Health & Fitness

How do you make sweeping changes to a financial and health system that no one would want if they could see the whole picture? I’m describing a change that would revise your individual rights and the power and authority given to the government.

You have had a front row seat over the last 18 months as plans are taking fruition that will make broad and comprehensive changes to the way you live your everyday life. You only have to read the news to understand that the world has been in lockdown, or threatened with lockdown, for over one year. When you delve beyond mainstream media, you'll find horror stories that soon may become the norm.

The "new normal" is not about wearing masks, staying indoors or recording your health information and location on your smartphone. These are strategies being used to control your behavior and ensure you'll say "yes!" to the next recommendation in the name of saving humanity that will ultimately eliminate your rights.

It's an old sales technique — get someone to say "yes" to something small and build on what you ask until they eventually say "yes" to what you really want them to buy.¹ It started with masks and "sheltering in place."

It quickly became lockdowns in parts of the world, after which small businesses have permanently closed and the wealthy have added more millions to their bank accounts.² Many of these are the people who own the big box stores, which were exempt from business closures.

Now, “health experts” are warning about the “new” Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19. This “new” illness is escalating new lockdowns,³ police actions⁴ and even stronger moves from government officials to vaccinate your entire family.⁵

After all, they claim, it's the only way to keep the world safe from an infectious disease that claims the life of 0.01% of those under age 40 and 1.71% of those over 60.⁶ This means you have between 98.29% and 99.99% chance of surviving.

Arrested and Fined for Drinking Coffee Without a Mask

Hayden Williams is a 27-year-old freelance artist living in Alice Springs, Australia. In early July 2021, he may well have purchased the most expensive cup of coffee ever sold.⁷ Williams left the coffee shop and was headed toward his car when he saw three policemen shadowing him.

In the video above, you can see where he turned on his cell phone camera and began interacting with the police. He was respectful and quiet as he explained that he was not doing anything wrong while drinking his coffee without a mask.

Alice Springs is a remote town in the Northern Territory of Australia located along the A87. It's the second-largest town in the Northern Territory with an estimated population near 29,000 people.⁸ The Daily Mail⁹ reports there has not been a single recorded death in the town, which has reported 185 cases of COVID. That’s an infection rate of 0.6%.

As you can see in the video, the officers refused his reasoning for drinking coffee without a mask. The female officer explained to Williams that “Alice Springs is a vulnerable community with a lot of sick people.” It may have been that the officer was misinformed about the number of people in her community who were sick.

As you can see in the video, the situation began to escalate after Williams started asking for the officer’s names and badge numbers. The policewoman said she did not have to give him her name and Williams responded by saying he didn't have to give his name as he had not committed an offense.

Williams was then tackled to the ground, arrested and taken to a local station where he was released approximately 25 minutes later and fined $5,056. In an effort to provide legal representation against exorbitant fines being levied against Australians, one group of individuals banded together to create “Fight the Fines Australia.”¹⁰

This is a crowdfunded effort to fight for civil rights against overzealous inspectors, police, bureaucrats and politicians. They encourage people who have received an outrageous ticket to contact them and ask others to donate toward the legal fees of those who were outrageously fined. There are also Fight the Fine groups in the U.K., Canada and Quebec.

Masking No Longer About Preventing Infections

Yet, Australia's Northern Territory mask mandate is not the most outlandish. March 30, 2021, Spain's Ministry of Health¹¹ announced a new law that would mandate masks in all public places, even when no one else is around. Initially the way it was written, the law applied to all outside activities, including when sunbathing at the beach or swimming in the ocean, unless local authorities decided to enforce it.¹²

In other words, in order to go swimming, you would have had to be able to breathe through a wet mask. Just days after releasing the rule, however, the Spanish Ministry of Health proposed revisions to allow people to forgo masks at the beach if they're swimming, playing a sport or resting in a fixed position, while maintaining a distance of at least 1.5 meters (about 5 feet) from other people.¹³

This is only one small example of the back-and-forth movement within government agencies regulating the use of masks in public places. Either masks work or they don't. And data from 2020 studying the COVID-19 virus shows that masks are not effective.¹⁴

In fact, many experts believe that they not only are not effective, but they also are an environmental¹⁵ and health threat,¹⁶ including a risk of lung cancer progression.¹⁷ The argument of whether masks effectively protect others from viruses and bacteria is not a new one. Research dates to well before the argument over masking ensued in 2020.

Data from one study¹⁸ in 2007 suggested that masking was important to protect the surgeon, especially during vascular surgical procedures, from the spread of HIV and hepatitis. A Cochrane review of the literature¹⁹ found there was no statistical difference in the rate of infection during clean surgeries when the team wore a mask or did not wear a mask.

March 26, 2020, the World Health Organization tweeted a post against masks for the general public: “If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly."²⁰

Yet, approximately one year later, Twitter is censoring tweets that call facemasks for COVID-19 into question, citing a violation of Twitter rules.²¹ In the span of less than one year, how did we go from public health officials advising against masks to them now being considered infallible and not up for debate?

Since there is published data that demonstrate wearing masks does not reduce the incidence of infection,²² the most likely explanation is that health experts are using this as part of a strategy to get you to say “yes” as many times as possible before they pop the big question.

Lockdowns Killed More Under 65 in Canada Than COVID

Experts have been reporting fallout from lockdowns that include financial disaster,²³ physical illness,²⁴ rising mental health concerns²⁵ and drug overdoses.²⁶ Statistics Canada recently released information²⁷ that attaches numerical data to the direct and indirect consequences caused by the lockdowns mandated by the government during 2020.

The report showed an excess mortality of 5,535 Canadians under the age of 65 in a 16-month time span between January 2020 and April 2021 from indirect consequences due to the pandemic. During those same 16 months, the report records 1,380 Canadians in the same age group who died from COVID-19.

The report lists the indirect consequences to include “delayed medical procedures, increased substance use, or a decline in deaths attributable to other causes, such as influenza.”²⁸

The report concluded “that the excess mortality is, in large part, related to other factors such as increases in the number deaths attributed to causes associated with substance use and misuse, including unintentional (accidental) poisonings and diseases and conditions related to alcohol consumption.”²⁹

In other words, there were more people who died under the age of 65 in Canada for reasons that were triggered by the lockdown than from the disease the government was reportedly trying to protect the citizens from.

Many of the people who died from COVID-19 in Canada were over the age of 85 with comorbid conditions that included cancer, nervous system disease, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and dementia. According to their statistics, nearly 45% of those over the age of 85 who died from COVID-19 also had dementia.³⁰

No Science Behind Lockdowns

The information from Canada is just one more nail in the coffin that shows lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing the transmission of an infectious disease. Yet, it is also likely information that you will not read in the mainstream media since government officials and certain “health experts” are intent on destroying the economy and creating an environment where you will say “yes” to their next recommendation without thinking twice.

The most recent reason officials want to institute masking and lockdowns again is the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. According to former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, this variant accounts for 10% of cases and is doubling every two weeks.³¹ Gottlieb believes the Delta variant is likely to spike a new epidemic heading into the fall.³²

However, Gottlieb is basing his prediction on data from Neil Ferguson, a British academic³³ whose statistical analysis of the situation has proved false on more than one occasion. Ferguson was the creator of the Imperial College model³⁴ that predicted the death of 2 million Americans and 500,000 Britons unless lockdowns and social distancing measures were implemented.

One flaw in his model is that he assumed that 100% of the population would be susceptible to the virus.³⁵ Instead, research data show up to 60% of people who have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 may have T Cell immunity from other similar coronaviruses, like the common cold.³⁶

He was also the source of the prediction that the Alpha variant would be 50% to 70% more contagious than the previous variants in the U.K. and would infect children and teens to a greater extent than previous variants,³⁷ neither of which has materialized.

Yet, certain health officials continue to use fearmongering narratives to ensure the vast majority of the population stays in step with their goal to institute vaccine passports and a mutated financial structure. When the calamitous predictions for the Alpha variant failed to come to fruition, the same narrative was engaged to focus your attention on the Delta variant, which governments are citing as they consider forcing lockdowns once again.

Consider These Steps to Protect Your Future

As you may already know, after my articles are up for 48 hours, they are coming down. This means, to reference the information you need to protect your and your family’s health, it is crucial that you copy and paste the articles and keep them on your hard drive and share them with your friends.

Over the years I have published thousands of articles to help you take control of your health and I am as committed today as I was 25 years ago when I started, to keep you informed of the strategies you can use to protect your health and your future. As I’ve discussed, consider the following strategies you can use to reduce your risk of infection or severe infection:

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has been treating his community for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Using a protocol he developed, his patients have had a significantly lower mortality rate, including those with comorbidities. In the interview in this link we discuss his protocol using hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin, and the importance of starting treatment early.

As I have written in the past, at home you could consider using quercetin and zinc if you are exposed to someone with an active infection. Quercetin is a zinc ionophore,38 which helps transport zinc across the cell wall where it works to prevent the virus from replicating.39,40 However, since your body requires a balance of zinc and copper,41 it’s important to use this treatment for short periods of time. Vitamin C is another important component, especially if you’re taking quercetin, as they have synergistic effects. To effectively act as a zinc ionophore, quercetin needs vitamin C.

My favorite method of stopping nearly all upper respiratory viral infections from gaining a foothold in your respiratory tract is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. Since my videos on this treatment modality were censored on YouTube, I put them on Substack and you can find them at “Banned Hydrogen Peroxide Videos.” I suggest you bookmark the page so you can reference them and send the link to friends and family.

It may be overwhelming to think about making a difference on a national scale to protect your civil rights, but there are approaches you can take on a local level that will make a big difference as people across the world speak up. Many large communities and states have groups who are fighting for individual rights, to prevent vaccine passports and limit governmental power in a peaceful manner. Consider finding these groups by networking with likeminded friends and family. It’s important to support your state legislators who support your right as an individual to choose your health care.

As employers begin to talk about mandating vaccines, consider pooling your collective resources to hire legal representation. If an employer mandates information about one health condition (COVID-19 vaccine) they open the door for you to demand protection from a long list of infectious diseases such as those listed by the Boston Public Health Commission,42 including the common cold, influenza,43 hepatitis,44 conjunctivitis45 and ringworm.46

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

For more than 18 months, we’ve dealt with questionable advice on masking, ranging from head-scratching and mildly amusing to outright laughable, and there seems to be no end in sight, despite the lack of scientific underpinning for universal masking.

Driving this insanity is the censoring of truthful and factual information by tech platforms such as YouTube. In the Fox News report above, Tucker Carlson calls out YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki for censoring a video by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, in which he pointed out that most masks cannot and will not protect you from the virus.

“Saying cloth masks work, when they don’t, actually risks lives,” Paul said in his banned video. Contrary to Wojcicki, Paul is an actual medical doctor, yet Wojcicki believes she’s capable of determining what is and is not medical misinformation.

Mask Recommendations Spiraled From Sensible to Irrational

Paul’s statement is far from controversial. In a 2020 email obtained via a freedom of information act request, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

In March 2020, Fauci also went on TV stating^1,2 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.”

Ditto for then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams, who February 29, 2020, tweeted: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus.”³ Adams has since deleted the tweet, but it lives in infamy all over the internet.^4,5,6

“The point is there was nothing kooky or inaccurate about Rand Paul’s video about masks,” Carlson says. “It was … provably true, people who know what they’re talking about agree with it, including the people in charge of our COVID response, but it was censored anyway. And the fact that it was censored anyway is a scandal.”

Carlson goes on to point out that censorship always backfires because, eventually, the masses catch on to the fact that they’re being lied to, at which point they stop listening altogether. Heavy-handedness also backfires, and the COVID injection campaign is a perfect example.

Had we just been treated like adults, the vaccination rate would probably have been far higher than it currently is. The irrational push with ostentatious bribes followed by illegal implementation of vaccine mandates simply raised too many suspicions in too many people.

“Obviously, this can’t continue,” Carlson says. “You cannot have a self-governing country in which people aren’t allowed to read what they want. A free press is not an optional feature of a democracy; it’s the center of democracy. That’s obvious. It’s written down in our founding documents.”

How Did Health Authorities Get So Irrational on Masks?

In an August 11, 2021, City-Journal article,⁷ Jeffrey Anderson reviews the scientific evidence for universal masking, noting that February 25, 2020, U.K. health authorities published guidance discouraging the use of masks even for health care workers in residential care facilities due to the fact that they don’t prevent viral spread.

Although the guidance apparently has been wiped from the internet like Adams’ tweet, Anderson quotes it as saying, “During normal day-to-day activities facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff.”

Similarly, March 30, 2020, the executive director for the World Health Organization’s Health Emergency Program stated “there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit.”⁸

Such guidance was truthful and logical. Surgical masks are not designed to protect the wearer or others against viral transmission, as the holes in the fabric are far larger than any virus. They’re merely meant to prevent a health care worker from inadvertently infecting a patient’s wound with bacteria-laden saliva or respiratory droplets. As reported by Anderson:⁹

“Public-health officials’ advice in the early days of Covid-19 was consistent with that understanding. Then, on April 3, 2020, Adams announced that the CDC was changing its guidance and that the general public should hereafter wear masks whenever sufficient social distancing could not be maintained.

Fast-forward 15 months. Rand Paul has been suspended from YouTube for a week for saying, ‘Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work.’

Many cities across the country, following new CDC guidance handed down amid a spike in cases nationally caused by the Delta variant, are once again mandating indoor mask-wearing for everyone, regardless of inoculation status.

The CDC further recommends that all schoolchildren and teachers, even those who have had Covid-19 or have been vaccinated, should wear masks …

How did mask guidance change so profoundly? Did the medical research on the effectiveness of masks change — and in a remarkably short period of time — or just the guidance on wearing them?”

Why Is the CDC Using Inferior Science to Support Masking?

We’re routinely told to follow the science and that public health recommendations are based on just that. But are they really? Where is the evidence showing that masking has any impact on viral transmission?

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have long been regarded as the gold standard in medical research, as they allow you to isolate a specific variable and reduce the ability of researchers to produce a preferred outcome. It’s still possible through a variety of tricks, but at least then you can see the bias. Curiously, RCTs are now routinely ignored when it comes to mask wearing. Why is that? Anderson reports:¹⁰

“It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials ...

In a ‘Science Brief’¹¹ highlighting studies that ‘demonstrate that mask wearing reduces new infections’ and serving as the main public justification for its mask guidance, the CDC provides a helpful matrix of 15 studies — none RCTs.

The CDC instead focuses strictly on observational studies completed after Covid-19 began. In general, observational studies are not only of lower quality than RCTs but also are more likely to be politicized, as they can inject the researcher’s judgment more prominently into the inquiry and lend themselves, far more than RCTs, to finding what one wants to find.

A particular favorite of the CDC’s … is an observational (specifically, cohort) study¹² focused on two COVID-positive hairstylists at a beauty salon in Missouri.

The two stylists, who were masked, provided services for 139 people, who were mostly masked, for several days after developing Covid-19 symptoms. The 67 customers who subsequently chose to get tested for the coronavirus tested negative, and none of the 72 others reported symptoms.

This study has major limitations. For starters, any number of the 72 untested customers could have had COVID-19 but been asymptomatic, or else had symptoms that they chose not to report to the Greene County Health Department, the entity doing the asking.

The apparent lack of spread of COVID-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, ‘cut hair while clients are facing away from them.’

The researchers also observe that ‘viral shedding’ of the coronavirus ‘is at its highest during the 2 to 3 days before symptom onset.’ Yet no customers who saw the stylists when they were at their most contagious were tested for COVID-19 or asked about symptoms.

Most importantly, this study does not have a control group. Nobody has any idea how many people, if any, would have been infected had no masks been worn in the salon.”

RCTs Show Masks Don’t Prevent Viral Transmission

Another piece of evidence leaned on by the CDC is a survey, which is even lower-quality evidence than an observational cohort study.

“Mask supporters often claim that we have no choice but to rely on observational studies instead of RCTs, because RCTs cannot tell us whether masks work or not. But what they really mean is that they don’t like what the RCTs show,” Anderson writes.

Indeed, you’d be hard-pressed to find even a single RCT showing mask wearing has a notable benefit. Anderson goes through 14 RCTs, conducted around the world, that have investigated the effectiveness of masks against respiratory viruses, discussing their findings.

Among them is a French study¹³ from 2010, which randomly placed sick patients and their household contacts into a mask group or a non-mask group. Adherence to the designated intervention was “good.”

Within one week, 15.8% of household contacts in the no-mask control group and 16.2% in the mask group developed an influenza-like illness. The 0.4% difference between the groups was statistically insignificant. According to the authors: “In various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.”

The CDC’s own data^14,15,16 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.

Handwashing Beats Masks and Mask-Plus-Handwashing Combo

A 2009 study¹⁷ funded by the CDC added hand washing to the mix to see if mask wearing would work better in combination with hand hygiene. One group was instructed on the use of hand hygiene only, a second group used both handwashing and face masks, and a third group did nothing.

While the mask-plus-handwashing group fared statistically better than the control group in one measure, the handwashing-only group beat the control group to a statistically significant degree in two measures.

This suggests handwashing alone was actually the most effective measure. According to the authors, “no additional benefit was observed when facemask [use] was added to hand hygiene by comparison with hand hygiene alone.”

The notion that handwashing alone beats even the combination of handwashing and mask wearing gained support in a 2011 study,¹⁸ which discovered that among those who washed their hands and wore face masks, the secondary attack rate of influenza-like illness was double that of the control group, which did nothing.

Multivariate analysis showed the same thing, leading the authors to conclude that relative to the control group, the odds of infection among those wearing masks and washing their hands was “twofold in the opposite direction from the hypothesized protective effect.”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

The first and to my knowledge only COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial,^19,20 published November 18, 2020, also undermined the official narrative that masking works. Interestingly, it found routine mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23%.

Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection-free, so SARS-CoV-2 infection isn’t nearly as widespread as we think it is.

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference either.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result, which we now know means nothing.

Another investigation²¹ that compared caseloads between states with mask mandates and those without showed states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. This too suggests mask mandates have no positive impact to speak of.

More Science

If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, consider reading through some of the available medical literature. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a small sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

Let’s Follow the Actual Science

If we are to follow the science — which is a good idea in general and particularly when it comes to public health mandates — we should not wear masks. As reported by Anderson:²⁸

“In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful.

The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless — whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone — or actually counterproductive.

Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/3mpQV5i
via IFTTT

From hitting rock bottom, adjusting to training in a wheelchair, and qualifying for Tokyo – Lauren Parker is going from strength to strength.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) will fundamentally change medicine and healthcare: Diagnostic patient data, e.g. from ECG, EEG or X-ray images, can be analyzed with the help of machine learning, so that diseases can be detected at a very early stage based on subtle changes. However, implanting AI within the human body is still a major technical challenge. Scientists have now succeeded in developing a bio-compatible implantable AI platform that classifies in real time healthy and pathological patterns in biological signals such as heartbeats. It detects pathological changes even without medical supervision.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3z8qfcU

A stress signal received by the heart from fat could help protect against cardiac damage induced by obesity, a new study suggests. The finding could help explain the 'obesity paradox,' a phenomenon in which obese individuals have better short- and medium-term cardiovascular disease prognoses compared with those who are lean, but with ultimately worse long-term outcomes.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3kd3XjX

Expression of the MyoD gene combined with exposure to three chemicals causes skin cells to become primitive muscle progenitors that can be maintained indefinitely in the lab and later coaxed into becoming mature muscle cells to treat muscle-related diseases. Skin-derived muscle progenitors are molecularly similar to muscle tissue stem cells, and muscle cells derived from these progenitors are more stable and mature than muscle cells directly converted from skin cells.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/382hPbh

Innovators have created a novel strategy for developing an effective vaccine for a widespread form of tuberculosis.

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

Cancer physicians are pioneering a new PULSAR radiation-therapy strategy that improves tumor control compared with traditional daily therapy.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/381S62H