Health & Fitness

“Where did the deadly virus that shut down the world come from?” Liz Hayes asks in an April 14, 2021, episode of “60 Minutes Australia: Under Investigation.”¹ “It’s one of the greatest mysteries we’ve ever faced.”

Did it evolve in a bat-infested copper mine in Mojiang, in the southwest of China? Six miners who worked there were infected back in 2012, and three died of a disease near-identical to that of COVID-19.

The so-called “Mojiang miners passage theory”^2,3 proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — RaTG13, a virus collected from that same mine — sickened the miners, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2.

Testing of RaTG13 when it was first discovered revealed the infection suffered by the miners had been caused by a SARS-like coronavirus from horseshoe bats.

One of the miners spent five months in the hospital before finally succumbing to the infection. This, it is believed, is sufficiently long for the virus to have mutated into SARS-CoV-2, a virus that is 96% identical, genetically, to RaTG13.

Samples from the mine and four of the hospitalized miners were all sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in 2012, from where the virus may then have escaped in late 2019.

Lab Origin Cannot Be Excluded

According to U.S. deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger,^4,5 “There is a growing body of evidence that the lab is likely the most credible source” of SARS-CoV-2.

David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, has also gone on record saying the data they collected “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic.”⁶

“Under Investigation’s” roundtable of experts includes Nikolai Petrovsky, professor of endocrinology at Flinders University College of Medicine in Adelaide, Australia. He too insists “we cannot exclude a laboratory origin for the virus,” and his own research forms the basis for this opinion.

His team has sought to identify a way by which animals might have co-mingled to give rise to SARS-CoV-2, ultimately concluding that it could not be a naturally-occurring virus. Petrovsky has previously stated it appears far more likely that the virus was created in a laboratory, without the use of genetic engineering, by growing it in different kinds of animal cells.⁷

To adapt the virus to humans, it would have been grown in cells that have the human ACE2 receptor. Over time, the virus would then adapt and eventually gain the ability to bind to the human receptor.

“Under Investigation” also features Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and virologist, who developed the “Mojiang miners passage theory.”^8,9 “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” features my July 2020 interview with him, in which he reviews this and other theories.

Pure Conspiracy Theory?

Professor of microbiology Robert Garry, of Tulane Medical School in New Orleans, meanwhile dismisses the theory that scientists would be covering up the origin of the virus as “pure conspiracy.”

While he agrees that the WIV housed RaTG13 and has been working extensively with this and other bat coronaviruses, he believes it is impossible for RaTG13 to have mutated into SARS-CoV-2, either in the lab or inside the sick miners. “That would take about 50 years of natural evolution,” he tells Hayes. Latham responds to this kind of critique saying:

“The way to think about this is to say, if all the evidence that was in favor of a lab escape was in favor of natural origin, or the evidence in favor of natural origin was on the side of a lab escape, there would be no disagreement about it and what happened here.”

As noted by Petrovsky, we know one thing: SARS-CoV-2 has a bat origin. The question is, how did it develop the ability to infect humans? Here there are several options. It may have mutated through one or more intermediary species. The problem is there is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in any other species.

Gain-of-Function Research May Have Been Used

Shi Zheng-Li, Ph.D., also known as “the bat woman,” due to her extensive work with bat viruses and bat-related diseases, heads up the biosecurity level 4 laboratory in Wuhan. She is known to have studied the RaTG13 virus. What’s more, the WIV is known to have conducted gain-of-function research, in which pathogens are manipulated to increase their infectivity and/or pathogenicity.

In other words, pathogens are purposely altered to make them more dangerous. This is the entire premise of biowarfare, and why I believe gain-of-function research must be banned worldwide, regardless of how it’s done.

As explained by professor Raina Macintyre,¹⁰ an epidemiologist and professor of global biosecurity at New South Wales University, there are several ways in which a virus can be genetically manipulated in the lab.

One well-established technique involves repeatedly passing the virus through a live animal host. In other words, you infect the animal over and over again until the virus develops the ability to infect and affect that animal. “You’re basically speeding up nature,” Macintyre tells Hayes. “You’re speeding up evolution by hundreds of thousands of years.”

As noted by human rights lawyer Jason Yat-Sen Li, by purposely engineering viruses to infect humans when they cannot do so naturally, we could inadvertently unleash a pandemic that wipes out mankind. “I find it shocking,” he tells “Under Investigation.” He, like I and many others, feels this kind of research simply should not be done, as the potential risks are extraordinary.

US Circumvented Gain-of-Function Moratorium

Interestingly, as Petrovsky points out, during the few years that gain-of-function research was temporarily banned in the U.S., that research was moved to the WIV.

What’s more, after the U.S. moratorium was lifted in 2017, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight, or P3CO Review Framework, was created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), to evaluate whether grants for gain-of-function research were worth the risks, and to ensure proper safeguards are in place before the research gets the green light.¹¹

According to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, a National Institutes of Health grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) failed to flag it for review.¹² In other words, the WIV received federal funding for what Ebright insists is gain-of-function research from the NIAID without it first passing review by the HHS review board.

World Health Organization Botched Investigation

Hayes interviews Dominic Dwyer, a professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Sydney, Australia, who visited the WIV as part of the investigative team put together by China and the World Health Organization. At the time, Dwyer believed investigating the WIV as a source of the virus “was definitely part of their mission,” and that the laboratory leak hypothesis was a “very reasonable” one, “because it has happened before.”

If the virus came from the lab, additional questions arise. Did it simply escape? Or was more sinister research being conducted and the virus released on purpose?

Dwyer stressed that a successful investigation would require full cooperation of the Chinese. As it turns out, the investigation was not an entirely successful one. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest it was yet another attempt at a cover up. The team — members of which were approved by Chinese authorities — did not have unfettered access to WIV data but, rather, had to rely on whatever their Chinese counterparts gave them.

February 9, 2021, the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, announced the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak, and that the lab-escape theory would no longer be part of the team’s investigation.

Instead, they would be focusing their attention on the theory that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China, where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or from overseas.^13,14 

According to Embarek, the officials at WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. Clearly, that line of reasoning hardly passes the smell test. As noted by GM Watch, it “defies common sense: Suspects in an investigation should clearly not be treated as ‘the best ones’ to dismiss any possible charges against them.”¹⁵

Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”¹⁶ Yet this is another entirely unconvincing argument.

According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,^17,18 and a Beijing virology lab accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.¹⁹ Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.²⁰

WHO Backtracks After Backlash

Many experts condemned the WHO’s inquiry as a sham and a political stunt to exonerate the Chinese government.²¹ Two dozen scientists and policy experts signed an open letter²² calling for a truly independent and transparent investigation into the virus’ origin,²³ listing a number of flaws in the joint WHO-China inquiry, including the universal absence of evidence demonstrating a wholly natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Within days, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus walked back the team’s outright dismissal saying “I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study.”^24,25 Perhaps he realized the WHO was about to make a public relations mistake so severe it would never recover.

Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders have since joined the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”

According to Ghebreyesus, the team “did not conduct an ‘extensive enough’ assessment of the possibility the virus was introduced to humans through a laboratory incident,” which will therefore necessitate additional studies with “more timely and comprehensive data sharing.”²⁶

Did Initial Cover-Up Result in a Pandemic?

As noted by Hayes, many Western countries believe China not only has covered up the origin of the pandemic, but downplayed its seriousness as well. Witnesses in China claim they knew the virus spread from person to person, yet Chinese authorities initially said human to human transmission was unlikely and that cases were very limited.

Chinese doctors have also stated they were ordered to lie about how quickly and easily the virus was spreading. Chinese authorities also allowed well-attended New Year’s celebrations to proceed, despite the obvious health risks.

Professor Chen Hong, director of Australian studies at East China Normal University in Hong Kong, defends the Chinese government, telling Hayes such blame must be placed on local officials, not the CCP. They, like everyone else, were caught by surprise and didn’t know what they were dealing with, he says.

However, according to former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s coronavirus task force, Asher, three workers at the WIV who worked with the RatG13 coronavirus appear to have actually been the first cluster of cases of COVID-19. They fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 as early as October 2019, two months before the first words about the virus were uttered publicly. At least one of the workers required hospitalization.

Is Gain-of-Function Research Justifiable?

Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. If gain-of-function research was in fact involved, we need to know, so that steps can either be taken to prevent another leak (which is not likely possible) or to dismantle and ban such research altogether for the common good.

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if weaponized pathogens are released, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by accident or on purpose. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.^27,28,29,30

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.

Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none has turned into pandemics taking the lives of tens of millions, as was predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seeing how scientists have already figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, as detailed in “Lab Just Made a More Dangerous COVID Virus,” having a frank, open discussion about the scientific merits of this kind of work is more pertinent than ever before.

from Articles https://ift.tt/33nt4Zz
via IFTTT

Moringa is a tree native to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.¹ There are several different species, but the most common and widely consumed is Moringa oleifera. This is sometimes referred to as “the miracle tree.” It is also called the “tree of life,” “mother's milk,” “drumstick tree” or “horseradish tree.”

The tree is fast-growing, drought resistant and can reach 40 feet in height. Nearly every part of the plant is edible and has medicinal qualities. However, it is the pods, leaves, flowers and bark that are most frequently used.² It is valued in Ayurvedic therapy for a range of uses including for its anti-inflammatory, antifungal, antiviral and antidepressant properties.³

The bark is thick and white-colored and the leaves are long and oval-shaped. The tree has been used since ancient times, valued by the Greeks and Egyptians. Currently, several humanitarian organizations are encouraging growth in rural communities to help combat malnutrition.

The plants grow so quickly that within six months of planting a cutting, the first harvest can be taken. By the second year, one tree can produce nearly 300 seed pods that might be parboiled and added to curry or roasted and eaten like nuts.⁴

Moringa tea can be made from dried leaves, seeds or flowers, but dried leaves are the most popular.⁵ While Moringa tea is frequently consumed in India, only recently have the benefits of the tea reached the Western world. About 1 teaspoon of dried loose-leaf tea is used in 1 cup of freshly heated pure (not distilled or flavored) water. For added health benefits and a different flavor, try blending it with some green tea.

Unique Glucosinolate Found in Moringa

Other health benefits from Moringa plants are the unique glucosinolates that are not found anywhere else. A glucosinolate is an inert sulfur-containing phytochemical that is most notably found in cruciferous vegetables like Brussels sprouts, broccoli and cabbage.

According to one paper in Scientific Reports,⁶ Moringa contains not only high-levels of glucosinolates, but a unique formulation that is responsible for many of its medicinal properties. When glucosinolates are metabolized by an enzyme called myrosinase they produce a bioactive isothiocyanate compound.⁷

The isothiocyanate found in broccoli and many other cruciferous vegetables is sulforaphane.⁸ However, the unique glucosinolate (glucomoringin) found in the Moringa plant is metabolized to moringin.⁹

Researchers recently discovered a new glucosinolate in wild forms of Moringa oleifera called 4-(-L-glucopyranosyloxy)benzyl GS (4GBGS).¹⁰ Domestic forms of Moringa oleifera grown for human consumption had some levels of 4GBGS, but in much lower concentrations.

The researchers speculate that this may be due to breeding the plant to reduce the naturally bitter taste. Since glucosinolates contain sulfur, they have a distinct, sometimes off-putting flavor. In addition to glucomoringin and 4GBGS, Moringa oleifera also contains at least 10 other glucosinolates that work together to provide many of the health benefits of the plant.

According to Jed Fahey, a nutritional biochemist from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the overall nutritive value of the Moringa tree has led to widespread use to reduce the burden of undernutrition. In 2009, he wrote:¹¹

“However, scientifically robust trials testing its efficacy for undernourished human beings have not yet been reported. If the wealth of anecdotal evidence (not cited herein) can be supported by robust clinical evidence, countries with a high prevalence of under-nutrition might have at their fingertips, a sustainable solution to some of their nutritional challenges.”

Since then human and animal studies have begun to reveal some of the health benefits that have been enjoyed by traditional medicine practitioners for hundreds of years, including improving iron levels in lactating women,¹² reducing malnutrition in children¹³ and impacting malarial infection and reducing malnutrition in mice.¹⁴

Seven Benefits From Drinking Moringa Tea

Many of the benefits associated with drinking Moringa tea are likely the result of the nutritional profile, including the unique glucosinolates discussed above. Additionally, the plant is rich in vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids, which are protein building blocks.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,¹⁵ 100 grams of the pods contain 45 milligrams (mg) of magnesium, 15 mg of phosphorus and 461 mg of potassium. They are also rich in zinc, vitamin C, folate and vitamin A.

Drinking Moringa tea is a satisfying and relaxing way of ingesting many of the health benefits associated with the Moringa tree. If you'd like to try a different flavor, try adding cinnamon or lemon basil to your drink. Seven of the potential health benefits of adding Moringa tea to your routine include:¹⁶

Reduces arsenic toxicity — A review of the literature17 revealed M. oleifera may be useful in people with chronic hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and dyslipidemia. Chronic exposure to arsenic in contaminated drinking water or food is associated with an increased risk of high blood sugar and cardiovascular disease.18 Long-term exposure to arsenic can lead to several types of cancers and can contribute to the development of neurological, lung and kidney diseases.19 Animal studies also show the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of Moringa help reduce these long-term risks.20,21

Helps control blood sugar — One animal study22 demonstrated Moringa could reduce blood sugar by up to 29.9% in normal subjects, up to 32.8% in mildly diabetic subjects and 69.2% in severely diabetic subjects.

Supports cardiovascular health — Animal studies show Moringa helps normalize elevated levels of blood sugar, cholesterol and triglycerides in diabetic subjects.23 Cardiovascular disease is a significant complication associated with a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes.24 Moringa may also help reduce the formation of plaques in the blood vessels.25

Offers possible anticancer effects — Moringa has a cytotoxic effect on breast,26 colorectal27 and prostate cancers.28 It may also be a potential adjunctive treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia,29 which is one of the most common conditions in men as they age.30

Supports brain health — In an animal model Moringa helped alleviate the effects of homocysteine on the brain in the development of Alzheimer’s disease31 and mitigated memory impairment in age-related dementia.32

Prevents chronic disease — Moringa tea is rich in phytochemicals, including tannins, saponin and polyphenols.33 These compounds play a role in resisting the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), high blood pressure, cancer and overall inflammation.

Supports male reproductive health — Animal studies have suggested that Moringa has a beneficial effect on male reproduction, including libido34 and fertility.35 However, the same is not true for females who in one study36 experienced negative fertility effects from supplementation.

Plant Protein With All Essential Amino Acids

Moringa is also a source of high-quality amino acids. These are the building blocks of protein, which are used in a variety of functions. There are 20 different amino acids that have been identified and are classified as either nonessential or essential. Your body can make the nonessential amino acids, but needs to get the essential amino acids from food.

There are not a lot of plant foods that contain all the essential amino acids, but Moringa is one. According to the African Journal of Biotechnology,³⁷ the plant has 19 amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids.

Each of these have important biological roles including helping to stabilize blood sugar,³⁸ used in the production of collagen,³⁹ necessary in the production of red and white blood cells,⁴⁰ and playing a role in memory formation and nervous system function.⁴¹

Antibiotic and Anti-Inflammatory Activity

Biological effects of Moringa extend to having potent antibiotic properties against a variety of pathogens including Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Candida and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).⁴² Specifically the isothiocyanate 4-α-L-rhamnopyranosyloxy)benzyl isothiocyanate (4RBITC) is a potent antibiotic against H. pylori, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans.

The anti-inflammatory effects from Moringa may also help protect your skin from pollution. Moringa leaves are rich in antioxidants that contribute to healthy skin as well as sulfur,⁴³ which is a key ingredient in the production of collagen and keratin.

Moringa oil, pressed from the seeds of the tree, keeps for years without turning rancid and is easily absorbed into the skin.⁴⁴ Although the product has not gained widespread popularity, there is evidence that it helps reduce wrinkles.⁴⁵ The oil is also naturally moisturizing and nourishing.⁴⁶

Use Caution When Ingesting Moringa

It is important to remember that certain plants like Moringa are bioactive and may interfere with medications or supplements you're taking. The leaves are considered generally to be safe and edible, but there is slight controversy about the roots and stems.

The information about using Moringa before or during pregnancy, or while nursing, is also unclear.^47,48 Until there is more evidence that Moringa is safe during pregnancy, women who are pregnant or who want to become pregnant should not use it.

Early studies⁴⁹ have also demonstrated there's an immunosuppressive effect from the seeds or extracts that contain the roots and seeds. The plants can also have a mild laxative effect.

Since Moringa has an effect on blood sugar, inflammatory response and may interact with other medications, it's important to first check with your pharmacist, inform your holistic physician of the addition and monitor your blood sugar frequently if you are a diabetic.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3uu0Gkc
via IFTTT

Researchers have engineered a nanoparticle that has the potential to revolutionize disease treatment, including for cancer.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3o21NVR

A study designed to enroll an equal number of Black and white men with advanced prostate cancer confirms key findings that have been evident in retrospective analyses and suggest potential new avenues for treating Black patients who disproportionately die of the disease.

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

Researchers used microscopy and machine learning to distinguish tau protein aggregates occurring as part of healthy functions from those occurring in disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3vJo1i2

Among younger adults visiting the emergency department for chest pain, women may be getting the short end of the stick. Compared with men of similar age, women were triaged less urgently, waited longer to be seen, and were less likely to undergo basic tests or be hospitalized or admitted for observation to diagnose a heart attack, according to new research.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3y3APC7

Young and middle-aged adults who reported severe psychological distress -- such as depression or anxiety -- after suffering a heart attack were more than twice as likely to suffer a second cardiac event within five years compared with those experiencing only mild distress, according to a new study.

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

Moderate alcohol intake -- defined as no more than one alcoholic drink for women and two for men per day -- has been associated with a lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease when compared with individuals who abstain from drinking or partake in excessive drinking, according to a new study.

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

Nearly 1 in 5 adults with high blood pressure, a leading risk factor for heart disease and stroke, also take a medicine that could be elevating their blood pressure, according to new research. The results underscore the need for patients to routinely review all of the medications they take with their care team, including those available over the counter, to make sure none could be interfering with blood pressure lowering efforts.

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

Researchers have discovered previously unknown non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) involved in regulating the gene expression of vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), the master regulators of angiogenesis.

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

To make drugs and their development safer for children, researchers have developed a method that could help determine safe drug doses more quickly. In their study, the team created a model of how organs develop that is more data-driven and consequently less prone to bias.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3vOMK4v

Through a unique combination of computer simulations and laboratory experiments, researchers have discovered new binding sites for active agents - against cancer, for example - on a vital protein of the cell cytoskeleton. Eleven of the sites hadn't been known before.

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

Humans are exposed to a variety of toxins and chemicals every day. According to the epithelial barrier hypothesis, exposure to many of these substances damages the epithelium, the thin layer of cells that covers the surface of our skin, lungs and intestine. Defective epithelial barriers have been linked to a rise in almost two billion allergic, autoimmune, neurodegenerative and psychiatric diseases.

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

By discovering a potential new cellular mechanism for migraines, researchers may have also found a new way to treat chronic migraine.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2QUFK7G

Researchers have created a probe that glows when it detects an enzyme associated with issues that can lead to blood clots and strokes.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3f3Kpfu

A protein called Sir2 may facilitate C. albicans' transition from ovoid yeast to thread-like hypha. C. albicans cells that were missing the Sir2 gene were less likely to form true hyphae in lab experiments than cells of the same species that had that gene.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2R4xbaj

Proteins perform a vast array of functions in the cell of every living organism with critical roles in biological processes. There are numerous chemical switches that control the structure and the function of proteins, which were thought to be well understood: so a team of researchers were surprised to discover a completely new on/off switch that seems to be a ubiquitous regulatory element in proteins in all domains of life.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3eujI4C

A premature start in life can cause problems even into teenage years. A study indicates that training motor skills in these children helps even when they are older.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3esL7E4

To understand the effect of sleep seizures, researchers monitored the brain and heart activity of people with epilepsy as they slept.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3f2I9oC

After a year of questionable advice on masking, ranging from head-scratching and mildly amusing to outright laughable — such as Spain mandating use of face masks while swimming in the ocean — health experts who counter the prevailing narrative on universal masking are finally getting some airtime in the mainstream media.

In an April 22, 2021, article in The New York Times,¹ Tara Parker-Pope cites several doctors and virologists who advise against universal mask wearing outdoors.

Health Experts Weigh in on Outdoor Mask Wearing

Among them is Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech and an expert on viral transmission mechanics, who notes that brief outdoor encounters, such as walking past someone on a sidewalk or hiking trail, present a "very low risk" for transmission.

"Viral particles quickly disperse in outdoor air, and the risk of inhaling aerosolized virus from a jogger or passers-by is negligible," Marr told Parker-Pope.² "Even if a person coughs or sneezes outside as you walk by, the odds of you getting a large enough dose of virus to become infected remain low."

Similarly, Dr. Muge Cevic, a clinical lecturer of infectious disease and medical virology at the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine in Scotland, is quoted saying:³

"I think it's a bit too much to ask people to put the mask on when they go out for a walk or jogging or cycling. We're in a different stage of the pandemic. I think outdoor masks should not have been mandated at all. It's not where the infection and transmission occurs."

Parker-Pope also quotes Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious diseases physician and medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston Medical Center:⁴

"Let me go for my run, maskless … Given how conservative I have been on my opinions all year, this should tell you how low [the] risk is, in general, for outdoors transmission for contact over short periods …"

Vaccinated or Not, Masks Don't Work

Of course, most all of the doctors quoted in The New York Times article make the claim that vaccination lowers your risk of COVID-19, thus you can be more lenient when around other vaccinated individuals. I've written many articles explaining why this narrative is nonsensical and just flat out wrong.

In a nutshell, it makes no sense because all COVID-19 "vaccines" are designed to do is reduce your symptoms if or when you get infected. They are not designed to prevent infection, they do not give you immunity against SARS-CoV-2, and they do not prevent transmission, so you can still spread the virus to others if you get infected.

All of this means you present the same "risk" to others whether you're vaccinated or not. And, to be clear, if you have no symptoms of respiratory infection, the health risk you pose to others is virtually nonexistent.⁵ You simply cannot spread an infection you do not have.

The minuscule bits of viral RNA that the PCR test can pick up if run through too many augmentation cycles — thereby rendering a false positive result — are not infectious. You need a whole, and live, virus for that.

CDC Grants Special Permission to Fully Vaccinated

Despite science being rather clear on these points, at the end of April 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eased its outdoor mask guidelines for vaccinated-only.

If you've gotten all of the required doses of the COVID-19 "vaccine," you no longer need to wear a mask outdoors when in small groups or when exercising. Masks are still recommended when in crowded outdoor venues, though, such as sports stadiums. According to another New York Times article:⁶

"President Biden hailed it as a landmark moment in the pandemic, wearing a mask as he approached the lectern on a warm spring day on the White House grounds — and pointedly keeping it off as he walked back into the White House when he was done. 'Go get the shot. It's never been easier,' Mr. Biden said. 'And once you're fully vaccinated, you can go without a mask when you're outside and away from big crowds.'"

Researchers Set the Record Straight

Breaking with The New York Times' typical propaganda, Parker-Pope actually goes on to cite research⁷ published in February 2021 in the Environmental Research journal:

"To understand just how low the risk of outdoor transmission is, researchers in Italy used mathematical models to calculate the amount of time it would take for a person to become infected outdoors in Milan.

They imagined a grim scenario in which 10% of the population was infected with the coronavirus. Their calculations showed that if a person avoided crowds, it would take, on average, 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure to inhale a dose of virus sufficient to transmit infection.

'The results are that this risk is negligible in outdoor air if crowds and direct contact among people are avoided,' said Daniele Contini, senior author of the study and an aerosol scientist at the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate in Lecce, Italy.

Even as more-infectious virus variants circulate, the physics of viral transmission outdoors haven't changed, and the risk of getting infected outdoors is still low, say virus experts."

Other research⁸ has shown your odds of transmitting COVID-19 are 18.7 times greater indoors than in an open-air environment. Several investigations looking at SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in air have also come up empty, including air samplings done in various locations in Wuhan,^9,10 China, Venice in northern Italy, and Lecce in southern Italy.¹¹ 

The Problems We Ignore When Mandating Masks

Aside from all the research demonstrating that mask wearing is an ineffective and largely pointless strategy against respiratory viruses — which I've detailed in several articles, including "More Evidence Masks Don't Work to Prevent COVID-19," "Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good" and "Landmark Study Finds Masks Are Ineffective" — there's the issue of potential adverse effects.

This part of the equation has been roundly ignored since the very beginning, even though there are both environmental drawbacks to universal mask use and individual health hazards, including the following:¹²

Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions may be at risk of a medical emergency if wearing a face mask. This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks, breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease, fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.

Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).

They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. Germany's first registry13,14 recording the effects mask wearing has on children, has identified 24 physical, psychological and behavioral health issues associated with wearing masks. Recorded symptoms include: "… irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%)." Of the 25,930 children included in the registry, 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play. Hundreds more experienced "accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness."

Wearing a face mask increases your body temperature and physical stress, which could result in an elevated temperature reading that is not related to infection.

All face masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections in the user as warm, moist air accumulates inside the mask. This is the perfect breeding ground for pathogens. This is why disposable medical masks were designed for short-duration, specific-task use only, after which they are supposed to be discarded. Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face,15 "mask mouth" (symptoms of which include bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections16 are all on the rise. A study17,18 published in the February 2021 issue of the journal Cancer Discovery also found that the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung cancer pathogenesis and can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer. The same types of bacteria, primarily Veillonella, Prevotella, and Streptococcus bacteria, can also be cultivated through prolonged mask wearing.19

With extended use, medical masks will begin to break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study20 being published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Mask mandates also represent another erosion of freedom, and normalizes the false notion that people are sick unless proven healthy, and that it's acceptable to be forced to cover your face just to go about your daily life, even when you're outdoors.

The public narrative is building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, such that some are now fearful of people who aren't masked or those who choose not to get vaccinated. With societal norms rapidly changing, and an increasingly authoritative environment emerging, it raises the question of whether or not the public will continue to blindly obey, no matter the consequences.

The Only Type of Mask That Is Safe and Effective

To provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately protect against larger particles.

Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, do not filter out anything. They are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose an infection risk.²¹ After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.

Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective, but also particularly dangerous as they're not engineered for effective purging of exhaled carbon dioxide, making them wholly unsuitable for use.

The only type of mask that is actually safe and effective to wear is the gas mask kind of respirator you'd use to protect yourself against painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust. These respirators are built to filter the air you breathe in, and to get rid of the carbon dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring there's no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen inside the mask.

Where Are the Data Supporting Mask Mandates?

While there are a lot of data and science showing that masks are ineffective against viral transmission and that mandates do nothing to protect public health, government spokespeople simply continue spouting the propaganda narrative that mask wearing saves lives. "Listen to the experts; follow the science," they say. Yet they have yet to produce a single credible piece of scientific support for universal mask wearing.

Where are the data showing that masks work? Where are the data showing it lowers infection and hospitalization rates? Where is the evidence that mask mandates have had any positive influence at all on the COVID-19 pandemic during these past 14 months? We ought to have a mountain of data to support it by now.

I suspect the reason we don't have massive studies filled with global data showing that mask mandates were a breakthrough success is because they either had no impact, or made matters worse. Case in point: "Texas, Mississippi See Lowest COVID Cases in Almost a Year 1 Month After Lifting Mask Mandate," Newsweek reported in an April 6, 2021, article.²²

Yes, ironically, despite fears that lifting mask mandates would result in hospitals overflowing with COVID-19 cases, the opposite actually happened. Both Texas and Mississippi are now, four weeks later, reporting their lowest case and COVID-related mortality numbers since May 2020. 

North Dakota Aims to Secure Freedom From Mask Mandates

A special ray of hope shines in North Dakota, where the House of Representatives has approved a bill (H.B.1323) that would actually ban schools, businesses and local governments from making face masks a requirement for service. The bill, which passed 50 to 44 at the end of February 2021, is now being reviewed by the Senate.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeff Hoverson, characterized the state's mask mandate, imposed in November 2020, as "diabolical silliness."²³ He told the Prairie Public Press he'd received "a lot of emails" from constituents opposed to mask mandates, adding:²⁴

"They do not want North Dakota to get sucked into what is becoming obvious. The mask is a part of a larger apparatus of a movement of unelected, wealthy bureaucrats, who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies." 

Yes. That about sums it up.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3us3Eps
via IFTTT

In April 2021, Spotify removed my Take Control of Your Health podcast, citing their rules about “prohibited content.”¹ The takedown notification stated my podcast was in violation of their content policies, which include a prohibition of infringing content, illegal content and hate content, none of which apply, but the entire channel was taken down anyway, without recourse.

It’s ironic that, in May 2020, Joe Rogan signed an exclusivity contract with Spotify for his Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, which caused shares of Spotify to jump more than 10%.² Rogan received $100 million for the deal; however, he said the move away from YouTube was intentional to fight back against their censorship — and particularly YouTube's decision to block differing opinions on COVID-19, as he wanted to interview a variety of doctors and experts about it.

Spotify is now doing the same thing. My interviews about coronavirus with Brian Hoyer and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., for instance, were removed in 2020, so it’s clearly not a platform for free expression, nor is it living up to Rogan's expectation of nonbias. Spotify is, in fact, slowly eating away at Rogan’s valuable library that they paid heftily for; as of April 13, 2021, 42 episodes had been quietly removed.³

In the current climate, if you are not compliant about blindly promoting mandatory vaccinations and their safety, you will be silenced. Again, Spotify removed my entire channel, including such “infringing, illegal and hate” related topics as the health benefits of gratitude and benefits of magnesium.

Past Arbitration With Spotify Was Useless

In the past, my team challenged Spotify in arbitration after they removed a couple of my episodes, including one on the topic of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). They made specific statements about why certain content could be removed, and the episodes did not fall under any of those categories.

The judge at arbitration, however, said Spotify’s terms of service allowed them to remove anything, for any reason, so there was nothing we could do. We may have been one of the only ones in history to have challenged Spotify on arbitration, as they’ve since updated their terms of service and changed arbitration so that it must take place in New York.

They’ve changed all their policy on this and have continued to blatantly censor content with no explanation other than a vague “violation” of their terms of service. This really has more to do with external forces than anything related to the content itself.

Digital dictatorship is escalating, and people are increasingly being conditioned to think it’s not only necessary for “misinformation” to be removed but that it’s the obligation of these essential information carriers to do so.

Spotify, a Swedish audio streaming and media services provider, and others like it are essentially monopolies, acting as carriers of information; everything is essentially imported, but it’s not a given that you’ll have access to it all. Instead, these companies can go after any type of information.

Whether it’s in written or spoken form like a podcast, it won’t matter if it’s considered to be noncompliant — something that’s important to consider in terms of how this will play out for the freedom of speech.

Where Is the ACLU Today?

In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a nonprofit founded in 1920 to act as the nation’s guardian of liberty,⁴ was adamant that social media giants like Facebook shouldn’t censor speech, even if it’s considered offensive.⁵

At the time, Facebook had announced a policy to remove misinformation that contributes to violence, but refused to censor all offensive speech. Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote:

“Given Facebook’s nearly unparalleled status as a forum for political speech and debate, it should not take down anything but unlawful speech, like incitement to violence. Otherwise, in attempting to apply more amorphous concepts not already defined in law, Facebook will often get it wrong.

Given the enormous amount of speech uploaded every day to Facebook’s platform, attempting to filter out “bad” speech is a nearly impossible task. The use of algorithms and other artificial intelligence to try to deal with the volume is only likely to exacerbate the problem.

… If Facebook gives itself broader censorship powers, it will inevitably take down important speech and silence already marginalized voices … Facebook has shown us that it does a bad job of moderating “hateful” or “offensive” posts, even when its intentions are good.

Facebook will do no better at serving as the arbiter of truth versus misinformation, and we should remain wary of its power to deprioritize certain posts or to moderate content in other ways that fall short of censorship … When it comes to gatekeepers of the modern-day public square, we should hope for commitment to free speech principles.”

ACLU has also been very clear in the past that protecting the freedom of speech means protecting all forms of speech, even when it’s offensive to you. “That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone,” ACLU states.⁶

In 1997, ACLU also argued, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, that the internet is a free-speech zone.⁷ Traditionally, freedom of speech has been a very progressive issue in terms of civil rights, but today, it seems, ACLU has nothing to say. ACLU’s silence as “noncompliant” voices are removed, one after another, from social media and other online spaces has been deafening.

Now it seems it’s becoming a game that freedom of speech only deserves to be protected when it fits their own ideology, but censorship is great when it doesn’t.

It’s Not About Vitamin D; It’s About Big Pharma and Vaccines

In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a consumer advocacy group partnered with Bill Gates’ agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,⁸ and bankrolled by billionaires with ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies⁹ — launched a social media campaign to put an end to Mercola.com.

CSPI pressured the FDA to issue me a warning letter to stop writing about nutritional products like vitamin D that can lower your risk of respiratory infections such as COVID-19. But, thanks to the U.S. constitution and the First Amendment, I have every right to speak publicly on matters regarding health, so this is nothing but another attempt to “cancel” me while concealing its own duplicity.

Soon after, two state attorneys general, Letitia James of New York and William Tong of Connecticut, threatened social media companies with legal ramifications if they do not censor a dozen individuals, including yours truly, whom they claimed to be responsible for 65% of “anti-vaccine” content.¹⁰

The content that we provide, however, is simply the other side of the story — the one that “official” sources and mainstream media not only refuse to share but social media platforms will ban them for sharing. We provide a counterbalance to the wholly one-sided official narrative.

Australian booksellers, Amazon, Waterstones and Foyles have also been pressured to stop selling “anti-vaccine” and “COVID conspiracy” books, including my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” or add some sort of warning label to them. Meanwhile, even a seemingly benign tweet stating practical adoption of vitamins C and D in mainstream medicine was listed as an offensive, illegal message and removed:

Vitamins C and D are finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. This fortunate turn of events is likely to save thousands of lives, while keeping health care costs down. pic.twitter.com/Rc19Zlp0Q8

— Dr. Joseph Mercola (@mercola) April 7, 2020

I’m not alone, by any means, as censorship of anti-propaganda narratives has ratcheted up to unprecedented levels for many others seeking to uncover the truth. But to be clear, this has nothing to do with vitamin D and vitamin C, and everything to do with vaccines, vaccine passports and making everyone compliant.

It’s one more way of attacking those who are going against the grain — especially if they have a larger platform from which they’re speaking. It’s worth repeating that Event 201 was a coronavirus pandemic exercise held in October 2019 that foreshadowed and “played out” the draconian countermeasures implemented when COVID-19 appeared mere months later.

Curiously enough, a primary focus of that exercise was how to best censor and counteract problematic narratives about the virus, public disagreement with pandemic measures and doubts about vaccine safety.

Who Is the FDA Really Protecting?

CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie¹¹ — a former FDA associate commissioner¹² — has publicly taken credit for the FDA’s action to silence me,¹³ thereby establishing the potential that CSPI is pulling strings under the new administration through relationships they did not have back in August when they first launched their assault on my free speech.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation — the Reagan-Udall Foundation — which receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests. The Reagan-Udall Foundation is a nonprofit foundation created by Congress in 2007 to support scientific research that is of interest to the FDA.¹⁴

It has received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Ellen V. Sigal, Ph.D.,¹⁵ who chairs the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s board of directors,¹⁶ is also vice president of the Cancer Moonshot program, funded by the Gates Foundation, and she’s on the board of the Parker Institute, which is partnered with Inovio, a Gates-funded company that is currently working on a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vaccine ties run even deeper, including with Sigal’s colleague at the Cancer moonshot Program, who co-invented the HPV vaccine Gardasil, and her son-in-law, New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman, who recently sponsored a bill to make Gardasil mandatory for all school children in New York.

Fight for Free Speech or Lose Everything

Censorship extremism is increasing at a feverish pace. In less than a year, we’ve gone from massively censoring COVID-19 treatment information, the origin of the virus and COVID-19 vaccine information, to censoring election disputes and conservative news networks, to now calling for the censoring of climate information

But remember, speech is the expression of your thoughts. To end free speech is to end the individual, which is the totalitarian end-game. Our top priority must therefore be to defend ALL speech. You simply cannot single out certain speech for elimination. It’s a slippery slope that can only end in one way, and that is in totalitarianism where all freedoms and rights of the individual are taken away.

While there are no easy answers to the situation we now find ourselves in, defending the freedom of speech is part of it, and that includes defending the First Amendment rights of those with whom we disagree. We all need to call on our political representatives to take a firm stand against all censorship.

Freedom of speech would undoubtedly be more easily secured were it not for tech monopolies having the power to eliminate anyone they don’t want to hear from. The good news here is that a decentralized web is in the works, and it’s a major part of the solution.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3xN6AiB
via IFTTT