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

04/20/21
Twitter Facebook

11:48 ,
Researchers looked at the way we process human gaze, focusing on the estimation of the temporal duration of social interactions. They discovered that when we make eye contact with another person, our attention is solicited, causing a distortion in our temporal perception: time seems shorter than it really is. These results will make it possible to develop a diagnostic tool to evaluate the mechanisms at work in people who are sensitive to social gaze.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2P66mS1
Twitter Facebook

08:48 ,
Because COVID-19 has been detected in urine and stool samples, public restrooms can be cause for concern. Researchers measured droplets generated from flushing a toilet and a urinal in a public restroom and found a substantial increase in the measured aerosol levels in the ambient environment with the total number of droplets generated in each flushing test ranging up to the tens of thousands. Due to their small size, these droplets can remain suspended for a long time.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2RET6Vl
Twitter Facebook

08:48 ,
A simple dietary supplement reduces behavioral symptoms in mice with a genetic mutation that causes schizophrenia. After additional experiments, including visualizing the fluorescently stained dancing edge of immature brain cells, researchers concluded that the supplement likely protects proteins that build neurons' cellular skeletons.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ekAAJt
Twitter Facebook

01:22 , , ,

By Dr. Mercola

If you think your birth control pill is the best pregnancy prevention tool there is, you may be surprised by new research looking into its failure rates.

Compared to other forms of protection, the Pill failed miserably, which only adds to the myriad of reasons why you should heavily question its use.

The Pill Fails 20 Times More Often

About 99 percent of sexually active women use at least one method of birth control, the most common of which is the birth control pill (oral contraceptives). The Pill was used by nearly 11 million U.S. women from 2006-2008.i

Meanwhile, nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.ii Certainly not all of these are due to a birth control failure, but some of them -- estimates suggest about half -- undoubtedly are. Which brings me to a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.iii Out of the 7,500 women in the study, who used various forms of birth control including an intrauterine device (IUD), implant, birth control pills, patch, ring and contraceptive injection, 334 became pregnant, 156 of which were due to birth control failure.

The contraceptive failure rate among pills, patch or ring was 4.55 percent, compared to 0.27 percent among participants using reversible contraception such as intrauterine devices. The effectiveness—or non-effectiveness—was no different in adolescents or young women. The implications—that birth control pills are 20 times more likely to fail than IUDs—should give some women a pause to think about the method of contraception they want to use.

As for the varying degrees of effectiveness, the Pill must be taken daily, preferably around the same time for it to work its best. Study author Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, noted:iv

"This study is the best evidence we have that long-acting reversible methods are far superior to the birth control pill, patch and ring. IUDs and implants are more effective because women can forget about them after clinicians put the devices in place ... If there were a drug for cancer, heart disease or diabetes that was 20 times more effective, we would recommend it first."

Hormone-Based Contraceptives Have Steep Risks

Unintended pregnancy is clearly a big one, but artificially manipulating your hormones using oral contraceptives, the patch or ring, or an injection like Depo-Provera is also a very risky proposition. Most birth control pills are a combination of the derivatives of the hormones estrogen and a synthetic progesterone(progestin). They work by disrupting the hormones in your body, essentially fooling your intricate hormonal reproductive system into producing the following effects:

  • Preventing your ovaries from releasing eggs
  • Thickening your cervical mucus to help block sperm from fertilizing an egg
  • Thinning the lining of your uterus, which would make it difficult for an egg to implant, should it become fertilized

However, it is naive to believe that these are the only impacts the synthetic hormones are having. Your reproductive system does not exist in a bubble ... it is connected to all of your other bodily systems as well. The Pill, too, does not only influence your reproductive status; it's capable of altering much more.

Ten years ago, in 2002, one of the largest and best-designed federal studies of hormone replacement therapy was halted because women taking these synthetic hormones had a such a higher risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke and blood clots that continuing forward with the study would have been unethical. The news made headlines because millions of women were already taking these synthetic hormones, but fortunately it prompted many of them to quit. And what do you think happened a year after millions of women quit taking hormone replacement therapy? Incidents of breast cancer fell dramatically -- by 7 percent!

What does this have to do with the Pill? Birth control pills contain the SAME type of synthetic hormones -- estrogen and progestin -- that were used in the ill-fated study!

That's just one risk. Oral contraceptives have been linked to more than two dozen conditions, including heart disease, liver cancer, deep vein thrombosis and inflammatory bowel disease.v Research suggests they are not only carcinogenic (cancer-causing) but also cardiotoxic (toxic to your heart) and endocrine disrupting.

Why I Advise Most Women to Stop Hormonal Contraceptives

Birth control pills are rarely, if ever, necessary or beneficial. In exchange for the convenience of preventing pregnancy (which you can do naturally perhaps even more effectively, and I'll explain how below), you are putting yourself at risk of a myriad of health issues.

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that several types of hormone-based birth control methods increased women's risk of heart attack and stroke.vi The link was found between oral contraceptives as well as contraceptive patches and the vaginal ring. Women using the ring were found to have a 2.5 times greater risk of stroke compared to those not using hormonal contraceptives, whereas the other methods increased the risk to varying degrees.

Other known health risks of hormone-based birth control include:

Cancer: Women who take birth control pills increase their risk of cervical and breast cancers, and possibly liver cancer as well. Fatal blood clots: All birth control pills increase your risk of blood clots and subsequent stroke. Thinner bones: Women who take birth control pills have lower bone mineral density (BMD) than women who have never used oral contraceptives. Impaired muscle gains: A study found that oral contraceptive use impairs muscle gains from resistance exercise training in women.vii
Long-term sexual dysfunction: The Pill may limit the availability and/or action of testosterone, leading to long-term sexual dysfunction, including decreased desire and arousal. Heart disease: Long-term use of birth control pills may increase the buildup of arterial plaque, which may raise your risk of heart disease and cardiac mortality.viii Migraines and nausea Weight gain and mood changes
Irregular bleeding or spotting Breast tenderness Yeast overgrowth Yeast infection

The other hormonal-based options are not much better. Birth control patches (Ortho Evra) have resulted in an avalanche of lawsuits over the past several years due to the overwhelming health problems women have experienced from using them. One of the reasons the patch is so risky is that you absorb up to 60 percent more synthetic estrogen than if you were taking an oral contraceptive. Side effects of the patch include:

Raised risk of heart attack and stroke Irregular bleeding Problems wearing contact lenses Fluid retention or raised blood pressure
Nausea Headache Breast tenderness Mood changes
Menstrual cramps Abdominal pain Skin irritation or rashes at site of patch  

As far as injections like Depo-Provera, or depo medroxyprogesterone (DMPA), go, this synthetic analogue of natural progesterone known as a progestin interferes with hormone signaling to prevent your ovaries from releasing eggs. Progestins carry with them a vast array of negative side effects, including:

Side Effects of Depo-Provera
  • Weight gain
  • Headaches
  • Breast swelling and tenderness
  • Decreased sexual desire
  • Depression
  • Bloating
  • Swelling of the hands and feet
  • Nervousness
  • Abdominal cramps
  • Dizziness
  • Weakness of fatigue
  • Leg cramps
  • Nausea
  • Vaginal discharge or irritation
  • Backache
  • Insomnia
  • Acne
  • Pelvic pain
  • Lack of hair growth or excessive hair loss
  • Rashes
  • Hot flashes
  • Joint pain
  • Convulsions
  • Jaundice
  • Urinary tract infections
  • Allergic reactions
  • Fainting
  • Paralysis
  • Osteoporosis
  • Lack of return to fertility
  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Pulmonary embolus
  • Breast and cervical cancers
  • Abnormal menstrual bleeding
  • Increased risk for STDs
  • Unexpected breast milk production
  • Changes in speech, coordination, or vision
  • Swelling of face, ankles or feet
  • Mood changes
  • Unusual fatigue

Is an IUD a Better Option?

Intrauterine devices are small, plastic, T-shaped sticks with a string attached to the end. The IUD is placed inside the uterus and prevents pregnancy by rendering the sperm unable to fertilize an egg, and by changing the lining of the uterus so that it is less supportive for an embryo. It also works by releasing hormones into your body, specifically a progestin hormone called levonorgestrel, which is often used in birth control pills.

One of its major advantages, and what contributes to its increased effectiveness rate, is that it essentially eliminates the compliance failure issue as all you do is insert it once. There is no daily task to remember to do. However, it, too, carries significant risks, including some that are unique to a foreign body being placed inside your uterus. Among them:

  • Pelvic infection: IUDs may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, a serious infection
  • The device may attach to or go through the wall of the uterus
  • Pregnancy while using an IUD can be life threatening, and may result in loss of the pregnancy or fertility
  • Ovarian cysts may occur
  • Bleeding and spotting

Take Charge of Your Body Using Natural Birth Control Methods

You may not be aware that there are many effective and safe methods for preventing pregnancy. Some of the more common, barrier methods are:

  • Male condoms: Condoms have a 98 percent effectiveness rate when used correctly. A water-based lubricant will increase the effectiveness; do not use an oil-based lubricant, however, as they break the latex and usually are petrochemical in origin.
  • Female condoms: These thin, soft polyurethane pouches fitted inside the vagina before sex are 95 percent effective. Female condoms are less likely to tear than male condoms.
  • Diaphragm: Diaphragms, which must be fitted by a doctor, act as a barrier to sperm. When used correctly with spermicidal jellies, they are 92 to 98 percent effective.
  • Cervical cap: This heavy rubber cap fits tightly against the cervix and can be left in place for 48 hours. Like the diaphragm, a doctor must fit the cap. Proper fitting enhances the effectiveness above 91 percent.
  • Cervical sponges: The sponge, made of polyurethane foam, is moistened with water and inserted into the vagina prior to sex. It works as a barrier between sperm and the cervix, both trapping and absorbing sperm and releasing a spermicide to kill them. It can be left in for up to 24 hours at a time. When used correctly, the sponge is about 89-91 percent effective.

Many people are familiar with these barrier methods, and less familiar with natural family planning (NFP) tools, which a woman uses to track when she is ovulating, and then avoid sex during that time (or does so only using a back-up barrier method). Many women feel empowered by NFP because it allows them to get in touch with their fertility cycle.

Some of the most popular methods include:

  • Calendar Method: Abstention from sex during the week the woman is ovulating. This technique works best when a woman's menstrual cycle is very regular. The calendar method doesn't work very well for couples who use it by itself (about a 75 percent success rate), but it can be effective when combined with the temperature and mucus methods described below.
  • The Temperature Method: This is a way to pinpoint the day of ovulation so that sex can be avoided for a few days before and after. It involves taking your basal body temperature (your temperature upon first waking) each morning with an accurate "basal" thermometer, and noting the rise in temperature that occurs after ovulation.

    Illness or lack of sleep can change your body temperature and make this method unreliable by itself, but when it is combined with the mucus method, it can be an accurate way of assessing fertility. The two methods combined can have a success rate as high as 98 percent.
  • The Mucus Method: This involves tracking changes in the amount and texture of vaginal discharge, which reflect rising levels of estrogen in your body. For the first few days after your period, there is often no discharge, but there will be a cloudy, tacky mucus as estrogen starts to rise. When the discharge starts to increase in volume and becomes clear and stringy, ovulation is near. A return to the tacky, cloudy mucus or no discharge means that ovulation has passed.

I encourage you to become actively involved in fertility awareness, and embrace natural family planning or barrier methods that will not interfere with your hormones and health. Some excellent reading to get you started on this path include:

  1. The Ovulation Method: Natural Family Planning, by John J. Billings
  2. Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health, by Toni Weschler
  3. Honoring Our Cycles: A Natural Family Planning Workbook, by Katie Singer

References:



from Articles : Hormones, Heart Health https://ift.tt/2euHStK
via IFTTT
Twitter Facebook

00:22 , ,

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s been clear that not everyone is equally susceptible to the virus that causes it — SARS-CoV-2. Many factors influence your likelihood of getting sick if you’re exposed to a virus, including underlying health conditions and your overall lifestyle.

Blood type, however, is another factor that may be involved, as some research suggests your blood type may make you more prone to certain diseases, including COVID-19.1

Since blood type isn’t something you can change, it’s wise to focus primarily on those strategies you can influence to lower your risk, such as optimizing your vitamin D levels, eating right and optimizing your weight. That said, a study published in Blood Advances found a protein on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 — called the receptor binding domain (RBD) — had a strong preference for binding to blood group A found on respiratory cells.2

Blood Type Basics

Blood is categorized based on the type of antigen it contains. Antigens are proteins on red blood cells, and all humans have one of four blood types — A, B, AB or O. A third antigen, called Rh factor, will either be present or absent. If your blood has it, then you're Rh positive. If it doesn’t, you’re Rh negative.3

“When antigens come into contact with substances that are unfamiliar to your body, such as certain bacteria, they trigger a response from your immune system. The same type of response can occur during a blood transfusion if your donor’s blood type doesn’t match with yours. In that case, your blood cells could clump and cause potentially fatal complications,” Dr. Douglas Guggenheim explained to Penn Medicine.4

This is why, prior to 1901, without knowledge of these different antigens, blood transfusions were very dangerous. When different blood types were mixed during transfusion, it resulted in clumping of the blood and toxic reactions. On the surface of the red blood cell are one, two or no antigens. The four blood types are broken down as follows:5

  • Group A — only antigen A on the red cells (and B antibody in the plasma)
  • Group B — only antigen B on the red cells (and A antibody in the plasma)
  • Group AB — both antigens A and B on the red cells (but neither A nor B antibody in the plasma)
  • Group O — neither antigens A nor B on the red cells (but both A and B antibody are in the plasma)

Both the A/AB/B/O and Rh antigens are genetically passed from both parents to their children.

Are People With Type A Blood More at Risk of COVID-19?

Type O blood is the most common blood type while about 33% of Caucasians, 24% of African Americans, 27% of Asians and 29% of Latino Americans have type A+ blood. A- blood type is much rarer, found in only 7% of Caucasians and 2% or less of African Americans, Asians and Latino Americans.6

In the featured study, researchers tested how SARS-CoV-2 RBD interacted with respiratory and red blood cells in different blood types. They noted, “The RBD of SARS-CoV-2 shares sequence similarity with an ancient lectin family known to bind blood group antigens.”7 Their testing revealed that SARS-CoV-2 RBD preferentially recognized and attached to the blood type A antigen found in the lungs.

According to the study, “SARS-CoV-2 RBD binds the blood group A expressed on respiratory epithelial cells, directly linking blood group A and SARS-CoV-2.”8 While the study doesn’t definitively demonstrate that blood type A directly contributes to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the findings may provide some insight into why people with blood type A appear to have a greater risk of COVID-19 and infection with other coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV.9

Study author Dr. Sean Stowell of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School explained in a news release:10

"It is interesting that the viral RBD only really prefers the type of blood group A antigens that are on respiratory cells, which are presumably how the virus is entering most patients and infecting them.

Blood type is a challenge because it is inherited and not something we can change. But if we can better understand how the virus interacts with blood groups in people, we may be able to find new medicines or methods of prevention."

Blood Type as Significant Predictor of COVID-19 Risk

Genome-wide association studies identified that the locus responsible for blood type may be a significant genetic predictor of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.11 In fact, in an October 2020 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported, “We identified a 3p21.31 gene cluster as a genetic susceptibility locus in patients with COVID-19 with respiratory failure and confirmed a potential involvement of the ABO blood-group system.”12

In a study of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, China, women with blood type A were again found to have greater susceptibility to COVID-19.13 Similar results were confirmed using data from 14,112 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 with known blood type in the New York Presbyterian (NYP) hospital system.14

Non-O blood types were found to have a slightly increased risk of infection, while types AB and B had an increased risk of intubation, and type AB had an increased risk of death, compared to type O.

“We estimated Rh-negative blood type to have a protective effect for all three outcomes,” those researchers noted, adding, “Our results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting blood type may play a role in COVID-19.” A systematic review and meta-analysis, which analyzed 31,300 samples, also found a link, with blood type A having an increased risk of infection from COVID-19 and blood type O appearing to be less susceptible.15

A Danish study of more than 500,000 people also found that blood type O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection.16 The home-based genetic testing company 23andMe also released preliminary results from a study they conducted using the information of more than 750,000 people.17 Their early results suggest that a person's blood type has an influence on their susceptibility to the virus.

The company reported that the percentage who tested positive for COVID-19 by blood type was 4.1% for blood group AB.18 The differences reported in the study showed that those with type O had a 9% or 18% lower potential for testing positive for the virus when compared to those with blood types A, B or AB.19

In a separate study, researchers found that individuals with blood type O Rh positive had the best protection.20 Still, more research is needed to determine if blood type is a significant factor in COVID-19, as at least one study found no association between blood type and COVID-19 risk. Those researchers noted:21

“Given the large and prospective nature of our study and its strongly null results, we believe that important associations of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 with ABO groups are unlikely and will not be useful factors associated with disease susceptibility or severity on either an individual or population level for similar environments and ancestries.”

Blood Type Is Associated With Other Diseases

While blood type’s role in COVID-19 infection remains to be determined, blood type is known to play a role in other diseases, such as hepatitis B and dengue hemorrhagic fever.22 Even chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cognitive decline may be affected.

For instance, people with blood type B+ have a 35% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes compared to those with type O-.23 Those with blood types A and AB were also at increased risk compared to type O — AB+ had a 26% increased risk, A- a 22% increased risk and A+ a 17% increased risk.

As for why, it’s been suggested that blood type may influence endothelial or inflammation markers, as well as plasma soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and TNF receptor 2 (TNF-R2) levels, which have been associated with increased Type 2 diabetes risk.

It’s also possible that blood type is a genetically determined factor that influences the makeup of your intestinal microbiota, which in turn affects your metabolic health via energy balance, glucose metabolism and low-grade inflammation.24

As for cognitive impairment, those with blood type AB may be at increased risk,25 possibly due to its effects on alternative pathways such as the VIII-von Willebrand factor (vWF) complex. Two large cohort studies with more than 20 years of follow-up also found a link between blood type and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). According to the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology:26

“In the combined analysis adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, compared with participants with blood group O, those with blood groups A, B, or AB were more likely to develop CHD. Overall, 6.27% of the CHD cases were attributable to inheriting a non-O blood group.”

Proactive Steps You Can Take to Avoid Getting Sick

Whether or not blood type turns out to be a major player in COVID-19 infection risk, it’s not something you can control. There are, however, many other factors that you can control. If you’re obese, for instance, focusing on healthy weight loss may help to ward off viral illnesses, including COVID-19.

Nutrition-wise, I recommend adopting a cyclical ketogenic diet, which involves radically limiting carbs (replacing them with healthy fats and moderate amounts of protein) until you’re close to or at your ideal weight, ultimately allowing your body to burn fat — not carbohydrates — as its primary fuel.

This includes avoiding all ultraprocessed foods and also limiting added sugars to a maximum of 25 grams per day (15 grams a day If you're insulin-resistant or diabetic). KetoFasting, the program I developed and detail in my book, "KetoFast: A Step-By-Step Guide to Timing Your Ketogenic Meals," combines a cyclical ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting with cyclical partial fasting to optimize weight, health and longevity.

In addition, get regular exercise each week and increase physical movement throughout your waking hours, with the goal of sitting down less than three hours a day, while also getting sufficient sleep, optimizing your vitamin D levels and tending to your emotional health.

Chronic stress may increase your risk for visceral fat gain over time,27 which means addressing your stress levels is imperative for maintaining your ideal weight and lowering your risk of infection. Taking steps to lead a healthy lifestyle overall will have a snowball effect, bolstering your resilience against many types of infection and disease.



from Articles https://ift.tt/3tzGihf
via IFTTT
Twitter Facebook

00:22 , ,

While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.

These "vaccines" are so safe and so effective, according to this narrative, that keeping control groups intact for long-term study and comparison of outcomes is now being derided as "unethical," despite the fact that there is absolutely no non-fraudulent data to support their perverse assertions. Truly, what we're watching is the active destruction of basic medical science in a surreal dystopian nightmare. 

Vaccine Makers to Ditch Control Groups

Consider this report in JAMA by Rita Rubin, senior writer for JAMA medical news and perspectives, for example.2 According to Rubin, the launch of "two highly efficacious" COVID-19 vaccines has "spurred debate about the ethics, let alone the feasibility, of continuing or launching blinded, placebo-controlled trials …"

Rubin recounts how Moderna representatives told a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that rather than letting thousands of vaccine doses to go to waste, they planned to offer them to trial participants who had received placebo.

Pfizer representatives made a similar announcement to the advisory panel. According to a news analysis published in The BMJ,3 the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are both onboard with this plan, as is the World Health Organization.4

In the JAMA report by Rubin, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, is quoted saying he thinks "it's very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines" because trial participants "should be rewarded" for their participation.

All of these statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug or vaccine in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding is even a consideration at this point, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fraud that these vaccines are safe.

None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market are actually licensed. They only have emergency use authorization — which, incidentally, also forbids them from being mandated, although this is being widely and conveniently ignored — as trials are still ongoing.

At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies.5 This is why those in the military are allowed to refuse it, and refuse they have. Among Marines, the refusal rate is nearly 40%.6

So, before the initial studies are even completed, vaccine makers and regulatory agencies are now deciding to forgo long-term safety evaluations altogether by giving placebo recipients the real McCoy, and so-called bioethicists are actually supporting this madness. As reported in The BMJ:7

"Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded."

Hypocrisy Abounds

It's ironic in the extreme, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community supersedes the risk of individual harm. In other words, it's OK if some people are harmed by the vaccine because the overall benefit to society is more important.

Yet here they're saying that participants in the control groups are being harmed by not getting the vaccine, so therefore vaccine makers have an obligation to give it to them before the long-term studies are completed. This is the complete opposite argument used for mandatory vaccination.

If we are to accept the "greater good" justification for vaccination, then people who agree to participate in a study, and end up getting a placebo, need to roll the dice and potentially sacrifice their health "for the greater good." Here, the greater good is the study itself, the results of which are of crucial importance for public health decisions.

Without this data, we will never know whether the vaccines work in the long term and/or what their side effects are. If an individual in the control group gets COVID-19, then that's the price of scientific participation for the greater good of society, just as when a vaccinated person gets harmed, that's considered an acceptable price for creating vaccine-induced herd immunity.

Put another way, when it comes to mandating vaccines, harm to the individual is acceptable, but when it comes to doing proper safety studies, all of a sudden, harm to the individual is not acceptable, and protecting the controls is more important than protecting the integrity of the research. The fact that they're this inconsistent in their "ethics" could be viewed as proof positive that public health isn't even a remote concern.

Scientific Ethics Are Eroding

Apparently, concern about risk to the individual only matters when vaccine makers have everything to gain. By eliminating control groups, we'll have no way of really proving the harm that these "vaccines" might impart over time, as all participants will be in the same proverbial boat.

I remain confident that we'll continue to see many more health problems and deaths develop in time, but without control groups, these trends can more easily be written off as "normal" and/or blamed on something else. As noted by Dr. Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, who is quoted in Rubin's JAMA article:8

"By unblinding trial participants, 'you lose a valid comparison group,' Goodman said. 'There will be this sense, and it will be sort of true, that the study is over.' Unlike, say, a highly effective cancer drug, 'the vaccine is not literally a life-and-death issue today and tomorrow' for most trial participants, Goodman said.

So, he noted, those running COVID-19 vaccine trials shouldn't feel obligated to unblind participants and vaccinate placebo recipients right away. Doing so implies 'you can just blow up the trial' on the basis of promising preliminary results, establishing 'an ethical model for future trials that we maybe don't want to set,' Goodman said."

Indeed, this strategy will set a dangerous precedent that will probably lead to vaccine and drug studies being conducted without control groups in the future, which could spell the end of medical science as we know it. At bare minimum, future variations of the current COVID-19 vaccine trials are likely to be conducted without control groups.

Trial Participants Told Not to Unblind Themselves

Goodman is also quoted in another article,9 this one in MedPage Today, discussing the problems with trial participants unblinding themselves by taking an antibody test:

"'There is no good scientific reason for someone to do this,' he told MedPage Today. 'I can understand why they want that information, but it can only serve to diminish the value of the trial. Getting tested is not right unless there is a pressing need for unblinding for health reasons.'"

Here, yet another hypocritical irony arises, as the reason they don't want trial participants to unblind themselves is because if they know they got the vaccine, they're statistically more likely to take more risks that might expose them to the virus.

This, then, will skew the results and "could make the vaccine look less effective than it is," Dr. Elizabeth McNally of Northwestern University explained to MedPage Today.10 So, whether vaccine scientists agree with unblinding or not, unblinding really only has to do with whether it will skew results in their favor.

Trial participants unblinding themselves might make the vaccine appear less effective if they alter their behavior as a consequence, whereas vaccine makers unblinding the entire control group will allow them to hide side effects, even if participants alter their behavior.

Justification for Elimination of Controls Is Flimsy at Best

While pro-vaccine advocates insist the elimination of control groups is justified on the "moral grounds" that it's unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, this argument completely ignores the undeniable fact that no vaccine is 100% safe.

Getting the active vaccine comes with risk, not merely benefit. This is particularly true for the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines. Historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.

Reports of Side Effects and Deaths Are Piling Up

As reported by The Defender,11 as of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination! The youngest person to die was 18 years old. There were also 110 reports of miscarriage or premature birth among pregnant women.

As reported in "COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds," between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!

In my view, it's unconscionable and morally reprehensible to not take these data into account. Clearly, these "vaccines" have risks. Pretending like they don't, and that all placebo recipients in vaccine trials are at a distinct disadvantage simply isn't true.

Keep in mind that we still do not know the percentage of adverse effects being reported. Is it between 1%12 and 10%13 as past inquiries into VAERS reporting have shown, or is it higher?

If only 10% are reported, we may be looking at 23,420 deaths, but if it is as low as 1%, it jumps to more than 230,000 deaths. We will never know because there are major attempts to suppress this information, as we have already witnessed with the deaths of sport celebrities Hank Aaron and Marvin Hagler, both of whom died shortly after COVID vaccinations.

Regardless, it's hard to justify even a single death of an otherwise healthy individual, seeing how the survival rate for COVID-19 across all age groups is 99.74%. If you're younger than 40, your survival rate is 99.09%.14

There's every reason to suspect that these reports account for just a small percentage of actual side effects. Just think of all those who get the vaccine at grocery stores or temporary vaccination sites, for example. First of all, are all Americans even aware that VAERS exists and that they need to file a report if they suffer an adverse reaction post-COVID vaccination?

Who is going to file the adverse report if you get vaccinated in a grocery or convenience store? Will they return to the pharmacist and report their side effects? Will the pharmacist file the report? Who's responsible for filing the report if you go to a temporary vaccination site?

CDC Stays Mum on How It's Ensuring Reporting Compliance

According to the CDC, deaths from COVID-19 vaccines are required to be reported to VAERS.15 It's not supposed to be voluntary, as with other vaccines. However, it is not being transparent about how it is ensuring this "requirement" is being followed, so it's impossible to confirm that all related deaths are in fact being reported. As reported by The Defender:16

"We … inquired about whether healthcare providers are reporting all injuries and deaths that might be connected to the COVID vaccine, and what education initiatives are in place to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

Twenty-two days later a representative from the CDC's Vaccine Task Force responded by saying the agency had never received our questions — even though the employees we talked to several times said their press officers were working through the questions we sent. We provided the questions again and requested a response by April 7. To date, the CDC has not responded despite our repeated follow-up attempts."

Absolute Versus Relative Risk Reduction

Vaccine makers are also very careful about only referencing relative risk, not absolute risk. By doing so, the vaccines appear far more protective than they actually are. It's a commonly used statistical trick that I encourage you to familiarize yourself with.

For example, in his November 26, 2020, BMJ article,17 Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%!

I recommend listening to the interview with Dr. Ron Brown above, in which he explains the ins and outs of relative and absolute risks, and the differences between them. He's also written two papers detailing the problems with this kind of reporting bias: "Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials"18 and "Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation."19

You Likely Don't Need a Vaccine

If you're concerned about vaccine side effects, please understand there are several prevention strategies and treatments readily available that have been shown to be highly effective, which means the need for a vaccine in the first place is nearly moot.

For example, nebulized hydrogen peroxide with iodine, which I've written about in previous articles, works very well. For a refresher, see "How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections." Other treatments include hydroxychloroquine with zinc, ivermectin and the iMASK and MATH+ protocols, which you can learn more about in the linked articles.

What to Do if You Got the Vaccine and Are Having Problems

In closing, if you got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you'd use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection.

I've written many articles over the past year detailing simple strategies to improve your immune system, and with a healthy immune system, you'll get through COVID-19 without incident. Below, I'll summarize some of the strategies you can use both to prevent COVID-19 and address any side effects you may encounter from the vaccine.

• Eat a "clean," ideally organic diet. Avoid processed foods of all kinds, especially vegetable oils, as they are loaded with damaging omega-6 linoleic acid that wrecks your mitochondrial function. Linoleic acid has been shown to increase mortality from COVID-19.

• Consider nutritional ketosis and a time-restricted eating window of six to eight hours with no food at least three hours before bed. These strategies will help you optimize your metabolic machinery and mitochondrial function.

• Implement a detoxification program to get rid of heavy metals and glyphosate. This is important as these toxins contribute to inflammation. To improve detoxification, I recommend activating your natural glutathione production with molecular hydrogen tablets.

A simple way to block glyphosate uptake is to take glycine. Approximately 3 grams, about half a teaspoon, a few times a day should be sufficient, along with an organic diet, so that you're not adding more glyphosate with each meal.

• Maintain a neutral pH to improve the resiliency of your immune system. You want your pH to be right around 7, which you can measure with an inexpensive urine strip. The lower your pH, the more acidic you are. A simple way to raise your pH if it's too acidic (and most people are) is to take one-fourth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or potassium bicarbonate in water a few times a day.

Nutritional supplementation can also be helpful. Among the most important are:

Vitamin D — Vitamin D supplements are readily available and one of the least expensive supplements on the market. All things considered, vitamin D optimization is likely the easiest and most beneficial strategy that anyone can do to minimize their risk of COVID-19 and other infections, and can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — NAC is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,20 glutathione deficiency may actually be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

Zinc — Zinc plays a very important role in your immune system's ability to ward off viral infections. Like vitamin D, zinc helps regulate your immune function21 — and a combination of zinc with a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin, was in 2010 shown to inhibit SARS coronavirus in vitro. In cell culture, it also blocked viral replication within minutes.22 Importantly, zinc deficiency has been shown to impair immune function.23

Melatonin — This boosts immune function in a variety of ways and helps quell inflammation. Melatonin may also prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection by recharging glutathione24 and enhancing vitamin D synthesis, among other things.

Vitamin C — A number of studies have shown vitamin C can be very helpful in the treatment of viral illnesses, sepsis and ARDS,25 all of which are applicable to COVID-19. Its basic properties include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, antithrombotic and antiviral activities. At high doses, it actually acts as an antiviral drug, actively inactivating viruses. Vitamin C also works synergistically with quercetin.26

Quercetin — A powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral, quercetin was initially found to provide broad-spectrum protection against SARS coronavirus in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic,27,28,29 and evidence suggests it may be useful for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as well.

B vitamins — B vitamins can also influence several COVID-19-specific disease processes, including30 viral replication and invasion, cytokine storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.

Type 1 interferon — Type 1 interferon prevents viral replication and helps degrade the RNA. It's available in spray form that you can spray directly into your throat or nose. You can try taking a couple of sprays per day prophylactically, and more if you have a cough, fever or headache.

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

Last but not least, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, report it. The Children's Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:31

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website


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

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

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