, with the UN’s one-world Agenda 2030 at the helm. To learn more, be sure to read “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”

As reported by Global Research in “The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a ‘Test’ to Lock Down Society”:¹⁰

“Official postulate … positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.

This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”

COVID Testing Fraud Fuels ‘Casedemic’

In the video at the top of this article, Del Bigtree breaks down how excessively high test sensitivity leads to falsely elevated “case” numbers that in reality mean nothing. He rightly points out that missing from the COVID-19 conversation is the death rate.

“If COVID is a deadly virus, what should we see when cases increase?” he asks. The answer, of course, is an increase in deaths. However, that’s not what’s happening. The two have virtually nothing to do with each other.

In the video, Bigtree features a November 4, 2020, tweet¹¹ by White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas showing the number of positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue and COVID-19 related deaths in red, since the start of the pandemic up until the end of October 2020. As you can see, there’s no correlation between so-called cases and deaths.

A second graph tweeted¹² by Atlas shows the number of U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day, based on New York Times data. It too indicates that the death rate is steadily dwindling.

Worldwide, we see the same phenomenon. The first graph below, from Bigtree’s video report, shows the worldwide daily new cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The second graph shows daily COVID-19 related deaths, worldwide. While the number of positive tests have risen, fallen and risen again, the number of deaths have fallen off and do not appear to be rising in tandem with positive test rates any longer.

Shocking Data Reveal Inaccuracy of PCR Tests

Circling back to the PCR cycle threshold and its influence on positivity rates, Bigtree reviews research¹³ showing that to really maximize accuracy, PCR tests should use far fewer cycles.

At just 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. In other words, 17 cycles would likely be the ideal CT. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. This is the graph from that study.¹⁴

Other data presented by Bigtree shows that your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result.

By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually nonexistent.

Rapid Test Is Less Sensitive and May Be Better for Most

To address some of the shortcomings in PCR testing, most notably the time it takes to get the result, rapid tests have been developed that can provide an answer in minutes. These tests also appear to be less sensitive, which is actually a good thing. One such rapid test, called the Sofia by Quidel, looks for the presence of antigens (coronavirus proteins) rather than RNA.

In a recent comparison of PCR and the Quidel rapid test, University of Arizona researchers discovered that while the rapid test can detect more than 80% of the infections found by slower PCR tests, when used on asymptomatic individuals, that rate dropped to just 32%. (The study has not been published yet but was reviewed by experts solicited by The New York Times.^15,16)

While a 32% detection rate may sound terrible, appearances can be deceiving. Remember, if labs are using a cycle threshold (CT) of, say, 40 cycles, the number of positive PCR results will be vastly exaggerated.

According to The New York Times,¹⁷ researchers have been “unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR tests had CT values above 27.” If the virus cannot replicate, you will not get ill and are not infectious, so you cannot spread it to others.

When all PCR tests with a CT value over 30 were excluded from the comparison, the rapid test was found to detect more than 85% of the SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by the PCR tests, and this held true whether the individual had symptoms or not.

Mass Testing Shown To Be Ineffective at Best

Why are we still testing asymptomatic people? According to a study^18,19 in the October 21, 2020, issue of PLOS ONE, mass testing is at best ineffective and at worst, harmful.

“Even for highly accurate tests, false positives and false negatives will accumulate as mass testing strategies are employed under pressure, and these misdiagnoses could have major implications on the ability of governments to suppress the virus,” the authors state.²⁰

“The present analysis uses a modified SIR model to understand the implication and magnitude of misdiagnosis in the context of ending lockdown measures. The results indicate that increased testing capacity alone will not provide a solution to lockdown measures. The progression of the epidemic and peak infections is shown to depend heavily on test characteristics, test targeting, and prevalence of the infection.

Antibody based immunity passports are rejected as a solution to ending lockdown, as they can put the population at risk if poorly targeted. Similarly, mass screening for active viral infection may only be beneficial if it can be sufficiently well targeted, otherwise reliance on this approach for protection of the population can again put them at risk.”

In an August 28, 2020, interview with The Post,²¹ Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford, stated mass testing is “a huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs … It’s great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it’s not doing anything good.”

Fauci Admits CT Over 35 Renders PCR Test Useless

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the PCR test is useless and misleading when run at “35 cycles or higher.”²² He made this comment in a July 16, 2020, “This Week in Virology” podcast:²³

“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 …”

That then begs the question, why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the test be run at a CT of 40?²⁴ Why are Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization set to 45 cycles? As noted by author and investigative journalist Jon Rappaport:²⁵

“All labs in the U.S. that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because… Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and …

The total number of COVID cases in America — which is based on the test — is a gross falsity. The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell … On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/36Nmywl
via IFTTT

Major depression is a common mental health disorder in the U.S. for which many have been prescribed antidepressants. Results from a small study using the mushroom compound psilocybin coupled with psychotherapy revealed 67% of participants had a positive response to the intervention by the first week of treatment and 71% by the fourth week.¹ This is a better and faster response than in those taking antidepressants.²

In 2017, the National Institute of Mental Health estimated 17.3 million adults living in the U.S. experienced at least one episode of major depression, which was 7.1% of all adults.³ The prevalence was higher in females than in males and highest in those aged 18 to 25 years. Yet, as arresting as those numbers are, in the current pandemic, experts believe the numbers are rising even further.

As early as April 2020, just three months after the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S.,⁴ a mental health index showed 27% of people surveyed were uncertain of their ability to cope with the coming changes.⁵ The same index gave America a mental health score of 67, which places a typical American in the lowest 7% of a customary benchmark.

A study published in August 2020 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also showed rising numbers of people experiencing mental health concerns. In their survey, 40.9% of the respondents were struggling with anxiety, depression or symptoms of trauma- and stressor-related disorder (TSRD) attributed to the pandemic.⁶

Disturbingly, 13.3% reported new or increased substance use as a way of managing stress and 10.7% of the adults surveyed said they had seriously contemplated suicide within the past 30 days. Mental health deterioration has also increased the use of sleep drugs to the point some experts have named the condition COVID-somnia.⁷

Psilocybin Helps Treat Major Depression

Psilocybin is a hallucinogenic compound found in certain mushrooms.⁸ When improper doses are administered, the compound can produce a list of side effects, including nausea and vomiting, panic attacks, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, psychosis and even death. However, a recent study shows that the compound can be useful in certain situations and when carefully monitored.

A small randomized clinical trial used psilocybin coupled with psychotherapy in patients who had a major depressive disorder (MDD). This study followed other studies that have suggested one or two administrations of psilocybin coupled with psychological support could generate antidepressant effects.⁹

The trial was conducted at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center with 24 adults aged 21 to 75 who had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The participants were not on antidepressant medications at the time of the study and did not have a history of psychotic disorders, a serious suicide attempt or hospitalization.

The participants had two sessions using psilocybin coupled with supportive psychotherapy. The primary outcome measure of the study was the severity of depression assessed in the participants using a rating scale, comparing preintervention with post-intervention and again at one week and four weeks after treatment.

In the group, 67% of the participants demonstrated clinically significant responses to the psilocybin at one week and 71% at four weeks. The researchers believe the:¹⁰

“Findings suggest that psilocybin with therapy is efficacious in treating MDD, thus extending the results of previous studies of this intervention in patients with cancer and depression and of a nonrandomized study in patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

Follow-Up Shows Antidepressant Effects Over Six Months

The scientists plan to follow the study participants over a year to determine how long the effects of the intervention might last.¹¹ A past study published in The Lancet also administered two doses of psilocybin seven days apart in 12 individuals who had been diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depression.¹²

The study had no control group and, like the current study, the participants received psychological support along with the mushroom compound. Assessments made from one week to three months after treatment revealed the symptoms were significantly reduced within one week and remained consistent after three months. The participants also reported “marked and sustained improvements in anxiety and anhedonia [inability to feel pleasure].”¹³

The participants in the study were evaluated for adverse events during the sessions and in their subsequent follow-up appointments. The researchers found no serious or unexpected adverse events. A second study was published with data from six months post-treatment, finding no unexpected adverse events and continued positive results with reductions in symptoms of depression.¹⁴

In 2018 and 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted “breakthrough therapy” designation for psilocybin.¹⁵ Breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA was developed to speed the development of drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions and the subsequent review by the FDA.

To achieve the designation, there must be early clinical evidence the drug produces substantial improvement on at least one endpoint measure over other available therapies.¹⁶ Alan Davis, Ph.D., was one scientist in the study who is quoted in a Johns Hopkins press release, saying:¹⁷

“The magnitude of the effect we saw was about four times larger than what clinical trials have shown for traditional antidepressants on the market. Because most other depression treatments take weeks or months to work and may have undesirable effects, this could be a game changer if these findings hold up in future ‘gold-standard’ placebo-controlled clinical trials.”

Roland Griffiths, Ph.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, said he was pleasantly surprised by the results since “there are several types of major depressive disorders that may result in variation in how people respond to treatment.”¹⁸

Effectiveness and Adverse Events With Usual Treatment

Conventional treatments for major depressive disorders typically have limited success and difficult patient compliance “as demonstrated by the number of patients failing to achieve remission.”¹⁹

In one literature review of interventions that are typically thought of as “treatment as usual,” data from 38 studies, including 2,099 people, were broken into three groups, depending on how many quality criteria the studies met.²⁰ Overall, the analysis found a range of 27% to 33% of patients responded to treatment.

The outcome measure was symptom reduction by at least 50%, well below the outcome found in the psilocybin study. The literature review also found 12% of the group experienced more severe depressive symptoms and a deterioration in mental health. Conversely, the results from the most recent psilocybin assisted intervention demonstrated no serious adverse events during the trial.²¹

Other non-serious side effects that were reported during the trial included feelings of fear or sadness, and physical effects such as trembling and mild to moderate transient headaches. Yet, “most if not all antidepressants can cause bothersome adverse events,” and patients who stop taking the medication can be as high as 60%, which is “probably governed by a trade-off between perceived benefits and drawbacks.”²²

Measurements of depression in older adults before the pandemic showed from 10% to 15% struggle with depressive symptoms, even though they have not been diagnosed with major depression.²³ A study published in The British Journal of Psychiatry found there had also been a major rise in the number of antidepressant medications prescribed for older adults, without a concurrent increase in the number diagnosed with depression.²⁴

This study also suggests that seniors may be overprescribed antidepressant drugs. This may have serious implications for their health, based on the number of side effects associated with the drugs in combination with a population that also struggles with other physical and mental health concerns.

According to a 2013 study in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, major depression may be vastly overdiagnosed and overtreated.²⁵ The data revealed of the 5,639 participants with clinician-identified depression, only 38.4% of them actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and in seniors over the age of 65, only 14.3% met the criteria.

What Is Major Depression?

Clinical depression or major depressive disorder is more than feeling a little sad. Symptoms occur nearly every day and can include feelings of:²⁶

Sadness	Emptiness	Hopelessness
Tearfulness	Anger	Irritability
Frustration	Lack of energy	Tiredness
Anxiety	Restlessness	Agitation
Guilt	Worthlessness	Memory difficulties

People who are depressed may also experience:

• Slowed thinking and trouble concentrating and making decisions
• Sleep disturbances, including insomnia and sleeping too much
• Loss of pleasure and interest in normal activities such as hobbies, sports and sex
• Reduced or increased appetite
• Frequent thoughts of death or suicide

Major depressive disorder creates a long-term financial burden on society, the total of which is estimated to be close to $210.5 billion each year, rising 21.5% between 2005 and 2010.²⁷ A 2019 study found those who experience relapse or recurrence of a major depressive episode had higher costs associated with an increase in inpatient services, emergency department visits and admissions.²⁸

Dietary Changes That Lower Inflammation Help Major Depression

The positive results of using psilocybin to treat major depression have been achieved under supervision and only with accompanying psychotherapy during the intervention. It is crucial you don’t try this treatment at home as other data reveal that the positive effects only happen with a quality experience that can be clinically managed.²⁹

However, you have other options to help reduce your risk of depression. Since inflammation increases your risk of depression, one way to reduce your risk is to employ strategies that reduce the inflammatory response in your body. In one analysis, scientists reviewed the safety and effectiveness of anti-inflammatory agents in people suffering with major depression.

Agents that they found can play a role in reducing inflammation and ultimately symptoms of major depressive disorder included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) and omega-3 fatty acids.³⁰ A second meta-analysis found similar results.³¹

Inflammation is the root cause of many conditions and reducing inflammation can help improve your mental and physical health, and there are nonpharmacological options that help to reduce depression by reducing the inflammatory response in your body.

As you consider the following suggestions, remember they do not have to be done all at once and you can achieve beneficial results no matter your age or current physical abilities. The journey to better health begins with taking small permanent steps.

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

In a sign that there's light at the end of the tunnel, we now have two very promising vaccine candidates. Of course, the internet pitted the two pharmaceutical companies against each other. 

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

Autoclaves, which are used to sterilize medical tools, require a steady supply of hot, pressurized steam. Researchers have come up with a way to generate that steam passively, using just the power of sunlight, to help maintain safe, sterile equipment at low cost in remote locations.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3fkfL1a

Scientists have made a breakthrough in the development of potential drugs that can kill cancer cells. They have discovered a method of synthesizing organic compounds that are four times more fatal to cancer cells and leave non-cancerous cells unharmed. Their research can assist in the creation of new anticancer drugs with minimal side effects.

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

A technology called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) can be used to objectively measure tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, according to a new study.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic had surprising effects on demand for public transit in American cities, new research suggests. While demand for public transit dropped about 73 percent across the country after the pandemic hit, the reduction didn't impact all cities equally, according to the study, which analyzed activity data from a widely used public transit navigation app.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/32Zq0CS

Researchers have investigated whether particulate matter from certain sources can be especially harmful to human health. They found evidence that the amount of particulate matter alone is not the greatest health risk. Rather, it could be the so-called oxidative potential that makes particulate pollution so harmful.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/38U8DqY

The results of a new study suggest that high-protein total diet replacements are a promising nutritional strategy to combat rising rates of obesity. In particular, the study provides further evidence that diets with a higher proportion of protein might offer a metabolic advantage compared to a diet consisting of the same number of calories, but with a lower proportion of protein.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/36PNkUO

Food allergies cost billions of dollars and cause enormous suffering for people. Researchers are trying to remove the source of food allergies altogether -- troublesome proteins made by our favorite crops.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/35J3TTi

In a study of women aged 80 years and older, living in locations with higher exposures to air pollution was associated with increased depressive symptoms.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2HjYV60

The human ability to teach and our use of complex tools may have evolved together, according to new research.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/38TLTaH

Filling a training gap, a doctor created a geriatric medicine-centered course for point-of-care-ultrasound (POCUS) devices that doubled doctor confidence.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/38UVkqr

Climate change and localised pollution are exposing marine life worldwide to lower oxygen levels leaving fragile coral reef ecosystems especially vulnerable. A unique experiment has given scientists unprecedented insight into how some corals respond to low environmental oxygen levels and how this information could guide future coral management, including genetic modification and selection.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2KmB7iX

Shift workers, especially those working permanent night shift rotas, may be at heightened risk of moderate to severe asthma, suggests new research.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/32UqTwy

Surgeons will soon have a powerful new tool for planning and practice with the creation of the first full-sized 3D bioprinted model of the human heart.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3fd3qeZ

Researchers using a model of airway tissue created from human stem cells have pinpointed how smoking cigarettes causes more severe infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the airways of the lungs.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/32VRCZT

A new multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay performs as well as the modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assay, yet can test three times more patients per run, scientists report.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2KgKlx3

Some patients with COVID-19 are at higher risk of neurological complications like bleeding in the brain and stroke, according to a new study. The researchers said these potentially life-threatening findings were more common in patients with hypertension and diabetes.

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

A drug that acts via the natural 'kisspeptin' hormone system in the body has the potential to treat reproductive health problems in women, according to a new study.

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

A new study suggests that nature around one's home may help mitigate some of the negative mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/32SYhE8

An aggressive COVID-19 surveillance and testing effort at Duke University was highly effective in minimizing the spread of the disease among students on campus, according to a case study.

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

Children in an Australian family developed a COVID-19 immune response after chronic exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus from their parents, a new case report has found.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UD3MC9

In 2018, the baby bottle market across the world was valued at $2.6 billion. The plastic segment accounted for 44.1% of the overall share,¹ but if you’re currently using plastic bottles for your baby, you may want to switch to glass after research revealed concerning microplastics may be released into their contents.²

Overall, it appears we have an addiction to plastic. In nearly every corner of your local store, products are covered in or made with plastic. Not only is it difficult to get rid of plastic without damaging the environment, but it appears our addiction is to all things disposable.

Across the world, 299 million tons of plastic were produced in 2013, much of which ended up in the oceans, threatening wildlife and the environment.³ In 2017, the U.S. alone generated 35.4 million tons of plastic and sent 26.8 million tons to landfills, which accounted for 13.2% of all municipal solid waste.⁴

Chemicals found in plastic products are known to act as endocrine disruptors, the most pervasive and well-known of which includes phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA).⁵

Endocrine disruptors are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, and they interfere with the normal functioning of those hormones in your body.⁶ This poses a particular problem for children who are still growing and developing.

According to Pete Myers, Ph.D., adjunct professor of chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University and founder, CEO and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, there is evidence that plastic chemicals are harming the health of future generations through intergenerational endocrine disruption.⁷

He points out that no plastic has ever been thoroughly tested for safety, and that testing currently used is based on “16th-century principles.” As researchers continue to measure the amount and type of plastic we are ingesting, one team analyzed the number of microparticles that may be released in plastic baby bottles.

Plastic Baby Bottles Release Microparticles During Use

John Boland, Ph.D., Trinity College Dublin, and colleagues analyzed the release of microplastics from plastic baby bottles to which infants may be exposed while consuming formula.⁸

To collect their data, the scientists initially cleaned and sterilized new polypropylene bottles. Once the bottles had air-dried, the scientists added heated purified water that had reached 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit). This is the temperature for making formula recommended by the World Health Organization.⁹ The bottles were then added to a mechanical shaker for one minute.

The team filtered the water and analyzed the contents, discovering the bottles leaked a wide range of particles per liter of water, numbering up to 16.2 million plastic particles. The average number in the bottles tested reached 4 million particles for every liter of water. The experiment was repeated with baby formula and the results were the same. Boland commented on the study:¹⁰

“We were surprised by the quantity. Based on research that has been done previously looking at the degradation of plastics in the environment, we had a suspicion that the quantities would be substantial, but I don’t think anyone expected the very high levels that we found.”

The data also revealed the number of microplastics shed was dependent on water temperature and mechanics. The higher the temperature of the water when it reached the bottle, the more microplastics were released.

When the temperature was higher, the bottles released up to 55 million particles of microplastic.¹¹ The experiment also demonstrated that shaking the bottles increased the number of microplastics released. Boland continued:¹²

"When we saw these results in the lab we recognized immediately the potential impact they might have. The last thing we want is to unduly alarm parents, particularly when we don't have sufficient information on the potential consequences of microplastics on infant health.”

Infants May Ingest Up to 4.5 Million Particles a Day

The researchers predicted that, globally, infants up to 12 months old may be exposed to 14,600 to 4.55 million microplastic particles a day, depending on region, which is higher than previously recognized due to the widespread usage of polypropylene baby bottles.¹³

Whether or not this exposure poses a risk to infants’ health presents an “urgent need,” they added, and made several recommendations for parents who continue to use plastic baby bottles to help reduce the amount of microplastics their baby ingests.

The suggestions include reducing the bottle’s exposure to heat and shaking by preparing the formula in a glass container and transferring it to the baby bottle after it has cooled.¹⁴ Breastfeeding, if possible, would be an even better alternative that eliminates the need for bottles; however, glass baby bottles are also available.

For the study, the researchers used purified water and not standard drinking water. This means they may have even underestimated the number of plastic particles babies are exposed to. A study from the University of Newcastle looked at the “existing but limited” literature estimating the average amount of plastic ingested by humans.¹⁵

Calculations were made based on 33 studies of the consumption of plastic from food and beverages. The researchers estimated that the average person consumes 1,769 plastic particles from drinking water each week.¹⁶ Plastic particles are found in many water sources. In the U.S., 94.4% of all tap water samples contained plastic fibers, as did 82.4% of samples from India and 72.2% from Europe.

DARPA Awards Grant to Make Food From Plastic

If the inadvertent consumption of plastic is not enough, the abundance of manufactured plastic has turned the eyes of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) toward how to make plastic into food. DARPA awarded Iowa State University and partners a $2.7 million grant to make food from plastic and paper waste.¹⁷

They intend to use the resulting “food products” to improve military logistics in the field. The idea is to help with short-term nourishment for soldiers in the field and improve logistics for long missions. By the end of the project, they estimate the grant may reach $7.8 million.

Other partners include the American Institute of Chemical Engineers RAPID Institute, the University of Delaware and Sandia National Laboratories. The idea is to convert paper waste into sugars and plastics into fatty acids and fatty alcohols. The byproducts of these would then be processed into single cell biomass in the field.

Other examples of single cell proteins include Vegemite and nutritional yeast. Although DARPA has initiated the project for use by the military, it is not a stretch to think that such a system would be proposed as a means of providing inexpensive foodstuffs for others.

As explained in the press release from Iowa State University, the process could “go a long way toward solving looming problems of plastic disposal and ensuring a viable global food chain.”¹⁸

Principle investigator Robert Brown explained that the process under investigation would speed biodegradation of plastics “by raising the temperature a few hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The cooled product is used to grow yeast or bacteria into single cell protein suitable as food.”¹⁹

Lifetime Average Consumption of Plastic Is Shocking

Although drinking water is the largest source of microplastics in food and beverages, it is not the only source. Bottled water may contain even more plastic than tap water, and research has suggested those who drink bottled water exclusively “may be ingesting an additional 90,000 microplastics annually, compared to 4,000 microplastics for those who consume only tap water.”²⁰

After testing 259 bottles of 11 bottled water brands, researchers found on average 325 pieces of microplastic per liter.²¹ The brands tested included Aquafina, Evian, Dasani, San Pellegrino and Nestle Pure Life. Based on findings from the World Wildlife Fund International study, Reuters created an illustration demonstrating how much plastic a person would consume over time.²²

According to these estimations, you may consume 44 pounds of shredded plastic over 79 years. To put this in perspective, one car tire weighs about 20 pounds.²³ So a lifetime supply of plastic consumption would be like slowly eating 2.2 car tires.

The long-term health risks of ingesting plastic particles are unknown. However, there is reason to be concerned. For instance, microplastics used for textile fibers make up 16% of the world's plastic production.²⁴ These plastics contain contaminants such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic, causing DNA damage that can lead to cancer.

The plastics also contain dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to toxic effects, including carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. Since humans are exposed to a heavy toxic burden, it's difficult to link health problems back to microplastics.

However, many of the chemicals used in their manufacture are also known to disrupt hormones and gene expression and cause organ damage. Research has also linked them to obesity,²⁵ heart disease²⁶ and cancer.²⁷ To read more about the risks associated with plastic ingestion, see “How Do We Stop Our Dangerous Addiction to Plastic?”

Would You Like Some Plastic With Your Tea?

If you are working to reduce your exposure to plastics in your food and beverages, it may be surprising to learn where plastics are also lurking. Tea has been an important beverage in many cultures around the world and recognized for centuries for the dramatic and positive effects it has on health.

A soothing cup of hot tea may be just what your body needs to boost phytochemicals and other nutrients. But did you know that you may also be drinking 11.6 billion microplastic pieces and 3.1 billion nanoplastics with every cup of tea? Researchers from McGill University analyzed plastic pollution released from tea bags and found when the leaves were removed, the tea did not have plastic microparticles.²⁸

However, the empty bags dumped billions of particles into the hot water, which researchers found at levels thousands of times greater than reported with other food and beverages. There are a significant number of health benefits in tea, so it is wise to continue drinking it, but consider substituting loose leaf tea for tea bags.

Yet another everyday item that carries more microplastics than you may have anticipated is sea salt. One study looked at salt sampled from around the world to analyze the geographical spread of microplastics and the correlation to where the pollution is found in the environment.

Only three brands from Taiwan, China and France did not have microplastic particles in the sea salt. Data showed the highest quantity of plastics were found in salt gathered off the coast of Asian countries.²⁹

Research has also found tiny plastic particles in fruits and vegetables. The data showed apples had an average of 195,500 plastic particles in each gram. Pears came in second with 189,500 particles per gram. Earlier studies had demonstrated plants are absorbing nanoplastics through the roots, and fruits and vegetables can accumulate these microplastics. Greenpeace campaigner Sion Chan explained:³⁰

“When we take a bite of an apple, we are almost certainly consuming microplastics along with it. To mitigate plastic pollution, corporations should enforce a reduction of plastic usage and waste in their supply chains. Supermarkets have gone pretty far with all the plastics! The faster we reduce our plastic footprint, the fewer microplastic we consume.”

What You Can Do to Reduce Your Use

Considering research confirms that environmental estrogens have multigenerational effects,³¹ it is wise to take proactive steps to limit your exposure. This is particularly important for younger people who have more years to accumulate plastic pollution and may be more vulnerable to its effects during development.

While it's virtually impossible to steer clear of all sources, you can minimize your exposure by keeping some key principles in mind. Start the process slowly and make the changes a habit in your life so they stick.

Avoid plastic containers and plastic wrap for food and personal care products. Store food and drinks in glass containers instead.

Avoid plastic children's toys. Use toys made of natural substances, such as wood and organic materials.

Read labels on your cosmetics and avoid those containing phthalates.

Avoid products labeled with "fragrance,” including air fresheners, as this catch-all term may include phthalates commonly used to stabilize the scent and extend the life of the product.

Read labels looking for PVC-free products, including children's lunch boxes, backpacks and storage containers.

Do not microwave food in plastic containers or covered in plastic wrap.

Frequently vacuum and dust rooms with vinyl blinds, wallpaper, flooring and furniture that may contain phthalates as the chemical collects in dust and is easily ingested by children or can settle on your food plates.

Ask your pharmacist if your prescription pills are coated to control when they dissolve as the coating may contain phthalates.

Eat mostly fresh, raw whole foods. Packaging is often a source of phthalates.

Use glass baby bottles instead of plastic. Breastfeed exclusively for the first year if you can to avoid plastic nipples and bottles all together.

Remove your fruit and vegetables from plastic bags immediately after coming home from the grocery store and wash before storing them.

Cash register receipts are heat printed and often contain BPA. Handle the receipt as little as possible and ask the store to switch to BPA-free receipts.

Use natural cleaning products or make your own.

Replace feminine hygiene products with safer alternatives.

Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets; make your own to reduce static cling.

Check your home's tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary.

Teach your children not to drink from the garden hose, as many are made from plasticizers such phthalates.

Use reusable shopping bags for groceries.

Take your own leftovers container to restaurants. Avoid disposable utensils and straws.

Bring your own mug for coffee, and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water.

Consider switching to bamboo toothbrushes and brushing your teeth with coconut oil and baking soda to avoid plastic toothpaste tubes.

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

With more than 180 COVID-19 vaccines currently in development¹ — 53 of them undergoing clinical trials in humans² — manufacturers are racing to be the first to reach the market. Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, may have just taken the lead, with an announcement that their mRNA-based vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, was “more than 90% effective” in a Phase 3 trial.³

BNT162b2 was selected to move forward to a Phase 2/3 trial after an earlier version of the vaccine, BNT162b1— another mRNA-based vaccine candidate — resulted in considerable adverse events,⁴ including fever, which occurred in 50% of individuals who received the highest dose (100 micrograms), fatigue, headache and chills.

Side effects were even more common following the booster dose, after which more than 70% of participants experienced a fever at the mid-range (30 microgram) dose. In fact, those in the high-dose group didn’t even get the booster dose after the side effects were deemed to be potentially too severe.

While the vaccines are similar, with the BNT162b2 vaccine, mRNA encodes the full-length spike protein. A spike protein is a glycoprotein protruding from the envelope of a coronavirus that allows entry into the cell.⁵ In an earlier study, while BNT162b2 appeared to cause fewer side effects, antibody titers were lower in a group of older individuals, ranging in age from 65 to 95 years, than in younger individuals.⁶

Geometric mean titers (GMTs), which are used as a measure of immune response, were about 40% lower among older individuals given Pfizer’s BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine than they were in younger age groups, a concerning finding considering it’s the older individuals who are most at risk from severe COVID-19.

Is Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Really 90% Effective?

In a Phase 3 efficacy trial, a vaccine is given to thousands of people, while researchers wait to see how many end up infected compared to those given a placebo.⁷ Pfizer’s Phase 3 clinical trial began July 27, 2020 and enrolled 43,538 participants⁸ to date ranging in age from 12 years to over 55, with a minimum of 40% of participants in the over 55 age range.⁹

Participants received either a two-dose series of BNT162b2, given at the 30-microgram dose 21 days apart, or a placebo. Initially an interim analysis was set to be conducted after 32 COVID-19 cases, but “after discussion with the FDA,” they increased it to after a minimum of 62 cases. According to Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO, in a press release:¹⁰

“Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC (Data Monitoring Committee) performed its first analysis on all cases.

The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule.”

Bourla added the caveat, “As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary.” In fact, there are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the reported 90% efficacy rate.

While Pfizer did release a clinical protocol of its trial,¹¹ data for the interim analysis have not been released. "This is science by public pronouncement," William Haseltine, an infectious disease expert and former Harvard medical professor, told Business Insider.¹²

COVID-19 Vaccine Trials ‘Designed to Succeed’

In September 2020, Haseltine criticized COVID-19 vaccine trials, including Pfizer’s, saying their protocols reveal that they’re “designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal.”¹³

He points out that prevention of infection is a critical endpoint in a normal vaccine trial, but prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for COVID-19 vaccines in development by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson. According to Haseltine:¹⁴

“Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines.

In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.”

He also explains that while most people expect that a vaccine will prevent serious illness in the event they’re infected, “Three of the vaccine protocols — Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca — do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.”¹⁵

Pfizer Didn’t Release Key Vaccine Data

While Pfizer is touting its vaccine as more than 90% effective based on 94 cases in their trial, "There are many, many outstanding questions which are left unanswered," Haseltine said.¹⁶

One of the main unanswered questions has to do with asymptomatic infections, which aren’t regularly being tested for in Pfizer’s trial. It’s possible, then, that those who have been vaccinated could still be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19, spreading the disease to others.

"That's a major point that I don't think most people appreciate," Haseltine told Business Insider. "It doesn't mean an end to the epidemic."¹⁷ It’s also unknown whether the vaccine reduced the number of cases of serious disease, hospitalizations and deaths, as no distinction was made between serious COVID-19 cases and those causing only minor symptoms.

Also missing from Pfizer’s press release is how the vaccine fared in different age groups, a key data point since older people are those most at risk of serious disease outcomes. It also remains to be seen how long any protection offered by a vaccine may last, as the study just began in July.

As for side effects, Pfizer’s Bourla said, “The DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns and recommends that the study continue to collect additional safety and efficacy data as planned.”¹⁸ Again, however, it’s far too soon to know whether the vaccine is safe. The timeline of the experimental COVID-19 vaccine is unprecedented as, on average, it can take 10 to 12 years for a vaccine to be developed and go through the normal licensing process.¹⁹

"We don't know anything about groups they didn't study, like children, pregnant women, highly immunocompromised people and the eldest of the elderly," Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, told NBC News.²⁰

As for potential adverse effects, in their clinical protocol Pfizer listed the following, noting that the first five participants in each group in phase 1 would be monitored for four hours after vaccination to assess adverse effects, while others would be observed for “at least 30 minutes.”²¹

Injection site redness, swelling and pain	Fever
Fatigue	Headache
Chills	Vomiting
Diarrhea	Muscle pain
Joint pain	Unknown adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities associated with a novel vaccine
Potential for increased exposure to SARS-CoV-2 because of the requirement to visit health care facilities during the trial	COVID-19 enhancement, stating, “Disease enhancement has been seen following vaccination with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), feline coronavirus, and Dengue virus vaccines.”

Coronavirus Vaccines May Enhance Disease

Even Pfizer acknowledged in their clinical protocol that COVID-19 disease enhancement is a real risk following certain vaccinations.²² In what’s known as antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, or sometimes called paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE). In these scenarios rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.²³

Th2 immunopathology, in which a vaccine induces a faulty T cell response, triggering allergic inflammation, poorly functional antibodies and airway damage, is another serious risk.

Both ADE and Th2 immunopathology occurred in the 1960s when a vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was being developed, resulting in the death of two toddlers and serious illness in several other children who received the experimental vaccine.²⁴

Similar concerns again surfaced in testing for a potential vaccine against another coronavirus, SARS, about 20 years ago. At the time, even long-time pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, was shaken. According to a feature published in PNAS:²⁵

“When SARS, also a coronavirus, appeared in China and spread globally nearly two decades ago, Hotez was among researchers who began investigating a potential vaccine.

In early tests of his candidate, he witnessed how immune cells of vaccinated animals attacked lung tissue, in much the same way that the RSV vaccine had resulted in immune cells attacking kids’ lungs. ‘I thought, ‘Oh crap,’’ he recalls, noting his initial fear that a safe vaccine may again not be possible.”

Despite years of additional research and alternative development strategies, immune enhancement concerns remain, and, as explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in our 2020 interview, coronavirus vaccines remain notorious for creating paradoxical immune enhancement.

mRNA Is a Novel Vaccine Technology

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is relying on novel mRNA technology that has never previously been used in vaccines.²⁶ It essentially instructs your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.

The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will be stimulated to produce antibodies, without making you sick in the process. However, another key question that needs to be answered is which of two types of antibodies are produced through this process.

Coronaviruses produce both neutralizing antibodies,²⁷ also referred to as immoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, that fight the infection, and binding antibodies²⁸ (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection. Instead of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can trigger an abnormal immune response like ADE or PIE.

In trials of Moderna’s experimental COVID mRNA vaccine, 25 participants who received two doses of its low or medium dose vaccine had levels of binding antibodies — the type that are used by the immune system to fight the virus but do not prevent viral infections — at levels approximating or exceeding those found in the blood of patients who recovered from COVID-19.²⁹

Data for the more significant neutralizing antibodies, which stop viruses from entering cells, were reported for only eight people.

Pfizer Has $1.95 Billion Deal With US Government

While the results of Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial remain murky, as part of Operation Warp Speed the drug giant has already struck a $1.95 billion deal with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to provide Americans with 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine after it is licensed — at no cost to recipients — with an option for 500 million additional doses.³⁰ The agreement is part of Operation Warp Speed.

Pfizer and BioNTech also have a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million initial doses.³¹ The FDA’s guidance for a vaccine to receive Emergency Use Authorization requires only a median of two months of safety data following the second dose, which Pfizer expects to have by the third week of November.

At that point, they’re hoping to bring the experimental vaccine to market, with promises to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses, globally, in 2021.³² Upon Pfizer’s announcement that their vaccine showed 90% effectiveness, shares rose 16%. The next day, CEO Bourla sold 62% of his stock, an amount worth about $5.6 million.³³

Does the Pfizer CEO know something we don’t? If and when the vaccine does become available, be sure to carefully weigh the risks versus the benefits before making a choice of whether or not to receive it.

It may help in your decision to know that if you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection³⁴ — and you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete.

from Articles https://ift.tt/38YY5ah
via IFTTT