Flu

now browsing by category

 

Breaking NEWS: Data suggests COVID-19 is NOT significantly different in terms of deadliness than seasonal flu

Reproduced from original article:
www.naturalhealth365.com/fatality-rate-antibody-testing-3439.html
by:  | June 14, 2020

covid-19-fatality-rate(NaturalHealth365) We can be sensitive to the fact that an unknown pandemic illness should be handled with care and caution. But it’s hard not to be disillusioned when finding out that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the respiratory illness COVID-19, appears to be far less deadly than previously believed.  In fact, new nonprofit research indicates that the fatality rate of COVID-19 isn’t all that much different than the fatality rate of the seasonal flu.

The reason we’re finding out more about COVID-19 as time goes on is because of increased antibody testing and other investigative measures that are beginning to draw some answers. Such answers can’t come soon enough, as far as we’re concerned – not when the threat of mass vaccine programs with a rapidly developed drug is bearing down on the global public.

Just how deadly is COVID-19, really? Data suggests fatality rate of pandemic disease “comparable” to seasonal flu

The case fatality rate (CFR) of an infectious disease is calculated by taking the total number of deaths and dividing it by the total number of infections. But when you consider that the the true number of infections of COVID-19 isn’t known, this makes finding an accurate CFR a bit difficult, to say the least.

As noted in a recent release by the nonprofit organization Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), the CFRs of COVID-19 in various American cities are estimated as follows:

  • Los Angeles: 0.12%
  • Santa Clara County (CA): 0.17%
  • Miami-Dade County (FL): 0.23%
  • Arizona: 0.24%
  • New York City: 0.52%

These CFRs were estimated based on a combination of public health records and data from research institutions. As you might notice, there isn’t one single CFR of COVID-19 – nor for any type of infectious disease for that matter.

Why? Simply because so many different factors can affect how many people end up dying of a disease in different parts of the world, including socioeconomic status, physical environment (think of the microcosm that is NYC), age, overall health status, cultural practices and norms, and (of course) whether testing is even accurate.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

That said, based on their analysis, PIC was able to determine that the average CFR of COVID-19 is 0.26% (a figure surely brought up by the insane pandemonium that happened in New York City).  This figure is “comparable” to CFRs of many previous seasonal and pandemic flu periods.

Just take a look at some of them:

  • 2017-2018 flu season: 0.14%
  • 2016-2017 flu season: 0.1%
  • 1957-1960 flu pandemic: 0.28%
  • 1918-1920 flu pandemic (Spanish flu): 2.25%

What may be even more surprising to know is who readily admits that COVID-19 may not be all that different than the seasonal flu we experience every year in terms of death rates: Dr. Anthony Fauci himself!

Along with his colleagues, Dr. Fauci recently acknowledged in a March 2020 article from The New England Journal of Medicine that if one were to assume “that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”

Right. And yet we certainly don’t go around shutting down the economy during severe flu seasons, do we?

Even while being a bit more conservative than Fauci’s assumption, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still estimates that well over a third (35%) of all SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic and therefore, we can presume, undiagnosed and unreported. When these unreported cases are factored in, says PIC, we end up with the overall CFR for COVID-19 of 0.26% – or, as Dr. Fauci said, “considerably less than 1%.”

Meanwhile, the CDC estimates that for the 2019-2020 flu season, as many as 62,000 flu deaths have occurred in the U.S. Importantly, this number is based only on flu-related deaths occurring in hospitals, and does not include non-hospitalized people who may have died of the flu this year.

Hands up: how many of us “forgot” about the flu season this year … maybe because the media seemed to forget all about it, too?

As the push for COVID-19 vaccine increases, doctors warn against mass vaccination and express concern for public safety

Making vaccines is big profitable business. And even though some people are calling for any future COVID-19 vaccine to be free to the public, plenty of other experts are exercising necessary caution over the urge to mass vaccinate.

For example, founder and president of PIC, Dr. Shira Miller, logically points out that “safety studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should be able to prove whether or not the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the infection.”

She goes on to add:

“Regardless of proof of safety, however, a potential COVID-19 vaccine should only be voluntary, in order to safeguard a patient’s human right to determine what will happen with his or her body.” Here, here!

Even the suggestion that we must “prove” we are immune to COVID-19 with a vaccine certificate or immunity passport is absurd and frighteningly Orwellian. And as we learn more every day about the true impact and severity of COVID-19 for the vast majority of people, the idea of a mass vaccine for COVID-19 becomes a harder and harder pill to swallow, no pun intended.

Sources used for this article include:

Physiciansforinformedconsent.org
Physiciansforinformedconsent.org
Livescience.com
CDC.gov
Time.com
NIH.gov

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated—Part 9

© 5th May 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-part-9/

MAY 01, 2020

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

This is my ninth installment in CHD’s series of studies comparing health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. Despite CDC’s and NIH’s (Tony Fauci’s) efforts to prevent the creation of these studies, courageous and independent university and government scientists have found ways to perform vaccinated/ unvaxxed studies. We have now assembled nearly 60 studies- all published in previous installments on my Instagram page and on CHD’s website. All of these studies found vaccinated cohorts to be far sicker than their unvaccinated peers. CDC blocks access by independent scientists to the largest vaccine database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which Congress created expressly for the purpose of performing this kind of study.
(See full-sized Part 9 slides or see the complete Vaxxed-Unvaxxed presentation, Parts 1-9.)

Slides and Summaries from Part 9:

Slide 1 and Summary:

The increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination with ASO3 adjuvanted pandemic A/HlNl 2009 vaccine indicates a causal association, consistent with findings from Finland.

 

Slide 2 and Summary:

In sum, this study demonstrates that trivalent influenza virus vaccine (TIV) elicits a measurable inflammatory response during pregnancy, and that considerable variability is seen between women in the magnitude of this response.

 

Slide 3 and Summary:

Together with an inflammatory reaction, influenza A vaccine induced platelet activation and sympathovagal imbalance towards adrenergic predominance … The vaccine-related platelet activation and cardiac autonomic dysfunction may transiently increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

 

Slide 4 and Summary:

Vaccinating pigs with whole inactivated H1N2 (human-like) virus vaccine (WIV-H1N2) resulted in enhanced pneumonia and disease after pHlNl infection.

 

Slide 5 and Summary:

In assessing the effectiveness of the TIV for preventing hospitalization with influenza in all subjects, there was an overall trend towards higher rates of hospitalization in subjects who got the TIV as compared to the ones who did not get the TIV( OR:2.97,CI: 1.3,6.7).

 

Slide 6 and Summary:

Cardiorespiratory events were associated marginally with receipt of multiple injections {OR, 3.62; 95% Cl 0.99-13.25) and significantly with gastroesophagealreflux {GER) {OR, 4.76; 95% Cl 1.22-18.52).

 

 

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

How Does COVID-19 Compare to the Spanish Flu?


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/02/how-does-covid-19-compare-to-the-spanish-flu.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola    Fact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • While COVID-19 meets the technical definition of a pandemic, the death toll is nowhere near that of earlier serious pandemics that would legitimately justify the extraordinary measures being deployed by the U.S. government
  • An estimated 75 million to 200 million people in Eurasia and as much as 60% of the European population in rural areas were wiped out by the Black Death (bubonic plague) between 1347 and 1351
  • The Spanish flu (swine flu), which hit during World War I in 1918, infected 500 million people worldwide, killing an estimated 50 million, or 2.7% of the global population
  • Using the higher of two prominent COVID-19 trackers, 129,100 people had died, globally, from COVID-19 as of the afternoon on April 15, 2020. Based on a global population of 7.8 billion, 129,100 deaths amount to 0.000016% of the global population
  • Mid-March predictions said COVID-19 would kill 2.2 million Americans if allowed to run its course. April 8, 2020, the Murray Model downgraded the threat to 60,000 dead by August, which is lower than the death toll for the seasonal flu of 2017/2018

While COVID-19 meets the technical definition1 of a pandemic (i.e., “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”), the death toll is nowhere near that of earlier serious pandemics2 that would legitimately justify the extraordinary measures being deployed by the U.S. government and others around the globe.

The Black Death

For comparison, the “Black Death,” which swept through Europe between 1347 and 1351 and kept resurfacing at intervals for the next 300 years, decimated up to one-third of the population with each recurrence.3,4

While the Black Death was long thought to be the same as the bubonic plague, in more recent years, researchers have questioned this assumption,5 and at least some of the evidence suggests they were not the same disease.

Either way, the plague killed 75 million to 200 million people in Eurasia, with deaths peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.6 As much as 60% of the European population in rural areas were wiped out by the Black Death in the first four-year-long pandemic wave. People died within days of having symptoms.7 This horrific lethality is typically what people think of when they hear the word “pandemic.”

The Spanish Flu

Similarly, the Spanish flu (aka, swine flu), which hit during World War I in 1918, infected 500 million people worldwide, killing an estimated 50 million, or 2.7% of the global population.8

It killed 675,000 in the U.S. alone — more than died in combat during World War I, World War II, the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, according to the historical documentary above.

Like the bubonic plague, the Spanish flu was a very rapid killer, causing death in as little as 12 hours. Like the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the virus also spread very easily and rapidly. Unlike COVID-19, however, people between the ages of 20 and 40 were most susceptible to the infection.

With COVID-19, it’s the elderly and immune compromised that are at greatest risk, but even in these high-risk groups, the mortality rate is nowhere near that of the Spanish flu.

COVID-19

Data points vary, and mortality statistics differ widely depending on the country and area you’re looking at, but using the higher of two prominent COVID-19 trackers — Worldometer,9 opposed to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center10 — 129,100 people had died, globally, from COVID-19 as of the afternoon on April 15, 2020.

Based on a global population of 7.8 billion,11 129,100 deaths amount to 0.0016% of the global population. Even if this tally is off by hundreds of thousands, we’re still only looking at a fraction of a percent of the global population succumbing to COVID-19 in three and a half months.

April 15, there were also 1,403,420 active cases, 96% of which were mild and only 4% of which were serious or critical,12 so clearly, a vast majority of people who are infected make it through and end up having antibodies that will confer long-term immunity.

I for one could see shutting down the global economy for a true plague or something much like the Spanish flu, but COVID-19 simply doesn’t warrant the draconian elimination of personal freedom and liberty we’re currently seeing. Nor is it serious enough to warrant the kinds of long-term surveillance strategies suggested by Bill Gates.

Advertisement

Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's top tips to combat coronavirus


Understand What’s Happening Right Now

The Corbett Report above is well worth listening to if you’re still on the fence and think the way we’re going is a good idea to safeguard the vulnerable. Remember, infectious diseases have been with us since the dawn of mankind, and are not going to stop. Ever.

Right now, we’re being told that we have to forgo our civil liberties because we might spread a virus to a potentially vulnerable individual, and if that happens, we’re culpable in their death. So, to prevent “mass homicide” from occurring by people moving about freely, we’re told we have to isolate ourselves and stop living.

Yet every single flu season throughout history, people have moved about, spreading the infection around. Undoubtedly, most people who have ever left their house with a cold, stomach bug or other influenza at any point in the past has unwittingly spread the infection to others, some of which may have ended up with a serious case of illness and some of which may ultimately have died from it.

There is simply no way to prevent such a chain of events in perpetuity. Giving up our civil liberties in an effort to prevent all future deaths from infectious disease is profoundly misguided, and ultimately will not work anyway.

From my perspective, the only mitigating factor in this analysis is that there appears to be solid, well-documented evidence that this is an engineered virus, one that was constructed in biosafety level 3 and 4 labs that are focused on offensive biological weapons research. This may result in unprecedented adverse biological adaptions that impair innate immunity. But at this time, I seriously doubt it.

Mortality Predictions Fall Apart

Mid-March predictions said COVID-19 would kill 2.2 million Americans if allowed to run its course.13 By the end of March, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, downgraded the projected death toll, saying we were probably looking at 100,000 to 240,000 Americans dying.14

April 8, 2020, a new model referred to as the Murray Model15 downgraded the threat further, predicting COVID-19 will kill 60,000 in the U.S. by August16 — a number that is still 20,000 lower than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s death toll numbers attributed to the seasonal flu the winter of 2017/2018.17

In the Liberty Report video above, Dr. Ron Paul, former GOP congressman, also points out that Fauci’s “doom and gloom predictions” have completely collapsed, “with the new official prediction coming in under the normal flu numbers for 2018.”

If COVID-19 is not causing any greater death toll than the regular flu season two years ago, why are we now asked to end society as we know it well into the foreseeable future? There’s no doubt in my mind that there will be far more deaths attributable to the financial collapse and isolation than there will be from the actual infection.

H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic Response Was a Gift to Big Pharma

The H1N1 swine flu of 2009 was the most recent pandemic of note, and considering Fauci and Gates are both saying we won’t be able (read, allowed) to go back to any semblance of normalcy until or unless we have a vaccine and enforce mandatory vaccination of the global population, it’s worth remembering what happened during the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

The CDC estimates that from April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, there were 60.8 million cases of H1N1 infection, 274,000 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths (0.02% infection fatality rate/mortality rate) in the United States.

June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1).18 A vaccine was rapidly unveiled, and within months, cases of disability and death from the H1N1 vaccine were reported in various parts of the world.

In the aftermath, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) questioned the WHO’s handling of the pandemic. In June 2010, PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a ‘waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.’”19

Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making.20 As reported by the Natural Society in 2014:21

“… a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) has uncovered some serious conflicts of interest between the World Health Organization (WHO), who proposed … heavy vaccinations, and the pharmaceutical companies which created them.

The joint-investigation’s report explains that the WHO profited immensely22 from the scare tactics they utilized to promote the use of a swine flu vaccine.

Creating mass hysteria was the WHO’s emergency advisory committee’s goal … The WHO told the world that up to 7 million people could die without the vaccines they were pushing … The advisory panel was choked with individuals highly connected to the pharmaceutical companies with vested interests in both antiviral and influenza vaccines.

An over $4 billion stake was invested in developing these vaccines, and without a pandemic there would be no use for them. Utilizing propaganda and fear, the drugs were pushed on unsuspecting people, and the money was made.”

Disturbingly, while the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then, which makes one wonder whether the WHO’s COVID-19 pandemic response can actually be trusted.

White House Halts Funding to WHO

On the upside, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams stated in an April 13 radio interview23,24 with Breitbart News Daily that the White House Coronavirus Task Force is no longer relying on predictive projection models at this point, for the simple reason that we now have sufficient real-time data that provide a far more accurate overview of the situation.

According to Adams, the reopening of American communities will be based on actual infection rates (derived from testing) rather than predictive modeling, and communities’ ability to handle the real-world medical case load.

April 14, 2020, President Trump also halted funding to WHO until a White House review of the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has been completed. As reported by Politico:25

“Trump … accused WHO of ‘severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus’ and called its opposition to U.S. travel restrictions on China in the outbreak’s early months ‘disastrous.’

While WHO did call such travel bans ‘ineffective in most situations’ at the time, the group did acknowledge that they could buy countries time to ‘to initiate and implement effective preparedness measures.’”

Considering WHO is acting like little more than a front group for Big Pharma, just like the Gates Foundation (which is now the largest funder of WHO), this may actually be a good thing. WHO really needs to decide whether it’s going to do what’s right for public health or take its direction from Gates and the drug industry.

Gates, through his massive involvement with WHO — detailed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” — is both calling the shots during this pandemic and stands to gain handsomely from it, seeing how the Gates Foundation Trust is invested in vaccine development companies that in turn receive “charitable donations” from the Gates Foundation.

Gates has gone on record saying the U.S. needs a national tracking system26 that could involve vaccine records embedded on our bodies (such as invisible ink quantum dot tattoos described in a Science Translational Medicine paper27,28) and mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for anyone wanting to move about and travel freely in the future.

Limiting Gates influence, even if that means defunding the WHO, is likely going to be imperative if we want to avoid the dystopian surveillance state he proposes.

What We Learned From the Pandemic Swine Flu Vaccine

Even if a COVID-19 vaccine comes out in a year, we will have no proof that it’s safe since researchers are foregoing some of the normally required safety testing in order to get a vaccine out as soon as possible.29 What if it turns into a repeat of the fast-tracked H1N1 swine flu vaccine released in Europe during the swine flu pandemic of 2009-2010?

Even more important would be how effective it is. The effectiveness of influenza vaccines has historically been abysmal, so what good would administering the vaccine do if it doesn’t work?

In July 2009, the U.S. National Biodefense Safety Board unanimously decided to forgo most safety and efficacy tests to get the vaccine out by September of that year.30,31 Europe also accelerated its approval process, allowing manufacturers to skip large-scale human trials32 — a decision that turned out to have tragic consequences33 for an untold number of children and teens across Europe.

Over the next few years, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked34 to childhood narcolepsy, which abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.35,36

Children and teens in Finland,37 the U.K.38 and Sweden39 were among the hardest hit. Further analyses discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine as well, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.40

A 2019 study41 reports finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.

They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”

As of right now, one of the main contenders for a COVID-19 vaccine is using synthetic mRNA to instruct DNA to produce the same kind of proteins COVID-19 uses to gain access into our cells. The idea is that your immune system will learn to recognize and kill the real virus.

What the limited human trials on this vaccine will NOT tell us is whether it might have devastating genetic effects. No one expected Pandemrix to have genetic effects. Yet it did.

The pandemic H1N1 vaccine was largely voluntary. Had it been mandated across the entire world, which is what they’re considering for COVID-19, the health ramifications would have been absolutely devastating, and that’s the risk we’re facing if a COVID-19 mandate goes through.

The Swine Flu Fraud of 1976

Last but not least, we can look at and learn from the swine flu fiasco of 1976 as well, detailed in this 1979 60 Minutes episode. Fearing a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, “the government propaganda machine cranked into action,” 60 Minutes says, telling all Americans to get vaccinated.

According to 60 Minutes, 46 million Americans were vaccinated against the swine flu at that time. Over the next few years, thousands of Americans filed vaccine damage claims with the federal government.42 As reported by Smithsonian Magazine in 2017:43

“In the spring of 1976, it looked like that year’s flu was the real thing. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t, and rushed response led to a medical debacle that hasn’t gone away.

‘Some of the American public’s hesitance to embrace vaccines — the flu vaccine in particular — can be attributed to the long-lasting effects of a failed 1976 campaign to mass-vaccinate the public against a strain of the swine flu virus,’ writes Rebecca Kreston for Discover.

‘This government-led campaign was widely viewed as a debacle and put an irreparable dent in future public health initiative, as well as negatively influenced the public’s perception of both the flu and the flu shot in this country.’”

A 1981 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office to Senator John Durkin reads, in part:44

“Before the swine flu program there were comparatively few vaccine-related claims made against the Government. Since 1963, Public Health Service records showed that only 27 non-swine flu claims were filed.

However, as of December 31, 1979, we found that 3,839 claims and 988 lawsuits had been filed against the Government alleging injury, death, or other damage resulting from the 45 million swine flu immunizations given under the program.

A Justice official told us that as of October 2, 1980, 3,965 claims and 1,384 lawsuits had been filed. Of the 3,965 claims filed, the Justice official said 316 claims had been settled for about $12.3 million …”

CDC Lied About Swine Flu Vaccine Safety

According to 60 Minutes, the claims amount for the nearly 4,000 claimants totaled $3.5 billion. Two-thirds of the claimants suffered neurological damage and at least 300 of them died.

As explained by 60 Minutes, Americans who got the vaccine were told the vaccine had been field tested. What they were not told was that the vaccine they received was not the actual vaccine that had undergone testing.

According to Dr. Michael Hattwick, who directed the surveillance team for the 1976 swine flu vaccination program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there was evidence showing influenza vaccinations could, and had, caused neurological complications in the past.

He claims he warned his superiors of this possibility, as it pertained to the swine flu campaign. Yet the CDC denied the evidence and the American public was never informed of this risk. 60 Minutes also reveals the CDC was proven to have lied in its marketing materials for the vaccine.

Judy Roberts was one of the victims of that campaign. She was paralyzed by the vaccine, and suffered permanent damage. Her husband, who was also vaccinated and suffered no ill effects, ends the segment saying:

“I told Judy to take the shot … I’m mad with my government. They knew the facts but they didn’t release those facts, because if they had released them, people wouldn’t have taken it.

And they can come out tomorrow and tell me there’s going to be an epidemic, and they can drop off like flies next to me, and I will not take another shot that my government tells me to take.”

Remember, do not trust any vaccine messaging Fauci, Gates and other misinformed and ill-intentioned professionals are seeking to spread. It would be far wiser to focus on improving your innate immunity through solid inexpensive and safe strategies we have previously discussed.

 

– Sources and References

Prestigious VACCINE Journal: Flu Vaccine Increases Coronavirus Infection Risk 36%

© 12th March 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
Reproduced from original article:
www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/prestigious-vaccine-journal-flu-vaccine-increases-coronavirus-infection-risk-36-3

Posted on:  Thursday, March 12th 2020 at 10:30 am

Written By:  GMI Reporter

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020

A new study published in the prestigious journal Vaccine, a peer-reviewed medical journal, published by Elsevier, titled Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season, reveals that influenza vaccination may increase the risk of infection from other respiratory viruses — a phenomenon known as virus interference. 

The purpose of the study was to evaluate so-called “test negative study designs,” which are used to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness without consideration for the effects the flu vaccine may have in changing the risk of infection for other viruses which can cause respiratory illness, which the authors point out may result in, “potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.” They elaborate further:

The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined.

The study results fly directly in the face of recent health recommendations that one should get an influenza vaccine to protect against Coronavirus-19.

According to the study, “vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.” More specifically,

Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively) (Table 5). 

That represents a 36% and 51% increased risk of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in influenza vaccinated individuals, respectively.

While the study did find there was significant protection with flu vaccination against most influenza viruses, including also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections, previous research raises red flags. A 2018 study published in PNAS found that  receiving a flu vaccination in the current and previous season may increase aerosol shedding of flu particles 6.3 times more as compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Why Everything You Learned About Viruses is WRONG

© 26th February 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
Reproduced from original article:
www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-only-thing-influenza-may-kill-germ-theory

Posted on:  Wednesday, February 26th 2020 at 7:45 pm

Groundbreaking research indicates that most of what is believed about the purportedly deadly properties of viruses like influenza is, in fact, not evidence-based but myth…

Germ theory is an immensely powerful force on this planet, affecting everyday interactions from a handshake, all the way up the ladder to national vaccination agendas and global eradication campaigns.

But what if fundamental research on what exactly these ‘pathogens’ are, how they infect us, has not yet even been performed? What if much of what is assumed and believed about the danger of microbes, particularly viruses, has completely been undermined in light of radical new discoveries in microbiology?

Some of our readers already know that in my previous writings I discuss why the “germs as our enemies” concept has been decimated by the relatively recent discovery of the microbiome. For in depth background on this topic, read my previous article, “How The Microbiome Destroyed the Ego, Vaccine Policy, and Patriarchy.” You can also read Profound Implications of the Virome for Human Health and Autoimmunity, to get a better understanding of how viruses are actually beneficial to mammalian health.

In this article I will take a less philosophical approach, and focus on influenza as a more concrete example of the Copernican-level paradigm shift in biomedicine and life sciences we are all presently fully immersed within, even if the medical establishment has yet to acknowledge it. (a topic I cover extensively in my upcoming book REGENERATE: Unlocking Your Body’s Radical Resilience through the New Biology).

Deadly Flu Viruses: Vaccinate or Die?

The hyperbolic manner in which health policymakers and mainstream media pundits talk about it today, flu virus is an inexorably lethal force, against which all citizens, of all ages 6 months or older, need the annual influenza vaccine to protect themselves against, lest they face deadly consequences. Worse, those who hold religious or philosophical objections, or who otherwise conscientiously object to vaccinating, are being characterized as doing harm to others by denying them herd immunity (a concept that has been completely debunked by a careful study of the evidence, or lack thereof). For instance, in the interview below Bill Gates tells Sanjay Gupta that he thinks non-vaccinators “kill children”:

But what if I told you that there isn’t even such a thing as “flu virus,” in the sense of a monolithic, disease vector existing outside of us, conceived as it is as the relationship of predator to prey?

First, consider that the highly authorative Cochrane collaboration acknowledges there are many different flu viruses that are not, in fact, influenza A — against which flu vaccines are targeted — but which nonetheless can contribute to symptoms identical to those attributed to influenza A:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).” [emphasis added]

This makes for a picture of complexity that powerfully undermines health policies that presuppose vaccination equates to bona fide immunity, and by implication, necessitates the herd collectively participate in the ritual of mass vaccination campaigns as a matter of life-or-death social necessity.

Even the use of the word “immunization” to describe vaccination is highly misleading. The moment the word is used, it already presupposes efficacy, and makes it appear as if non-vaccinators are anti-immunity, instead of what they actually are: pro-immunity (via clean air, food, water, and sunlight), but unwilling to subject themselves or their healthy children to “unavoidably unsafe” medical procedures with only theoretical benefits.

Why Flu Virus Doesn’t Exist (The Way We Were Told)

But the topic gets even more interesting when we consider the findings of a 2015 study entitled “Conserved and host-specific features of influenza virion architecture.” This was the first study ever to plumb the molecular depths of what influenza virus is actually composed of. Amazingly, given the long history of vaccine use and promotion, the full characterization of what proteins it contains, and where they are derived from, was never previously performed. How we invest billions of dollars annually into flu vaccines, and have created a global campaign to countermand a viral enemy, whose basic building blocks were not even known until a few years ago, is hard to understand. But it is true nonetheless.

The study abstract opens with this highly provocative line:

“Viruses use virions to spread between hosts, and virion composition is therefore the primary determinant of viral transmissibility and immunogenicity.” [emphasis added]

Virion are also known as “viral particles,” and they are the means by which viral nucleic acids are able to move and ‘infect’ living organisms. Without the viral particle (taxi) to carry around the virus DNA (passenger), it would be harmless; in fact, viruses are often described as existing somewhere between living and inanimate objects for this reason: they do not produce their own energy, nor are transmissable without a living host. And so, in this first line, the authors are making it clear that virion composition is also the primary determinant in how or whether a virus is infectious (transmits) and what effects it will have in the immune system of the infected host.


Influenza viral particles

This distinction is important because we often think of viruses as simply pathogenic strings of DNA or RNA. The irony, of course, is that the very things we attribute so much lethality to — viral nucleic acids — are not even alive, and can not infect an organism without all the other components (proteins, lipids, extra-viral nucleic acids) which are, technically, not viral in origin, participating in the process. And so, if the components that are non-viral are essential for the virus to cause harm, how can we continue to maintain that we are up against a monolithic disease entity “out there” who “infects” us, a passive victim? It’s fundamentally non-sensical, given these findings. It also clearly undermines the incessant, fear-based rhetoric those beholden to the pro-vaccine stance to coerce the masses into undergoing the largely faith-based rite of vaccination.

Let’s dive deeper into the study’s findings.

The next line of the abstract addresses the fact we opened this article with: namely, that there is great complexity involved at the level of the profound variability in virion composition:

“However, the virions of many viruses are complex and pleomorphic, making them difficult to analyze in detail” 

But this problem of the great variability in the virion composition of influenza is exactly why the study was conducted. They explain:

“Here we address this by identifying and quantifying viral proteins with mass spectrometry, producing a complete and quantifiable model of the hundreds of viral and host-encoded proteins that make up the pleomorphic virions of influenza virus. We show that a conserved influenza virion architecture, which includes substantial quantities of host proteins as well as the viral protein NSI, is elaborated with abundant host-dependent features. As a result, influenza virions produced by mammalian and avian hosts have distinct protein compositions.” 

In other words, they found that the flu virus is as much comprised of biological material from the host the virus ‘infects,’ as the viral genetic material of the virus per se.

How then, do we differentiate influenza virus as fully “other”? Given that it would not exist without “self” proteins, or those of other host animals like birds (avian) or insects, this would be impossible to do with any intellectual honesty intact.

There’s also the significant problem presented by flu vaccine production. Presently, human flu vaccine antigen is produced via insects and chicken eggs. This means that the virus particles extracted from these hosts would contain foreign proteins, and would therefore produce different and/or unpredictable immunological responses in humans than would be expected from human influenza viral particles. One possibility is that the dozens of foreign proteins found within avian influenza could theoretically produce antigens in humans that cross-react with self-structures resulting in autoimmunity. Safety testing, presently, does not test for these cross reactions. Clearly, this discovery opens up a pandora’s box of potential problems that have never sufficiently been analyzed, since it was never understood until now that “influenza” is so thoroughly dependent upon a host for its transmissability and immunogenecity.

Are Flu Viruses Really “Hijacked” Exosomes?

Lastly, the study identified something even more amazing:

“Finally, we note that influenza virions share an underlying protein composition with exosomes, suggesting that influenza virions form by subverting micro vesicle” production.”

What these researchers are talking about is the discovery that virion particles share stunning similarities to naturally occurring virus-like particles produced by all living cells called exosomes. Exosomes, like many viruses (i.e. enveloped viruses) are enclosed in a membrane, and are within the 50-100 nanometer size range that viruses are (20-400 nm). They also contain biologically active molecules, such as proteins and lipids, as well as information-containing ones like RNAs — exactly, or very similar, to the types of contents you find in viral particles.

Watch this basic video on exosomes to get a primer:

When we start to look at viruses through the lens of their overlap with exosomes, which as carriers of RNAs are essential for regulating the expression of the vast majority of the human genome, we start to understand how their function could be considered neutral as “information carriers,” if not beneficial. Both exosomes and viruses may actually be responsible for inter-species or cross-kingdom communication and regulation within the biosphere, given the way they are able to facilitate and mediate horizontal information transfer between organisms. Even eating a piece of fruit containing these exosomes can alter the expression of vitally important genes within our body.


Exosomes

In light of this post-Germ Theory perspective, viruses could be described as pieces of information in search of chromosomes; not inherently “bad,” but, in fact, essential for mediating the genotype/phenotype relationship within organisms, who must adapt to ever-shifting environmental conditions in real-time in order to survive; something the glacial pace of genetic changes within the primary nucleotide sequences of our DNA cannot do (for instance, it may take ~ 100,000 years for a protein-coding gene sequence to change versus seconds for a protein-coding gene’s expression to be altered via modulation via viral or exosomal RNAs).

This does not mean they are “all good”, either. Sometimes, given many conditions outside their control, their messages could present challenges or misinformation to the cells to which they are exposed, which could result in a “disease symptom.” These disease symptoms are often if not invariably attempts by the body to self-regulate and ultimately improve and heal itself.

In other words, the virion composition of viruses appears to be the byproduct of the cell’s normal exosome (also known as microvesicle) production machinery and trafficking, albeit being influenced by influenza DNA. And like exosomes, viruses may be a means of extracellular communication between cells, instead of simply a pathological disease entity. This could explain why an accumulating body of research on the role of the virome in human health indicates that so-called infectious agents, including viruses like measles, confer significant health benefits. [see: the Health Benefits of Measles and The Healing Power of Germs?].

Other researchers have come to similar discoveries about the relationship between exosomes and viruses, sometimes describing viral hijacking of exosome pathways as a “Trojan horse” hypothesis. HIV may provide such an example.

Concluding Remarks

The remarkably recent discovery of the host-dependent nature of the influenza virus’ virion composition is really just the tip of an intellectual iceberg that has yet to fully emerge into the light of day, but is already “sinking” ships; paradigm ships, if you will.

One such paradigm is that germs are enemy combatants, and that viruses serve no fundamental role in our health, and should be eradicated from the earth with drugs and vaccines, if possible.

This belief, however, is untenable. With the discovery of the indispensable role of the microbiome, and the subpopulation of viruses within it — the virome — we have entered into an entirely new, ecologically-based view of the body and its environs that are fundamentally inseparable. Ironically, the only thing that influenza may be capable of killing is germ theory itself.

For an in-depth exploration of this, watch the lecture below on the virome. I promise, if you do so, you will no longer be able to uphold germ theory as a monolithic truth any longer. You may even start to understand how we might consider some viruses “our friends,” and why we may need viruses far more than they need us.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Why are these powerful natural antibiotics better than popping a toxic pill?

Reproduced from original article:
www.naturalhealth365.com/powerful-natural-antibiotics-3273.html

antibiotics

(NaturalHealth365) In November 2019, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admitted that more people are contracting and dying from antibiotic-resistant superbugs than anyone previously thought. We can’t say we’re shocked – since we now know that antibiotics are an over-prescribed class of drugs.  Fortunately, we have something as simple as tea tree oil that could help put an end to this unnecessary human suffering.

Plenty of research suggests that natural antibiotics like tea tree oil, oregano oil, and garlic can be just as effective as synthetic antibiotics at killing harmful pathogens. And with what is already known about garlic benefits, it’s clear that this is promising in the fight against “superbugs.”

Studies show these natural antibiotics effectively eliminate the threat of infections

On average, someone in America dies from an antibiotic-resistant infection every 15 minutes!  And this doesn’t even include the millions of other people who are simply suffering from bugs of all kinds that are not (yet) resistant to conventional drugs.

Fortunately, it seems that natural remedies really can make a difference. Here’s a quick look at some recent research showing how natural compounds like garlic benefits someone who is fighting against an illness or infection:

  • 2019 thesis work out of Aydın Adnan Menderes University in Turkey revealed that tea tree oil was nearly as effective as pharmaceutical antibiotics at killing bacteria. The paper’s author points out that because natural remedies like tea tree oil can take longer to produce a beneficial result, the true effectiveness of the tea tree oil may not have been fully captured in the study and that more research is needed. Tea tree oil and other organic compounds like oregano oil tend to have far fewer side effects compared to synthetic drugs, so it may be safer to use a more potent concentration of these natural antibiotics.
  • In 2014, researchers published a paper in Global Advances in Health and Medicine that explored whether herbal remedies would be effective at treating small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). In a study involving more than 100 patients with SIBO, the researchers discovered that herbal and nutraceutical therapies were just as effective at treating the bacterial overgrowth as a powerful antibiotic drug known as rifaximin.
  • A 2012 study published in Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy showed that a compound in garlic called diallyl sulfide is 100 times more effective than popular antibiotics erythromycin and ciprofloxacin at fighting the Campylobacter bacterium – a leading cause of gastrointestinal illnesses and a main trigger for a frightening paralyzing disorder known as Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Want a cold and flu-free season? Practice these five tips regularly

The tingle in your throat. The pressure in your ears. The achy feeling in your muscles. The mental fogginess that leaves you spinning your wheels at work. You know what the early warning signs and symptoms of a cold look like.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

So, in addition to adding oregano oil, garlic, tea tree, and other natural antibiotics to your self-care routine, be sure to check out these other natural tips to boost your immune system and keep you from having to use a sick day this winter:

  1. Supplement your diet with antioxidants, probiotics, and other nutrients that can keep you healthy and/or ease your symptoms if you do fall under the weather – we’ve highlighted a few before, including raw honey, olive leaf extract, ginger, and herbal tea.
  2. Drink lots of water – staying well-hydrated helps your body flush itself of germs and toxins.
  3. Wash your hands with soap and warm water regularly – but steer clear of hand sanitizers, since they make it easier for harmful chemicals like BPA to get absorbed through your skin.
  4. Protect your sleep at all costs. Getting fewer than the recommended 7 to 9 hours of sleep per night can dramatically impair your immune system.
  5. Stay on top of your stress with techniques like exercise, mindfulness meditation, and journaling. Being stressed out doesn’t exactly cause you to fall ill, but it will make you more likely to fall ill if you come in contact with germs or someone else who’s already sick.
  6. And, of course, our most important tip: keep plenty of (high quality) vitamin C around to maintain a strong immune system – especially during the winter months.

Bottom line: many of these natural remedies are a much better way to keep your body healthy and strong – without threatening the health of your liver, and other vital organs, due to the toxicity of synthetically-produced drugs.

Sources for this article include:

Kidshealth.org
CDC.gov
UWhealth.org
Researchgate.net
Sciencedaily.com
Academic.oup.com
NIH.gov
NYTimes.com

Mandatory Flu Vaccine Coming Your Way?


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/21/mandatory-flu-vaccine.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

January 21, 2020

mandatory flu vaccine

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Our media no longer fulfill their public duty. Rather than presenting both sides of an argument, most mainstream media now act as mouthpieces for industry
  • Public health agencies are also falling short of their duty, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included, which for years has lied about accepting funds from corporations making and selling drugs and vaccines that the federal agency promotes for universal use by all children and adults
  • Measles outbreaks and fear-mongering by exaggerating disease risks and minimizing vaccine risks are being cleverly used to create propaganda to eliminate the legal right to make vaccine choices across the board
  • A bill has been introduced in New York that requires children to get HPV vaccinations in order to attend day care and public school. This, despite emerging data suggesting the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer increased in Sweden after HPV vaccine was recommended for all girls and women 9 to 26 years old in 2006
  • Research shows long-term annual vaccination may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype

As discussed in my November 5, 2019, article, “Trojan Horse of Measles — More Vaccines With the Mandate,” while most state legislation targeting vaccination mandates have focused on measles, what tends to get lost in the debate is that these mandatory vaccination laws are likely to be extended to all vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and any number of vaccines licensed and recommended by the federal government in the future.

In other words, measles outbreaks and the fear-mongering by exaggerating disease risks and minimizing vaccine risks are being cleverly used to create propaganda to eliminate the legal right to make vaccine choices across the board. As just one example, in “Trojan Horse of Measles,” I discuss how a bill has been introduced in New York that requires children to be vaccinated against HPV in order to attend day care and public school.

This, despite the incredible health risks associated with the HPV vaccine and its low benefit-to-risk ratio,1 not to mention the fact that it has never been proven to lower cancer rates. On the contrary, emerging data suggest the incidence of cervical cancer increased in Sweden after HPV vaccine was recommended for all girls and women aged 9 to 26 years.

Scientific evidence of an increase in the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer in Sweden between 2006 and 20152 was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2018. The study raised questions about whether women are at increased risk for cervical cancer if they are vaccinated after they have been infected with HPV, which is an asymptomatic viral infection that is cleared from the body within two years by more than 90 percent of women and men.3

The study was retracted a few weeks after it was published. The retraction was not due to falsification of data, but because the scientist who wrote the study used a pseudonym and false affiliation due to fear he would be harmed for publishing his findings. As explained in the retraction statement by the publisher:4

“On inquiry, the author informed us that he had used a pseudonym besides a false affiliation. He later made his identity known to IJME’s editor on the promise of strict confidentiality.

On verification of his identity, the editor confirmed that (a) the author had the necessary qualifications, expertise and research experience on the subject of the article; and (b) the author did face a credible threat of harm, making it necessary not to be named publicly.

Further we reconfirmed the reviewers’ conclusions: that the article used publicly available data with a simple statistical method; made a fair attempt to report a possible association of the increased incidence of carcinoma cervix with HPV vaccination …

We felt that the data and analysis could be scientifically appreciated and critiqued without reference to the author … Following our decision, we received valuable advice from our editorial board and other well-wishers, emphasizing that there should be zero tolerance to the author’s deception, irrespective of the content of the paper.

While our assessment of the science of the article may be correct, we have concluded that tolerating the author’s deception and retaining the article was an error of judgment. … We hope that the hypothesis of possible harm of vaccinating women previously exposed to HPV is carefully explored in future studies.”

Chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in “The Plaintiff’s Science Day Presentation on Gardasil,” that Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil “has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.”

In his presentation, Kennedy reveals Merck data showing Gardasil increases the overall risk of death by 370%, risk of autoimmune disease by 2.3% and risk of a serious medical condition by 50%.

A 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health5 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility. According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.”

After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.6

A 2014 case report paper7 described cases of three adolescent girls who suffered premature ovarian insufficiency after their HPV vaccinations — a condition that can render them incapable of bearing children in the future. Conveniently, Merck, maker of Gardasil, is also “the world market leader in fertility treatments,” according to the European Pharmaceutical Review.8

Advertisement

Get my FREE 20 health resolutions for 2020 here


Media and Public Health Agencies Are Letting Us Down

Unfortunately, our media no longer fulfill their public duty. Rather than presenting both sides of an argument, most mainstream media now act as mouthpieces for pharmaceutical industry propaganda, and this is particularly true where vaccines are concerned.

Public health agencies are also falling short of their duty, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included, which for years has lied about accepting funds from corporations making and selling drugs and vaccines.

Several watchdog groups are now petitioning the CDC to cease making false disclaimers about not accepting commercial support, and to retroactively acknowledge conflicts of interest.

Another lawsuit, filed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) in 2018 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, revealed the HHS — in violation of federal law — has not provided a single required biannual vaccine safety report to Congress since 1988.9 As noted by ICAN founder Del Bigtree:10

“It is apparent that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 39 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age, including in utero. In 1986, a one-year old child received 11 doses.

HHS spends billions annually promoting vaccines and generates a steady stream of reports promoting vaccines. Yet, when, despite federal law, HHS cannot bother to complete the simple task of preparing a biennial report on vaccine safety, there is little hope HHS is tackling the much harder job of improving vaccine safety.”

Vaccine Science Is Not Being Reported Honestly

A 2018 article11 in The BMJ highlights the media’s influence over vaccine policy and how journalists are misleading the public about vaccine safety and effectiveness. The article, “Reporting Flu Vaccine Science,” written by freelance journalist Rob Wipond, notes:

When reporting on medical studies, the popular press has a habit of sensationalizing. So the muted response to a recent research paper12 reporting increased risk of miscarriage with influenza vaccines was at first sight surprising.

The study, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that women who had received an influenza vaccine containing the 2009 pandemic strain pH1N1 and who were also vaccinated in the next flu season had a statistically significant, 7.7-fold higher odds of spontaneous abortion within 28 days of the second vaccination …

The concerning odds ratio fostered extensive discussion in the paper. But the news media projected an air of calm, highlighting the observational study’s many limitations.”

Among the “muted” press coverage cited by Wipond is The Washington Post’s report13 on the study, written by Lena Sun, which significantly downplayed the findings and urged pregnant women to continue getting their annual flu shot.

This isn’t surprising considering Sun was one of three journalists hand-selected by the CDC to get exclusive early access to the findings, knowing she could be trusted to report on the study in a way that would minimize influenza vaccine risks so pregnant women would be persuaded to get a flu shot during every pregnancy.14,15

Hypocrisy and Double Standards

In a reply to Wipond’s article, retired pediatrician Allan S. Cunningham seconds many of Wipond’s concerns, stating:16

“After weeks of brooding about the Donahue article linking flu shots to miscarriages … it was with a sense of relief that I read Rob Wipond’s narrative of media attempts to sweep a serious vaccine safety issue under the rug.

He points out the hypocrisy (his words were ‘double standard’) of authorities who dismissed the Donahue paper because it was an ‘observational study.’ Year after year they have quoted observational studies to announce, ‘ … 80% vaccine effectiveness … 60% effectiveness … 40% effectiveness …’

They do not mention that these studies make no effort to look for adverse vaccine effects (e.g. narcolepsy, seizures, high fever, oculorespiratory syndrome). They do not mention ‘negative vaccine effectiveness,’ the increase in risk of illness from influenza and non-influenza viruses associated with (or caused by) the vaccines …

They do not mention that a vaccine ‘effective’ in one season may increase influenza risk in a subsequent season … They do not mention that the observational studies they refer to are likely to exaggerate vaccine effectiveness in the first place because of the ‘healthy user effect’ well known to epidemiologists …

Wipond does not mention another technique used to dismiss legitimate vaccine safety concerns, having to do with ‘statistical significance.’ Recently, a large cohort study17 found that flu shots given during the first trimester of pregnancy were associated with a 20% increase in autism spectrum disorder in the offspring.

P for the association was 0.01, and the authors acknowledged that, if it was causal, would mean four (4) additional autism cases for every 1,000 mothers vaccinated.

However, they incorrectly used a statistical manipulation to adjust the finding into ‘non-significance’ … One typical media headline about the study was, ‘Flu vaccine during pregnancy not linked to autism’ … This kind of thing goes on all the time with news releases for vaccine research.”

Why You Cannot Trust The Washington Post

Washington Post reporter Lena Sun has published a number of patently false claims about vaccines,18 and has attacked me personally for making fully referenced and scientifically provable statements about vaccine risks and the fact that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels has been shown to be effective in preventing respiratory infections, even more effective than the flu vaccine.

In a November 21, 2019, article,19 journalist Jeremy Hammond details four instances that exemplify how Sun has lied about vaccine safety. To repeat but one, Sun has stated that:20

“The effectiveness of the vaccine schedule is tested extensively to ensure that the vaccines in the combination don’t interfere with one another and can be easily handled by the infant and the child’s immune system. No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations.”

As noted by Hammond, this is “a brazen lie,” as published papers21 and even committees at the Institute of Medicine22 (which the CDC considers an authoritative source) have warned about the complete lack of such testing, and the fact that there not only is inadequate scientific evidence to prove safety of the CDC’s birth to age 6 childhood vaccination schedule, but that the synergistic effects of giving multiple vaccines to infants and children has not been adequately studied.

Flu Vaccination Increases Risk of Pandemic Flu

New York, New Jersey and other states have introduced bills to mandate Influenza vaccines for children and adults,23 while the mainstream media continues to ignore evidence that routine flu vaccination increases risks for influenza infections during pandemic outbreaks. A study24 published in the Journal of Virology in 2011 pointed out that:

“Infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity).”

And that “long-term annual vaccination using inactivated vaccines may hamper the induction of cross-reactive CD8+ T cell responses by natural infections and thus may affect the induction of heterosubtypic immunity.”

The study’s authors note that long-term annual vaccination, in turn, “may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype.”

In simpler terms, while naturally experiencing and recovering from type A influenza can provide immunity against other subtypes of the influenza virus, it appears that vaccination does not do that, making previously vaccinated children more susceptible to pandemic flu strains. (Pandemic influenza is when a new influenza A virus appears that spreads easily among individuals and spreads globally.25)

Other studies linking annual flu vaccination with increased risk of illness are listed in my March 2019 article “Is the Flu Vaccine Really ‘Working Well’ This Year?

Influenza Vaccine Is Vastly Oversold

Mainstream media outlets also will not admit that Pharma bias compromises the results of most vaccine studies. Yet the presence of such bias was clearly highlighted in a 2010 study26 by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, in which they assessed the effectiveness of flu vaccines in preventing influenza and complications in healthy adults and included a clear warning:

“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.

WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.

Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

Does Vitamin D Outperform Flu Vaccine?

According to reporter Sun of The Washington Post, I lie when I say that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels outperforms the flu vaccine, yet published studies have come to this exact conclusion and the results have been published by other mainstream reporters.

For example, in 2017, BBC News reported27 the findings of a systematic review28 published in The BMJ, which concluded that vitamin D supplementation protected against acute respiratory tract infection.

The number needed to treat (NNT) was 33, meaning 33 people had to take the supplement in order to prevent a single case of infection. Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4.

As reported by BBC News,29 “That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case,30 although flu is far more serious than the common cold.”

The BBC actually downplays the findings when it says “flu is far more serious than the common cold,” because the NNT of 40 that BBC News cites refers to the overall effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI), which the World Health Organization defines31 as “an acute respiratory infection.” (About 80 percent of all lab tested ILI cases do not test positive for A or B influenza but are caused by other types of viral and bacterial infections.)32

In other words, comparing the NNT of 33 for vitamin D with 40 for the flu vaccine is entirely accurate and appropriate as far as ILI or acute respiratory infection is concerned.

According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews cited by the BBC, to prevent one case of confirmed influenza, the NNT for inactivated vaccines was 71.33 The Harvard Gazette also published the findings of that BMJ study under the headline, “Study Confirms Vitamin D Protects Against Colds and Flu.”34

The Link Between Influenza and Vitamin D

The association between low vitamin D levels and influenza has been recognized for some time (although low vitamin D levels may not be the sole factor responsible for the seasonality increases of influenza and ILI35). As noted in “Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D,” published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006:36

“An interventional study showed that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections in children. We conclude that vitamin D, or lack of it, may be Hope-Simpson’s ‘seasonal stimulus.’”

Similarly, a 2010 study37 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that “vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A” in schoolchildren, especially those “who had not been taking other vitamin D supplements and who started nursery school after age 3.”

A 2009 systematic review38 of randomized controlled trials in which supplemental vitamin D was assessed for its ability to prevent or treat various infectious diseases found that the strongest evidence supporting the use of vitamin D existed for tuberculosis, influenza and viral upper respiratory tract illnesses.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled clinical trial39 published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that infants receiving high doses of vitamin D who went on to develop influenza had significantly shorter duration of illness compared to those who received a lower dosage.

According to the authors, “High-dose vitamin D (1200 IU) is suitable for the prevention of seasonal influenza as evidenced by rapid relief from symptoms, rapid decrease in viral loads and disease recovery.”

A shortcoming of many (if not most) studies looking at vitamin D’s effects on preventing ILI and/or influenza is that they focus on dosage rather than blood levels, and we now know that it’s achieving a certain blood level that matters, not how much vitamin D it takes to get there. Most studies also use dosages around 1,000 or 2,000 IU’s a day, which are unlikely to raise blood levels of vitamin D to any significant degree.

– Sources and References

Does Vitamin D Supplementation Prevent Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease?


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/12/17/vitamin-d-supplements-disease-prevention.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
vitamin d supplements disease prevention

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Recent research claims “high dose” vitamin D supplementation did not result in a lower incidence of cancer or cardiovascular events than placebo
  • The “high dose” given in this trial was a mere 2,000 international units (IUs) a day, which is still only a quarter or less of what many need to raise their blood level into a protective range
  • The study did not test and track participants’ vitamin D blood levels, which is the only way to ensure sufficiency and adherence to the protocol
  • Cancer is a slow-growing disease and effects of nutritional intervention typically only become evident after several years. When the first two years of follow-up data were excluded, people who took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D3 per day had a 25 percent lower risk of cancer in the years following (years three through five)
  • Many need upward of 10,000 IUs a day in order to achieve a blood level of 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) or higher, which is the bottom cutoff for health and disease prevention. Ideally, you’ll want a level between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 and 200 nmol/L)

The effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation has again been questioned with negative headlines1,2 trumpeting its failure to prevent cancer and cardiovascular disease. What most researchers and journalists fail to address, however, is the fact that:

  • The “high dose” given in this trial was a mere 2,000 international units (IUs) a day, which is still only a quarter or less of what many need to raise their blood level into a protective range
  • They did not test and track participants’ vitamin D blood levels, which is the only way to ensure sufficiency

Based on those two factors alone, a negative result is precisely what one would predict. Still, despite such limitations, the study actually found some rather remarkable benefits that were simply glossed over.

In fact, had it been a drug trial, vitamin D would likely have been declared a miracle drug against both cancer and cardiovascular disease, based on the findings. This is the kind of perversion of science and selective reporting that shackles public health.

VITAL Study Conclusions

The study3,4 in question, which was in part funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, was published in the January 2019 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). (A second study5 compared omega-3 supplementation against placebo for the same endpoints.) As detailed in the vitamin D paper, the study was:

“[A] nationwide, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) at a dose of 2000 IU per day6 and marine n−3 (also called omega-3) fatty acids at a dose of 1 gram per day7 for the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease among men 50 years of age or older and women 55 years of age or older in the United States.

Primary end points were invasive cancer of any type and major cardiovascular events (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or death from cardiovascular causes). Secondary end points included site-specific cancers, death from cancer and additional cardiovascular events.”

In conclusion, the authors determined that “Supplementation with vitamin D did not result in a lower incidence of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events than placebo.”

What the VITAL Data Actually Reveals

However, as noted by GrassrootsHealth,8 a nonprofit public health research organization dedicated to moving public health messages regarding vitamin D and omega-3 from research into practice, “when the separate types of heart disease or death from cancer were analyzed, there were 30 different very significant results,” summarized in the graph9 below.

risk reduction vitamin d omega-3

Importantly, when the researchers excluded data from the first two years of supplementation, cancer mortality “was significantly lower with vitamin D than with placebo.”10 The reason this is important is because cancer is a slow-growing disease and effects of nutritional intervention typically only become evident after several years. It’s unreasonable to think you can take a supplement and within weeks or months see a drastic difference in health outcomes. The paper states that clearly, and adds:

“Supplemental vitamin D also did not reduce the occurrence of breast, prostate or colorectal cancers. However, there was a suggestive 17 percent reduction in cancer deaths, which became a 25 percent reduction in analyses that excluded the first two years of follow-up.”

Let me repeat those two points for clarity:

  1. While incidence of breast, prostate and colorectal cancers were unaffected, those who took a non-ideal dose of vitamin D3 supplements still had a 17 percent lower risk of actually dying from those cancers
  2. When the first two years of follow-up data were excluded, people who took a mere 2,000 IUs of vitamin D3 per day had a 25 percent lower risk of cancer in the years following (years three through five)

How is this not good news? Again, let’s remember that 2,000 IUs is really insufficient for most people, yet even at this insufficient dosage, the risk of cancer was cut by 25 percent.

For Most, 2,000 IUs a Day Is Suboptimal for Cancer Prevention

In years past, it was widely believed that 4,000 IUs was the upper safe limit, above which you risked vitamin D toxicity, but studies have since refuted this, showing there’s no risk of toxicity until you hit 30,000 IUs a day, or a blood level of 200 ng/ml (500 nmol/L).11 Still, the misconception persists.

A significant body of research shows many need upward of 10,000 IUs a day in order to achieve a blood level of 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) or higher, which is the bottom cutoff for health and disease prevention. Ideally, you’ll want a level between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 and 200 nmol/L). This is where the majority of health benefits become really apparent.

As noted in a 2009 study12 on athletic performance and vitamin D, “At levels below 40 to 50 ng/mL the body diverts most or all of the ingested or sun-derived vitamin D to immediate metabolic needs, signifying chronic substrate starvation (deficiency).”

As noted earlier, the VITAL study did not use vitamin D blood levels as the marker for deficiency or sufficiency, and this is perhaps the most significant problem with this study. Blood levels were only measured in a subgroup of 1,644 participants (out of 25,871) after the first year of daily supplementation.

In this group, the mean vitamin D blood level increased from 29.8 ng/mL (74 nmol/L) at baseline to 41.8 ng/mL (104 nmol/L). In other words, most of those taking vitamin D supplements had barely adequate vitamin D levels, and were still significantly short of having ideal blood levels — levels at which research shows the risk of cancer is cut up to 80 percent.

Why You Cannot Trust Studies That Base Results on Dosage Rather Than Blood Measurement

This certainly is not the first time studies have claimed vitamin D supplementation is useless. Last year, a meta-analysis13 concluded once-a-month high-dose vitamin D supplementation had no impact on cancer risk. Here, participants received an initial bolus dose of 200,000 IUs of vitamin D, followed by a monthly dose of 100,000 IUs (so-called pulsed or pulsatile dosing) for a median of three years.

While the media played this up as a finding contradicting recommendations to optimize your vitamin D to lower your cancer risk, it really only made a case against once-a-month mega-dosing. As noted by GrassrootsHealth scientists, for optimal results, you need to supplement frequently (ideally daily) and focus on the achieved serum level, not the dosage.

What’s more, 100,000 IUs per month actually only comes out to about 3,000 IUs per day, which again is far below what most adults need to raise their vitamin D serum level into the protective range of 60 to 80 ng/mL, with 40 ng/mL being the low-end cutoff for sufficiency.

Indeed, this analysis noted the mean baseline vitamin D concentration was just over 26 ng/mL, and the mean follow-up level was just 20 ng/mL higher in the supplement group than the placebo group that received no vitamin D.

As in the current NEJM study, participants’ vitamin D levels were also not measured regularly throughout the study, and the association with cancer was not analyzed by serum level but by daily dosage.

This point really cannot be stressed enough: The key factor is not how much vitamin D you take but whether or not your blood level of vitamin D is within the “Goldilocks’ zone” of 60 to 80 ng/mL, and the only way to ascertain that is through blood testing.

How to Assess Study Quality

GrassrootsHealth scientists have also argued that pulsatile dosing at intervals greater than two weeks may actually cause a form of vitamin D deficiency at the cellular level.

According to GrassrootsHealth, to accurately ascertain the benefit of vitamin D in any given trial, researchers must track not only the baseline and final vitamin D serum level plus the dose given, but also the form (vitamin D2 versus D3) and the dosing interval.

Adherence to protocol is also measured by blood level. If a participant’s blood level doesn’t change, you know that individual was probably not taking the supplement as instructed, rendering their result null and void.

All of these factors can influence the results, and it’s important to get them all right. Identifying the ideal parameters are all part of what GrassrootsHealth is doing. Another study, published in 2017, claimed it found “no case” for vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy.14

In reality, it found seven positive outcomes,15 including increased birth weight, a 40 percent reduction in gestational diabetes, an 18 percent reduction in preeclampsia and a 17 percent reduction in gestational hypertension.

What this study failed to find was a reduction in preterm birth, and this was ultimately translated into headlines that made it appear as though pregnant women have no need for vitamin D supplementation! In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.16,17

So, in summary, when evaluating vitamin D research, the following parameters are what you’re looking for in a high-quality study, as without these, the results are likely to be significantly flawed and likely negative:

Supplementation should be frequent, ideally daily — Bolus doses given at intervals greater than two weeks are likely to be ineffective. According to Carole Baggerly, director and founder of GrassrootsHealth, pulsatile dosing at intervals greater than two weeks may actually cause a form of vitamin D deficiency at the cellular level.

Dosage, baseline and final vitamin D serum level must all be tracked — Most studies fail in this regard, as most only track dosage and not serum level, which is the most crucial parameter of all.

In short, it doesn’t matter how large or small the dose is, as long as it gets the participants into a specific blood level range, as the individual response to any given dose varies widely, depending on several different factors, including intake of other nutrients (such as magnesium), age, ethnicity, body weight and amount of sun exposure.

The form of vitamin D must be identified — Are they using vitamin D2 or D3? And are they tracking sun exposure, which is the primary way your body produces vitamin D?

There’s Strong Evidence Vitamin D Lowers Your Chronic Disease Risk

Vitamin D, a steroid hormone, is vital for the prevention of many chronic diseases, including but not limited to:

  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Age-related macular degeneration (the leading cause of blindness)
  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • Heart disease
  • Well over a dozen different types of cancer, including skin cancer — the very cause of concern that has led so many to avoid the sun exposure necessary for vitamin D production

In the case of heart disease, vitamin D plays a vital role in protecting and repairing damage to your endothelium.18 It also helps trigger production of nitric oxide — which improves blood flow and prevents blood clot formation — and significantly reduces oxidative stress in your vascular system, all of which are important to help prevent the development and/or progression of cardiovascular disease.

Just last year, a Norwegian study19 published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found “a normal intake of vitamin D” significantly reduces your risk of death if you have cardiovascular disease.20

According to vitamin D researcher Dr. Michael Holick, vitamin D deficiency — defined as a level below 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) — can also raise your risk of heart attack by 50 percent, and if you have a heart attack while vitamin D deficient, your risk of dying is nearly guaranteed.

Vitamin D also has powerful infection-fighting abilities, making it a useful aid in the treatment of tuberculosis, pneumoniacolds and flu, while maintaining a healthy vitamin D level will typically prevent such infections from taking root in the first place. Studies have also linked higher vitamin D levels with lowered mortality from all causes.21,22,23

A Majority of Breast Cancer Cases Could Be Avoided by Raising Vitamin D Levels Among the General Public

Importantly, the ongoing research by GrassrootsHealth has firmly established that 20 ng/mL, which is conventionally considered the cutoff for sufficiency, is nowhere near sufficient for optimal health and disease prevention.

As mentioned, 40 ng/mL (100 nm/L) appears to be at the low end of optimal, and most participants in the featured NEJM study were likely hovering right around this low-end blood level (based on measurements from a very limited subgroup).

Still, recall the risk of cancer in Years 3 through 5 among those who supplemented with 2,000 IUs a day (thereby reaching a mean blood level of just under 42 ng/mL) went down by 25 percent. GrassrootsHealth research shows the ideal protective range is between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 to 200 nm/L), and the higher the better within this range.

Research has actually demonstrated that most cancers occur in people with a vitamin D blood level between 10 and 40 ng/mL.24,25 Meanwhile, research shows women with vitamin D levels above 60 ng/mL have an 83 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with levels below 20 ng/mL.26 Data from GrassrootsHealth ongoing D*Action study actually suggests 80 percent of breast cancer incidences could be prevented simply by optimizing vitamin D and nothing else!

breast cancer rates vitamin d level

The key, however, is to achieve the proper blood level, which has nothing to do with dosage. And the reason this correlation has never been elucidated before is because no one was using high-enough dosage to actually get participants vitamin D levels above 60 ng/mL, which is where you really start seeing these dramatic reductions in disease.

Optimizing Your Vitamin D Is a Key Disease Prevention Strategy

The evidence in support of vitamin D optimization is overwhelming, and becomes all the more compelling when the blood level is the primary parameter being measured and tracked. The key take-home message here is that 2,000 IUs is insufficient for most people, although it may still cut the risk of cancer by about 25 percent.

Overall, research supports the idea that higher levels offer greater cancer protection, and even levels as high as 100 ng/mL appear safe and beneficial. Importantly, having a serum vitamin D level of 60 ng/mL has been shown to positively impact anyone with breast cancer or Type 1 diabetes, as well as pregnant women and lactating mothers.

It’s a shame that so many researchers still have not grasped the importance of measuring blood levels rather than simply going by dosage, and relatively low dosages at that. In reality, what this NEJM study (and others like it) show is that insufficient vitamin D dosage fails to achieve optimal results. It’s not that vitamin D itself is useless. GrassrootsHealth D*Action study is clearly leading the pack here, revealing what’s required.

It’s an ongoing study that relies on public participation, and you can join at any time. To participate, simply purchase the D*Action Measurement Kit and follow the registration instructions included. (Please note that 100 percent of the proceeds from the kits go to fund the research project. I do not charge a single dime as a distributor of the test kits.)

As a participant, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year study, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $65 fee every six months for your sponsorship of this research project, which includes a test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress.

You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you “it’s time for your next test and health survey.” By participating in this project, you help move vitamin D research forward so that, hopefully, one day we can end this nonsensical debate about whether vitamin D optimization is worth pursuing or not.

– Sources and References

CDC Petitioned to Stop Lying About Pharma Funds


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/11/19/center-for-disease-control-and-prevention-funding.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
November 19, 2019
pharma funding cdc

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The fact that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention accepts millions of dollars from drug companies and vaccine makers may be at the heart of many harmful and nonsensical health recommendations
  • The CDC has long fostered the perception of independence by stating it does not accept funding from special interests. In reality, it receives millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-charted foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee
  • Several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — are petitioning the CDC to cease making these false disclaimers and retroactively acknowledge conflicts of interest
  • CDC accepted $79.6 million from drug companies and commercial manufacturers between 2014 and 2018 alone. Since its inception in 1995, the CDC Foundation has accepted $161 million from private corporations
  • Government-chartered foundations allow corporations to fund and thereby control the work of agencies that are supposed to regulate them

The fact that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention accepts millions of dollars in funding from drug companies and vaccine makers is no minor problem. It may in fact be at the very heart of why so many harmful and nonsensical health recommendations end up being pushed down our throats.

The CDC has long fostered the perception of independence by stating it does not accept funding from special interests. In disclaimers peppered throughout the CDC website1 and in its publications, it says the agency “does not accept commercial support” and has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”

Several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — are now petitioning2 the CDC to cease making these false disclaimers.3

CDC Gets Millions From Corporate Interests

In reality, the CDC does in fact accept millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-chartered foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee.4

On the CDC Foundation’s website, you’ll find a long list5 of “corporate partners” that have provided the CDC with funding over the years. The petition also points out that the CDC media office states the agency “has, can and does accept commercial support,” which is a clear contradiction to its printed disclaimers. Furthermore:

“CDC even accepts earmarked money via the CDC Foundation, allowing manufacturers to fund studies or programs whose results would either expand their profits or reduce their liability exposure,” the petition states.6

“For example, the BMJ reported that ‘in 2012, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C’ …

The CDC Foundation also accepted $1.7 million from the Central American sugar industry for studies on chronic kidney disease which have been criticized for being biased towards the sugar industry, by not asking the best questions.”

CDC Petitioned to Quit Making False Claims

According to the petition,7 the CDC accepted $79.6 million from drug companies and commercial manufacturers between 2014 and 2018 alone. Since its inception in 1995, the CDC Foundation has accepted $161 million from private corporations.

As reported by the Lown Institute,8 which aims to advance “a just and caring system for health to replace the current, failing model rooted in profit-driven, low-value care”:9

“Many of these contributions could be seen as conflicts of interest — for example, a $193,000 donation from Roche, the maker of antiviral drug Tamiflu, to fund a CDC flu prevention campaign.

Despite the significant funding the CDC receives from industry via its foundation, few were aware of these conflicts until Jeanne Lenzer called attention to the foundation in The BMJ10 a few years ago.

Recently, the CDC accepted $3.4 million from Pfizer for the prevention of Cryptococcal disease, $1 million from Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company for a program on preventing maternal mortality, and $750,000 from Biogen for a program on screening newborns for spinal muscular atrophy …”

The petition asks the CDC to stop publishing the false and misleading disclaimers, remove all previously published disclaimers from the CDC website and its publications, and to issue corrections, retroactively disclosing the agency’s financial relationships with industry.

“By issuing these false disclaimers, CDC is misleading health professionals, consumers and others both in the United States and around the world,” the petition states.11

This deception undermines CDC’s credibility and integrity. But the damage here is not merely to the CDC itself. CDC is a national and global leader on medical and public health matters. It is crucial for the CDC to lead by example on matters of ethics, and, at a minimum, to faithfully and truthfully disclose its conflicts of interest.”

Advertisement

Get Up to 41% Off on Select Solspring™ Packs


Government-Chartered Foundations Gives Control to Industry

In a November 5, 2019, press release, Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group stated:12

“That the CDC accepts millions from corporations directly impacted by the agency’s public health programs is indefensible. So, the CDC instead has adopted the strategy of repeatedly denying that it accepts such payments.”

Gary Ruskin, co-director of USRTK added:13

“It’s time for the CDC to be truthful with health professionals and all Americans, and to stop denying that it takes corporate money. The CDC is violating the public trust by misleading us in this way.”

The CDC is supposed to be a public health watchdog. It has tremendous credibility within the medical community, and part of this credibility hinges on the idea that it’s free of industry bias and conflicts of interest.

By accepting money from drug companies and vaccine makers, one has to wonder whether that money might be having an impact on the agency’s health recommendations.

Again and again, investigations have shown that funding plays an enormous role in decision-making and in research outcomes. As noted by Shannon Brownlee, senior vice president for the Lown Institute, government-chartered foundations:14

“… exist at least in part because they allow industries to directly fund and thus control the work of agencies that are either supposed to regulate them, or conduct research that can help or hurt their business.”

Telltale Signs of Impropriety Abound

When you start to investigate, there’s no shortage of telltale signs suggesting the CDC isn’t nearly as independent as it claims to be. Some have already been noted in the CDC petition, but there are plenty of others as well.

For example, in 2016, Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, quickly resigned after it was revealed she aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to get World Health Organization officials to relax WHO’s sugar limits.

I wrote about this in “CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding with Coca-Cola to Salvage Soda Market.” Shortly thereafter, CDC director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald was found to have received funding from Coca-Cola for her anti-obesity campaign, which had a near-exclusive focus on exercise, not the impact of soda and sugary junk food. This was reported in “Public Health Agency Sued for Coke Collusion.”

CDC Promotes Drug Industry Agenda

In a November 4, 2019, article15 in Eye on Annapolis, Josh Mazer discusses how the CDC is funding state health programs aimed at implementing mandatory HPV vaccinations:

“The Maryland Prevention and Health Promotion Agency (PHPA) has received millions … as part of an effort to require public schools to force children to get the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination.

Those funds came in the form of grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC maintains a nonprofit foundation that gets enormous amounts of money from Big Pharma — including Merck, the company that produces Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. At the very least, Maryland’s acceptance of those funds has the appearance of impropriety …

During a PHPA-hosted ‘HPV symposium’ attended by state pediatric practices and Maryland Department of Health staffers in March 2018 … the featured speaker — Dr. Alix Casler — encouraged attendees to offer free dinners, bottles of wine, and ‘Quality Doctor Incentives $’ sales bonuses to get Maryland physicians on board with the HPV vaccine-pushing program …

Casler offered a $5,000 cash payment to pediatric practices that achieve targeted HPV vaccine sales goals … Casler is a paid spokesperson for Merck … 

In 2016, the Maryland Partnership for Prevention — which lists the Maryland Department of Health as its top member — accepted $70,000 from the Association of Immunization Managers (AIM).

AIM’s top ‘Corporate Alliance Members’ are Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus. That same year, legislation was introduced in Maryland to mandate the shot … Despite the deaths and the ongoing health-safety questions related to the HPV vaccine, Maryland PHPA has continued using our schools to push Merck’s product.”

CDC Front Group Lobbies for Mandatory Vaccinations

Mazer’s observations are unlikely to be coincidental, as the CDC is a primary contributor to the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), which lobbies for mandatory vaccinations and the elimination of personal belief exemptions to vaccination nationwide.16 As such, the CDC is actively using industry donations to promote a for-profit industry agenda.

It should be clear by now that the justifications given for why personal belief exemptions need to be abolished are nothing but a ploy to make money off mandatory vaccines.

In recent times, the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been the target vaccine used to ban vaccine exemptions, under the pretense that measles is a lethal disease that needs to be eradicated. However, as predicted, it didn’t take long before other, completely unnecessary vaccines were tacked on to the mandated vaccines list.

As just one egregious example, a bill introduced in New York (S298/A2912) now seeks to require children to receive the HPV vaccine — one of the most dangerous and unnecessary vaccines ever made — in order to attend public school or day care.

There are hundreds of vaccines in the pipeline for children and adults, and once vaccine exemptions are eliminated in your state, you can expect many more to be mandated.

At that point, you’ll have no way of opting out of any of them. Measles was really just the Trojan Horse used to eliminate vaccine exemptions and strengthen mandatory vaccination laws. As noted by Children’s Health Defense in a June 6, 2019 article:17

“ACIP’s industry-beholden membership roster reads like a ‘who’s who’ of the individuals and organizations who spearhead the nation’s vaccine business … The agency’s involvement with vaccine manufacturers also extends to patents, licensing agreements and collaboration on projects to develop new vaccines.

In fact, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) profit handsomely from their ownership or co-ownership with private sector partners of vaccine-related patents.

An early 2017 analysis of Google Patents results18 showed that the CDC held 56 patents pertaining to various aspects of vaccine development, manufacturing, delivery and adjuvants.

By May 2019, the search terms ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccines’ retrieved 143 results in the Google Patents search engine,19 and a separate legal website displayed 10 screens worth of CDC patents,20 both vaccine- and non-vaccine-related.

The author of the 2017 analysis suggests that the large number of patents held by the CDC ‘deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and what…current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions’ …

Some of the key technologies underlying the development of the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix emerged from research patented by the NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), which then licensed the technology to Merck, MedImmune and GlaxoSmithKline. By 2009, HPV licensing had become NIH’s top generator of royalty revenues.”

Children’s Health Defense goes on to cite an in-depth investigation by Mark Blaxill, published in Age of Autism, in which he notes that:21

“Gardasil is perhaps the leading example of a new form of unconstrained government self-dealing, in arrangements whereby [HHS] can transfer technology to pharmaceutical partners, [and] simultaneously both approve and protect their partners’ technology licenses while also taking a cut of the profits.”

Your Help Is Needed!

To help push for greater transparency, please contact the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services today at scheduling@hhs.gov and let them know that you demand the CDC:

  1. Cease publication of disclaimers that CDC has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products” and that it “does not accept commercial support.”
  2. Remove all such disclaimers from the CDC website, including the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
  3. Add corrections to all MMWR articles bearing these disclaimers, explaining that the disclaimers were incorrect and have been removed.
  4. Retroactively disclose, in any MMWR article bearing the disclaimers, any corporate contributions to the CDC or CDC Foundation that are relevant to the MMWR article.
Contact U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

As noted by Lown Institute, disclosing existing conflicts of interests is an important first step in the creation of a “clearer separation between government agencies meant to serve the public interest and industry companies,” but it shouldn’t end there. We also need to abolish the loophole that allowed this hidden industry influence to take root in the first place — the government-chartered foundations.

“We need to question why these foundations exist and push for more public funding of these agencies, rather than force public health agencies to rely on industry funding for their programs and compromise their independence,” Lown Institute writes.22

Sources and References

Echinacea Benefits

Written by Brenton Wight – LeanMachine, 11th November 2019
© 2019 – This article is copyrighted by Brenton Wight and BJ & HJ Wight trading as Lean Machine

What is Echinacea?

Echinacea is a flowering plant in the daisy family, also known as purple coneflower.
There are nine species, however only three are normally used as supplements:

  • Echinacea purpurea
  • Echinacea angustifolia
  • Echinacea pallida

Most commonly used as an over-the-counter remedy to build immunity for colds, allergies and flu, but also  used for inflammation, pain, migraines and blood glucose.

Native to North America but cultivated almost anywhere.
Upper parts and roots are typically used in tablets, tinctures, extracts and teas.
Beneficial Compounds in Echinacea include:

  • Caffeic acid
  • Alkamides
  • Phenolic acid
  • Rosmarinic acid
  • Polyacetylenes

Suggested health benefits include:

  • Antioxidants, including flavonoids, cichoric acid and rosmarinic acid
  • Alkamides that enhance antioxidant activity
  • Immunity to infections and viruses. In studies, Echinacea lowered risk of colds by 50% and  duration by one and a half days
  • Helps blood glucose control by suppression of carbohydrate-digesting enzymes, also increased insulin sensitivity, and helps stop glucose levels plummeting in hypoglycemia
  • Shown to help lower blood pressure, probably by helping to control blood glucose
  • Reduced anxiety due to action of alkamides, rosmarinic acid and caffeic acid
  • Anti-inflammatory, via compounds that reduce inflammatory markers
  • Reduced pain, especially in those who received no benefit from standard pain relief drugs
  • Reduced swelling
  • Improved skin hydration and reduced wrinkles with Echinacea cream
  • Acne (caused by Propionibacterium) suppressed with Echinacea cream
  • Eczema symptoms reduced by Echinacea cream
  • Shown to suppress cancer cell growth and trigger cancer cell death (Apoptosis), a benefit of  the chicoric acid component
  • Shown to increase apoptosis in pancreas and colon cancer cells

Issues with cream products: Echinacea extract is difficult to incorporate into commercial skin care products due to short shelf life.

Side Effects

Echinacea has been shown safe and tolerated well for short-term use, but long-term studies have not been carried out. Rare side effects (mainly in those with allergies to daisies, chrysanthemums, marigolds, ragweed) include:

  • Stomach pain, nausea
  • Shortness of breath
  • Rashes, hives, itchy skin
  • Swelling

Those trying Echinacea for the first time should start with a tiny dose to test for any reaction.

Who should NOT consume Echinacea

Because Echinacea stimulates the immune system, those with any autoimmune disorder, or those taking immunosuppressive drugs (such as those for transplant rejection) should avoid taking Echinacea.

Dosage

No official dosage exists, partly because studies have varied in quantity and quality of the product used, and products sometimes do not contain the amount and/or strength specified, so it is wise to purchase products from trusted brands such as those recommended by LeanMachine in this article.

Studies in the immunity properties of Echinacea suggest the following doses:

Summary

Echinacea has a long and successful history of use in many countries, with rare allergy side-effects, and may help with immunity, allergies, anxiety, skin, cancer, blood pressure, pain, swelling and more.

There are many studies on Echinacea, but results are mixed, with some showing benefits and others showing none. Most studies were mouse studies, test tube studies, petri dish studies, etc and all were of short duration. However, LeanMachine suggests that the antioxidant benefits alone are worthwhile, and long-term studies are expected to show better health outcomes for seniors because their cardiovascular system should be in better shape, and their cancer risk should be lower.

Children

Generally safe for children over age 2 to take Echinacea supplements and drink Echinacea teas, and studies show benefits to children taking Echinacea.

Pregnancy

Study:
www.webmd.com/baby/news/20001128/study-shows-echinacea-safe-during-pregnancy
This study shows Echinachea is safe, but because the study involved only about 200 women, safety cannot be guaranteed absolutely.

Drug Interactions

Risk of drug interactions is relatively low, but some medications are affected by Echinacea.
Some interactions can be a life-or-death situation, so always inform the doctor if taking any herbal products, supplements, vitamins, minerals etc.