Health & Fitness

Dr. Jeremy Henrichs, a member of the Mahomet-Seymour school board and a physician for the University of Illinois Athletic Department, was targeted by state investigators who said they had opened an official investigation due to his opposition to mandatory masks in classrooms.¹

The chilling governmental overreach is just the latest example of state and federal governments attempting to intimidate and silence those who question mask mandates and other official COVID-19 responses. Henrichs had previously voted in favor of a plan that would make mask usage optional unless infection rates rose quickly — at which point mandatory masks would be reimposed.

However, due to updated CDC guidelines recommending masks for all students, the state enacted a statewide school mask mandate requiring masks for all students in class. Henrichs’ support of optional masking led to a complaint being filed, at which point the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) opened an investigation to do their “due diligence.”²

State Uses Coercion and Intimidation Tactics

August 11, 2021, Henrichs received an email from a medical investigator asking for a “detailed statement on your opinion about masks, and whether you support and will enforce a mask mandate based on your elected position as a school board member.”³ “This would fall under the unprofessional-conduct part of the Medical Practice Act,” the email added.⁴

It’s unclear at what point during the pandemic having an opinion contrary to the “official” rhetoric became reason for investigation, but we’re well past that point now. An attorney for Henrichs responded, questioning whether the investigation had legal standing and suggesting it was an attempt to “coerce or intimidate a public official in the performance of his public duties.”

State law prohibits the intimidation of public officials going about their official duties, but IDFPR investigators said they are required to investigate every complaint about a medical professional. Why Henrichs’ opinions on masks are open for investigation is another issue entirely.

In an email, a state investigator stated, “What the medical disciplinary board wants to know is if the doctor will support and enforce the mask mandate by the governor.” An IDFPR spokesperson also stated in an email, as reported by WCIA news:⁵

“IDFPR takes all allegations against licensees seriously. Complaints filed with the Department, as well as investigations undertaken by the Department, are confidential, unless and until a public complaint or discipline is issued by the Department. If the Department determines a physician violated the Medical Practice Act, an appropriate course of action will be taken.”

Targeted for Questioning Mandatory Masking

The IDFPR investigation has since been called a “frightening abuse of power” by Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, who filed a complaint in response and asked the Office of the Executive Inspector General to investigate the case.⁶ In a statement, Henrichs called the overreach a direct threat:⁷

"I have considered authoritative medical evidence that questions the necessity of mandatory masking in our schools. As a result, the IDPFR has threatened my medical licensure unless I expressly support and enforce a mask mandate for all students. The IDPFR has commanded me to 'toe the line' or suffer personal and professional consequences.

The IDPFR's actions constitute a direct threat from the state to the well-being of my family and all board members to freely and independently exercise the duties of elected office.”

Other regulatory bodies have issued similar threats and warnings attempting to silence physicians. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, is among them. In April 2021, it issued a statement prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative.

According to CPSO, physicians, in isolated incidents, have been spreading blatant “misinformation” via social media, which is undermining “public health measures meant to protect all of us.” In response, they released their “Statement on Public Health Misinformation” on April 30, 2021, which reads:⁸

“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations.

Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19.

Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted.

When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”

While threatening physicians with investigation and disciplinary action should they speak out regarding the many inconsistencies and questions surrounding pandemic lockdowns, masks and COVID-19 vaccines, CPSO had the gall to add that it’s not intending to stifle healthy public debate about how to “best address aspects of the pandemic.” “Rather, our focus is on addressing those arguments that reject scientific evidence and seek to rouse emotions over reason,” it added.⁹

IDFPR Issues Apology to Henrichs

After backlash, including Rose’s call for an investigation into IDFPR’s actions, the agency issued a letter of apology to Henrichs, backpedaling on their inquiry. In an email to Henrichs’ attorney, Dina Torrisi Martin, general counsel for IDFPR, stated:¹⁰

“The initial response to your inquiry requested information that the Department does not need. Please disregard the questions posed in the emails of August 11 and 17, 2021. On behalf of the Department, I sincerely apologize for the tone and content of those communications.

I would like to provide context for the Department’s approach to complaints. Pursuant to its duties under the Medical Practice Act, 225 ILCS 60, for years, the Department has generally maintained a practice of opening an investigation of every complaint it receives relating to individuals licensed by the Department.

As you can understand, not every complaint requires a detailed investigation or action; however, that determination cannot be made at the time of the initial filing.”

Mario Treto Jr., IDFPR’s secretary, also stated that a preliminary review of the complaint has concluded with the strong recommendation that the complaint be closed. In a statement, Henrichs said he appreciated the apology, but “until this complaint has, in fact, formally been dismissed,” he has “nothing further to say at this time.”¹¹

State Boards Threaten Licenses, Don’t Define ‘Misinformation’

A spokeswoman for Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Jordan Abudayyeh, stated, “The Pritzker administration has not and will not seek disciplinary action against the professional licenses of individuals who disagree with the mask mandate.”¹² Yet, according to a statement released by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), they absolutely could.

In a news release titled, “Spreading COVID-19 Misinformation May Put Medical License at Risk,” FSMB stated that the “dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online and in the media” led to the release of their latest threat, which they called a “statement”:^13,14

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.

Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not.

They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health.

Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

Markedly absent from the statement is a definition of what constitutes “misinformation,” leaving the word wide open for interpretation. It’s not only physicians that are being hunted down but also academics.

Virtually anyone who speaks out about data that go against the official COVID propaganda can be labeled a dangerous “agent of misinformation,” which is what happened to Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, who wrote a paper against lockdowns but couldn’t get it published.

Kulldorff and colleagues soon banded together to write the Great Barrington Declaration,¹⁵ which calls for “focused protection” of the elderly and those in nursing homes and hospitals, while allowing businesses and schools to remain open. Soon after, they too were attacked and accused of spreading misinformation and being “COVID deniers.”¹⁶

Professor Mark Crispin Miller, who has taught classes on mass persuasion and propaganda at the New York University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development for the last two decades, is another example. After challenging students to investigate current propaganda narratives surrounding mask mandates, Miller was placed under conduct review for spreading “dangerous misinformation.”

Miller fought back, suing 19 of his department colleagues for libel after they signed a letter to the school dean demanding a review of Miller’s conduct.¹⁷ Miller also launched a petition to New York University in support of academic freedom, free speech and free inquiry, without which he states, “‘education’ … will be mere training for compliance, stunting students’ minds instead of opening them — a practice fatal to democracy, and, finally, to humanity itself.”¹⁸

Are State Boards Maintaining Hit Lists?

Jumping on the libel bandwagon, MedPage Today conducted an investigation into 20 physicians it says are spreading “COVID-19 misinformation,” including me, noting that “not one of 20 physicians who've peddled such falsehoods has been disciplined by their state licensing agency for doing so.”¹⁹

MedPage Today contacted 10 states that license physicians, apparently to ask them why they haven’t disciplined physicians for spreading undefined “misinformation.” In Illinois, IDFPR stated that if the agency "determines a licensee committed violations against the Act that regulates their profession, an appropriate course of action will be taken.

Complaints filed with and investigations undertaken by IDFPR are confidential, unless and until a public complaint or discipline is issued by the Department."²⁰

From MedPage Today’s investigation, it seems that states have put together lists of the people they’re targeting to delicense, but none has taken action against the physicians they’re accusing of spreading unidentified “bad info.” Perhaps that’s because sharing information isn’t a crime, but stifling it — and engaging in unfounded threats and intimidation — is.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3ytkd5E
via IFTTT

The oft-repeated refrain right now is that we're in a "pandemic of the unvaccinated," meaning those who have not received the COVID jab make up the bulk of those hospitalized and dying from the Delta variant. For example, August 20, 2021, England's chief medical officer professor Chris Whitty tweeted:^1,2

"Four weeks working on a COVID ward makes stark the reality that the majority of our hospitalized COVID patients are unvaccinated and regret delaying. Some are very sick including young adults. Please don't delay your vaccine."

Curiously, if you take the time to actually look at the data, you'll find that this blanket statement is rather deceptive. Here's a graphic published in the Evening Standard, sourced from Public Health England:³

As you can see, as of August 15, 2021, 58% of COVID patients admitted to hospital who were over the age of 50 had actually received two doses of COVID injections and 10% had received one dose. So, partially or fully "vaccinated" individuals made up 68% of hospitalizations.

Only in the 50 and younger category were a majority, 74%, of hospitalizations among the unvaccinated. Whitty, however, completely neglected to differentiate between the age groups. The same applies to deaths. Unvaccinated only make up the majority of COVID deaths in the under-50 age group. In the over-50 group, the clear majority, 70%, are either partially or fully "vaccinated."

It's also unclear whether hospitals in the U.K. (and elsewhere) are still designating anyone who is admitted and tests positive with a PCR test as a "COVID patient." If so, people with broken bones or any number of other health problems who have no symptoms of COVID-19 at all might be unfairly lumped into the "unvaccinated COVID patient" total.

Israeli Data Show COVID Jab Is Failing in Over-50s

In Israel, where vaccine uptake has been very high due to restrictions on freedom for those who don't comply,⁴ data show those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people with natural immunity.^5,6,7

The fully "vaccinated" also made up the bulk of serious cases and COVID-related deaths in July 2021, as illustrated in the graphs below.⁸ The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially "vaccinated" and green fully "vaccinated" with two doses. By mid-August, 59% of serious cases were among those who had received two COVID injections,⁹ mirroring the data coming out of the U.K.

In an August 16, 2021, Science article,¹⁰ Israeli Minister of Health Nitzan Horowitz is quoted saying the nation has entered a "critical time" in the race against the pandemic. Horowitz allegedly was given a third booster shot August 13, 2021, the day they began offering a third dose to people over the age of 50.

From Public Health England's data, it seems clear that the COVID shots are failing to protect people over the age of 50 in the U.K. as well, so it's probably only a matter of time before booster shots are rolled out there too. And, provided the COVID injections are the same irrespective of country, there's every reason to assume the same trends will emerge in other countries, including the U.S.

This is precisely what Ran Balicer, chief innovation officer at Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest health maintenance organization (HMO), told Science: "If it can happen here, it can probably happen everywhere."¹¹

Israeli Data Considered the Best Around

The data coming out of Israel is considered by many to be the best we have, and can give us a glimpse of what to expect elsewhere. As explained by Science magazine:¹²

"Israel is being closely watched now because it was one of the first countries out of the gate with vaccinations in December 2020 and quickly achieved a degree of population coverage that was the envy of other nations — for a time.

The nation of 9.3 million also has a robust public health infrastructure and a population wholly enrolled in HMOs that track them closely, allowing it to produce high-quality, real-world data on how well vaccines are working.

'I watch [Israeli data] very, very closely because it is some of the absolutely best data coming out anywhere in the world,' says David O'Connor, a viral sequencing expert at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

'Israel is the model,' agrees Eric Topol, a physician-scientist at Scripps Research. 'It's pure mRNA vaccines. It's out there early. It's got a very high level population [uptake]. It's a working experimental lab for us to learn from.'

Israel's HMOs … track demographics, comorbidities, and a trove of coronavirus metrics on infections, illnesses, and deaths. 'We have rich individual-level data that allows us to provide real-world evidence in near–real time,' Balicer says …

Now, the effects of waning immunity may be beginning to show in Israelis vaccinated in early winter; a preprint¹³ published last month … found that protection from COVID-19 infection during June and July dropped in proportion to the length of time since an individual was vaccinated.People vaccinated in January had a 2.26 times greater risk for a breakthrough infection than those vaccinated in April."

Where Will It End?

According to Science magazine, breakthrough cases are now multiplying at breakneck speed. "There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated," Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology told Science.¹⁴

Nearly 1 million Israelis over the age of 50 have now received a third booster of Pfizer's mRNA shot. Time will tell whether this will worsen the rate of breakthrough cases or tame it.

Dvir Aran, a biomedical data scientist at the Israel Institute of Technology doesn't seem very hopeful, telling Science the surge is already so steep, "even if you get two-thirds of those 60-plus [boosted], it's just gonna give us another week, maybe two weeks until our hospitals are flooded" again.¹⁵

The obvious question is, what then?! Will the answer be a fourth injection before the year is over? Will we be looking at quarterly injections? Monthly injections? Biweekly? Weekly? Where and when does it end? It is fairly easy to predict that this can only end very badly.

US Tracks Only Fraction of Breakthrough Infections

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on U.S. data to get a clear idea of how the COVID shots are working, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has chosen not to track all breakthrough cases. As reported by ProPublica,¹⁶ May 1, 2021, the CDC stopped tracking and reporting all breakthrough cases, opting to log only those that result in hospitalization and/or death.

As noted in the article, this irrational decision has "left the nation with a muddled understanding of COVID-19's impact on the vaccinated." It also prevents us from understanding how variants are spreading and whether those who have received the jab can still develop so-called "long-haul syndrome."

Individual states are also setting their own criteria for how they collect data on breakthrough cases, and this patchwork muddies the waters even further. Despite these limitations, what little data we do have is starting to mirror that of Israel and the U.K.

August 18, 2021, the CDC released three reports,^17,18,19 which show the protection you get from the COVID shot is rapidly waning.

"Among nursing home residents, one of the studies showed vaccine effectiveness dropped from 74.7% in the spring to just 53.1% by midsummer,"ProPublica writes.²⁰ "Similarly, another report found that the overall effectiveness among vaccinated New York adults dropped from 91.7% to just under 80% between May and July.

The new findings prompted the Biden administration to announce on Wednesday that people who got a Moderna or Pfizer vaccine will be offered a booster shot eight months after their second dose. The program is scheduled to begin the week of Sept. 20 but needs approval from the Food and Drug Administration and a CDC advisory committee.

This latest development is seen by some as another example of shifting public health messaging and backpedaling that has accompanied every phase of the pandemic for 19 months through two administrations. A little more than a month ago, the CDC and the FDA released a joint statement saying that those who have been fully vaccinated 'do not need a booster shot at this time' …

The CDC tracked all breakthrough cases until the end of April, then abruptly stopped without making a formal announcement. A reference to the policy switch appeared on the agency's website in May about halfway down the homepage.

'I was shocked,' said Dr. Leana Wen, a physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University. 'I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why they stopped tracking this information' …

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., became alarmed after the Provincetown outbreak and wrote to CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky on July 22, questioning the decision to limit investigation of breakthrough cases. He asked what type of data was being compiled and how it would be shared publicly²¹ ... Markey asked the agency to respond by Aug. 12. So far the senator has received no reply …"

Vaxxed Are Up to 13 Times More Likely to Get Delta Variant

While the U.S. is lax about recording breakthrough infections, researchers in Israel have some breaking news: They have been keeping track, and their studies²² show that vaccinated individuals are up to 13 times more likely to get the Delta variant of COVID-19 than those who were not vaccinated, but had recovered from a COVID infection.

As explained by ScienceMag:²³ The study "found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher."

The study also said that, while vaccinated persons who also had natural infection did appear to have additional protection against the Delta variant, the vaccinated were still at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those without the vaccine, but who were previously infected. Vaccinees who hadn't had a natural infection also had a 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.

One thing to note here is that the wording of this is important: The study does not say that getting a vaccine helps protect you if you've had a natural infection; rather, it says that natural protection helps boost the vaccine. Either way, even if you do have natural infection in combination with the vaccination, vaccinees are still at an increased risk for a breakthrough infection.

"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity," the study authors concluded.

Fully Vaxxed Speak Out

Back America, in an August 24, 2021, article,²⁴ The Defender cites data from seven states (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Virginia) that keep more detailed records than most. In six of these states, breakthrough infections accounted for 18% to 28% of all new COVID diagnoses in the past several weeks, as well as 12% to 24% of all COVID-related hospitalizations.

In Los Angeles, breakthrough cases have risen from 5% in April and 13% in July to a current of 30%. Fully vaxxed celebrities and elected officials have now started speaking out after getting COVID. As reported by The Defender: ²⁵

"Melissa Joan Hart, the former 'Sabrina the Teenage Witch' star is 'really mad' she has a breakthrough case. Hart shared on Instagram Aug. 19 … 'I got COVID. I am vaccinated. And I got COVID. And it's bad. It's weighing on my chest, it's hard to breathe' …

Celebrity Hilary Duff, revealed she had COVID on Instagram Aug. 20. Duff said she was experiencing a bad headache, brain fog, sinus pressure and a loss of taste and smell despite being vaccinated …

Slipknot singer Corey Taylor, 47, was devastated after testing positive for COVID and was forced to call off his upcoming appearance at a Michigan pop culture convention this weekend, Rolling Stone reported. 'I wish I had better news,' said Taylor in a recorded video message last week on Facebook. 'I woke up today and tested positive and I'm very, very sick' …

Rev. Jesse Jackson, and his wife, Jacqueline, remained under doctors' observation Monday[August 23, 2021] at a Chicago hospital after getting COVID … Jackson, a Chicago civil rights leader, was fully vaccinated and received his first dose in January during a publicized event where he urged others to receive the vaccine as soon as possible …

Three U.S. senators — John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) — announced Aug. 19 they tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, CBS News reported …

The news came days after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who also was fully vaccinated, tested positive for COVID. Illinois state Sen. Dan McConchie announced Aug. 21 he had a 'breakthrough' case of COVID."

CDC Has Also Hidden Breakthrough Cases in Other Ways

The CDC also cooked the books on COVID breakthrough cases in other ways. Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a CT of 40²⁶ when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This, despite using a CT above 35 was known to create a false positive rate of 97%.²⁷ By using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed stricken with COVID-19.

In May 2021, the CDC lowered the CT from 40 to 28 or lower — but only when doing PCR testing on individuals who have received the COVID jab.²⁸ Unvaccinated were still tested using a CT of 40. The end result is obvious: "Vaccinated" individuals became far less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection while unvaccinated were still exceedingly getting false positives. As noted by Off-Guardian:²⁹

"This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimize the other. What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?"

How the CDC Invented the 'Pandemic of Unvaxxed' Narrative

The CDC also played fast and loose with the data when it invented the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" narrative³⁰ that we're now being indoctrinated with. In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,³¹ CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed "over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated."

As it turns out, that statistic is based on hospitalization data from January through June 2021, when the majority of Americans had not yet gotten the COVID jab. January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,³² and as of June 30, just 46.9% were "fully vaccinated."³³

COVID Shots 'Proven to Cause More Harm Than Good'

While the official narrative is that the COVID shots may be "less than perfect" but are still better than the alternative (i.e., getting the infection when you're unvaccinated), Dr. Bart Classen published a study³⁴ in the August 2021 issue of Trends in Internal Medicine, disputing this claim.

The study,³⁵ "U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, 'All Cause Severe Morbidity,'" details a core problem with Pfizer's, Moderna's and Janssen's (Johnson & Johnson) trials.

All three employ a surrogate primary endpoint for health, namely "severe infections with COVID-19." This, Classen says, "has been proven dangerously misleading," and many fields of medicine have stopped using disease-specific endpoints in clinical trials and have adopted "all-cause mortality and morbidity" instead.

The reason for this is because if a person dies from the treatment or is severely injured by it, even if the treatment helped block the progression of the disease they're being treated for, the end result is still a negative one.

To offer an extreme example of what you can do with a disease-specific endpoint, you could make the claim that shooting people in the head is a cure for cancer, because no one who got the treatment — who got shot in the head — died from cancer.

When reanalyzing the clinical trial data from these COVID shots using "all-cause severe morbidity" as the primary endpoint, the data reveal they actually cause far more harm than good.

The proper endpoint was calculated by adding together all severe events reported in the trials, not just COVID-19 but also all other serious adverse events. By doing this, severe COVID-19 infection gets the same weight as other adverse events of equivalent severity. According to Classen:³⁶

"Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statistically significant increase in 'all cause severe morbidity' in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.

The Moderna immunized group suffered 3,042 more severe events than the control group. The Pfizer data was grossly incomplete but data provided showed the vaccination group suffered 90 more severe events than the control group, when only including 'unsolicited' adverse events.

The Janssen immunized group suffered 264 more severe events than the control group. These findings contrast the manufacturers' inappropriate surrogate endpoints:

Janssen claims that their vaccine prevents 6 cases of severe COVID-19 requiring medical attention out of 19,630 immunized; Pfizer claims their vaccine prevents 8 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 21,720 immunized; Moderna claims its vaccine prevents 30 cases of severe COVID-19 out of 15,210 immunized.

Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe."

To make the above numbers more clear and obvious, here are the prevention stats in percentages:

• Pfizer 0.00036%
• Moderna 0.00125%
• Janssen 0.00030%

Where Do We Go From Here?

If you've already gotten one or two shots, there's nothing you can do about that. It seems pretty obvious, though, if you objectively analyze the data, that your best bet is to say no to any and all future boosters, as each additional shot can magnify the damage and increase your risk of serious side effects.

If you develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there are several treatment protocols available that have been shown to be effective. Options include the Zelenko protocol,³⁷ the MATH+ protocols³⁸ and nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein's case paper³⁹ and Dr. Thomas Levy's free e-book, "Rapid Virus Recovery."

Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms. Also, realize that if you've gotten one or more COVID shots, your risk of severe infection may actually be greater, not lesser, than had you not gotten the injections. This appears particularly true if you're over the age of 50. So, do not delay treatment if you develop symptoms.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3sU950s
via IFTTT

A decade on from the horrific fire, Turia Pitt admits there are still moments when – confronted with the enormity of what happened to her – she is left feeling sick and triggered.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3sU0Kda

2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame and Walkley Award-winning journalist Nina Funnell both experienced sexual assault and now advocate for other survivors.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2Y7Q1R4

After swimming into the history books and Australians’ hearts at the Olympics, Ariarne Titmus opens up about her journey to the gold.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3gG2iCM

By season’s end, she’d met her future husband, lost her beloved mother and been in the middle of a media glare that focused instead on somebody else’s heartbreak.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3gG2h1G

Triple Olympian turned wellness entrepreneur Lisa Curry writes exclusively for Body+Soul about the life lessons she has learnt, and her tips to live your happiest and healthiest life.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2WFkTb0

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:

---

• ⁱ See All References

from Articles : Hormones, Diabetes https://ift.tt/2euHStK
via IFTTT

More evidence has been uncovered that Alzheimer’s disease may actually be a third form of diabetes, according to researchers from Northwestern University.

Insulin and insulin receptors in your brain are crucial for learning and memory, and it’s known that these components are lower in people with Alzheimer’s disease. In your brain, insulin binds to an insulin receptor at a synapse, which triggers a mechanism that allows nerve cells to survive and memories to form.

The Northwestern University researchers have found that a toxic protein in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients -- called ADDL for “amyloid ß-derived diffusible ligand” -- removes insulin receptors from nerve cells, and renders those neurons insulin resistant.

The findings suggest that ADDLs accumulate at the beginning of Alzheimer’s disease and thereby block memory function.

The process is currently thought to be reversible.

The researchers speculated that drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes, which also causes insulin resistance, may “supercede currently available Alzheimer’s drugs.”

The FASEB Journal August 24, 2007

Physorg.com September 26, 2007

from Articles : Hormones, Diabetes https://ift.tt/1jFls9q
via IFTTT

More than three decades of scientific research suggests that repeatedly telling children that they are especially smart or talented leaves them vulnerable to failure, and fearful of challenges.

Children raised this way develop an implicit belief that intelligence is innate and fixed, making striving to learn seem less important than seeming smart; challenges, mistakes, and effort become threats to their ego rather than opportunities to improve.

However, teaching children to have a “growth mind-set,” which encourages effort rather than on intelligence or talent, helps make them into high achievers in school and in life. This results in “mastery-oriented” children who tend to think that intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work.

This can be done by telling stories about achievements that result from hard work. Talking about math geniuses who were born that way puts students in a fixed mind-set, but descriptions of great mathematicians who developed amazing skills over time creates a growth mind-set.

from Articles : Hormones, Supplements https://ift.tt/3swcpxQ
via IFTTT