Health & Fitness

While many have hitched their hope for a return to normalcy and a sense of safety to the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, early reports are cause for concern. It didn't take long before reports of serious side effects started emerging in popular media and on social media networks. Examples include:

Persistent malaise1,2 and extreme exhaustion3	Anaphylactic reactions4,5,6
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome7	Chronic seizures and convulsions8,9,10
Paralysis,11 including cases of Bell's Palsy12	Sudden death within hours or days13,14,15

High Rate of Side Effects

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,¹⁶ by December 18, 2020, 112,807 Americans had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 3,150 suffered one or more "health impact events," defined as being "unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional."

That gives us a side effect rate of 2.79%. Extrapolated to the total U.S. population of 328.2 million, we may then expect 9,156,780 Americans to be injured by the vaccine if every single man, woman and child is vaccinated.

When I checked the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) January 13, 2021, the total number of reported adverse events for the COVID-19 vaccine (any manufacturer) stood at 3,920.

Effectiveness Questioned

In a January 4, 2021, article¹⁷ in The BMJ Opinion, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, again raised questions about the stated efficacy rate of Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines, saying "we need more details and the raw data."

Previously, in a November 26, 2020, BMJ article,¹⁸ Doshi had pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually less than 1%. This is the typical Big Pharma trick: confusing absolute and relative risks. They played this card in spades with the statin drugs and made tens if not hundreds of billions in profits. He also stressed that severe side effects appear commonplace:

"Moderna's press release states that 9% experienced grade 3 myalgia and 10% grade 3 fatigue; Pfizer's statement reported 3.8% experienced grade 3 fatigue and 2% grade 3 headache. Grade 3 adverse events are considered severe, defined as preventing daily activity. Mild and moderate severity reactions are bound to be far more common."

In his January 4 article,¹⁹ Doshi delves into recently released summary data²⁰ given to the Food and Drug Administration. "While some of the additional details are reassuring, some are not," he says. In fact, his article outlines yet additional concerns "about the trustworthiness and meaningfulness of the reported efficacy results" of these two vaccines based on that data.

Relative Risk Reduction May Be Far Below Required Threshold

For starters, Doshi points out that Pfizer did not consistently confirm whether test subjects who showed symptoms of COVID-19 were actually PCR positive. Instead, a large portion of them were simply marked as "suspected COVID-19."

In all, there were 3,410 cases of "suspected but not confirmed" COVID-19 in the total study population (vaccine group and controls), 1,594 of which occurred in the vaccine group. Only eight cases in the vaccine group were actually confirmed with PCR testing. The problem with this is that the 95% effectiveness rating is based on PCR confirmed cases only. Doshi writes:²¹

"With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed, this makes it all the more urgent to understand.

A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing COVID-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% — far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators.

Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer's vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29%."

It's worth noting that, for some reason, far more people in the vaccine group ended up with COVID-19 symptoms within that first week than did those in the placebo group.

Doshi goes on to state that if suspected cases occurred in people who had false negative PCR test results, then the vaccine's efficacy would be lowered even further. He also stresses that "average clinical severity" is not really all that important. What really matters is the "incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions."

Unfortunately, and this is really shocking, the trials were not designed to assess whether the vaccines prevent transmission of the infection. Since they don't, "an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent — namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants — seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines' real ability to take the edge off the pandemic," Doshi writes.

Why Were so Many in Vaccine Group Excluded?

Another concern brought forth in Doshi's article is the exclusion of 371 participants from Pfizer's efficacy analysis due to "important protocol deviations on or prior to seven days after Dose 2." Of those, 311 were from the vaccine group while only 60 were in the placebo group.

This marked imbalance is cause for concern. Why were five times as many in the vaccine group excluded from the efficacy analysis than in the placebo group? And what exactly were these "protocol deviations" that caused them to be excluded? This is called stacking the deck so the results can be manipulated in the desired direction to "prove" effectiveness, when it is merely a statistical manipulation.

Confounding Factors

Doshi is also concerned about the confounding role of pain and fever medications. These kinds of medications can mask symptoms, resulting in mild cases of COVID-19 going undetected, especially since all participants were not tested. They can also mask side effects of the vaccine.

The data suggest that in the Pfizer trial, pain and fever medication was taken three to four times more often by vaccine recipients than among those in the placebo group though, and according to Doshi:

"Their use was presumably concentrated in the first week after vaccine use, taken to relieve post-injection local and systemic adverse events. But the cumulative incidence curves suggest a fairly constant rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases over time, with symptom onset dates extending well beyond a week after dosing.

That said, the higher rate of medication use in the vaccine arm provides further reason to worry about unofficial unblinding. Given the vaccines' reactogenicity, it's hard to imagine participants and investigators could not make educated guesses about which group they were in. The primary endpoint in the trials is relatively subjective making unblinding an important concern."

He also questions Pfizer's use of an "adjudication committee" to count COVID-19 cases. "Were they blinded to antibody data and information on patients' symptoms in the first week after vaccination?" he asks.

"What criteria did they employ, and why, with a primary event consisting of a patient-reported outcome (COVID-19 symptoms) and PCR test result, was such a committee even necessary?" Furthermore, the committee consisted not of licensed doctors but of Pfizer staff members, which makes one wonder whether they had the appropriate qualifications to determine whether someone might have COVID-19 or not.

Does Vaccine Work in Those Who Already Had COVID-19?

Lastly, it's important to ascertain how the vaccine works for those who have already had COVID-19, seeing how the vaccine is recommended for everyone, regardless of whether or not you've already recovered from the infection. Here, the data reveal something rather odd. Doshi writes:²²

"Individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection … were excluded from Moderna's and Pfizer's trials. But still 1,125 (3.0%) and 675 (2.2%) of participants in Pfizer's and Moderna's trials, respectively, were deemed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline …

By my count, Pfizer apparently reported 8 cases of confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 in people positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1 in the vaccine group, 7 in the placebo group …) and Moderna, 1 case (placebo group …)

But with only around four to 31 reinfections documented globally, how, in trials of tens of thousands, with median follow-up of two months, could there be nine confirmed covid-19 cases among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline?

Is this representative of meaningful vaccine efficacy, as CDC seems to have endorsed? Or could it be something else, like prevention of COVID-19 symptoms, possibly by the vaccine or by the use of medicines which suppress symptoms, and nothing to do with reinfection?"

Vaccine Rollout Coincides With Outbreak

Whether or not the vaccine is helpful or harmful in people who either had COVID-19 before, or are currently positive for SARS-CoV-2 or ill with COVID-19 symptoms, is an important question now that these vaccines are being rolled out.

Case in point: In Auburn, New York, a COVID-19 outbreak began December 21, 2020, in a Cayuga County nursing home.^23,24 Before this outbreak, no one in the nursing home had died from COVID-19.

The next day, December 22, they started vaccinating residents and staff. The first death was reported December 29, 2020. Between December 22, 2020, and January 9, 2021, 193 residents (80%) received the vaccine, as did 113 staff members.

As of January 9, 2021, 137 residents had been infected and 24 had died. Forty-seven staff members had also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and one was on life-support. Considering we're seeing cases in which healthy young and middle-aged individuals die within days of receiving the vaccine, it's not inconceivable that the vaccine might have something to do with this dramatic rise in deaths among the elderly. In fact, I'd expect it.

You can rest assured that the public health authorities and media will never report on these observations. Anything that conflicts with vaccine safety and effectiveness will be intentionally and universally buried. This is precisely their modus operandi of the past three decades. If anything, the suppression of the facts will only be amplified.

Vaccine May Trigger More Serious Illness

One of the original concerns with COVID-19 vaccines was the possibility of paradoxical immune enhancement or antibody-dependent enhancement. As discussed in my May 2020 interview with Robert Kennedy Jr., embedded above for your convenience, this is why previous coronavirus vaccines have failed.

As noted in the study,²⁵ "Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease," published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice October 28, 2020, "COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated."

"Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern:

Vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE)," the paper states.²⁶

"The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent."

The 2003 review paper, "Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease," explains it this way:²⁷

"In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.

The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.

This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance. These viruses share some common features such as preferential replication in macrophages, ability to establish persistence, and antigenic diversity. For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination."

Pathogenic Priming — Another Significant Risk

But that's not all. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may also trigger autoimmune reactions through a process called "pathogenic priming." According to a 2020 paper²⁸ in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, "Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity," noting that the same may apply post-vaccination.

As explained in this paper, all but one of SARS-CoV-2 immunogenic epitopes are similar to human proteins. Epitopes²⁹ are sites on the virus that allow antibodies or cell receptors in your immune system to recognize it.

This is why epitopes are also referred to as "antigenic determinants," as they are the part that is recognized by an antibody, B-cell receptor or T-cell receptor. Most antigens — substances that bind specifically to an antibody or a T-cell receptor — have several different epitopes, which allow it to be recognized by several different antibodies.

According to the author, some epitopes can cause "autoimmunological pathogenic priming due to prior infection or following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 … following vaccination."

In other words, if you've had the infection once, and get reinfected (either by SARS-CoV-2 or a sufficiently similar coronavirus), the second bout has a great potential to be more severe than the first. Similarly, if you get vaccinated and are then infected with SARS-CoV-2, your infection may be more severe than had you not been vaccinated.

For this reason, "these epitopes should be excluded from vaccines under development to minimize autoimmunity due to risk of pathogenic priming," the paper warns. The abstract lays out the basics of the pathogenic priming process.³⁰

Autoimmune Reactions Involved in Many Lethal COVID-19 Cases

According to the author, autopsies suggest many lethal COVID-19 cases were likely due to autoimmune reactions. A combination of genetic and environmental factors will influence a person's individual risk for this, just as genetic and environmental factors influence your risk of getting sick from the virus in the first place.

"Among coronaviruses, the spike surface glycoprotein is known to play a role in neuroimmunopathology. However, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has numerous other proteins and polyproteins, each which may serve as an antigen source during infection leading to autoimmunity," the author notes.

"Remarkably, over 1/3 (11/27) of the immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system … Mapping of the overall gene list … revealed that many functions of the human adaptive immune system might be impacted via autoimmunity against these proteins and their interactors …

These results could explain in part the high rates of serious illness associated with SARS-CoV-2. They could also explain the lengthy asymptomatic period prior to presentation of symptoms characteristic of COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 could impair the immune response, at first, and then, over time, the immune system could begin to mount an attack on the myriad of proteins …

Unintended consequences of pathogenesis from vaccines are not new, nor are they unexpected. They are unanticipated only if those who develop them do not include available knowledge in their formulation plan.

For example, the H1N1 influenza vaccine used in Europe led to narcolepsy in some patients, resulting from homology between the human hypocretin (aka, orexin) receptor 2 molecule and proteins present in the vaccine. This was established via the detection of cross-reactive antibodies in the serum of patients who develop narcolepsy following H1N1 vaccination in Europe.

The fact that pathogenic priming may be occurring involving autoimmunity against multiple proteins following CoV vaccination is consistent with other observations observed during autoimmunity, including the release of proinflammatory cytokines and cytokine storm."

Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind

Additional studies explaining how coronavirus vaccines can cause problems can be found in "How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System." In closing, I would urge you to review the science before making up your mind about the vaccine. That includes mortality data for COVID-19, which is actually surprisingly low.

The lethality of COVID-19 is actually lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.³¹ 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 infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you're metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? As mentioned, the vaccines aren't even designed to prevent infection, only reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you're exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those listed at the beginning of this article.

While I won't tell anyone to do, I would urge you to take the time to CAREFULLY review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3iKOre2
via IFTTT

Tech giants with deep ties to the U.S. national security state — Microsoft, Oracle and the MITRE Corporation — announced that they had partnered with several health care companies to create the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI) to advance the implementation of digital COVID-19 vaccination records.

According to a Reuters report, the VCI “aims to help people get encrypted digital copies of their immunization records stored in a digital wallet of their choice” because the “current system [of vaccination records] does not readily support convenient access and sharing of verifiable vaccination records.”¹

The initiative, on its website,² notes that the VCI is a public-private partnership “committed to empowering individuals with digital vaccination records” so that participants can “protect and improve their health” and “demonstrate their health status to safely return to travel, work, school and life while protecting their data privacy.”

The initiative is essentially built on a common framework of digital vaccination “wallets” called SMART Health Cards that are meant to “work across organizational and jurisdictional boundaries”³ as part of a new global vaccination-record infrastructure.

The host of the VCI website and one of the initiative’s key backers is the Commons Project Foundation. That foundation, in partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF), runs the Common Trust Network,⁴ which has three goals that are analogous to those of VCI.

As listed on the WEF website, the network’s goals are (1) to empower individuals by providing digital access to their health information; (2) to make it easier for individuals to understand and comply with each destination’s requirements; and (3) to help ensure that only verifiable lab results and vaccination records from trusted sources are presented for the purposes of cross-border travel and commerce.

To advance these goals, the Common Trust Network is powered by “a global registry of trusted laboratory and vaccination data sources” as well as “standard formats for lab results and vaccination records and standard tools to make those results and records digitally accessible.”

Another, and related, Commons Project Foundation and WEF partnership is CommonPass. CommonPass, which is also supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, is both a framework and an app that “will allow individuals to access their lab results and vaccination records, and consent to have that information used to validate their COVID status without revealing any other underlying personal health information.”

Current members⁵ of CommonPass, including JetBlue, Lufthansa, Swiss International Airlines, United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic, are also members of the Common Trust Network. This overlap between the Commons Project Foundation/WEF partnerships and the VCI illustrates that the WEF itself is involved with the VCI, albeit indirectly through their partners at the Commons Project Foundation.

The Commons Project Foundation itself is worth exploring, as its cofounders, Paul Meyer and Bradley Perkins, have long-standing ties to the RAND Corporation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the International Rescue Committee, as noted by MintPress News.⁶

The IRC, currently run by Tony Blair protégé David Milliband, is developing⁷ a biometric ID and vaccination-record system for refugees in Myanmar in cooperation with the ID2020 Alliance, which is partnered with CommonPass backer, the Rockefeller Foundation. In addition, the ID2020 Alliance funds the Commons Project Foundation and is also backed by Microsoft, one of the key companies behind the VCI.

Wearable IDs for Your Health and Your Wallet

Overlap between digital vaccination records, promoted via initiatives such as CommonPass and VCI, and the push for a new global digital-identity system is no coincidence. Indeed, the developer of VCI’s SMART Health Cards framework at Microsoft Health, Josh C. Mandel, noted in his overview presentation⁸ on that framework that digital identity is integral to the digital vaccination-record effort.

SMART Health Cards, as of now, are expected to include a person’s complete name, gender, birth date, mobile phone number and email address in addition to vaccination information, though it is possible and likely that more personal information will be required as the initiative advances, given that VCI states that these identifiers are merely a starting point.⁹

While advertised as digital vaccination records, SMART Health Cards are clearly intended to be used for much more. For instance, public information on the framework notes that SMART Health Cards are “building blocks that can be used across health care,” including managing a complete immunization record that goes far beyond COVID-19 vaccines, sharing data with public health agencies and communication with health care providers.

Yet, this framework will not be limited to health care information, as Mandel has said. In his presentation, he notes the application of SMART Health Cards could soon be used as IDs for commercial activity, such as renting a car. The VCI framework’s use of the term “digital wallet” to refer to its digital vaccination record is also suggestive of future connectivity to economic activity.

Efforts to link digital identity, not just to economic activity but also to health data, have recently escalated, for example with the piloting of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (aka GAVI)–Mastercard–Trust Stamp partnership in Africa.¹⁰

That program, first launched in 2018, links Trust Stamp’s digital-identity platform with the GAVI-Mastercard Wellness Pass, a digital vaccination record, and Mastercard’s click-to-pay system run on AI technology called NuData. Mastercard and GAVI are both partnered with the ID2020 Alliance, which includes VCI member Microsoft.

Given the reasonable speculation that such platforms would utilize digital currency, specifically cryptocurrency, for financial activity, it is worth noting that VCI member Microsoft filed a patent in 2019¹¹ that would allow “human body activity,” including brain waves and body heat, to mine (i.e., generate) cryptocurrency. This, of course, would link biometrics to financial activity, among other things.

Such a system, as laid out in the Microsoft patent, would likely require the introduction of wearables in order to be implemented. Notably, numerous wearables for contactless identity, digital travel passes and payment devices have recently been launched.

Examples include DigitalDNA,¹² Proxy,¹³ and FlyWallet.¹⁴ FlyWallet is particularly notable as their latest product, Keyble,¹⁵ is a wearable that combines digital identity through fingerprint authentication, which enables both contactless payments and health applications such as vital-sign monitoring and data sharing with insurance companies and health care providers.

Sponsored by Spooks and Silicon Valley

The SMART Health Cards framework was developed by a team led by the chief architect of Microsoft Healthcare, Josh Mandel, who was previously¹⁶ the Health IT Ecosystem lead for Verily, formerly Google Life Sciences.

Verily is currently heavily involved in COVID-19 testing¹⁷ throughout the U.S., particularly in California, and links test recipients’ results to their Google accounts.¹⁸ Their other COVID-19 initiatives have been criticized due to still-unresolved privacy concerns,¹⁹ something that has also plagued several of Verily’s other efforts²⁰ pre-COVID-19, including those involving Mandel.

Of particular concern is that Verily, and by extension Google, created Project Baseline, which has been collecting²¹ “actionable genetic information” with a focus on “population health” from participants since 2017. Yet, during the COVID-19 process, Project Baseline has become an important component²² of Verily’s COVID-19 testing efforts, raising the unsettling possibility that Verily has been obtaining Americans’ DNA data through its COVID-19 testing activities.

While Verily has not addressed this possibility directly, it is worth noting that Google has been heavily involved in amassing genomic data for several years. For instance, in 2013, Google Genomics was founded²³ with the goal of storing and analyzing DNA data on Google Cloud servers.

Now known as Cloud Life Sciences, the Google subsidiary has since developed AI algorithms²⁴ that can “build your genome sequence” and “identify all the mutations that an individual inherits from their parents.” Google also has close ties with the best-known DNA testing companies in the U.S., such as Ancestry.com.

Ancestry, recently purchased by private-equity behemoth Blackstone, shares data with a secretive Google subsidiary²⁵ that uses genomic data to develop lifespan-extending therapies. In addition, the wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin, Anne Wojcicki, is the cofounder and CEO of DNA testing company 23andMe. Wojcicki is also the sister of the CEO of Google-owned YouTube, Susan Wojcicki.

Google and the majority of VCI’s backers — Microsoft, Salesforce, Cerner, Epic, the Mayo Clinic, and MITRE Corporation, Change Healthcare — are also prominent members of the MITRE-run COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.²⁶

Other members of that coalition include the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and the CIA-linked data-mining firm Palantir,²⁷ as well as a myriad of health care and health-record companies. The coalition fits well with the ambitions of Google and like-minded companies that have sought to gain access to troves of American health data under the guise of combating COVID-19.

The COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition describes itself²⁸ as a public-private partnership that has enabled “the critical infrastructure to enable collaboration and shared analytics” on COVID-19 through the sharing of health-care and COVID-19 data among members.

That this coalition and VCI are intimately involved with MITRE Corporation is significant, given that MITRE is a well-known, yet secretive, contractor for the U.S. government, specifically the CIA and other intelligence agencies, which has developed²⁹ Orwellian surveillance and biometric technologies, including several now focused on COVID-19.

Just three days before the public announcement of VCI’s establishment, Microsoft Healthcare and Google’s Verily announced a partnership³⁰ along with MIT and Harvard’s Broad Institute to share the companies’ cloud data and AI technologies with a “global network of more than 168,000 health and life sciences partners” to accelerate the Terra platform.³¹

Terra, originally developed by the Broad Institute and Verily, is an “open data ecosystem” focused on biomedical research, specifically the fields of cancer genomics, population genetics and viral genomics. The biomedical data³² Terra amasses includes not only genetic data but also medical-imaging, biometric signals and electronic health records.

Google, through its partnership with the Pentagon, which was announced last September, has moved to utilize the analysis of such data in order to “predictively diagnose”³³ diseases such as cancer and COVID-19. U.S. military contractors, such as Advanced Technology International,³⁴ have been developing wearables that would apply that AI-driven predictive diagnosis technology to COVID-19 diagnoses.

Predictive COVID-19 diagnosis is also an ambition of another company that backs VCI, Salesforce. Salesforce is one of three companies that created COVID 360,³⁵ which Salesforce senior vice president Bob Vanstraelen describes as³⁶ a “free full Coronavirus treatment solution for patients and citizens at risk” that is hosted on Salesforce Health Cloud and was by Deloitte’s Israel branch and the Israeli intelligence-linked AI firm Diagnostic Robotics.³⁷

COVID 360 uses the Diagnostic Robotics clinical-predictions platform and applies it to COVID-19 so that “government agencies or caretakers” can identify individuals “in proximity to a potential positive coronavirus case” and mandate coronavirus testing and/or treatment regimes, based on a risk profile generated by COVID 360. Diagnostic Robotics and Salesforce are both members of the MITRE-run COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.

Salesforce founder, chair, and CEO Marc Benioff was previously a vice president at Oracle. Oracle, another VCI backer, was created as a spin-off of a CIA project³⁸ of the same name, and its top executives have close ties to the outgoing Trump administration and also to Israel’s government. While Benioff’s pre-Salesforce history to a CIA-linked company like Oracle is significant, Benioff’s close ties to the World Economic Forum³⁹ also deserve greater scrutiny.

Benioff is not only a member of the WEF’s board of trustees, but he is also the inaugural chair of the forum’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a “revolution” that its architect and WEF founder Klaus Schwab defines⁴⁰ as a merging of humans’ physical, digital and biological identities. Benioff is also the owner and co-chair⁴¹ of Time magazine, which recently ran an entire issue⁴² focused on promoting the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the WEF-backed Great Reset.

Benioff also serves on the Council for Inclusive Capitalism,⁴³ a collaboration between the Vatican and oligarchs to create a “more inclusive, sustainable and trusted economic system” for the 21st century.

Alongside Benioff on the council are well-known figures such as Lynn Forester de Rothschild (close associate of Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons⁴⁴), Mark Carney (UN special envoy for Climate Action and former governor of the Bank of England), and William Lauder (executive chairman of Estée Lauder, nephew of Mega Group⁴⁵ member Ronald Lauder) as well as the top executives of MasterCard, Visa, Dupont, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, BP and Bank of America. Also present are the heads of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

Benioff and others mentioned in this article are perfect examples of the cross-pollination between groups of oligarchs and their associated foundations and organizations and how these networks are working together to pursue a common agenda.

While the push for combining digital identity with vaccination records and economic activity appears, superficially, to be the effort of various organizations and groups, the same individuals and entities appear time and again, pointing to a coordinated push to not only implement such a system but manufacture consent for such a system among the global population.

The effort to manufacture consent for an all-encompassing digital identification system is notable given that its main selling point thus far has been coercion. We have been told that without such a system we will never be able to return to work or school, never be able to travel or never be allowed to participate normally in the economy.

While this system is being introduced in this way, it is essential to point out that coercion is a built-in part of this infrastructure and, if implemented, will be used to modify human behavior to great effect, reaching far beyond just the issue of COVID-19 vaccines.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3qRa7rJ
via IFTTT

In a brain with a neurological disorder like epilepsy, synchronization between groups of neurons can grow to a dangerous extent when a collection of brain cells begins to emit excess electricity. Researchers used a mathematical model to explore the interplay between neurons that leads to these transitions in synchronization during the onset of seizures.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2M5hjld

Astrocytes are the most abundant type of cells within the central nervous system (CNS), but they remain poorly characterized. Researchers have long assumed that astrocytes' primary function is to provide nutrients and support for the brain's more closely scrutinized nerve cells; over the years, however, increasing evidence has shown that astrocytes can also actively promote neurodegeneration, inflammation, and neurological diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3qP6vGM

The enzymes in human cells known as histone deacetylases, or HDACs, are targets for a handful of anticancer drugs because of their ability to affect gene expression. Now, researchers have developed a new method to investigate how these enzymes work on a molecular level. This new method can also help identify more precise possible anti-cancer drug candidates at a very high pace.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2M1SSFi

Special immune cells found in the brain, microglia, play a key role in the processes that make you feel uneasy and depressed in correlation with inflammation. This is the conclusion of a study using mice. The results suggest that microglial cells contribute to the negative mood experienced during several neurological diseases, and maybe also depression.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3a4CH23

Researchers demonstrate, for the first time in humans, how the first deposits of tau proteins in the brainstem are associated with neurophysiological processes specific to the early stages of Alzheimer's disease development.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3iKrl7g

A new modelling study predicts demand for cancer surgery will rise by 52 per cent within two decades, with low-income countries bearing the greatest burden.

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

Neuroscientists and engineers have developed a system that can show the neural process of decision making in real time, including the mental process of flipping between options before expressing a final choice.

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

Scientists have identified that the evolutionary development of human and primate brains may have been similar for communication and memory.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/39fuVDg

An international team of researchers has developed a new method to better understand how nanomedicines -- emerging diagnostics and therapies that are very small yet very intricate -- interact with patients' biomolecules.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3c9WOPd

A world-first discovery could become a game-changer for patients at risk of rapid health deterioration, such as heart complications, stroke, sepsis and cancer. Researchers developed an antibody as a biosensor, to continuously monitor rapid changes in the concentration of EGFR, a protein present on cancer cells and in body fluids.

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

A cross-cultural analysis found several factors may have played a role in building the relationship between humans and dogs, including temperature, hunting and surprisingly - gender. The analysis used ethnographic information from 144 traditional, subsistence-level societies from all over the globe. People were more likely to regard dogs as a type of person if the dogs had a special relationship with women -- such as having names and being treated as family.

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

 

from Articles https://ift.tt/3690hcY
via IFTTT

Knowledge is power. So is ownership, including land ownership. Did you know that Bill Gates is America’s top farmland investor? This short video reveals many of the global strategies Gates has been using to influence your health and the food supply.

Through his founding of the second-largest technological company in the world,¹ Gates has developed financial and influential relationships with powerful organizations responsible for many global decisions that affect your life.

Subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, his movements have grown a massive financial empire and expanded his ability to create change to support his goals. Gates is also a supporter of the “Great Reset” that promises "social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality,"² while allowing elite billionaires to practice strategies that grew his and other billionaires’ wealth by 26% during the pandemic in 2020.³

In other words, while supporting Marxist principles to spread the wealth — so by 2030 you can say, “I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better”⁴ — he is enjoying the fruits of his labor by accumulating more wealth and property, a decidedly different approach to the Great Reset he promotes.

Put plainly, the political and ideological foundations of Marxism have once again surfaced, and in some arenas, are celebrated. However, it’s vital to remember that unlike Walgreens’ advertising campaign featuring a picture-perfect town of “Perfect,”⁵ Marxist philosophy has created tyranny and was responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people in the last century, as aptly described by James Bovard in USA Today.⁶

History is studied and shared so the mistakes of the past are not repeated. However, it’s evident there are many who have forgotten, or never learned, what resulted behind the Iron Curtain from implementing the socialist principles which now underpin the Great Reset.

The Great Reset or Fourth Industrial Revolution has strong supporters among wealthy technocrats who will not redistribute their own wealth, but will only continue to grow their financial empires as the rest of the world suffers. Indeed, 2020 has only been a taste of what could come as more people lose their jobs and financial security, while those controlling the event become wealthier.

Bill Gates Is Now the Biggest Farmland Owner

The Land Report announced that multibillionaire Bill Gates currently holds the title as America’s biggest private farmland owner. He owns 242,000 acres, nearly 52,000 more than the next largest farmland owner.⁷ To put this in perspective, 52,000 is equal to 39,325 football fields, including the end zones.⁸ His farmland (approximately 378.125 square miles) would rank in total land mass as the eighth largest city in the U.S. in 2010.⁹

It was Eric O'Keefe from the Land Report¹⁰ who ferreted out the story after reading that 14,500 acres of choice farmland in Benton County, Washington, had been sold for $171 million, or nearly $12,000 per acre. O'Keefe describes the area as “some of the richest farmland in the Lower 48,” that “savvy investors have been plowing millions of dollars into.”¹¹

Although the seller was listed as John Hancock Life Insurance, the buyer was reported as a limited liability company from Louisiana. Digging deeper and engaging their research team, he discovered the paper trail led to a company managed by Michael Larson, manager of the Gates’ personal portfolio and much of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the last 25 years.

Larson primarily uses Cascade Investment LLC as the entity through which he manages their personal portfolio. O'Keefe details the sequence in which the land changed hands over 10 years. The largest single block of farmland was quietly acquired by Cascade in 2017, one year after it was purchased by a Canadian firm.¹²

The sale was revealed in the Canadian firm’s quarterly statement, in which they reported offloading $520 million in farmland offered in a single block. An investigative journalist ultimately found the half-billion-dollar sale led to Cascade Investment LLC.

Gates Is Not the Largest Individual Landowner

Gates owns a substantial amount of land, for a total of 268,894 acres if you count his transitional and recreational properties. But, he's not the only billionaire who tops the Land Report list. Stewart and Lynda Resnick, co-founders of Wonderful Company, come in at No. 2, owning 190,000 acres. They use their farmland to support their food products, such as Wonderful Pistachios and Wonderful Halos Mandarin oranges.¹³

Gates also is not the largest individual landowner overall, as that spot goes to John Malone, chairman of the board at Liberty Media Corporation and former chief executive officer for Tele-Communications Inc.¹⁴ Malone owns 2.2 million acres of forest and ranch land; media Mogul Ted Turner owns 2 million across eight states.¹⁵

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is also heavily invested in land, coming in the 25th spot at 420,000 acres located mostly in Texas.¹⁶ The remaining list is filled with recognizable names, including the King Ranch, Ford family and the Kennedy Memorial Foundation.¹⁷

In addition to farmland, Cascade Investment has purchased 24,800 acres of transitional property west of Phoenix, which is poised for city expansion projected to include: “up to 80,000 homes; 3,800 acres of industrial, office and retail space; 3,400 acres of open space; and 470 acres for public schools.”¹⁸

Cascade also bought 1,234 recreational acres, making the land Gates owns through just Cascade Investment LLC at 268,984 acres. Separate from the Gates’ personal holdings is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has no ties to Cascade, but does have a farmland initiative called Gates Ag One, which¹⁹

“… aims to speed up efforts to provide smallholder farmers in developing countries, many of whom are women, with access to the affordable tools and innovations they need to sustainably improve crop productivity and adapt to the effects of climate change.”

What Is the Leading Harvest Standard?

Although Cascade Investment has declined to make any comment on the quiet transactions through the Canadian company, they have come out in support of sustainable farming. One of the entities owned by Cascade, Cottonwood Ag Management, is an initial member of Leading Harvest, a nonprofit organization formed to advance:²⁰

“… sustainable agriculture, providing assurance programs comprised of standards, audit procedures, training and education, and reporting and claim offerings that are optimized for flexibility, scalability, and impact.”

As O'Keefe describes it, the goal is to create a “sustainability standard that can be implemented across the greatest swath of agricultural acreage.”²¹ Yet, while this goal is commendable, they remain words on paper without a substantive foundation.

In other words, according to the organization, they do not offer farmers guidance to achieve the goal, only the formation of a certification program to audit the farmers’ results.²² In their publication, they describe the program:²³

“It does not prescribe practices necessary to conform with the Standard; rather, it provides family farmers and farm managers the flexibility to select best practices for sustainable outcomes. This approach allows for adaptation across crops and geographies, recognizing that even a single crop can require unique management strategies in different regions.

An outcome-based approach recognizes that prescribing the same processes and metrics across geographies can be ineffective. By encouraging farmers to innovate new approaches and apply best management practices suited for their crops and consistent with regional best practices, management results are improved, and greater sustainability outcomes are achieved.”

In other words, instead of guidance and standards for how the farmer achieves sustainability and protects the future of farming, they created a certification for farmers to demonstrate their participation in developing practices where the end result meets their standard — do the ends justify the means?

Gates Seeking Sustainable Energy in All the Wrong Places

Gates has been calling for sustainable energy and a reduction of carbon emissions for over a decade.²⁴ At one point in a 2010 TED talk, he questioned if we need another Manhattan Project to discover a renewable and safe energy source.

If you don’t remember, the Manhattan Project was the code name given to an operation aimed at discovering a functional nuclear weapon,²⁵ that resulted in a bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. When asked how he would deal with climate change skeptics, he said:²⁶

"The main problem we have here — it's kind of like AIDS: You make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later. And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems, the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later, and a somewhat uncertain pain thing."

Gates spoke about climate change and the technological advancements that may be necessary in an interview with a journalist from The Atlantic in 2015. The journalist recorded this response:²⁷

“Yes, the government will be somewhat inept,” he said brusquely, swatting aside one objection as a trivial statement of the obvious. “But the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them.”

Gates Calls Plant-Based and Lab-Grown Meat Sustainable

While Gates may not think highly of the government or entrepreneurs, he does believe that plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives are healthy and sustainable. Historically, some of the decisions from the Gates Foundation haven’t been focused on the environment but, rather, cloaked in rhetoric that appears environmentally friendly.

For example, despite a lack of consensus on GMO safety,²⁸ in 2010 the Gates Foundation aligned itself with Monsanto and Cargill. They invested nearly $23 million in 500,000 Monsanto shares.

Subsequently, a South African watchdog group discovered the Gates Foundation had also invested $10 million in Cargill to “develop the soya value chain,”²⁹ which The Guardian wrote probably meant the “big time introduction of GM soy in southern Africa.”³⁰

In 2010, The Guardian also reported that Gates had funded research to develop machines that would spray seawater into the clouds with the goal of increasing the ability to reflect sunlight into space, and therefore reduce global warming. The move triggered a call for a global ban on geoengineering experiments from the ETC Group and a comment from co-executive director Jim Thomas:³¹

“We knew Microsoft was developing cloud applications for computers but we didn't expect this. Bill Gates and his cloud-wrenching cronies have no right to unilaterally change our seas and skies in this way.”

Not to be deterred by naysayers, eight years later in 2018 Gates agreed to help fund experiments for Harvard scientists, who proposed to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride to help slow the Earth’s warming.³²

In keeping with past decisions, Gates also supports plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives,^33,34 which are riddled with patented chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients. Seth Itzkan from Soil4Climate, characterizes one fake-meat product this way:³⁵

“Impossible Foods should really be called Impossible Patents. It’s not food; it’s software, intellectual property — 14 patents, in fact, in each bite of Impossible Burger with over 100 additional patents pending for animal proxies from chicken to fish. It’s iFood, the next killer app. Just download your flavor. This is likely the appeal for Bill Gates, their über investor.”

Presumably, his support of chemical food, reminiscent of the DuPont slogan “Better things for better living through chemistry,”³⁶ is to reduce carbon emissions. However, as has been documented and covered in “More Reasons to Avoid “Beyond” Fake Meat,” regenerative farming practices are better for the land, the animals and your health.

Your Health Depends on Whole Food

Convinced that their method of producing chemical-based food reduces the carbon footprint, Impossible Foods hired Quantis to give them scientific evidence.³⁷ According to the executive summary published on their website, their product reduces the environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories Quantis studied, including global warming potential, land occupation and water consumption.

However, Quantis compared fake meat production against CAFOs, which are notoriously destructive. On the other hand, White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, practices true sustainable, regenerative farming and produces high-quality, grass fed products.

White Oak Pastures commissioned the same analysis, by the same company, which showed they had a net total emission in the negative numbers.³⁸ It's also worth noting that the Impossible Burger is made from GMO soy containing glyphosate.

Your health and longevity are dependent on providing your body with necessary nutrients from whole food. It's simply impossible to be sustained by synthetic chemicals, toxic GMO grains contaminated with pesticides and fake meat. Regenerative farming practices can provide whole food and can have a positive impact on the environment.

Imagine the powerful influence Gates could have on the environment and the country if he would move his massive acreage into regenerative farming practices. This could raise the quality of food the land produces and demonstrate sustainable practices that can be followed around the world.

Instead, it appears that financial motivations are helping to drive environmental decisions to support his personal goals. The movement to develop fake food is lucrative as I discuss in “The Fake Food Race is Worth $3 Trillion.” However, you can protect your health and your future by starting with a few simple guidelines that I outline in the linked article.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3iIKTc6
via IFTTT

When it comes to the treatment of COVID-19, many Western nations have been hobbled by the politicization of medicine. Throughout 2020, media and many public health experts warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine, despite the fact that many practicing doctors were praising its ability to save patients. Many of them were silenced through online censorship. Some even lost their jobs for the “sin” of publicly sharing their successes with the drug.

Another decades-old antiparasitic drug that offers great hope is ivermectin, but it too is being hushed up by mainstream media. Trial Site News¹ tells the story of a 77-year-old Indian couple, both of whom became ill with COVID-19. One successfully recuperated following treatment with hydroxychloroquine. The other with ivermectin.

While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, please understand it is not my primary recommendation. If you are looking at this as a magic bullet, think again. You are far better off first optimizing your vitamin D levels as I have discussed in dozens of previous articles that you can easily find in the search engine at the top of the page.

Remember, you need vitamin D for a wide variety of functions in your body in addition to optimizing your immune response. Although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it is still an unnatural synthetic chemical that can have side effects. Vitamin D is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.

Inexpensive Treatment Responsible for India’s Success?

Getting back to ivermectin, Trial Site News reported² that “Ten months into its battle with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, India is on track to become an unexpected warrior in the fight against this global pandemic. Although the densely-populated nation has four times the population of the U.S., India has less than half the U.S. COVID deaths.”

While India had a daily positive test rate of nearly 100,000 back in September 2020, by the end of December 2020, the infection rate had dropped by 75%. While this rapid decline is by and large being attributed to strict lockdowns, universal mask wearing and extensive contact tracing and testing, the availability and use of effective treatments likely plays a pivotal role.

In late March 2020, India added hydroxychloroquine to its national treatment guidelines, urging the drug be used “as early in the disease course as possible.” It was not recommended for those hospitalized with severe illness.

Then, in August 2020, India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, which has some 230 million residents, added ivermectin to its recommendations and distributed the drug for home care free of charge. The state of Bihar, which has 128 million residents, also started recommending ivermectin, and by the end of 2020, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had the lowest and second-lowest COVID-19 fatality rates in all of India.

Uttar Pradesh, however, took it a step further than Bihar. They also used ivermectin as a prophylactic, first among health care workers and then among people who had come in contact with a person who tested positive.

This drug makes far more sense in India as the vast majority of the population indeed suffer with parasites as a result of largely contaminated municipal water supplies.

Frontline Doctors Call for Adoption of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is now calling for widespread adoption of Ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.^3,4

December 8, 2020, FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where he reviewed the evidence supporting the use of the drug. (He resigned from St. Luke’s shortly after giving this testimony, saying the medical center wanted to restrict his freedom of speech.⁵) As noted on the FLCCC website:⁶

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities — the NIH, CDC, and FDA — to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19.”

January 6, 2020, Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia — both are founding members of FLCCC — also presented evidence to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, which is working to update NIH guidance.⁷ The NIH panel is expected to update treatment guidelines by early February 2021. According to the FLCCC:⁸

“Numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.

Data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients … demonstrated that Ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.”

A one-page summary⁹ of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive review¹⁰ of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology. A listing of all the Ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.¹¹  

How Ivermectin Protects Against COVID-19

Like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug with a well-documented safety profile and “proven, highly potent, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties.”¹² It’s been on the market since 1981 and is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. It’s also inexpensive, with a treatment course costing less than $2 in countries such as India and Bangladesh.¹³

While the U.S. FDA has not yet approved ivermectin for prevention of or treatment for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁴ studies have shown ivermectin:¹⁵

• Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses. In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours
• Inhibits inflammation through several pathways
• Lowers viral load
• Protects against organ damage
• Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients

The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section¹⁶ where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use. While FLCCC members have been criticized for their insistence that we should not wait for randomized controlled trials before using Ivermectin more widely, the group argues that the drug has a long history of safety and clearly works, so, why wait?

"If someone ... says they want to do an RCT with placebo, that's problematic for me," Kory told Medpage Today.¹⁷ "I could not have a patient admitted to my care and give placebo knowing what I know about Ivermectin."

One week after Kory and Marik presented their data, the National Institutes of Health updated their stand¹⁸ on use of the drug with a statement that they would not recommend for or against it. The FLCCC quickly followed up with their own statement:¹⁹

“By no longer recommending against ivermectin use, doctors should feel more open in prescribing ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19. This may clear its path towards FDA emergency use approval.”

WHO’s Ivermectin Review

While a 75% reduction in mortality is impressive enough (which is the average reduction based on 18 trials according to the FLCCC²⁰), a WHO-sponsored review²¹ suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%. As reported by Swiss Policy Research:²²

“This result is based on in-hospital trials, so it does not yet take into account early ambulatory and prophylactic treatment. The authors of the review intend to include three more trials, due to be published sometime in January, before providing a final conclusion.” 

In the video above, Dr. Andrew Hill of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool, U.K., who is leading this review, discusses the preliminary findings. At the end, he too describes ivermectin as a potentially transformative treatment against COVID-19.

Ivermectin Best as Prophylaxis

While preliminary evidence seems to suggest Ivermectin can be useful at all stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection, its real strength appears to be prophylactic. December 26, 2020, Dhaka Tribune²³ reported the findings of an observational study²⁴ from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers.

Fifty-eight volunteers took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months. Only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period. In comparison, 44 of 60 health care workers (26.67%) who had declined the medication were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Both groups worked with COVID-19 positive patients at the Bangladesh Medical College Hospital. Lead researcher Mohammed Tarek Alam told Dhaka Tribune that ivermectin is “apparently very effective as a preventive drug.” His team will be seeking permission to conduct a randomized control trial to validate their findings.

Other Effective Treatment Options

It’s worth noting that while the FLCCC is encouraging the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic and early at-home treatment, they also have a more comprehensive early treatment protocol available, as well as an in-hospital protocol.

The treatment protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+²⁵ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,²⁶ due to the addition of the drug ivermectin.

Vitamin C — which has important antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects²⁷ — is a central component of this treatment. As noted in a recent landmark review²⁸ on vitamin C for COVID-19, it’s common for hospitalized patients to have overt vitamin C deficiency. This is particularly true for older patients and those hospitalized for respiratory infections.

The two protocols (I-MASK+²⁹ and I-MATH+,³⁰) are available for download on the FLCCC website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine³¹ in mid-December 2020. 

Nebulized Peroxide — My Favorite Treatment Choice

My personal choice for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 symptoms is nebulized peroxide. This is a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours.

Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide into your sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body’s natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infections and can be used both prophylactically after known exposure to COVID-19 and as a treatment for mild, moderate and even severe illness.

Dr. David Brownstein, who has successfully treated over 100 COVID-19 patients with nebulized peroxide, published a case paper³² about this treatment in the July 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and The Law. He also reviews its benefits in “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.”

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide is extremely safe, and all you need is a desktop nebulizer and food-grade hydrogen peroxide, which you’ll need to dilute with saline to 0.1% strength. I recommend buying these items beforehand so that you have everything you need and can begin treatment at home at the first signs of a respiratory infection. In the video above, I go over the basics of this treatment.

The nebulizer I use is the Pari Trek S Compressor Aerosol System. The large battery option is unnecessary as you can simply plug in the device to run it when you need it. There are likely other nebulizers you can use instead, as long as it plugs into an electrical outlet and doesn’t use batteries, as they are low-powered and ineffective nebulizers that don’t work as well.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3c6TT9I
via IFTTT