Home » COVID-19

Tag: COVID-19

Mask Wearing Has No Scientific Evidence Based Justification

Nearly three years after the start of COVID-19 in early 2020, people are still showing up in my clinic wearing single and double masks, with tremendous fear of getting an infection with COVID-19 or Influenza.  As of the end of 2022, some “so called” experts started telling people in the public to wear masks again, and patients in droves are showing up masked to their medical appointments in the last four weeks.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the existing available data about respiratory viruses including influenza and various types of coronavirus showed no evidence or justification for wearing masks to prevent the spread of infection of a respiratory virus.  The legitimate reason for use of a mask is during surgery to lend protection from blood and body fluid splatter between patient and providers or with specific types of filtration masks designed to specifically protect from certain types of bacterial infections.  

Review of the Medical Literature:

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

  • Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002. N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
  • Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05. None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either health care worker or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
  • bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
  • Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified six clinical studies . . . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”
  • Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant.”
  • Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
  • Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion: Masks Do Not Work

No randomized controlled (RCT) study with verified outcome shows a benefit for health care workers or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study in existence.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.

If there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

No Evidence or Justification for Mask Wearing

Despite the news media with all their hype, all of the scientific studies done in the world up until 2020 demonstrated that there was absolutely no justification for mask wearing to prevent spread of respiratory illness including influenza and corona-viruses.  The guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also showed that there was no need for wearing masks in the general public. The practice of wearing masks did not, and to this day, have any professional justification.  

In 2020, the recommendation around the world for wearing masks suddenly changed without any new professional support to confirm their effectiveness against respiratory infection.   The vast majority of studies during the pandemic suffered from very low quality and many biases.  

Only Two High Quality Mask Studies Exist

Since the start of the pandemic only two high-quality studies have been completed, one looking at a population of over 3000 people in Denmark, and the other with over 342,000 adults completed in Bangladesh.  The study in Bangladesh found some marginal benefit for people over age 50 years old, but overall both studies show that there is no significant benefit for wearing masks to prevent infection with influenza or the corona-virus specifically.

In fact, the results of both of these studies demonstrate that the wearing of masks actually may do more harm than good.   In addition to these studies, several observational studies demonstrated that wearing a mask can cause headaches, concentration difficulty, shortness of breath, decrease in blood oxygen levels, increase in the level of carbon dioxide, bacterial contamination from the mask itself and the existence of substances suspected being carcinogenic as result of lack of regulations and the production of masks.

Wearing a mask for a prolonged period of time can become problematic because of the accumulation of carbon dioxide levels that may exceed permitted standards, might cause tiredness, blurriness, sleepiness and deficiency in judgment, as well as thinking.  

Masks Adversely Affect Social, Mental and Emotional Health

An additional issue I personally found to be a problem in my office, masks create communication difficulty with people who have impaired hearing and need to read lips is a major factor.  Additional studies demonstrated the negative effect of wearing masks on communication and especially with children’s mental and emotional development.

There are a few particular situations in which wearing masks is justified.  In the context of medical treatment when a patient with a respiratory disease is closely examined by medical staff who will be spending prolonged periods of time with that patient, and certainly in the cases of active infectious COVID-19 there is justification for wearing a mask by both the therapist and the patient. However, research still demonstrates the spread to be very low if the contact is less than three hours in length.

As a physician who has practiced medicine for over 20 years, when the patient comes to me with leg pain there is no reason for him or for me to wear a mask.  If a patient comes in with anemia, there is also no reason to wear a mask.    In the medical encounter, the relationship that exist between the doctor and the patient has great significance.  Masks interfere with that relationship and the empathy that should exist between them.  Mask wearing when none is justified creates a subconscious barrier and changes the social and emotional dynamics between the patient and doctor.  Currently, there is a directive for mask-wearing in medical, health and welfare facilities around the world in a number of countries and in a number of hospitals which actually has no scientific justification.

Untrustworthy Medical Journals and Bias

The medical profession and providers within this profession rely heavily on articles published in high-quality journals to provide evidence based guidance and direction for our decisions and actions.  However, in the last three years, bias in these publications has been very significant and misleading in these leading journals.  It has essentially made them untrustworthy.  

Because of this, doctors have passed through a kind of brainwashing by the medical establishment.  They have been receiving inaccurate, misleading and contradictory information from previously trusted sources now swayed by bias, political, governmental and monetary influence, so doctors themselves struggle to know what is right and what is not.

Perhaps most worrisome is the continued refusal to have open professional discussion, and the disdain for different positions backed by poor quality research and data not consistent with the norms of medicine and science.  This has had long-term negative consequences for the medical profession and consequences that every doctor in the world should be concerned about.

As I mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from any broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results because:

  • Any benefit from mask-wearing has only a very small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
  • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown and impossible to account for.
  • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).
  • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
  • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have fundamentally different basic responses.
  • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
  • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
  • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
  • Several different viruses and strains of viruses causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unless you’re going in to perform surgery, please, for your health and mine, stop wearing a mask.

Long COVID, Post Vaccination Syndrome, Clots and the D-Dimer

The COVID-19 spike protein is responsible for serious clotting disorders being seen more and more often.  This is happening so much that morticians are now commenting about the record number of “rubber-like” bands being pulled from people’s vascular systems upon starting the embalming process.

Fibrous Clots found in corpses by Richard Hirschman (https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/why-spike-protein-causes-abnormal-blood-clots-200-symptoms_4842684.html)

I’ve personally seen at least 50 cases over the last two years where patients present with profound fatigue, SOB, abdominal pain, diarrhea and extremity pain post vaccination with no really clear explanation in the medical literature until now.  Patients exposed or vaccinated are having these symptoms linger for as long as 24 months.

A large scale cohort UK study based on 48 million adults in England and Wales found that in the first week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of an arterial blood clot was nearly 22 times higher than in someone without COVID-19, and 33 times higher for those with a venous clot condition.

A clot in the artery is the kind that could cause a heart attack or ischemic stroke by blocking blood flow to the heart or brain.  That’s different from a clot in the vein leading to a clot in the lung.  Though we are seeing both in escalating numbers.

An estimated 10,500 additional cases of clot-related problems, i.e. about 7,200 additional heart attacks or strokes, and 3,500 additional cases of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or other venous problems was identified in this British study alone.   Even though that risk drops sharply to less than four times higher than someone without COVID in the second week, it remains high (2x) even up to 49 weeks after the initial diagnosis. This is especially so in regards to the risk of blood clot formation in the legs (deep vein thrombosis or DVTs).

It’s All Due to the Spike Protein

The spike protein that the virus is wrapped in and that the vaccine causes to be replicated in your RNA is the actual trigger for the clotting cascade.  It’s the reason I called it the ‘clot shot” last year and now we know it increases clotting in three different mechanisms.

The nasty little virus, SARS-CoV-2, enters our cells via a fancy little protein receptor call the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).  And, not so lucky for them, Endothelial cells (ECs), express an abundance of ACE2. ECs reside on the inner surface of every blood vessel across our entire body, making them a direct target of the virus infection.

Many other cells, including lung epithelial cells, enterocytes lining the small intestines, and cardiac pericytes, all express ACE2.

Spike proteins don’t only activate epithelial cells (EC) and promote localized inflammation. They also promote systemic inflammation as ACE2 is almost everywhere inside our major organs and tissues.  And, this coding literally gets written into the DNA.

This leads to more pro-inflammatory genes getting expressed. More and more immune cells are attracted and sent to the injured or infected tissues (vessels in the lung, heart, gut, etc).

A number of downstream events occurs contributing further to the clotting cascade:

  1. Complement-mediated inflammation of epitheliums (endothelialitis): Spike proteins docking on ACE2 ECs activates the complement pathway and coagulation cascade, resulting in a systemic endothelialitis (lung injury) and procoagulant state (tendency to develop blood clots).
  2. As the complement destroys the endothelium, the procoagulant von Willebrand factor (vWF) and FVIII are released. A significant increase of vWF can form multimers that promote thrombus growth. vWF is secreted mainly from endothelial cells and from a-granules of platelets (megakaryocytes derived). This is comparable to the string in the “beads and string” of a necklace where the beads represent platelets.
  3. Platelet storm: Platelets are a small fragment of the megakaryocytes. The complement anaphylatoxins C3a and C5a activate platelets and increase the production of tissue factor further promoting a clotting forming state. ACE2 receptors are present on platelets, and this may contribute to the massive platelet aggregation, which is a characteristic of severe COVID-19 infection.
  4. Activation of neutrophils leads to formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), a process sometimes referred to as NETosis, which contributes to thrombosis.
  5. EC injury is compounded by toll-like receptor (TLR) activation by viral RNA recognition, with resulting increased reactive oxidative species (ROS) production. The increased ROS further upregulates the expression of vWF. The DNA expression of clotting sensitivity is literally turned up.
  6. Spike proteins can induce expression and secretion of a series of clotting proteins which cascades into the clotting process, including factor (F)-V, thrombin, and fibrinogen to promote clotting process.

Spike Protein Impairs Regulation of RAAS – Leading to More Clots

Now if all of the above wasn’t bad enough, because the spike protein directly interacts with ACE2 expression, COVID-19 patients showed an elevated level of serum angiotensin II indicating a dysregulation of the RAA system (renin angiotensin aldosterone system, or RAAS).

Traditionally, people think angiotensin II is a neurohormone that stimulates the constriction of vascular smooth muscle cells and is responsible for salt and water balance, controlling blood pressure. However, there have been abundant studies supporting the idea that angiotensin II is capable of initiating and upregulating inflammatory responses, worsening the clotting state.

In a normal immune response, these mechanisms help to calm down the local injury, with subsequent healing and returning to a resting EC state.

However, for predisposed COVID-19 patients or vaccinated patient, the factors strengthening clot formation can over power the normal healing mechanisms, all of which lead to an escalating thrombotic cascade.

The Birth of a COVID Clot (it’s like a TV Soap Opera story)

The spike induced endothelial disruption leads to massive amounts of vWF release. Then a subsequent platelet storm happens leading to hypoxia induced upregulation and activation of vWF.  What follows is a fibrous network from neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), as well as increased angiotensin II levels, all adding up to initiate thrombogenesis. In a nutshell, the spike protein drives the formation of the clot through six different dysregulated mechanisms and is the beginning of the long rubbery clots in the arterial system of the body. Furthermore, the upcoming second scene takes another pivotal part in the whole story.

A COVID vaccine instructs the cells to produce large quantities of spike proteins. Normal biochemical and physiological processes are “hijacked” in order to make an abnormal amount of these spike proteins.  Again, your DNA is hijacked to make more spike protein.  Did you know that?

These abnormal amounts of spike protein have more surprising direct effects on clots.

Spike Proteins Directly Disrupt the Clot Dissolving Mechanism

In a normal healthy person, the body will, in the presence of a blood clot, break the clot down by a process of fibrinolysis. This is a natural healing and balancing mechanism to prevent an abundance of blood clots.

During this process, Tissue Plasminogen activator (TPA, coming from the endothelium) helps plasminogen change into plasmin and then this causes the generation of d-dimer (a small protein fragment left when a blood clot dissolves). This is the flag telling us that the clot dissolving mechanism is broken. This is what I commonly measure every 2-4 weeks in these patients. Interestingly, these patients symptoms resolve once the d-dimer is normal.

Every one of my 50 patients has had D-Dimers elevated for 6-24 months.

It has been discovered that fibrinogen in blood can clot into an abnormal “amyloid” form of fibrin that (like other β-rich amyloids and prions) is relatively resistant to proteolysis (fibrinolysis). This is essential amyloid that is hard to remove.

This has been and is strongly seen in the platelet-poor plasma (PPP) of individuals with long COVID and post vaccination long haul syndrome.  What is scary is that the extensive fibrin amyloid microclots can persist.

In a recent study by Grobbelaar published in Bioscience Reports in August 2021, the biomarker S1 (or the intruding part of the spike protein) alone can induce fibrin resistance to fibrinolysis, leading to unopposed microclot formation.

When spike protein S1 was added to healthy PPP, it resulted in structural changes to β and γ fibrin(ogen), complement 3, and prothrombin. These proteins were substantially resistant to trypsinization in the presence of spike protein S1.

Hence, the results suggest that the presence of spike protein in circulation may contribute to the hyper-clotting status, and may cause substantial impairment of the clot dissolving process.

Such lytic impairment may result in the persistent large microclots that people have reported and which have been found in plasma samples of COVID-19 patients.

These microclots block up capillaries, and thus to limit the passage of red blood cells, and hence oxygen exchange, which can actually underpin the majority of these symptoms.

Spike Proteins Form Amyloid-Like Substance

Furthermore, to everyone’s surprise, the spike proteins are identified to present seven amyloidogenic sequences and are able to form amyloid-like substances.

In other words, these spike proteins are similar to those beta-amyloid or tau or alpha-synuclein like substances which may cause neuronal loss in Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease. Their structure makes it easy to form tighter string-like bonded structures with longitudinal twisting as well as cross binding, forming a fibrous-like structure visible under the microscope.

Researchers have found that plasma samples from long COVID patients still contain large anomalous (amyloid) deposits (microclots), which are resistant to fibrinolysis (compared to plasma from controls and diabetes), even after trypsinization (cell dissociation after an enzyme breaks down proteins).

After a second trypsinization, the persistent pellet deposits (microclots) were solubilized. Various inflammatory molecules substantially increased in both the supernatant and trapped in the solubilized pellet deposits of COVID-19, versus that of the control samples.

Of particular interest was a substantial increase in α(2)-antiplasmin (α2AP), various fibrinogen chains, as well as Serum Amyloid A (SAA) that were trapped in the solubilized fibrinolytic-resistant pellet deposits.

Significant abnormal amyloid microclot formation that are resistant to fibrinolysis, increased α2AP, and the surge of acute phase inflammatory molecules may therefore be central contributors in both COVID-19 infection and as well as COVID vaccine-related syndrome.

Spike Protein Inhibits Another Anti-Clot Mechanism

Spike protein just keeps presenting one surprise after another.

It’s been reported that the spike protein can competitively inhibit the bindings of antithrombin and heparin cofactor II to heparin, causing abnormal increase in thrombin (clotting) activity. SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins at a similar concentration (~10 μg/mL) as the viral load in critically ill patients can directly cause blood coagulation and thrombosis in the zebrafish model.

These unexpected negative effects of spike protein on the dissolving process of blood clots, including its amyloid nature, all may be the key contributory factors to the abnormal, lengthy fibrous clots observed in COVID-related conditions.

The Spike Protein Is the Smoking Gun

There is clinical evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been detected in clots retrieved from COVID-19 patients with acute ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction.

Recent research conducted by cardiologists from the University of Colorado sheds light on the crucial role of spike protein in the pathology of COVID and COVID vaccine-related injuries.

They analyzed seven COVID-19 patients and six mRNA vaccinated patients with myocardial injury and found nearly identical alterations in gene profiling patterns that would predispose them to clotting state, inflammation, and myocardial dysfunction.

In other words, regardless of whether the myocarditis was caused by the virus or vaccine, the expression of genes responsible for prothrombotic state was turned on in response to the spike protein, and inflammation and myocardial dysfunction exhibited similar changes.

Based on gene analysis, COVID-19 and post-mRNA vaccine injury have a common molecular mechanism.  The altered genes pattern includes down-regulation in ACE2, ACE2/ACE ratio, AGTR1, and ITGA5, and up-regulation in ACE and F3 (tissue factor).

What is more alarming, and not previously reported, is that microvascular thrombosis has been found in post-vaccinated patients, indicating that spike protein itself is able to trigger blood clots in susceptible patients.

The Tip of the Iceberg?

Unfortunately, this may only be the beginning.  The AstraZenica COVID adenovirus (ChAdOx1-S) vaccine pulled from the marked caused antibody (auto-immune) formation to platelet factor 4 (PF4).  Auto-immunity can take years to form before it is recognized.

These unusual blood clots in combination with thrombocytopenia were reported predominantly in women aged under 60 years. Accordingly, several European countries restricted the use of adenovirus vaccines in younger age groups.

This risk has been recently systematically analyzed in an international network cohort study from five European countries and the United States, confirming pooled 30 percent increased risk of thrombocytopenia after a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine, as well as a trend towards an increased risk of venous thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after Ad26.COV2.S (the Janssen COVID vaccine) compared with BNT162b2 (the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine).

What Works to Detoxify the Spike Protein?

I’ve listed my go-to medications below in the order of effectiveness in my clinical experience.

Ivermectin – Ivermectin is a compound that originated from nature.  Satoshi Omura, a Japanese microbiologist and organic chemist, who grew up in a farmer’s family, discovered from soil samples the predecessor compound of ivermectin, Streptomyces Avermectinius, and modified it into ivermectin.

Ivermectin has been in use for more than 50 years. Ivermectin was first used in the treatment of parasitic diseases, such as onchocerciasis, river blindness, and elephantiasis.

In addition to treating parasites, in vitro cellular experiments have revealed that ivermectin has broad-spectrum antiviral effects. It can be used to fight against RNA viruses (including HIV, the dengue fever virus, influenza viruses) and DNA viruses.

In addition, ivermectin has a variety of antiviral mechanisms. It can also inhibit viral entry into cells and viral protease function, thus blocking viral replication.

A study published in the journal In Vivo found that ivermectin might interfere with the attachment of spike protein to the human cell membrane.

In an in vitro study on ivermectin published in Antiviral Research, the researchers added ivermectin to cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and then harvested the supernatant and cell pellets for further analysis. It was revealed that within 48 hours of adding 5 μM ivermectin, the viral SARS-CoV-2 RNA was reduced by 99.999 percent, leaving only 0.001 percent.

A prospective, observational study of the citywide COVID-19 prevention with ivermectin program was conducted between July 2020 and December 2020 in Itajaí, Brazil.

In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as an optional treatment to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3 percent) regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3 percent) non-users. The main findings are: The regular use of ivermectin at 0.2 mg/kg/day for 2 days every 15 days led to a 68 percent reduction in COVID-19 mortality (0.8 percent versus 2.6 percent among ivermectin non-users; p < 0.0001). There was a 56 percent reduction in hospitalization rate (p < 0.0001).

Minocycline – Doxycycline or Minocycline may stop the cytokine storm produced by this segment of spike protein superantigen activity ( Francini E, Miano ST, Fiaschi AI, Francini G. Doxycycline or minocycline may be a viable treatment option against SARS-CoV-2. Med Hypotheses 2020;144:110054. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110054. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/bddyrfx2. Accessed May 19, 2022.)

Colchicine – (Colcrys) for pericarditis: colchicine is indicated for the treatment and prevention of gout, though it is also generally considered first-line treatment for acute pericarditis, as well as preventing recurrent episodes. Colchicine has been effective in lowering the d-dimer through it’s effect on improving inflammatory cascades.  Although the exact mechanism of colchicine is not fully understood, its anti-inflammatory effect for pericarditis appears to be related to its ability to inhibit microtubule self-assembly, resulting in decreased leucocyte motility and phagocytosis Colchicine is a nonsteroidal antimitotic drug that blocks metaphase by binding to the ends of microtubules to prevent the elongation of the microtubule polymer. This agent has proven useful in gout and idiopathic recurrent pericarditis. The GRECCO-19 randomized open-label trial in 105 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 found that colchicine was associated with a reduction in D-dimer levels and improved clinical outcome.

NAC (N-acetyl-L-cysteine) – This drug is a well-established expectorant, which is able to reduce the stickiness of sputum, as well as an antioxidant.

Although it’s unable to interfere with the binding of spike proteins to ACE2 receptors, it reduces the oxidation of spike proteins after they enter the cells. As a neutralizing agent, it can reduce the consequences of toxicity after poisoning.

A cell model study published in the journal Circulation Research found that the expression of some normal proteins, such as phospho angiotensin-converting enzyme (pACE2), ACE2 and AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), decreased in pulmonary artery endothelial cells infected with pseudo-spike proteins, while the expression of the bad protein MDM2 (which promotes tumor formation) increased.

NAC, on the other hand, has a restorative effect on cells. It’s able to restore cells damaged by spike proteins to almost the same state as normal cells.

As there is no direct clinical trial data to confirm the effects on reducing the spike protein toxicity, an instruction under a doctor’s advice must be followed.

Catechin and Curcumin- Catechin, a tea extract, is a natural antioxidant that accounts for about 75-80 percent of the polyphenol content of tea and is one of the sources of the bitterness of tea.

Curcumin, derived from turmeric, is an important component of curry. Curcumin has powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

An article published in Scientific Reports – Nature studied these two components and found that curcumin binds to the receptor-binding domain of spike proteins; and catechin binds to amino acids near the receptor-binding domain, thus blocking spike proteins from binding to the ACE2 receptors and blocking spike proteins from entering cells.

These two ingredients can inhibit viral invasion of cells at the body’s first natural immune barrier, guard the cell’s gateways and offset the strength of the virus.

Carpenter’s Herb – Carpenter’s herb (Prunella vulgaris) has long been considered an effective medicine for liver health.

In 2021, a study by Canadian infectious disease researchers was published in the Public Library of Science: General (PLOS ONE). It proved that the water-soluble extract NhPV of the natural plant carpenter’s herb can inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 and block it from infecting cells. Some other herbs, such as pine needles, emodin, neem, and dandelion leaf extract, are also mentioned in the WCH guidelines as having similar effects in relieving the toxicity of spike proteins. Increasingly, scientific studies are finding that there are more herbal ingredients that have inhibitory effects on the SARS-CoV-2 and can repair the damage caused by vaccination. For instance, scientists have selected 25 candidate compounds from the giant knotweed (Reynoutria sachalinensis) and docked them into the binding site of Mpro, the main protease of SARS-CoV-2. They discovered that 11 of these compounds were effective in inhibiting the replication and transcription of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Suramin – Suramin is a century-old medicine that was also first used to treat the parasitic worm disease called onchocerciasis. In addition to treating parasitic diseases, it has been proven effective in inhibiting the replication of many viruses, including enterovirus, Zika virus, and Ebola virus.

Most of the data on Suramin are derived from the in vitro studies. In theory, it should work for reducing the spike in protein toxicity. As there is no clinical trial data to confirm the effects on reducing the spike protein toxicity, an instruction under a doctor’s advice must be followed.

Both ivermectin and suramin can interfere with the binding of spike proteins to ACE receptors and relieve the cellular damage caused by spike proteins.

My hopes in publishing this is that someone, somewhere will benefit and reduce their risk for clot, heart attack, stroke and/or death.

COVID-19 Vaccine Informed Consent

As of late, Banner Health and Banner Community Integrated Network, in which I participate as a physician, is requiring that I recommend the COVID-19 vaccination to my patients.  In order to be compliant with their requirement and my duty as a physician to “do no harm,” your understanding of the following data is necessary to give you a clear picture of the pros and cons to COVID-19 vaccination.

Please read, contemplate and sign this Informed Consent document before you receive any COVID-19 vaccination or booster.  (A hardcopy of this informed consent is available in our office)

—————————————

You have asked for guidance in regards to the health risks and benefits of complying with COVID-19 mRNA experimental vaccination therapy required by your institution or place of employment.  Although this medical intervention and injection does not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine defined by the CDC and published on their website in 2012 (the CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” in 2021 to fit this therapy), the term vaccine will be employed for ease of use in the below.

Note that the long-held (but presently ignored) standard for informed consent requires that I fully disclose the current and accurate data regarding all potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to COVID mRNA vaccination. Note that my interpretation of the below data was done consistent with the long-held (but pandemic-ignored) Federal regulatory standard that considers any adverse event or death reported in temporal association with receipt of a novel and/or experimental therapy to be caused by the intervention until proven otherwise. I recognize this practice departs from the recently adopted, ethically and morally troubling pandemic standard whereby U.S Federal and State Health Agencies’ and hospital systems dismiss adverse event reports as unrelated to the vaccines until proven otherwise.

In the following, I will provide documentation of the informed consent discussion I hold regarding a decision on whether to pursue COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. In the following, I solely rely on the most current, available data regarding:

1) Risks associated with receipt of a COVID mRNA vaccination

2) Efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing illness

2) Efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing transmission

3) Efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in preventing hospitalizations and death

4) Efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to the protection offered by natural immunity

5) Efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the prevention of “long-haul” COVID

6) Risks of a healthy child suffering hospitalization and/or death from COVID

7) Efficacy and safety of alternatives to vaccination (i.e. reliance on effective early, anti-viral, and anti-inflammatory combination therapy)

As is standard in informed consent discussions, I first begin with a review of the risks of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

 

1) RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH RECEIVING THE COVID mRNA VACCINE

Based on the below data compiled from peer-reviewed papers, Life Insurance Industry reports, and analyses of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, it is my conclusion that a literal humanitarian catastrophe is rolling forward. This resulted from the rapid deployment of barely-tested mRNA vaccines in an illogical attempt to counter a fast-mutating coronavirus. I acknowledge that this assessment contradicts current “medical consensus,” which is that the vaccines are “safe and effective” and that vaccinating against a coronavirus is the dominant public health strategy across much of the world. There are a few reasons which may explain the discord between my personal recommendations and those of health agencies across numerous advanced health economies like the United States.

There is great dissymmetry between the data that I have spent thousands of hours reading over the last two years (many thanks to the painstaking efforts of Dr. Pierre Kori to compile this data here) and analyzed compared to the selective and near uniformly favorable data being disseminated across media, social media, and numerous high-impact scientific journals. One explanation for this discord can be found in recent FOIA-obtained evidence which revealed that $1 billion dollars was paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to U.S media companies to (blindly) support a media campaign to build public confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

A second contributing factor to the lack of scientific recognition of this catastrophe is that as of this writing, although over 1,650 case reports and small cases series of adverse events have been published in the medical literature, review papers reporting summary analyses of either the toxicity or poor real-world efficacy of the vaccines have been consistently rejected upon submission to medical journals, particularly high-impact ones. In addition to the rejecting of such studies, a number of journals have also illegitimately retracted papers that reported on the scale of adverse events despite those papers having successfully passed expert peer-review. The few published, peer-reviewed summary analyses that reported on either a lack of efficacy or on the excessive risks of the vaccines have generally appeared in lower impact journals that are systematically ignored by media outlets and academia. These have been included below.

In the setting of such widespread media, social media, and scientific journal propaganda/censorship of adverse vaccine data, the following information is unlikely to be known by the average citizen or physician in the United States. I invite any who want to challenge or validate these interpretations and conclusions to more deeply explore the underlying data sources using the hyperlinked references below.

Peer-Reviewed Literature

In this published paper analyzing data from the pivotal clinical trials used to support the novel mRNA vaccines (i.e. Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen), Classen compared “all cause severe morbidity,” defined as “severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events between the treatment arms and control arms respectively.” His analysis found a statically significant increase in all cause severe morbidity occurred in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.

In this paper by Walach et al, they calculated the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one death from a large Israeli field study. They then accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions database of the Dutch National Register (Lareb) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side-effects and the number of cases reporting fatal side-effects.

  • They found the NNTV to be between 200 and 700to prevent one case of COVID-19 by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine product.
  • The NNTV to prevent one death was between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate(as you will see below, for younger healthy people, this estimate would tend to the higher end of a NNTV of 90,000-100,000 to prevent a single death).
  • They calculated that for every 6 deaths prevented by vaccination, there were approximately 4 deaths reported associated with vaccination, yielding a potential risk/benefit ratio of 2:3 (note that deaths are consistently under-reported to such databases, thus a more accurate risk/benefit ratio for death would likely be inverted).
  • They concluded that, “although causality between individual reports of adverse events and vaccination has not been established, these data indicate a lack of clear benefit, which should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy”.

In this published paper by Jessica Rose, a world-expert analyst of the VAERS database, she found that, based on the ratio of expected severe adverse events to observed adverse events in VAERS for a number of conditions, the “underreporting factor (URF)” for COVID vaccine-associated deaths was 31. Using this URF for all VAERS-classified severe adverse events, as of October 2021, vaccines were associated with 205,809 deaths, 818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 ER visits, 230,113 life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled and 7,998 birth defects.”

This paper by Ronald Kostoff et al was retracted despite passing peer-review. However, in a personal review of the correspondence between the author and Journal Editor, neither I nor my colleagues were able to find a valid criticism of the underlying data analysis or conclusions. Therefore, I have incorporated this valuable study whereby they used a novel, best-case scenario, cost-benefit analysis which showed conservatively that there were five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs. those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreased drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups “may increase” their risk-benefit ratio (although this has not been demonstrated to date as can be seen below).

VAERS Data

As of April 22, 2022, in the United States alone 5,309 cases of myocarditis, 782,665 adverse events, 151,796 severe adverse events, and 14,613 deaths have been recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System following COVID-19 vaccination in the USA. It should be appreciated that the VAERS database’s main limitation is that of underreporting, by a factor of at least 30-fold. The most concerning implication of under-reporting is in regards to the exponential increases in actual reports of death after vaccination in the past year compared to prior years of all vaccines combined.

Even more damning is the temporal relationship of these reports to the date of the individual’s vaccination, which some authorities have attempted to dismiss as simply representing “background” deaths. The fact that the reporting of deaths decrease over time from date of vaccination (seen below), infers a worrying causal relationship whereas erroneously reported “background deaths” would instead appear in similar numbers each subsequent day after the date of vaccination.

Statisticians and analysts working with the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) have estimated the total number of deaths in the U.S caused by the COVID-19 vaccines based on the numbers reported to the U.S Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. In their white paper, they employed 9 different statistical prediction models and found that as of December of 2021, total deaths associated with the vaccines ranged from 148,000 to 216,000. Using the same methodology for the 14,613 COVID-19 vaccine associated deaths in the U.S reported as of May 16, 2022, the updated point estimate is approximately 599,000 deaths. The data and conclusions from these publications above provide support for identifying the vaccination campaign as the primary cause of the massive increases in Life Insurance claims among working-age Americans beginning in the second half of 2021, as will be detailed below.

Life Insurance Industry Data

Most concerning is a recent report of a large, unexplained rise in U.S life insurance claims amongst working age Americans of ages 18-64 beginning in early to mid-2021, timed with the vaccination campaign rollout. In a press conference, the CEO of One America, the $100 billion Life Insurance giant, publicly stated;

  • “what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic.”
  • “deaths in this age group is 4 times higherthan what would be seen in a “one-in-200-year catastrophe,” and that, “40% is just unheard of.”
  • “every single other insurance company has also reported seeing the same – what’s most worrisome though, is that the biggest increase in excess deaths has come from traditionally healthier working-aged individuals under 65 – and not the elderly, who are the most susceptible to the Covid-19 virus.”
  • “we are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – [and] not just at OneAmerica, the data is consistent across every player in that business.”

Financial analyst and former Blackrock Managing Director, Edward Dowd, reported similar historic increases in death claims over the same time period from discussions with major U.S life insurance industry executives; 57% for Lincoln National, 41% for Prudential, 32% for Hartford, 24% for MetLife and 21% for RGA.

In line with these data, a publicly available quarterly report by the Group Life Insurance Industry, covering roughly 90% of the employer-based policies, reported on Page 23 that younger age groups were suddenly dying at historically unprecedented rates beginning in Q3 of 2021.

The timing and magnitude of the historic rise in death and disability are also seen in German health insurance claims data and Medicare billing data.

Epidemiologic Data

An article published in the journal Nature reported:

  • increases of over 25% in the number of ambulance calls in response to cardiac arrests (CA) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS or “heart attacks”) for young people people in the 16–39 age group during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Israel (January–May, 2021) compared with the same period of time in prior years (2019 and 2020).
  • a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly CA and ACS call counts and the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administeredto this age group. Note they found no observed statistically significant association between COVID-19 infection rates and the CA and ACS call counts.
  • findings that aligned with previous studies showing that increases in overall CA incidence were not always associated with higher COVID-19 infections rates at a population level, and that the stability of hospitalization rates related to myocardial infarction throughout the initial COVID-19 wave compared to pre-pandemic baselines in Israel.
  • findings that mirrored reports of increased emergency department visits with cardiovascular complaints during the vaccination rollout in Germany as well as increased EMS calls for cardiac incidents in Scotland.

In line with the above, as a result of a FOIA application in the state of Massachusetts, an analysis of the now publicly available death certificate data found that during 2020, the predominant cause of rises in all cause mortality were due to “respiratory causes,” (i.e. excess mortality from COVID-19) while in 2021, the predominant causes were “cardiovascular.” The analyst concluded, “the official Massachusetts database of death certificates contains proof that C19 vaccines killed thousands of people in Massachusetts in 2021.”

Equally alarming are the massive rise in deaths among healthy, young professional athletes from around the world. Since the vaccination campaign was initiated, and as of June 4, 2022, there were approximately 1,090 athletes that suffered a cardiac arrest, with 715 of them dying as a result. The majority of arrests occurred in competition or training. The frequency of these events in comparison to historical data is highly concerning. In a 2009 review of professional athletes deaths, published in a prominent European Cardiology journal, they found that from 1966 to 2004, there was an average of only 29 sudden athlete deaths per year worldwide. Compare this number to just the month of January 2022 alone where 127 collapses and 87 deaths among professional athletes were reported. Overall, these athlete deaths reflect an approximately 22-fold increase in the year after the introduction of COVID vaccines, to date unexplained by other identifiable causes.

On March 10, attorney Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel presented data in court showing 127 VAERS-reported COVID vaccine-related deaths in the military in 2021. That is more than the 93 reported COVID deaths in the military since the beginning of the pandemic. Note that COVID deaths tend to be overestimated, while VAERS-reported deaths, especially in the military, are severely underreported.

The CDC data provided in this article shows the timing of the start and the steady rise in all-cause mortality of working-age adults in the U.S, both overlapping with the start of the mass vaccination campaign. Although alternate causes of this historic rise in death have been considered, (i.e. COVID deaths, deaths of despair etc), the number of deaths from these causes is insufficient to explain the overall rise.

Rises in Disability

Associated with the massive rises in death claims are disability claims. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) surveys 60k households monthly to estimate the unemployment rate, and in this survey, asks households about disabilities as well. From the BLS data, for Americans over the age of 16:

* After declining in 2020 (and stable for five years prior), in Dec 2020 there were 29.9 million Americans disabled. This is a disability rate of 11.4%.

* At year end 2021, there were 32.4 million Americans disabled. This is an increase of 2.5 million people and a disability rate of 12.4%. This is a record number and record percentage rate.

* As of May 2022 there were 32.7 million Americans disabled. This is an increase of 2.9 million people since Dec 2020, the start of mass vaccinations. This is again a record number and percentage rate.

If you look at the charts below you can see that 1.8 million of the increase came in spring 2021 with another increase in fall 2021.  Given the strong overlap with the broad vaccination campaign in spring of 2021 followed by vaccine mandates in fall of 2021, it is consistent with the vaccine injury hypothesis as detailed in the data above.

 

In particular, the increase of 2.9 million disabled since December of 2020 represents more than 1% of the 263 million Americans over age 16. These Americans were all newly disabled in 2021 from some injurious societal or environmental development or exposure beginning in 2021, and not in 2020. It should be noted that these data reflect only a portion of the extent of injuries occurring given that it is likely that far more Americans suffered less debilitating adverse consequences.

On Feb. 10, the Israeli Health Ministry published the results of a survey of adverse events among roughly 2,000 random Israelis who received booster shots. Although many could be thought of as minor, it is concerning that 51% of the women and 35% of the men who experienced a side effect reported that, as a result, they had difficulty performing daily activities. A total of 4.5% of those who received booster doses reported neurological side effects.

Further, in the documents related to a recent FOIA request, in the Pfizer informed consent document (p. 5) it was revealed that the company recognized the risk of myocarditis to be as high as 1 in 1,000. In 2022, with many fewer vaccines administered compared to 2021, the rate of myocarditis reports to VAERS is averaging 245% higher than last year. The myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in young adults like Grace.

In addition, military whistleblowers leaked data from a Department of Defense database, showing major increases in a large number of diagnoses in 2021 compared to the stable average over the years 2016-2020. They found that in 2021, among military service members, there was a 988% increase in all diseases and injuries, a 218% increase in cancer diagnoses, a 374% increase in female infertility, 221% increase in dysmenorrhea, and a 183% increase in spontaneous abortions, with these latter findings of great concern to the future reproductive health of a young woman like Grace. Later claims by the Department of Defense that the prior year illness frequencies were erroneous and caused by “data corruption during a server migration” is simply not credible given this supposed error was “corrected” only after the whistleblowers reported. Further, these morbidity increases are consistent with all the other data sources presented above.

 

2) EFFICACY IN PREVENTION OF COVID-19

Using up-to-date data (i.e. last 3-6 months to today) from a wide selection of public health sources including the U.S, Denmark, Israel, Australia, and the UK, the current estimate of the protective efficacy from contracting COVID is one of either “negative efficacy” or rapidly waning efficacy such that potential benefits, if any, are demonstrably short-lived. Further, given the above alarming estimates of the real-world risks of the vaccines, the information below is focused on the most conservative data estimates of efficacy to determine “the minimum of what COVID-19 vaccinations can achieve.”  This is base on the fact that you have both natural immunity and a good health status.

It must be acknowledged that accurately interpreting epidiomiologic data to determine the relationship between vaccination status and the risk of contracting COVID is both challenging and complicated given:

1) the unmeasured confounding variables associated with an individual’s vaccination status (i.e. age, co-morbidities, behaviors)

2) the rapidly changing and often inconsistent definitions of what it means to be vaccinated (dependent upon varying numbers of vaccinations during different periods, varied vaccine types and schedules, and varied time windows from last vaccination).

3) the definition of a COVID case (tested, untested, false positive, false negative), the definition of a COVID death (“with COVID” vs. “from COVID,” with the latter likely overestimated due to hospital financial incentives created during the Pandemic).

4) the exclusion from efficacy calculations of the surprisingly large numbers of COVID infections and deaths suffered by the recently vaccinated (i.e. within 14 days of vaccination).

With the above caveats in mind, the best assessment of the below data indicate that vaccinated individuals are more likely to fall ill with the variants now in circulation. This may not have been the case earlier in the global vaccination campaign but is unfortunately the case now. There are several possible explanations for this finding. Chief among them is that the current mRNA vaccines were formulated using the genetic sequences of the original “Wuhan” strain of SARS-CoV2 from over 2 years ago. Given SARS-CoV2 is a highly mutagenic virus, many dozens of variants have since emerged, with several strains exhibiting sudden, multiple, and major pathogenically important mutations, particularly within the original spike protein to which the mRNA sequences are directed.

The major mutations have been “named” and each have many subvariants. The Delta variant phase in the U.S ran from approximately June of 2021 to January 2022, after which the Omicron variant has predominated, and we are currently seeing rising cases from sub-variants of this strain. Omicron deserves mention as it is phylogenetically different from both Delta and the original Wuhan strain. This is likely the most accurate explanation as to why, in the setting of what are now “non-neutralizing” antibodies, this paradoxically makes “Wuhan strain” vaccinated individuals more susceptible as follows;

Stanford researchers found that “prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses.”

From a Public Health England vaccine surveillance report in the U.K., government researchers asserted (p. 23) that their serology tests were underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”

Dr. Paul Offit, Chair of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Board conceded in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that there is a real concern of the shots inducing a form of immune suppression known as original antigenic sin.

In this peer-reviewed paper, “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States,” they found that at the country-level (and U.S county level), there appears to be no discernable relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases as seen below. In fact, the rising slope of the relationship in both graphs below suggest that mass vaccination policies may paradoxically lead to more cases, with Israel serving as a worrying outlier.

A study prepared by Humetrix for the Department of Defense called “Project Salus,” monitored 20 million Medicare beneficiaries from January to August of 2021 and found that the vaccinated share of the COVID hospitalizations rose steadily with both vaccines after three to four months and sharply after six months (as the Israelis found). By late July, 71% of all cases and 61% of all hospitalizations were among vaccinated individuals.

More current data from the Walgreens chain of pharmacies finds that in the U.S, over the last several months, fully or partially vaccinated individuals are testing positive at higher relative rates than the unvaccinated.

According to Cornell University’s faculty, an outbreak in December of 2021 which forced the school to switch to online learning was driven exclusively by the vaccinated. “Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot,” said Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina in a statement.

On December 31, 2021, the UK’s Office of National Statistics released an “Infection Survey” of 1,701 individuals who tested positive for COVID between Nov. 29 and Dec. 12, of whom 115 tested positive for the Omicron variant. The agency found a clear correlation between the number of vaccinations and the likelihood of an Omicron-positive result. The odds ratio of testing positive for Omicron with two vaccinations was 2.26; for the triple-vaccinated, it was 4.45.

According to the latest U.K. health surveillance report, roughly 95% of those over 70 are double-vaccinated and about 90%-93% of the age cohorts over 70 are boosted. Just 1.6% of the senior cases between weeks 7 and 10 of this year were among the unvaccinated, which is below the 5% share of the population they compose. The triple-boosted actually made up 90% of the cases.

The respected Robert Koch Institute reported that among the 4,206 Germans infected with Omicron for whom their vaccination status was known, 95.58% were fully vaccinated. More than a quarter of them had booster shots. Given that the overall background rate for vaccination in Germany is 70%, this suggests an -87% effectiveness rate against Omicron.

As of Dec. 31, 2021, in Denmark, 89.7% of all Omicron cases were among the fully vaccinated with just 8.5% of all cases in Denmark among the unvaccinated, according to the Statens Serum Institut. Overall, 77.9% of Denmark was fully vaccinated at the time, and Omicron is more prevalent among younger people for whom there is a greater unvaccinated pool, which again support a negative efficacy. Even for non-Omicron variants, the unvaccinated composed only 23.7% of the cases.

As mentioned above, assessing the true relationship between vaccinations and the risk of infection must also consider the shocking numbers of COVID infections and deaths occurring during the first 14 days after vaccination. The argument to include these data is supported by the biological plausibility based on the studies presented above finding that the outdated vaccines are inducing an immune suppression favoring infection with newer variants. It is my opinion that these cases and deaths should not be excluded given the below examples (there are many more) of record rises in cases (and deaths) proximate to the start dates of various country-wide vaccination rollouts.

 

The examples below include countries that initiated the most aggressive mass vaccination campaigns in the period from late December, 2020 to January, 2021. Note these countries are from different regions of the globe, however the rollouts were all followed by large increases in cases and deaths.

 

3) EFFICACY IN PROTECTION FROM SEVERE DISEASE

In Ireland, in March of 2022, during the milder Omicron variant wave, there were more people in Irish hospitals than at any point in the previous 12 months. This occurred despite the fact that nearly 95% of all adults in Ireland are fully vaccinated, and nearly 100% of seniors are vaccinated and boosted.

In Scotland, on page 29 of their recent national COVID-19 report, the data revealed that the vaccinated were dying and being hospitalized at higher rates than the unvaccinated. Note that Scotland has since made the decision to no longer publish these comparative data for “concerns that they are being misinterpreted”. Although it is true, as was noted above, that numerous variables beyond vaccination status may contribute to explaining these differences, it is troubling (similar to the Department of Defense actions mentioned above) that the decision to stop publishing these data occurred only after a negative efficacy against severe disease and death was found.

In Israel, the Director of a major hospital recently declared that the fully vaccinated are not protected against severe illness.

NSW Health in New South Wales, the most populated of Australian states at 8.1 million inhabitants, reported that 97 out of 98 COVID-19 deaths occurring over the previous two weeks involved fully vaccinated persons. Moreover, those that had three doses appeared most at risk for hospitalization admission, ICU transfer, and death.

These data are consistent with the recent report published in the New York Times which stated “despite strong levels of vaccination among older people, COVID killed them at vastly higher rates during this winter’s Omicron wave than did last year, preying on long delays since their last shots and the variant’s ability to skirt immune defenses.”  These higher rates of death in the elderly are also seen in the boosted.

The conclusion of a recent Danish study in the prestigious Lancet found that in long-term follow-up of over 74,000 adult participants in the Moderna and Pfizer trials there was no all-cause mortality benefit from the two mRNA shots.

In a recent, large Veterans Administration study, investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, beyond the first 30 days of illness, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.59,1.93).

The implications of the vaccine’s diminished ability to protect against severe disease among more recent variants is now playing out in real-time. On June 5th, 2022, analyst Igor Chudov posted a 2 country comparison of the current cases and deaths being reported from Portugal and S. Africa, two countries undergoing similar waves of infection from the emerging B4/5 sister variants. South Africa is only 35% vaccinated and 5% boosted whereas Portugal is 95% vaccinated and 70% boosted. These variants are now driving a deadly wave of Covid in highly-vaccinated Portugal, with deaths among the Portuguese nearing their January peak and still rising as seen below.

Thus, in terms of benefits, based on the most up-to-date data, the current crop of mRNA vaccines against Omicron confer either rapidly waning efficacy or negative efficacy, and not only do they no longer protect against severe disease, they appear to be raising the risk of severe disease and death.

I, therefore, would advise extreme caution given that, currently, in the U.S, the prevalence of the B4/5 variant appears to be doubling every week in the past month, now comprising approximately 8% of cases.

 

4) BENEFITS IN REDUCING TRANSMISSION TO OTHERS

Current data do not support this claim. The CDC Director herself has reported that vaccinated individuals are now well known to carry equal or greater viral loads than the unvaccinated, and thus transmit at equal or higher rates, for physiologic reasons detailed above, most concerning being the negative efficacy of the vaccines against Omicron. This has also been reported by seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (Health care workers (HCW) in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients), and the Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients).

A new large study from Quatar in the New England Journal of Medicine by Weil Cornell Medicine found that the Pfizer vaccine protection waned after four months. By seven months, when adjusted for those who already had prior infection, the Pfizer shot was -4% effective against transmission. Also, effectiveness against asymptomatic infection was -33% after seven months, which suggests that the vaccinated become more likely to spread COVID-19 over time.

 

5) BENEFITS IN REDUCING THE RISK OF LONG-HAUL COVID SYNDROME

Again, from the large Veterans Administration study, investigators discovered disturbing evidence: by month six after a SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections were at higher risk of long COVID (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.54). When including the earlier time periods, the COVID-19 vaccines only reduced the risk of long COVID by approximately 15% compared to the unvaccinated, a level of estimated protection far less than the increased risk of death found in the same study as mentioned above.

 

6) BENEFITS OF NATURAL IMMUNITY

Natural immunity provides robust protection, not only from contracting the COVID-19 a second time, but also against hospitalization and death.

The most recent review of data supporting the protection of natural immunity, compiled from over 150 research studies, found that natural immunity provided equal or superior protection against not only contracting the disease, but also against hospitalization and death.

Further, vaccinated individuals are far more likely to get re-infected with COVID compared to those with natural immunity. A new preprint study from Bangladesh found that among 404 people re-infected with COVID, having been vaccinated made someone 2.45 times more likely to get re-infected with a mild infection, 16.1 times more likely to get a moderate infection, and 3.9 times more likely to be re-infected severely, relative to someone with prior infection who was not vaccinated. Although overall re-infections were rare, vaccination was a greater risk factor of re-infection than co-morbidities.

A new study from Harvard, Continued Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination among Urban Healthcare Workers during Delta Variant Predominance, tracked vaccinated and unvaccinated Massachusetts healthcare workers and showed 0 infections in 74,557 person-days for previously infected patients compared to 49 infections out of 830,084 person-days for fully vaccinated patients.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed a cohort of 1,304 patients meeting a very strict definition of “re-infection.” In this cohort, there were no deaths and no ICU admissions during reinfections while 7 deaths and 28 ICU admissions occurred during the primary infections. Overall, there was a statistically significant 90% reduction in the composite outcome of severe, critical, or fatal disease during reinfections

 

7) BENEFITS OF CURRENT HEALTH STATUS

Those persons of normal body weight and under age 21 youth with an absence of co-morbidities have essentially a near-nil risk of a severe outcome.

This data is based this on data compiled during a prior, more deadly variant where the CDC published a report on the incidence of death from COVID-19 prior to September of 2021 in people less than 21 years of age. At the time of that report, 190,000 deaths from SARS-CoV-2 had been recorded in the general population. Although people less than 21 years of age represent 26% of the population, only 0.08% (121) of all COVID-19 deaths were reported in this age group. In other words, more children died from influenza during the previous epidemic season than from SARS-CoV-2.

Several other observations were of interest:

  • 75% of those under 21 who died had at least one underlying medical condition; 45% had two or more conditions.
  • Minority groups were disproportionately represented among the deaths in young people. Among those who died, 45% were Hispanic, 29% were black, and 4% were American Indian or Alaskan Native persons. Although Hispanic, Black and Native populations represent 41% of the U.S. population less than 21 years of age, these groups accounted for 75% of the deaths.

In July of 2021, Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University and Editor in Chief of MedPage today, reported that over the course of the pandemic, 49,000 Americans under the age of 18 had died of all causes, according to the CDC. Only 331 of those deaths were from COVID — less than half as many as that died of pneumonia. The risk of children was dramatically smaller still than that CDC baseline; according to one, much-cited paper, the infection fatality rate for those aged 5 to 9 is less than 0.001 percent. A large new study from the U.K. examining the fatality rate among all those under 18 found it only fractionally higher there — 0.005 percent. Overall, 126,000 Brits have died of COVID since the onset of the pandemic; just 26 of those were under the age of 18.

These data presented above must be further interpreted in the context of the current Omicron variant, a variant with markedly lower risk of leading to hospitalization and and/or death among the unvaccinated.

 

8) ALTERNATIVES TO VACCINATION: EARLY TREATMENT OF COVID-19

The alternative to vaccination would be to ensure provision of early treatment with a select combination from what are now dozens of medicines, nutraceuticals, and therapies with proven efficacy in COVID-19. I am willing to prescribe the medicines that cannot be obtained over-the-counter, however, I must emphasize the need to have this treatment upon first symptoms of any viral syndrome like illness. The importance of early treatment can be seen in the graph below, showing diminishing efficacy of treatment with each day of delay. Note the near 100% efficacy if treatment is started within 24 hours of symptoms.

As of May 2022, massive evidence bases support numerous generic, repurposed drugs with excellent safety profiles that act with either anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, or immunomodulatory properties have been compiled. The medicines shown effective can be seen below. I have circled only those medicines that have received Emergency Use Authorization status by the FDA or recommended by the NIH. Note that these “officially approved” medicines consist solely of novel pharmaceutical industry products that can generate massive profits, an obvious feature of our health care system in the United States. Off-patent, generic or over the counter therapies are not recommended, despite often higher amounts of trials evidence for their use. Note that the grey font indicates medicines with less than 5 trials to support.

Ivermectin has the highest potency amongst the medicines sufficiently studied. Ivermectin’s evidence base now consists of 84 controlled trials, 34 of them randomized, and include a total of 129,000 patients. Summary analyses of the data from these trials find large, statistically significant reductions in time to clinical recovery, time to viral clearance, hospitalizations, and death as seen on the right of the below graphic.

Similarly, hydroxychloroquine has 347 controlled trials which involve almost a half-million patients. The studies show consistent, reproducible reductions in the incidence of all outcomes, particularly when given early, similar to ivermectin.

Nigella Sativa, a widely available “nutraceutical” used in many countries around the world, has also shown repeated, high efficacy as below.

Numerous other medications and compounds have demonstrated efficacy, such as the use of povidone-iodine nasal drops and mouthwashes, as well as medications like fluvoxamine.

The protocol I use can be obtained by calling my office and scheduling an appointment with me or my Nurse Practitioner.

Summary and Recommendations. 

In summary, those patients with a good health status, normal body habitus, and natural immunity to COVID, have a near-nil risk of the most severe outcomes from COVID.

Risks of Long haul or prolonged illness would be further reduced with adoption of almost any early treatment strategy. Further, the totality of current evidence finds either a rapidly waning efficacy in protection against COVID-19 or a rising negative efficacy in protection from both COVID and its more severe outcomes.

Finally, given the highly concerning, excessive rates of adverse events, disabilities, and deaths found in the vaccine trials data and in association with the mass vaccination campaign, it is my professional opinion that the risks of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination for most people, except those over 80 years old with comorbidities, far outweigh the negligible or “adverse” efficacy currently being measured.

Please sign and date below that you have read and understand the risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination as it stands to date.

 

 

_____________________________________________     ___________________________

Name                                                                 Date

Infertility after Pfizer Vaccination

I’ve been ridiculed, censured and I’ve been reprimanded recently that I am not strongly supporting vaccination of everyone 6 months old and older with one of the COVID-19 vaccinations. Yet today, even more proof appears in support of my concerns . . . (mind you that it shows up on a weekend when no one in the news cycles will see it).

The Pfizer vaccine decreases male sperm count over 25% for up to six months post vaccination, “but it returns to normal after six months.” That’s the findings this week from Andrology.

Hmmm . . . ? Are we actually sure about that?

Last June in JAMA, we were reassured that two doses of the vaccine are “safe and there was no problem with fertility of any kind.” Any legitimate questions about COVID-19 vaccination affecting fertility were dismissed using the perverse rhetoric of “there’s no evidence” (it’s dependent upon the advocates of a universally distributed medical product to prove it’s safe, not the other way around).

After the publication of the study and positive support from the scientific community, hospital systems, the US Military and medical societies around the country, all male fertility concerns were brushed aside. Anyone who dared question the parameters of the study or the other longer-term effects like increase in associated miscarriage’s was relegated to the status of a conspiracy theorist or quack.

Meanwhile, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha made a contrary statement, saying that vaccines for children down to 6 months or older “have been thoroughly tested. Millions of children above the age of 5 have gotten these vaccines. They’re exceedingly safe,” Jha told CBS News in a June 20 interview.

The CDC last Saturday, June 18th, 2022, signed off on giving both Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to infants and children between 6 months and 5 years old. It came after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel unanimously voted to authorize the use of the vaccines.

Jha also said while the majority of children likely have natural immunity, getting the vaccines will help keep children out of the hospital if they get it again.

The White House is echoing the FDA and CDC’s message to get young children vaccinated.

And, yet today, buried in the weekend news, a longer term study find out that these vaccines cause a 25% reduction in sperm counts in males . . .

My concern, and the concern of many others, is the small initial studies on these vaccines only looked at sperm counts before the first dose and 70 days after the second. What happens after two months remained a mystery. What about after a 3rd for 4th booster? What about sperm counts in infant males receiving the vaccination prior to puberty? What about males in puberty an their sperm counts at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years? All of these answers are still a mystery, but a mystery not worth worrying about as we were told.

“Thoroughly tested” is a blatant bold-faced lie.

 If a child or an adult has an adverse reaction to the vaccine, that child’s parents or family could not sue for damages because the emergency use authorization prevents the companies from being held liable.

The vaccines are experimental by definition. A product that’s being used under emergency use [EU] authorization definitionally is investigational. The EU authorization gives these vaccine companies blanket liability protection.

Will reduction in sperm counts be longer than six months? Will reduction in sperm counts be different in those who receive the vaccine as children versus those who receive it as adults? Who knows? Only time will tell. But, the White House, FDA, CDC and most medical societies don’t seem to think that is important.

I remember taking an oath as a physician to, first, do no harm? Yet, I’m a conspiracy theorist for asking the question and not towing the line?

Are More Children Dying From the COVID Vaccine than the Virus Itself?

In the last 12 months I have seen sixteen significant and severe reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine. I cannot be alone in seeing this trend. However, physicians and providers around the world seem fearful in even talking about it with their colleagues. And, as of this week, there is VAERS data implying that more children have died from the vaccine than from the virus itself.

I have always been a big proponent of vaccines. But, that advocacy for vaccination has been based on good research and data demonstrating that both the short and long-term risk is greatly outweighed by the benefit of vaccination. I have been in practice long enough to have seen multiple vaccinations and therapeutics pulled off the market 1-5 years after they were released because of severe adverse events relating to the drug or vaccine (ie – thalidamide, DES, Baycol, Accutane, Redux, Seldane, Zelnorm and Vioxx just to name a few.)

In my family practice clinic over the last 22 years, I’ve rarely seen acute cases of myocarditis show up on my doorstep. However, in the last 12 months I’ve had eight cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the wall of the heart) and eight cases of prolonged colitis (inflammation of the colon that did not respond to antibiotics) directly related to COVID-19 vaccination. Because I practice in the midst of a retirement community on one side of the street and a city of young families on the opposite side of the street, my practice is predominantly newly marrieds and people over 60 years old. I don’t see nearly as many children as other family practitioners or pediatricians. But, the numbers don’t lie.

I’ve been patiently waiting to seen the journal articles about this topic. Yet, it has not been written. Why must a family practitioner be writing about this, when this should be front page news on every website? Of course, I have my biases, to which I will openly admit. Yet, I seriously don’t know the answer to that question.

We live in a time when medicine has become a politicized weapon. The medical and political leadership on both sides of the isle keep moving the goal posts. Both sides appeal to false authorities. Those who are supposed to be authorities flip flop their position on the clear evidences. And, medical journals have become less and less trustworthy for a number of reasons. It leaves the physician in the trenches scratching his or her head.

Elevated D-Dimers, Fatigue, Colitis & Palpitations

All sixteen of these cases above had elevated D-dimer tests (the protein marker in the blood for significant inflammation and clotting risk) lasting 6-8 months. Four of these sixteen patients had blood clots in the lungs. Most of these cases occurred after the second vaccine dose, but a few occurred after the first dose. Six of these patients have been so fatigued, they could not work and could barely function for over four to six months.

I provide below two of the actual ultrasound images I completed while examining these sixteen patients:

41 year old male with 2 months of fatigue and palpitations starting 30 days after his first dose of COVID vaccine.

Why is this significant? Because in 22 years of medical practice, I can count on one hand the number of severe vaccine reactions I’ve personally seen in my office in all vaccines combined. Then, suddenly in the last 12 months I have 16 severe reactions to the COVID-19 jab?! It makes a person think . . .

Let’s Stop Pretending that COVID-19 Vaccines are Perfect

To date, Dr Anthony Fauci, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy remind us that 97% of new covid-19 hospitalizations or 99% of covid-19 deaths are among the unvaccinated. I’m sure the message is well-intentioned: “Vaccines will protect you from severe disease, so go get vaccinated!”

The problem is that the message is not true. Initially, there was an 81-89% reduction in severe hospitalization in the first 2-3 months of vaccination according to the studies we had. However, this protection has dramatically decreased. Hence the introduction of boosters. Yet, the studies on boosters have only looked a antibody levels, not at hospitalization risk reduction or reduction of death from COVID-19.

We saw this in the UK, where deaths among the vaccinated went from “rare” to two-thirds of all delta variant deaths by July. We saw this in Israel, where literally no fully vaccinated people died of covid-19 for 3-4 weeks in June, but by August over 60% of the severely ill were fully vaccinated.

As of today, Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain according to the recent report from the country’s Health Ministry.

Is there some effectiveness to the vaccine? According to the studies we have to date – yes. However, does that benefit outweigh the long-term risk? That is the $1 million dollar question.

How Do We Know What the Risk of Vaccination Actually Is?

Other than the very short term vaccine trials conducted by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson lasting 6 months, we really don’t know what the long-term real world risks are. The only data we have is the CDC’s ongoing VAERS data reporting system.

Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) after a person has received a vaccination. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.

Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, was interviewed about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID vaccine risk. Rose stated that the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.

The COVID vaccines now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths—and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.

Data as of January 14, 2022, reports 9,936 deaths in the U.S. due to COVID-19 vaccination.

In the case of the COVID vaccinations, data demonstrates that 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. Though fact checkers around the world discount this site as not official “because anyone can report” and claim it is coincidental. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten their lives. 80% have died within one week of their injection, which is still incredibly close in terms of cause and effect.

Children Are At 80% Greater Risk

Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from this vaccination. Myocarditis (heart inflammation seen in the two adult ultrasound images above) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.

In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.

Cases of myocarditis exploded after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affecting boys. A full 90% of post-injection myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. 

Said Hoeg, “The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”

According to Steve Kirsch, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. 

In October 2021, Jessica Rose and Dr. Peter McCullough submitted a paper on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID vaccination to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.

You can still find the pre-printed article on Rose’s website. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely related to age. The younger you are the higher the risk of myocarditis. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a six-fold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.

While our health authorities and the CDC are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a blatant and frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent.

https://vaersanalysis.info/2022/01/14/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-01-07-2022/

In the most recent VAERS report, you and I can see that in just six months, deaths in children and young adults from the COVID vaccine under the age of 29 years old has now surpassed the total number of deaths in this age group from COVID-19 in the last two years.

Why is this not being shouted from the rooftops? I still don’t have the answer.

COVID-19 Vaccines Double Your Risk for Acute Coronary Syndrome

Researchers have also found that Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.

People who have received two doses of the mRNA injection more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart.

In a Twitter post November 21, 2021, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote: “Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”

Yet, all you and I’ve heard from the “experts” is . . . crickets . . .

What Does the VAERS Data Actually Say?

As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports, excluding the international reporting, VAERS had received:

  • 308 cases of myocarditis among 18-year-olds
  • 252 cases among 17-year-olds
  • 226 cases in 16-year-olds
  • 256 cases in 15-year-olds
  • 193 in 14-year-olds
  • 132 in 13-year-olds
  • 108 in 12-year-olds

In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in U.S. teens aged 18 and younger—five times the background rate in just six months! And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.

The CDC claimed that myocarditis was a possible rare side effect of the COVID infection itself.

Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146 percent of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis (the CDC’s quoted percentage of myocarditis found in adolescents), we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.

In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID vaccination in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 2021). That’s a pretty big difference.

Based on the data we have in the last 12 months, there is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. 

And, as an adult, unless you are very high risk with diabetes, asthma, heart disease, morbid obesity, I’d think twice about getting a booster.

If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.

In my clinic, we use the following protocols to treat the elevated D-Dimer and lessen the adverse effect on the heart.

  1. Colchicine 0.6 mg daily
  2. Resveratrol 250-500 mg daily
  3. Vitamin D 2000-5000 IU daily

I’ve written about the potential risks of vaccination here and here. Want additional information? Listen to Collette Martin’s testimony before the Louisiana State Senate about this issue last month:

Sources:

  1. OpenVAERS Myocarditis cases by age as of Dec. 17, 2021
  2. Louisiana Government Archived Videos 2021 (see Health and Welfare)
  3. Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee Meeting, Dec. 6, 2021
  4. Dare to Seek the Truth Dr. Peter McCullough
  5. SteveKirsch.substack, Dec. 30, 2021
  6. Journal Pre-proof, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)
  7. Census.gov 2020 Statistics
  8. CDC MMWR Sept. 3, 2021; 70(35);1228–1232
  9. https://vdmeta.com/
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8714120/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159193/

What’s the Primary Difference With Omicron COVID Variant?

Night Sweats.

Night sweats are commonly associated with conditions like the flu, anxiety, or even cancer. They were much less associated with COVID-19 before the Omicron variant began its spread around the world.

Night sweats are one of a few distinct symptoms that appear to separate Omicron from other COVID variants, along with a sore throat. And unlike Delta and the original COVID-19 strain that first hit the U.S., Omicron does not seem to be associated with a loss of smell and taste. That is how I’ve been able to differentiate it in the office.

This was confirmed by Amir Khan of the UK’s NHS.

Loss of Appetite or Absence of It

The other symptom, or lack of one, is the absence of “Loss of Appetite” which was present with the previous forms of COVID-19. This and night sweats have been confirmed as part of the research done by the ZOE COVID Symptom Study.

People who contributed to the study above reported a loss of appetite as one symptom they experienced. Researchers stated that study participants were confirmed to have had the Omicron variant, suggesting that the loss of appetite symptom is more likely to occur when people have Omicron, rather than the Delta variant.

The ZOE study has been tracking symptoms reported by participants using a smartphone app. They reported that the top five symptoms for Omicron are runny nose, headache, fatigue (mild or severe), sneezing, and sore throat. The data were collected between December 3 and 10 in London.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), which operates much like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that those who contract Omicron are less likely to become severely ill compared to people who get the Delta variant, according to the data, reports Politico.

“More people are likely to have a mild illness with less serious symptoms — probably in part due to Britain’s large number of vaccinated and previously infected people, and possibly because Omicron may be intrinsically milder,” Politico reported.“ The UKHSA’s view after studying cases in Britain is that “Omicron is indeed usually less severe than Delta.”

How to Protect Yourself from Omicron

Essential guide for you and your family in protecting yourself from Omicron . . .

Viruses get less virulent over time, not more virulent. We’ve demonstrated this over the last 100 years in the medical literature. And, according to the experts as of today, there is no evidence that Omicron is more severe or more infective.

Yet, Pfizer, Moderna and the other vaccine manufacture’s response is “let’s just double the vaccine dose.” They are recommending this because the “double dose” increases the antibody titer in the 309 people it was tested on.

For a vaccine that doesn’t prevent viral infection nor prevent viral transmission, just raising the antibody titer with a double dose is like saying “we should each wear two diapers so that your neighbor doesn’t get diarrhea.”

Over the last two years, clinical experience has demonstrated over and over that those who are the sickest from a COVID-19 infection are those who are obese, have elevated insulin levels and/or have significant lung disease. Reducing your weight, exercising and limiting your starch, sugar and carbohydrate intake have been the most powerful forms of prevention.

If you want prevention that works, read my article on how to prevent at treat COVID-19 here.

How the CDC Spins a Worthless Study to Sell a Vaccine

The CDC just published a study on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and death. The table below shows the 13 US Jurisdictions it was taken from between April 4th and July 17th, 2021.

I am now seeing a number of my medical colleagues posting information and telling my patients that they are 10 times more likely to die if they are not vaccinated based on this study. Yet, THAT IS NOT what the study shows.

In this very limited ecological study that DOES NOT take into account MULTIPLE variables linking causality to the absence of a vaccine, it is essential to understand some basic points about those with “COVID related” disease.

  1. 92% of the people in this study were not vaccinated. 8% were vaccinated.
  2. 92% of the people hospitalized were not vaccinated. 8% were vaccinated.
  3. 91% of the people who died were unvaccinated. 9% were vaccinated.

Did you notice that the rate of death is higher if you’re vaccinated?

In this study, just by the simple numbers alone, you are less likely to die if you are unvaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines.

Yet, they had the audacity to state “In 13 U.S. jurisdictions, rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were substantially higher in persons not fully vaccinated compared with those in fully vaccinated persons . . .”

Well, of course the numbers are “substantially higher,” because 92% of the people that entered the study were unvaccinated! 92 is bigger than 8. We learned that in grade school . . . at least some of us did.

Yet, as you can see by the advertisement below, the CDC spins these numbers and claims that if you are vaccinated you reduce your risk of infection, hospitalization and death by 10%.

In their own study they state that six severe limitations in this study exist:

  1. Many of the “unvaccinated” were partially vaccinated
  2. Variable linkage may completely change the incident rate ratio (IRR) for which this whole study was completed.
  3. Ecological studies have never been effective in determining incident rate ratios (IRRs)
  4. Vaccine effectiveness can never be determined based on an ecological study due to such uncontrollable variables.
  5. They don’t really know if the delta variant was >50% of the cases because they didn’t check.
  6. This data only accounts for ~ 25% of the population, so you really can’t generalize the results.

What is the take home message?

This is a trash can study that is being used as propaganda to continue selling a vaccine to unsuspecting population, and the CDC knows it.

If you are a medical professional, and you’re going to try to scare my patients into getting this vaccine by touting big numbers, please read the damn study before you speak.

Vaccine Thoughts

Today my office got a “1 star” review from a person who isn’t even a patient.  She was upset that I do not require my staff to be vaccinated.  So, I thought I would lay it out there so that you and all my followers can understand my thought process on this whole vaccine issue.

I Support the Use of Safe Vaccines

First and foremost, let me state that I am a proponent of vaccines. I have been fully vaccinated with every other vaccine under the sun (I was in the military and we were given EVERYTHING) and was adamant about getting my flu vaccine until 2016 when I had a severe anaphylactic reaction to the influenza vaccine. 

I’m Personally Allergic to the Components of COVID-19 Vaccines and Influenza Vaccines.

Thinking this was just a hypersensitivity issue, I got my yearly flu vaccine in 2017 and my reaction of hives and inflammation were worse.  We concluded that I am allergic to the base in the vaccine polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate.  In doing a great deal of research trying to find out what it was I was reacting to, I changed my position on the need for the yearly influenza vaccine.  (It causes a 36% increase susceptibility to coronavirus infections.  You can read about that information here.)  

Polysorbate or PEG is a component of all three COVID-19 vaccines, and is a contraindication to getting the COVID-19 vaccines (listed right on the CDC website – as there is NO package insert on any of the vaccines to date), so I have been very leery of getting vaccinated with anything containing these chemicals.

I’ve Already Had COVID-19 Twice

Near the end of March 2020, I had six patients (3 couples) come off of a cruise to the Caribbean, and had symptoms that we thought were Parainfluenza virus, but later turned out to be COVID-19.  2 weeks later, I and the majority of my staff became ill with COVID-19.   I had classic symptoms of COVID-19, however, my symptoms only lasted about 3 days, many of my staff members were sick for 1-2 weeks, and my wife was sick for 3 weeks.  It was about this time that nasal swab testing became available. 

Over the last 18 months, we have treated over 400 positive COVID-19 cases outpatient.  I have an active patient population of about 8,000 patients.  Between myself and my PA, we see about 13,000 patient visits per year, so we are a busy practice.  The average age of my patients is 65 years old and the majority of these patient have insulin resistance and/or diabetes.   My concern was that we have a huge practice susceptible to severe COVID-19 infections.  However, amazingly in the first 12 months of this pandemic we only had 12 hospitalizations for COVID-19 infections and those were the patients who were not following a low carbohydrate or ketogenic diet and were not controlling their blood sugars or insulin levels.

As predicted, and like any coronavirus, yearly resurgence of the infection will re-occur.  We’ve seen about 15 new cases of COVID-19 in the office in the last four weeks which appear to correlate with the Delta Variant being seen in the hospital across the street from my office.  In the last month, we have seen a resurgence of COVID-19 infections, and five of my staff members were out of the office due to positive COVID-19 infections.  Symptoms lasted 3-14 days in my staff.   All of these patients and my staff were treated with my protocol and none have been hospitalized. 

I personally came down with a reoccurrence of the infection and had symptoms of sore throat, headache, sinus pressure, loss of taste & smell, and productive cough resolve within 72 hours following our treatment protocol.  Like the flu with over 600 variants, there are already 160+ variants of the COVID-19 virus around the world.   So, it is to be expected that we will see this yearly, much like we’ve seen the flu.

Because of my position on this particular vaccine and the influenza vaccine, many members of my church (who has heavily supported this vaccine) and the medical community have ostracized me and my family, as I’ve raised concerns and been vocal about this issue. And yet, a recent real world study in Israel of over 800,000 people demonstrates that those with natural immunity to COVID-19 have 13 times greater protection than those that are vaccinated.

I’ve Seen More Adverse Reaction to COVID-19 Vaccine Then Any Other Vaccine

In January, when the vaccine came out, I was interested in using this in our practice, but I had concerns regarding the untested delivery mechanism that this vaccine used and I was concerned that there were no clinical trials established at the time to know what to expect from this vaccine.

About 30-40% of my practice opted to get vaccinated.  And about 30% of my staff opted to get vaccinated as well.

Of great concern to me is that I have started seeing strange long-term vaccine reactions in those patients that got vaccinated:

  • I have three patient that had profound fatigue – literally could not get out of bed for 4-5 months after getting vaccinated.  Two of these patients are still experiencing these symptoms today.
  • I have two patients who had pericarditis/myocarditis from the vaccine (Now a Black Box Warning for these vaccines)
  • I have seven patients with persistent elevated D-Dimer levels 3-6 months after vaccination predisposing them to blood clots and pulmonary emboli.  Two actually had life threatening blood clots in the lungs. (Blood clots is also a Black Box Warning on these vaccines)
  • Four of these seven had colitis that persisted for 6-8 weeks that was unresponsive to antibiotic therapy.
  • And, one of these patients has symptoms of severe fatigue & tachycardia (rapid heart rate) upon standing that has yet to resolve.
  • I have two others that had spontaneous bruising over their lower extremities for 6 weeks associated with severe fatigue.

95% of the people that get vaccinated in my clinical experience seem to have no problem.   5% of patients have profound symptoms of illness as if they had a mild to moderate case of COVID-19 that can last up to 7 days.  

When I have commented about what I am seeing to my colleagues, they roll their eyes at me and blow it off.   And, behind my back, they tell others that I’m just blowing things out of proportion. Yet, the patients I have seen above are real and these symptoms have dramatically affected their lives, their families and their ability to work and provide a living for themselves.

Am I against getting vaccinated?  No, but I want people to clearly understand the risks and benefits of vaccination.  To date, there is still no package insert that is given to those receiving the vaccines, providing any warning, including the Black Box Warnings. And, the patients that have had adverse reactions have told me that they would never have considered getting vaccinated if they knew about the symptoms they were potentially going to experience.

Three Questions To Ask Yourself About Any Therapy Including The COVID-19 Vaccine

[Updated August, 28, 2021]

I’ve had thousands of patient’s ask about the COVID-19 vaccine and whether they should consider taking it or not. At the outset, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to vaccines, nor am I an anti-vax proponent.  I am very much a proponent of safe and effective vaccines and therapies.  I present this information so that my patients and readers can make an informed choice about their individual health.  Many of my patients have chosen to get vaccinated, and many have not.  Many are still on the fence.

This information is continually changing and I will try to update this post when important information is available. You can find a summary and links to recent research on a previous blog post here.

Any time you use a therapeutic, medication or vaccine, you need to evaluate it with three guidelines in mind:
      1. Is it safe?
      2. Is it effective?
      3. Do you actually need it?

Survivability Points to Ponder

Currently, children under 18 years old have a 99.998% chance of survival if they get COVID-19 and are untreated.  Why would you inject a child with a vaccine when there is no need for treatment?  Yet this vaccine is being pushed upon our children 12 years of age and older by schools, sports programs and government officials.
The risk of death in a young adult who contracts COVID-19 between the ages of 19 to 44 years old is 99.95%.  Again, why would we force vaccination or treatment upon anyone who’s risk is 0.05%?
If everyone on the planet were to get COVID-19 and not get treated, the global death rate would be less than 0.5% of the global population.  That is identical to influenza.  After you read the information below, you need to ask yourself: Does the potential risk of the COVID-19 vaccine warrant force vaccination the entire global population?
If we have effective outpatient treatments, and the risk of death was no greater than the flu, why would you consider use of a vaccine with significant sides effects and poor overall effectiveness?

How Does the COVID-19 Vaccine Work?

As of today, the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson Johnson COVID-19 vaccines consist of a snippet of genetic code directing production of an immune response identical to what the actual virus causes to occur. This response stimulates the production of a coronavirus spike protein. In the Pfizer.BioNTech & Moderna vaccines, it is delivered in a tiny fat bubble called a lipid nanoparticle. Some researchers suspect the immune system’s response to that delivery vehicle also causes some the short-term side effects, and may post greater risks in the long term.
What we know today, is that the spike proteins, whether produced by the virus or by the vaccine is the “toxic” portion to the body. A percentage of people have significant adverse responses to this spike proteins. This protein binds to those tissues with the highest concentrations of ACE2 receptors on their cell membranes.  The binding of ACE2 receptors by spike proteins causes a release of inflammatory cytokines (protein signals to stimulate the body to fight infection).   However, this cytokine release is amplified significantly when T cells are suppressed or not functional.  We know that obesity, diabetes, prediabetes and insulin resistance states cause a suppression in T cell function.  Within four hours of blood sugar and insulin levels spiking and staying elevated, something that commonly occurs in diabetic, pre-diabetic and obese patients, T cell immunity is suppressed and cytokine levels, like IL-6, are elevated.
A recently uncovered Pfizer study in Japan identified that these proteins and the nano-particle transport system concentrate and bind at the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, mesenteric lymph-nodes, and ovaries within 48 hours of vaccination (1).  Originally, it was thought that the vaccine only concentrated in the deltoid muscle where the vaccine was given. According to Dr. Robert Malone the creator of the mRNA technology, the spike proteins are biologically active. Because of this distribution throughout the body, and according to Dr. Malone, there is significant potential for leukemia, lymphoma and female fertility issues 1-3 years from vaccination and auto-immune disorders 2-3 years from vaccination.  Because we have no data in humans at the 2-3 year mark, the actual risk of this is still unknown.

Is The Vaccine Effective?

Currently the only data we have on the vaccine effectiveness comes from a brand new package insert released on the 23rd of August, 2021.  Studies in 44,000 people demonstrated it has a 94.7% confidence interval over 6 months.  That means, in lay terms, that the vaccine will decrease your likelihood of caching COVID-19 by an “estimate” of 94.7% within six months of your first shot.  However, data coming out of Israel where 85% of the population has been vaccinated for the last eight months shows that that this effectiveness drops to 39% by the eighth month.  Anything less than 40% effectiveness is considered no more effective than placebo.
If you’ve never had a COVID-19 infection, then this vaccine will give you short term protection for 2-8 months as it’s protective effect rapidly wears off.  Hence, Pfizer and Moderna have recommended a third dose of the vaccine starting in September.  However, there is no information about the risks and benefits of a third dose.  And, if a third dose is necessary, will there be a fourth?  And a fifth?
In the short term studies (two month period of time), vaccine manufacturers stated that there was a 66% reduction in hospitalizations due to COVID-19 with the vaccine use.  This is not what is being seen in Israel, where 85% of their population has been vaccinated.  In fact, people vaccinated in January had a 2.26 times greater risk for a breakthrough infection with the Delta variant than those vaccinated in April.
The rate of infection and hospitalization rates remain the same as the unvaccinated as you can see in the graphic below:
In another study just released on August 25, 2021, as a pre-print in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), data from Israel paints a very interesting picture of what happens when the majority of the population is vaccinated.  This real world observational study of over 800,000 people compares the unvaccinated  to those with prior COVID-19 illness, those with prior COVID-19 + 1 dose of vaccine and those who are vaccinated with two doses.
This study demonstrates that those who received the COVID-19 vaccine (two shot series) have a 13.06 times GREATER risk of infection with the COVID-19 Delta variant compared with those who were unvaccinated but had previous infection with COVID-19 alone.
Additionally, those who received the vaccine had a 6.7 fold greater risk for admission to the hospital compared to those with natural infection.  The conclusion in this, the largest real world vaccination study on COVID-19 to date, is that natural immunity confers a 13 times greater protection than the vaccine.

Acute or Short Term Issues:

First these vaccines contain a black box warning for people under age 55 years old. This warning is that there is a significant increased risk of a forms of inflammation of the heart called myocarditis and fluid build up around the heart called pericarditis.  This risk was set at 13 per million, or one person in every 76,900 doses given.  As of August 20th, 2021, Moderna’s vaccine is being evaluated for an even greater risk seen from Canadian data.  “There might be a 2.5 times higher incidence of myocarditis in those who get the Moderna vaccine compared with Pfizer’s vaccine,” Reuters reported.
Second, Blood clot formation is the number one risk of these vaccines. The spike proteins that form from the vaccine are identical to the same proteins caused by the virus itself. It’s not the virus that’s the problem, it’s the spike proteins that act like a toxin. The Salk Institute has identified that these spike proteins bind to the ACE 2 receptors on multiple organ tissues, damaging the lining of blood vessels and increase the risk of blood clot, stroke and heart attack. The increased risk of clots is most dramatic in the first week after a vaccine is given, however, this risk is elevated as long as these proteins are circulating in the blood stream.
Given this information, and the number of blood clots I and many others have seen clinically post vaccination, this vaccine has been aptly called “The Clot Shot.”
Third, data demonstrates that patients given this vaccine in their 1st trimester of pregnancy have an increased risk of miscarriages from 10% to 80% above the average. This is likely due to spike protein deposition in the uterus, however, this is still under evaluation.

Sub Acute Issues:

In all other attempts at making a coronavirus vaccine in the last 25 years, animal studies have show the development of antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). This is where re-exposure to the virus causes a 10 fold immune response above the norm.  This also causes what is called cytokine release syndrome.  However, because this vaccine was released under an Emergency Use Authorization, these animals studies were never performed on this vaccine to determine the potential for these syndromes to arise.
I am seeing signs that ADE is starting to happen in a percentage of my patients who have been vaccinated with both the first and second doses of vaccine.

Long Term Issues:

There is definite scientific evidence that these spike proteins may damage ovarian function. There is definite evidence that they may lower sperm counts. There is definite evidence that they will effect autoimmunity in a percentage of the population. There is definite evidence that it may cause various forms of cancer.
According to a recent article by Talotta et at., “Young patients and female patients who are already affected or predisposed (e.g. immunological and serological abnormalities in absence of clinical symptoms, familiarity for immune-mediated diseases) to autoimmune or autoinflammatory disorders should be carefully evaluated for the benefits and risks of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination” (4).
Lipid nano-particles have been shown to concentrate themselves in the ovary with a 16% decrease in fertility that was identified in the animal studies recently made available to the public.
Recent research from Read et al. demonstrates that vaccinating people with vaccines that do not completely stop transmission actually increase conditions that promote more severe strains of the virus.  “Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission [vaccines that don’t completely stop transmission] can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts” (5).

What is the Actual Risk Of:

      • Infertility
      • Autoimmunity
      • Cancer after getting this vaccine?
We JUST DON’T KNOW!

Who Should NOT Receive the Vaccine:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued an update on those who should not receive mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Recommendations cover:
      • Patients who have had a severe allergic reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine.
      • Patients who have had an immediate non-severe allergic reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine.
      • Patients who have had an allergic reaction to polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate.
      • Patients who have had an allergic reaction to other types of vaccines or an injectable therapy.
      • Patients who have had allergies not related to vaccines (food like shell fish, nuts, etc).
Common Side Effects that can and will occur with both versions of the vaccine (lower side effect profile in Pfizer/BioNtech version):
      • Fever up to 104 F (40 C) for 24 hours in 2-4% of participants.
      • Severe fatigue in 4%- 9.7% of participants
      • Muscle pain in 8.9%
      • Joint pain in 5.2%
      • Headache in 2%-4.5%.
That’s a higher rate of severe reactions than people are accustomed to, and it occurs because the vaccine is actually producing the same toxin in the system that the virus does – spike proteins.
      • The likelihood of a severe problem if you get a COVID-19 infection is about 0.5%.
      • Where the likelihood of side effects from the vaccine is 1-10%.
With those odds, you be the judge.

Additional Cautions in Pregnancy/Breast Feeding:

Directly from the CDC website: “Observational data demonstrate that, while the chances for these severe health effects are low, pregnant people with COVID-19 have an increased risk of severe illness, including illness that results in ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Additionally, pregnant people with COVID-19 might be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, compared with pregnant women without COVID-19.”
“Based on how mRNA vaccines work, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant. However, the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women.” However, as noted above, vaccination in the 1st trimester of pregnancy increases miscarriage rate up to 80%.
“There are no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or on the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion. mRNA vaccines are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant. People who are breastfeeding and are part of a group recommended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, such as healthcare personnel, may choose to be vaccinated.” Yet, in light of these assumptions by the CDC, studies in this group has NOT been completed, so we just don’t know the answer.
For those outside of the United States, the UK government’s safety instructions recommend that “no pregnancy or breast feeding should be planned within two months of each COVID-19 vaccine dose.”

Does the Benefit Outweigh the Risk?

Does the benefit of two to six months of protection outweigh the risks that are being seen with these vaccines?  Ultimately, that decision is yours.  My profession opinion is that the risk is greater than the benefit.  Especially when we have effective, inexpensive treatments available.
The NIH, CDC, Hospital Associations, Health Systems and big Pharma have spent hundreds of millions trying to convince the American public that these vaccines are safe.   As of December 2020, prior to completion of any safety studies on these vaccines, the US government alone had spent $250 million dollars trying to convince you and me that these vaccines are worth the risk.  Yet, as a physician who weighs risk to benefit outcomes of treatments with 20-30 patient’s every day, those risks just don’t add up.
When in the history of mankind have you ever heard or seen such powerful propaganda regarding health and safety of every soul on the planet?   The only time I have heard or seen anything remotely similar is in the 1940’s.
Hitler rose to power by convincing the entire nation of Germany that the Jewish population carried typhus, an infectious bacteria that was perceived as an imminent threat to the country.  The typhus vaccine was developed in 1939 in Poland and was in use during WWII.  In order to stop the spread of typhus three things occurred:
  1. Those at risk (mainly the Jews) were quarantined.
  2. Everyone in the nation was required to carry papers documenting full medical history, travel history, vaccination status and typhoid risk.
  3. Those that were not compliant were excluded from socialization and work, or were they were imprisoned.
Sound familiar?

Sources:

  1. https://Pfizer COVIDvac_report_Japanese government.pdf
  2. https://www.cdc.gov/…/recommendations/pregnancy.html
  3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/
  5. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26214839

Why the World’s Leaders and Large Businesses Pushing 100% Vaccination Rates?

You’re going to think I am crazy, but I’ve been racking my brain for a reason, trying to understand why we are where we are today.

Now, before you try to commit me to a mental institution, please watch the two videos and make your own conclusions based on what I theorize may be happening. This information actually scares the snot out of me.

Why are the leadership of countries around the world and large businesses pushing for 100% vaccination so rapidly? The only thing I can surmise based on what we are hearing was confirmed in the video below as the Arkansas Governor and his Medical Advisor explain risk factors for pregnancy. The Aransas Medical Advisor actually sets the narrative.

If there are fertility issues that begin to arise, it won’t be blamed on the vaccine, it will be the COVID-19 variant to be blamed. If there is no unvaccinated control group, any side effects of infertility or pregnancy problems can be blamed on the virus itself, which is exactly what the Arkansas Medical Advisor just did last week.

YouTube player

It is important to understand that pregnancy and fertility data on drugs and vaccines are confirmed during the Phase 4 part of clinical trials. The COVID-19 vaccine skipped the Phase 4 due to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). If there are problems with fertility or pregnancy, we will not truly know until January of 2022 at the earliest. Auto-immunity problems take up to four years to show up.

So, why would world leadership push this agenda?

Population control and the ability to rapidly control the economy under a global government – and our leaders actually roll played this pandemic and how to solve it in October, 2019.

The “Great Reset” is a long term ideological grab of what’s left of individual freedom and free market economies, and the goal is the imposition of a global dictatorship. Globalists wrap these objectives in pretty sounding words and humanitarian sounding aspirations, but the bottom line of the “Reset” is about an end to liberty as we know it.

I know, I know. It sound like a huge conspiratorial exaggeration. And, I would not have believed it unless I actually watched the video of these people putting all these puzzle pieces together. Unfortunately, this is reality; this is what these people desire, above all else. But, how do they achieve such a goal?

Interestingly enough, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation described exactly how they planned to do it during a “simulation” they held in October of 2019 called “Event 201”. During the event, they imagined a massive coronavirus pandemic, spread supposedly from animals to humans, which would facilitate the need for pervasive restrictions on individual liberties, national economies as well as the internet and social media.

YouTube player

I’m sure it’s all a coincidence, but the exact same scenario the globalists at the WEF played out during Event 201 happened in the real world only two months later with a virus and a vaccine that were patented by the CDC and Pfizer over 21 years ago.

The virus that causes illness in swine discussed in the Event 201 roll play was patented on January 28, 2000 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/6372224). This is the base SARS-CoV2 molecule. We’ve know about it and had it patented for over 20 years.

On April 14, 2004, full gene sequence of SARS-CoV2 AND the detection method for PCR identification of SARS-CoV2 was patented (https://patents.justia.com/patent/7220852, this includes sub patents 46592703-P, and patent 776521). Two weeks later, on April 28, 2004, the SARS-CoV2 antiviral vaccine patent was filed by Secoya Pharmaceuticals (https://patents.justia.com/patent/7151163), who later became part of the holdings of Pfizer, Crucell (now Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson.

Ask yourself how can the treatment be patented just two weeks after the detection method and virus structure were patented? Then ask yourself a second question, how can a virus be patented that is naturally occurring (it is against the law to patent naturally occurring “Novel” viruses)?

Answer: First, it is physically impossible to come up with a vaccine just days after you identify at measurement tool for the virus. Second, this is NOT a “novel” virus. It’s been on Pfizer’s shelf since 2000.

In 2007, the CDC attempted to patent the same viral sequence and it was denied. The CDC, then, paid to have this patent over-ridden and made private. They essentially paid a bribe to take public patent information and cover it up. This is all public record in the patent office information located above.

You can watch the testimony of Dr. David Martin and the patents he’s analyzed over the last 20 years. All records are publicly available going back to 1999 showing the Novel Coronavirus was well known and not actually “Novel” for two decades. He explains his credentials and provides how this present outbreak was engineered.

Only time will tell, but we will know more in the next 6-12 months as this health fiasco plays out.

Is Mandatory Vaccination Worth The Risks?

As of today, there are 6,183 COVID-19 vaccine related deaths in the United States according to the CDC’s VAERs website. We as health care providers are required to report vaccine related injury to the VAERs site.

And, yet, when we site this data (being the ONLY DATA available to us as clinicians required to make judgement calls in real time on the use of these vaccines) we are labeled “conspiracy theorists.”

Many of you have been very vocal, threatening me and stopped following my social media channels recently,: “Dr. Nally, why do you keep harping on this vaccine risk issue? I used to trust you . . .”

In fact, Facebook has consistently blocked me from doing any “live-streaming” for the last six months. They keep finding posts from 1-2 years ago that “violate community standards” and extend my ban on live-stream posting privilege’s.”

The Answer: Because, two more of my patients have been hospitalized with life-threatening blood clots in the lungs after vaccination, both of which have never had any history of clotting problems. “Houston, THIS IS A PROBLEM! Are you listening?!”

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=6D180E77E02D9533F8867A5708ED

Are there errors in public reporting? Of course. That is to be expected. However, some researchers that use these data sets state that VAERs reporting may be under-reported generally by up to a factor of 5. That means that the number of vaccine related deaths could between 6,000 – 39,900 as of today.

Of course, Reuters.com, FactCheck.org and Snopes.com have no medical malpractice risk looming over their heads when they make their “fact checking” statements, nor do they have the life and health of a family member depending on their recommendations sitting in front of them in the exam room.

So, you be the judge. Just remember, the Swine Flu vaccine got pulled off the market after 450 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) appeared and 3 deaths in elderly patients were reported within days of vaccination (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html).

Influenza and Menactra vaccines increase the risk of GBS by 2 per 1,000,000 doses (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html).

Currently the CDC admits that COVID-19 vaccines have been directly implicated in:

Blood Clots (life-threatening thrombosis and thrombocytosis syndrome) like blood clots in the lungs occur in 7 per 1,000,000 vaccinations.

Anaphylaxis occurs in 5 per 1,000,000 vaccinations.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) has occurred in 137 patients vaccinated.

Myocarditis/Pericarditis has been confirmed in over 700 cases of those vaccinated. (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html)

It is hard to imagine a more dangerous and asinine way of making decisions than by abdicating those health decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

So, for a virus that has a 99.98% unvaccinated survival rate across the US population, is the risk of giving up your freedom of choice worth taking?

Well, that’s really your choice. My job as your physician is to give you the pros and the cons. That’s what I’ve done. You’ve probably already commented to me about how you either agree or disagree with me. That’s OK. Because, unlike many other medical professionals, I’ve done my job.

Now, you need to decide, is the risk of a mandated vaccine worth defending your freedom over, or do you give up this hill, tuck your tail between your legs, roll up your sleeve and then retreat?

As for me, I may be alone, but I’m standing on this hill. You’re going to have to bury me to take it.

Vaccine Guidance Got You Confused?

Do you find yourself confused about mixed guidance when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines and safety concerns?  You’re not alone.  Even we, as physicians, struggle to wade through the ever changing guidance, research and new adverse events popping up every day.

Today, the Surgeon General recommended that we as physicians try to calm your concerns about the vaccine and encourage you to get it. While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Surgeon General are marketing widespread use of the emergency-use vaccines in the U.S. for both old and young alike, many other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine use. Health officials around the world are giving varying advice on safety issues as COVID-19 vaccines are given to more people, and more information can be collected.

Below are summaries of some of the concerns as of July 15th, 2021, that have emerged or been raised by medical officials around the world.  I’ve written about many of them.  Hopefully, this summary gives you a good 30,000 foot perspective.

General

Fifty-seven authors from 17 countries have signed an endorsement urging that Covid-19 vaccinations be stopped unless new safety mechanisms are immediately implemented.

The authors include Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, who has called for a halt to vaccinating 30-year olds due to “no clinical benefit” and safety concerns.

In the United Kingdom, some scientists analyzed adverse event reports and called upon the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to stop the Covid-19 vaccines as “not safe for human use” due to reports of issues with bleeding/clotting, pain, immune system, neurological, loss of sight/hearing/smell/speech, and questions about impact in pregnant women.

A petition of scientists led by Linda Wastila, Professor, Pharmaceutical Health Services Research University of Maryland School of Pharmacy is calling for Covid-19 vaccines to be disapproved.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome Autoimmune Paralysis

As of July 13th, 2021, the FDA issued a warning about Guillain-Barre autoimmune paralysis, in which the immune system attacks the body’s nerves, after immunization with the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. According to reports, the cases have primarily been reported about two weeks after vaccination, mostly in men, and “any aged 50 and older.” The risk of contracting this syndrome is 3-5 times higher, meaning up to 10 out of every 100,000 vaccinated persons are at risk.

Numerous case reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome paralysis after Covid-19 vaccine have prompted scientists to warn that “all physicians” should be “vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barre syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine.”  Observations suggest that “this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barre syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”

In the U.K., scientists flagged “bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine.” A case has also been reported in a patient who got the Pfizer vaccine. In India, there are reports of seven severe cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome 10 to 14 days after the first dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Six were women, all had facial paralysis, “all progressed to quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement.”

Guillain-Barre syndrome has been reported after other mRNA vaccinations like Gardasil. The cause is believed to be damage to the immune system. The disorder can be extremely serious and can lead to total paralysis with dependence on artificial respiration. Even those who recover may have serious muscle wasting and may have to slowly teach the body to relearn most every normal task, such as walking.

Statistically, one in 20 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome is fatal.

Heart Issues

The Food and Drug Administration has added a new warning to Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines about risk of heart inflammation.

As of June of 2021, CDC said that more than 1,200 cases of heart inflammation (myocarditis of pericarditis) in young people had been reported after Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccination.

  • More than half were after the second dose.
  • Most of the injuries are in males under age 30.

The Israeli Ministry of Health announced it’s monitoring for heart inflammation after Pfizer’s vaccine due to reports of problems.

Myocarditis and Other Cardiovascular Complications of the mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines [Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna] in a number of patients are described in a scientific article:

  • Two patients with clinically suspected myocarditis
  • One patient with stress cardiomyopathy 
  • Two patients with pericarditis 

According to the research: 

  • The two patients with clinically suspected myocarditis were otherwise healthy young men who presented with acute substernal chest pressure and/or dyspnea after receiving the second dose of the vaccine and were found to have diffuse ST elevations on electrocardiogram (ECG), elevated cardiac biomarkers and inflammatory markers, and mildly reduced left ventricular (LV) function on echocardiography. Both patients met the modified Lake Louise Criteria for acute myocarditis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. 
  • A case of stress cardiomyopathy occurred in a 60-year-old woman with known coronary artery disease (CAD) and previously normal LV function, who presented with new exertional symptoms, ECG changes, and apical akinesis following the second dose of the vaccine. 
  • The two patients with pericarditis who presented with chest pain, elevated inflammatory markers, and pericardial effusions after receiving the vaccine.

Blood Clots

In late June, the first case of a blood clot disorder called “thrombosis with thrombocytopenia” after an RNA double-dose vaccine was been reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The case was that of a 65-year-old man who developed symptoms ten days after his second dose of the Moderna vaccine. Because the blood clot disorder was not previously warned about in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, doctors treated the patient with heparin, the very drug that’s not supposed to be used in post-vaccine patients suffering from the disorder because it could actually worsen the condition.

The Johnson and Johnson Covid-19 vaccine was temporarily removed from the market in the U.S. on April 16, 2021 while health officials studied reports of blood clot injuries. Among them was an 18-year old teen named Emma Burkey, who got sick about a week after the Johnson and Johnson Covid-19 vaccine and ended up having three brain surgeries related to blood clots and seizures.

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was allowed back on the market April 27, 2021 with new warnings about the disorder.

Swedish health officials determined that people under age 65 should not get the Johnson and Johnson vaccine due to reports of blood clots.

An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association recommended women under age 50 avoid the Johnson and Johnson Covid-19 vaccine due to concerns about blood clots. The recommendation discussed 12 case reports of a blood disorder known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.

The AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine (not currently approved in the U.S.) has been linked to a dangerous disorder involving blood clots with low blood platelets. On April 7, 2021, the European Medicines Agency says it made the association after it analyzed 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis reported in the EU drug safety database (EudraVigilance) as of March 22, 2021. Eighteen of these cases of were fatal.

An otherwise healthy South Florida doctor, Gregory Michael, died of a brain hemorrhage 16 days after he got Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. Authorities concluded he died of a blood disorder called “immune thrombocytopenia” (ITP) that can prevent blood from clotting and cause internal bleeding. His wife said a blood test showed the level of his platelets to be at “zero.” She said before the shot, Dr. Michael had “absolutely no medical issues” and no underlying conditions. However, authorities later categorized his death as “natural.”

Dr. Charles Hoffe, a Canadian physician with 28 years of medical practice, was relived from hospital duty and placed on a gag order after sounding the alarm that 62% of the 900 dose of the Moderna Vaccine he gave in his office caused an elevated D-Dimer test, implying microscopic clotting throughout the body.

I’ve personally seen and treated five patients with elevated D-dimer and abnormal blood clotting post COVID-19 vaccination in the last 6 months. These clots have occurred with 4 hours to 2 weeks after vaccination in otherwise healthy patients with no other risk of clotting.

In Spain, the AstraZeneca shot has been restricted in people under age 60 due to reports of blood clots in younger people.

Bulgaria, Iceland and Norway have halted AstraZeneca shots. 

Austria, Italy and Romania banned certain “lots” or batches of the AstraZeneca shots.

Denmark stopped using the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine altogether as well as the Johnson and Johnson vaccine after investigations into blood clots, saying “the benefits of using the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson do not outweigh the risk of causing the possible adverse effect in those who receive the vaccine.”

The Italian government recently restricted AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine to adults over age 60 after a teenager who got the shot died from a rare form of blood clotting. Eighteen-year-old Camilla Canepa died after getting vaccinated May 25, 2021. 

Several other European countries have also stopped giving the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine to people below a certain age, usually ranging from 50 to 65. 

Grave’s disease Autoimmune Disorder

Studies in Mexico and Turkey link the autoimmune thyroid disorder Grave’s disease to Covid-19 vaccination in numerous female health care workers, including two who were breastfeeding. Pfizer-BioNTech was the vaccine given in Mexico. A Chinese vaccine was given in Turkey. Read more here.

Frail & Elderly

Health officials in Norway sounded the alarm after 23 patients died shortly after getting the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. They advise doctors to use caution in administering the shot to “very frail elderly patients.” 

After investigating 13 of the deaths, the Norwegian authorities concluded that common side effects from so-called “RNA” vaccines may be too much for a frail elderly person to handle, and may contribute to their death. 

“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” said Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency.

CDC said it is monitoring the impact of the vaccines on already-frail patients such as the chronically ill in nursing homes.

Several clusters of elderly patients in U.S. nursing homes died after Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. In one group, a number of the patients who died tested positive for Covid-19 after vaccination.

Pregnant Women

Several Brazilian states suspended use of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine for pregnant women in May 2021 after a pregnant woman died after getting vaccinated. The decisions follow the recommendation of the country’s National Health Surveillance Agency, which recommended “immediate suspension” of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine for pregnant women after results of vaccine adverse events monitoring in the country.

CDC says that with limited data on impact of Covid-19 vaccine in pregnant women and on their unborn children, the decision on whether to vaccinate while pregnant is an individual decision to be made between a woman and her physician.

Previously-Infected

CDC falsely claimed that studies showed Covid-19 vaccines are effective for those who already had Covid-19. In fact, studies showed the opposite.

Manufacturing Problems

On June 11, the European Union’s drug regulator announced it will not use batches of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine that were made at a Baltimore, Maryland-based plant around the time that cross-contamination manufacturing problems were reported at the facility.

Anonymous sources claimed that up to 60 million doses of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine had to be thrown out. But the FDA issued a news release saying that two batches from the Baltimore plant were safe to use. The FDA said “several other batches are not suitable for use, but additional batches are still under review.”

Lack of Immunity

Israel announced that about half of the adults infected with Covid-19 during its outbreak in the June 2021 time period were fully vaccinated. The fully-vaccinated individuals had gotten Pfizer’s shots.

According to Epoch Times, in June 2021 nearly 4,000 fully vaccinated people in Massachusetts tested positive for Covid-19. On April 30, “the CDC reported that some 10,626 breakthrough cases were reported in 46 states and territories.” Breakthrough cases are where fully vaccinated people still end up infected with Covid-19.

Scientists hoped that Covid-19 vaccines would be effective in variants of Covid-19, which are mutations that occur naturally with viruses and were always expected with Covid-19. However, the vaccine effectiveness against variants may be limited. CDC and vaccine makers are studying the medical landscape to find out more. Other states, such as Maine, are noting Covid-19 deaths occurring in fully vaccinated people.

Long-Haul COVID Syndrome

Following the initial surge of COVID-19 infections, there has been a shift in focus on a new group of illness survivors, those with “post-acute COVID.”  This group is also known as the “COVID long-haulers” or colloquially as “long COVID.” 

I am seeing this syndrome arise in about 20-25% of those who had mild to severe COVID-19, up to 50% of those who were hospitalized and 10-15% of those who were vaccinated.  This seems to correlate with the recently published data that others in the medical community are seeing (1, 2, 3).

Long-Haul COVID-19 Symptoms

The most common symptoms that have been seen in this long-haul COVID group are general body pain, breathing difficulty, loss of taste or smell, brain fog, elevated cholesterol profiles, malaise, fatigue and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). However, some of the more severe cases have low blood pressure and orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure drops on change of position).

Not only am I seeing this in post-COVID infection, but I am also seeing these symptoms occur in patients post COVID-19 vaccination with all the vaccine types.  The vaccine was designed to stimulate the same immune response that COVID-19 caused.  They seem to experience the same symptoms above with additional bruising, elevated D-dimer (protein fragments from breakdown of a blood clot), and changes in patients clotting factors.

These symptoms and presentations are going unrecognized and/or ignored by a large number of physicians.  This under recognition is suggested by the fact that large patient support groups are forming at locations like wearebodypolitic.com and longcovidsos.org with trending hashtags of #longcovid on Twitter.

Autonomic Nervous System & COVID-19

Many of these symptoms seem to correlate with autonomic nervous system (ANS) dysfunction after infection or vaccination.  These symptoms (fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, light headedness, increased bruising) are commonly persisting for longer than four weeks.

Many of my patients experiencing post-COVID symptoms have been found to have ANS dysfunction with orthostatic intolerance syndromes (light-headedness with change of position).  This occurs in men and women, but the literature seems to demonstrate a higher prevalence among females in the 26-50 year old range (2). Post-COVID syndromes, however, seem to be more prevalent in men as noted in the FAIR Health study (1).

Figure 1 – Post-COVID medical conditions more common in males than females: Mar 2020 -Feb 2021

Orthostatic intolerance syndromes are controlled by the ANS and include orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure on standing), vasovagal syncope (stress induced passing-out), and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) causing pulse rates greater than 110 with standing or simple walking.  All of these symptoms point to an autonomic nervous system disruption.

When a healthy person stands, blood pools in the pelvis and legs, reducing venous return to the heart. This is detected by baroreceptors in the heart and aorta, which respond by increasing sympathetic neural and adrenergic tone (mediated by norepinephrine and epinephrine respectively). This results in tachycardia (thus compensating for reduced stroke volume). This is then followed by vasoconstriction in the splanchnic vascular bed, which increases venous return to the heart.

In orthostatic intolerance, the release of the adrenal hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine causes pronounced tachycardia (rapid heart rate), which is experienced as palpitations, breathlessness and chest pain (common symptoms of ‘long COVID’). Very high catecholamine levels can lead to paradoxical vasodilatation, sympathetic activity withdrawal and activation of the vagus nerve resulting in hypotension, dizziness and ultimately syncope (4-7).  If a person is ill, or already dehydrated, these symptoms can be prolonged or exacerbated.

In my office, we regularly assess the autonomic nervous system as part of the yearly wellness exam. This is a 15-20 minute test looking closely at heart rate variability, blood pressure and sweat response to some simple vagal maneuvers.

COVID-19 & Autoimmunity

There is hypothesis that COVID-19 infections and the immune response to vaccination affects the autonomic nervous system.  The relationship between the two is very complex leading to the well documented “cytokine response syndrome” and “cytokine storm” from sympathetic activation inducing a pro-inflammatory cytokine release throughout the body.   Vagal stimulation results in an anti-inflammatory response, and suggests that the autonomic nervous system is a possible therapeutic target of treatment.

Because autonomic disorders have been associated with autoantibodies (8), there is speculation that there may be an underlying autoimmune component to the post-COVID syndromes we are seeing (11,12).  

Post-COVID Syndrome is Complex

Significant impairment along any of the extended autonomic nervous system (EAS) pathways when affected by COVID-19 infection has the potential to lead to death.  This is a very complex system with multiple variables.  We’ve seen this over the last year in various presentations of COVID-19. 

Figure 2 below demonstrates the potential for various intervening variables to adversely affect the EAS system and lead to death (8). Five systems are interactive at the same time: Sympathetic Adrenergic System (SAS), Sympathetic Noradrenergic System (SNS), Arginine Vasopressin/Anti-Diuretic Hormone (AVP/ADH), Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenocortical (HPA) Axis, and the Parasympathetic Nervous System (PNS).

Figure 2 -From EAS system activation to dyshomeostasis to death. Five effector components of the EAS are on the left. Intervening variables are in the center. Factors contributing the critical illness or death are on the right. The red bar under PNS indicates PNS inhibition. AI angiotensin I, ACE angiotensin-converting enzyme, AII angiotensin II, Aldo aldosterone, ATN acute tubular necrosis, IL-6 interleukein 6, Myo. myocardial, Cor. coronary, TNFa tumor necrosis factor alpha

Intravascular Clotting Problems

In the COVID-19 pandemic there has been an unexpectedly high frequency of intravascular clotting, manifested by deep vein thrombophlebitis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, or stroke. It has been proposed that an imbalance between coagulation and inflammation results in this hypercoagulable state. Thrombosis (clotting) initiated by the innate immune system may limit SARS-CoV-2 dissemination, but aberrant activation of this system could cause endothelial (lining of the blood vessel) injury, with dysregulation of fibrinolysis and formation of blood clots (9). The complex roles of neutrophilia, neutrophil extracellular traps, platelet activation, and proinflammatory cytokines are a subject matter of active investigation and ongoing clinical trials.

Adrenaline is also a potent hemostatic agent because of both vasoconstriction that it causes and promotion of platelet aggregation in part through its antagonizing effect at the alpha-2 adrenoceptors.  It’s contribution in clotting in COVID-19 patients is still unknown.

In December 2021, Yi Zheng and colleagues discover that the “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can compete with anticoagulation factors. . . leading to exacerbated coagulation and other adverse consequences, especially in critically ill patients. This rapid coagulation response may be an additional independent factor for the inflammatory storm of severe COVID-19 patients.” (21)

In my office, this increased coagulation response can be identified by checking a D-Dimer level in the blood. I have found that the D-Dimer can be elevated for over 12 months in those with Long-Haul COVID symptoms after infection, and more commonly after vaccination.

Anxiety & Post-COVID Syndrome

It is theorized that feedback looping of the autonomic nervous system may be prevented with the use of benzodiazepines like alprazolam, or even L-DOPA to increase dopamine release. This has been seen clinically in those with anxiety as a part of their post-COVID syndrome.  These approaches are undergoing clinical trial currently.

Ketogenic Diets and Exogenous Ketones

Inhibition of the NLRP3 inflammasome has been shown to modulate the cytokine storm.  This can be done with ketogenic diets or the use of exogenous ketones.  The ketogenic state has been demonstrated to suppress the cytokine cascade in COVID-19 syndromes (10).

I have had great clinical success in my medial office through the use of ketogenic states (use of ketogenic diet and/or exogenous ketone salt use) to treat and prevent the post-COVID symptoms and syndromes when they present.

Mitochondrial Dysfunction

I have found in my clinical experience that the autonomic dysfunction correlates with mitochondrial dysfunction. Loss of function in mitochondria, the key organelle responsible for cellular energy production, can result in the excess fatigue and other symptoms that are common complaints in almost every chronic disease. At the molecular level, a reduction in mitochondrial function occurs as a result of the following changes: (1) a loss of maintenance of the electrical and chemical transmembrane potential of the inner mitochondrial membrane, (2) alterations in the function of the electron transport chain, or (3) a reduction in the transport of critical metabolites into mitochondria. In turn, these changes result in a reduced efficiency of oxidative phosphorylation and a reduction in production of adenosine-5′-triphosphate (ATP). Several components of this system require routine replacement, and this need can be facilitated with natural supplements (12).

Management of Post-COVID Syndrome

Education

Education, explanation and reassurance provide a cornerstone in understanding the post-COVID syndromes and orthostatic intolerances that can arise.

Exercise

Regular structured exercise that incorporates both aerobic and resistance elements help to re-balance the autonomic nervous system.  For those with severe orthostatic symptoms in upright positions, the use of recumbent exercise bikes or swimming may be used.

Fluids and Salt

Fluids cannot be emphasized enough.  Ensuring fluid repletion (2–3 liters or 64-100 oz of water per day and avoiding caffeine and alcohol) should be encouraged.  Additionally, one to two teaspoons of pink salt supplementation per day helps maintain plasma volume and avoid hypovolaemia (low intervascular volume).  I recommend the pink salts because of the additional magnesium, zinc and manganese these provide in fluid replete states.

Pharmacological Treatment

Discontinue any NRI’s like duloxeting, nortryptiline and tapentadol.  These just make the potential for cytokine release worse. Fludrocortisone can be used to expand fluid if hypovolemia persistently is present. However, fluid retention and hypokalemia can be a problem.

Midodrine is a sympathomimetic alpha-1 agonist and can increase vasoconstriction and venous return to the heart.  This may be helpful to treat the lower blood pressure and tachycardia that can arise.

Beta blockers may make the tachycardia and palpitations worse and should be avoided.  In severe cases L-methyldopa could be considered to help alleviate the hyper adrenergic symptoms with change of position.

For those with prolonged elevation in D-dimer levels, the use of colchicine 0.6mg daily has been found to effectively reduce the inflammatory and hyper-coagulability response to the virus and the vaccine. The GRECCO-19 randomized open-label trial in 105 hospitalized patients demonstrated colchicine to be effective in reducing the D-dimer levels and improving clinical outcomes (22). This approach to lowering the coagulation response was also demonstrated to be effective in the WHO R&D Blueprint (23). Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine also have a significant effect on lowering the d-dimer levels.

Treating the Autonomic Dysfunction

Many pharmaceutical medications can have suppressive effects on the autonomic nervous system. These include medications that affect the heart, blood pressure and hormones of the brain.  The list of medications is vast and more than I can address here in this post. 

Thyroid dysfunction can also adversely affect the ANS and it is essential that the thyroid function is assess and balanced. Hashimoto’s and autoimmune thyroiditis must be treated as this will play a major roll in autonomic dysfunction.

Clinical trials have shown the notable improvement with using oral replacement supplements, such as l-carnitine, alpha-lipoic acid (α-lipoic acid [1,2-dithiolane-3-pentanoic acid]), coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10 [ubiquinone]), reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH), membrane phospholipids, and other supplements. Combinations of these supplements have been effective in reducing the fatigue and other symptoms associated with COVID-19 and other chronic disease.  Supplementation has been shown to naturally restore mitochondrial function, even in long-term patients with intractable fatigue (13,14).

Clinically, I’ve found that effective refueling of the dysfunctional mitochondria and priming the autonomic nervous system can be done through the use of the following supplements (13-20).

  • Pregnenolone: 30 mg nightly
  • CoQ-10: 300-400 mg daily
  • D-Ribose: 15-30 grams daily
  • Magnesium glycinate: 400-600 mg daily
  • NADH: 10 mg twice daily
  • L-carnitine: 1000-2000 mg daily (Vegetarians and Vegans may need more as this is only found in red meat and avocados.)
  • Alpha lipoid Acid: 300 mg daily
  • Liposomal Glutathione 500 mg twice daily
  • Rosmarinic Acid 300 mg twice daily

Finding all these supplements can be a challenge. I designed my multivitamin with mitochondrial dysfunction in mind it contains the CoQ-10, L-Carnitine, alpha lipoic acid you need. It also contains N-acytylcystine (NAC) the cofactor for glutathione and NADH production in your body.

If you are using my vitamin supplement, I’ve provided links below to make it easier if you are looking for the other components on the list above.

For those with long-haul COVID syndrome, the treatment protocol above combined with a ketogenic diet, and exogenous ketones where needed, has been a game changer.  Hopefully, this will help you as well.

If you need my one-on-one help, sign up for one of my membership programs and I’d love to help you return to better health.

References:

  1. A Detailed Study of Patients with Long-Haul COVID. FAIR Health White Paper, June 15, 2021. (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID–An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims–A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf)
  2. Dani M, Dirksen A, Taraborrelli P, et al. Autonomic dysfunction in ‘long COVID’: rationale, physiology and management strategies. Clin Med (Lond). 2021;21(1):e63-e67. doi:10.7861/clinmed.2020-0896.
  3. Logue JK, Franko NM, McCulloch DJ, et al. Sequelae in Adults at 6 Months After COVID-19 Infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e210830. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0830
  4. Freeman R, Abuzinadah AR, Gibbons C, et al. Orthostatic hypotension: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72:1294–309. 
  5. Jardine DL, Wieling W, Brignole M, et al. The pathophysiology of the vasovagal response. Heart Rhythm 2018; 15:921–9.
  6. Fenton AM, Hammill SC, Rea RF, Low PA, Shen WK. Vasovagal syncope. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:714–25.
  7.  Fedorowski A. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome: clinical presentation, aetiology and management. J Intern Med 2019; 285:352–66. 
  8.  Goldstein DS. The extended autonomic system, dyshomeostasis, and COVID-19. Clin Auton Res 2020;30:299–315
  9. Colling ME, Kanthi Y. COVID-19-associated coagulopathy: an exploration of mechanisms. Vasc Med. 2020 doi: 10.1177/1358863X20932640. 
  10. Bradshaw PC, Seeds WA, Miller AC, Mahajan VR, Curtis WM. COVID-19: Proposing a Ketone-Based Metabolic Therapy as a Treatment to Blunt the Cytokine Storm. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, Vol. 2020, Article ID 6401341, 34 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6401341
  11. Guilmot A, Maldonado Slootjes S, Sellimi A, et al. Immune-mediated neurological syndromes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. J Neurol 2020, in press ( 10.1007/s00415-020-10108-x).
  12. Ruzieh M, Batizy L, Dasa O, et al. The role of autoantibodies in the syndromes of orthostatic intolerance: a systematic review. Scand Cardiovasc J 2017;51:243–7.
  13. Nicolson GL. Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Chronic Disease: Treatment With Natural Supplements. Integr Med (Encinitas). 2014;13(4):35-43.
  14. Kerr DS. Treatment of mitochondrial electron transport chain disorders: a review of clinical trials over the past decade. Mol Genet Metab. 2010;99(3):246–255.
  15. Murugan S, Jakka P, Namani S, Mujumdar V, Radhakrishnan G. The neurosteroid pregnenolone promotes degradation of key proteins in the innate immune signaling to suppress inflammation. J Biol Chem. 2019 Mar 22;294(12):4596-4607. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA118.005543. Epub 2019 Jan 15. PMID: 30647133; PMCID: PMC6433066.
  16. Sinha R, Sinha I, Calcagnotto A, Trushin N, Haley JS, Schell TD, Richie JP Jr. Oral supplementation with liposomal glutathione elevates body stores of glutathione and markers of immune function. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jan;72(1):105-111. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2017.132. Epub 2017 Aug 30. PMID: 28853742; PMCID: PMC6389332.
  17. Agadjanyan M, Vasilevko V, Ghochikyan A, et al. Nutritional supplement (NTFactor) restores mitochondrial function and reduces moderately severe fatigue in aged subjects. J Chronic Fatigue Syndr. 2003;11(3):23–26.
  18. Dimauro S, Rustin P. A critical approach to the therapy of mitochondrial respiratory chain and oxidative phosphorylation diseases. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1792(12):1159–1167.
  19. Luan H, Kan Z, Xu Y, Lv C, Jiang W. Rosmarinic acid protects against experimental diabetes with cerebral ischemia: relation to inflammation response. . J Neuroinflammation.  2013;10:28. 
  20. Rocha J, Eduardo-Figueira M, Barateiro A, Fernandes A, Brites D, Bronze R, Duarte CM, Serra AT, Pinto R, Freitas M, Fernandes E, Silva-Lima B, Mota-Filipe H, Sepodes B.. Anti-inflammatory effect of rosmarinic acid and an extract of Rosmarinus officinalis in rat models of local and systemic inflammation. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;116(5):398–413
  21. Zheng Y, Zhao J, Li J, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes blood coagulation and thrombosis by competitive binding to heparan sulfate. Int J Biol Macromol. 2021;193(Pt B):1124-1129. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.10.112
  22. Deftereos SG, Giannopoulos G, Vrachatis DA, et al. Effect of Colchicine vs Standard Care on Cardiac and Inflammatory Biomarkers and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The GRECCO-19 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e2013136. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13136
  23. World Health Organization. R&D blueprint and COVID-19. Available at: https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/novelcoronavirus/en/. Accessed March 25, 2020.

Findings From First COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy

The first post-mortem case autopsy after vaccination has been published in the medical journals.  An autopsy was completed on an 86 year old male after his first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.  It demonstrates some significant and worrisome findings.

In this particular case, the first dose of vaccine stimulated immunogenicity (a cascade of immune response) but no immunity.  Spike protein (S1) antigen-binding showed significant levels for immunoglobulin (Ig) G through multiple organs of the body, but it did not stimulate nucleocapsid IgG/IgM antibodies.

What is concerning is that the mRNA from the vaccine which should remain in the region of the injection site was found in almost every organ of the body. When this occurs spike proteins will also be found in almost every organ of the body.

Figure 1. Synopsis of the relevant histological findings and the results of molecular mapping is presented. The histomorphology is obtained by standard hematoxylin and eosin reaction, except for the myocardium on the right side (Congo red staining). The magnification is shown by bars. Note that in the lungs, we also observed colonies of cocci (arrow) in granulocytic areas. In addition, the results of molecular mapping are given as evaluated cycle threshold values of the real-time polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2. Note that only in the olfactory bulb and the liver SARS-CoV-2 could not be detected.

This research implies that a significantly higher number of vaccinated people will be forming spike proteins that will bind the ACE2 receptors everywhere in the body. mRNA from the vaccine is supposed to stay in or around the injection site. When mRNA is found in every organ, it implies that spike proteins have significant potential to be present in every organ. It is the spike proteins that do the damage, cause infertility, and lead to antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) upon re-exposure to the infection.

These findings are worrisome because it implies there is a much higher probability of ADE and a much higher incidence of side effects from spike proteins like infertility.  ADE allows for amplification of the cytokine cascade on subsequent COVID-19 exposures causing re-exposure to COVID-19 and it’s variants to be magnitudes more dramatic.  If this is not just a rare isolated case, this has the potential to be globally destructive.

Because of these and other significant findings, I am still recommending that my patients consider vaccination only after fully understanding their individual risk and the potential for future problems.

Sudden Hearing Loss After COVID Vaccination?

There is a great deal of interest in the otolaryngology (ENT) community and the general medical community at large with the perception that hearing loss rates have increased after COVID vaccinations. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery estimates that sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases a year in the U.S.

Estimates of sudden sensorineural hearing loss after COVID-19 vaccination ranged from 0.3 to 4.1 per 100,000 per year based on the recent Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data according to Eric Formeister, MD, MS, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and co-authors in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery.

“Among the otolaryngology community and larger medical community, there is a lot of interest surrounding a perception of an increased rate of sudden hearing loss that has been observed in some patients after COVID vaccination,” Formeister told MedPage Today.

“However, sudden hearing loss can also occur naturally, so it is not known whether sudden hearing loss occurring after COVID vaccination is coincidental or may be related to the vaccine,” he added. “Further, some patients who have suffered sudden hearing loss after the first dose have been hesitant to receive the second dose due to safety concerns.”

Formeister and his colleagues found 147 reports of sudden hearing loss, deafness, deafness unilateral, deafness neurosensory, and hypoacusis associated with COVID vaccinations from December 14, 2020 to March 2, 2021 in the VAERS system.

However, Formeister and MedPage Today downplayed these 147 reports, stating that of these reports, only 40 had a temporal association (hearing loss onset occurred within 3 weeks of vaccination).   Because of how they were reported only these 40 were considered high credibility (they had been reported by a healthcare clinician with documented audiologic findings or steroid treatment).  Formeister states that these 40 reports were classified as “most likely.”  However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was not included in this report.

The mean age in the most likely group was 56 years old, and most cases (63%) involved women. Twelve people received Moderna vaccines and 28 received Pfizer. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss occurred an average of 4 days after vaccination. Thirty of the 40 cases were treated with steroids.

Based on about 86 million SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses that had been administered in the U.S. during the study period and using only the 40 most likely reports, the researchers estimated a minimum incidence of 0.3 per 100,000 per year, assuming a single vaccine dose per person.

Maximum incidence using all 147 accounts in the VAERS database, based on two vaccine doses per person in the time period, was estimated to be 4.1 per 100,000 per year.  This took into account the fact that the exact number of unique individuals receiving a vaccine was unknown.

Formeister states that “These results so far provide evidence that COVID vaccination is not associated with sudden hearing loss” because it is statistically identical to the rate of hearing loss seen in the general public each year.

“One of the pushes behind this publication is to urge clinicians and patients alike to report adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, so we may accrue more data to allow a more accurate prediction of the rate of sudden hearing loss after COVID-19 vaccination,” he noted.

If you experience hearing loss symptoms after vaccination should contact their healthcare provider immediately.  Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is potentially treatable, but treatment efficacy is time-sensitive.

The reporting period did not include vaccines other than Pfizer and Moderna, the researchers acknowledged. VAERS reports are unverified and subject to underreporting bias. Because people may experience multiple adverse effects after vaccination and these may not be fully captured in VAERS and the reports of hearing loss may be more that we are aware.

 

Vaccine Propaganda

Let’s call it what it is – propaganda.  Over the last few months, as I drive down the freeway, I continue to see Arizona Department of Transportation signs and other media advertising the number of people vaccinated, and how we are supposedly “saving our country by getting a shot.”  This morning at 7 am the message board on the 303 freeway loop stated:
“5.4 MILLION DOSES AND COUNTING. GET VACCINATED”
Now colleges & universities are considering mandating vaccination before allowing students to return to class.  Travel companies and international airlines have actually already mandated vaccination. I am actually horrified that our state officials pay for and  support this type of propaganda. The scientific evidence to support this type of health propaganda does not exist.  I’ve scoured the medical literature for it and it just doesn’t exist.
In fact, my patients are showing up in my office after being told by their cardiologists and gastroenterologists that they need their COVID vaccine.  I can guarantee that many of these specialists have never read the vaccine literature and have no idea of the side effect profile and/or risks of this or any other vaccine.
Let me start by stating up front that I am a strong proponent of vaccines.  We have many tried and true, fully vetted vaccines to prevent many diseases.  The science states that if you’ve already had the virus, you have two to four years of immunity. We know the vaccine doesn’t prevent the virus, it just decreases likelihood of severity for 4-6 months.  In fact, I’ve already had four patients in my office get a full blown COVID-19 infection post vaccination.  However, this and seven other essential points are being blatantly ignored by governments, churches, college campuses and other organizations encouraging, propagandizing and even “requiring” vaccination.
  1. Young adults are a healthy and immunologically competent and vibrant group that is at “extraordinary low risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”
  2. Even though the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for three COVID-19 vaccines, they are not FDA approved to treat, cure or prevent any disease at this time.
  3. The COVID-19 vaccines on the market in the U.S., produced by Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, have been associated with serious side effects. These adverse reactions result in absence from school and work, hospital visits, and even loss of life. More than 2,300 deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of April 20, 2021.
  4. Students who have recovered from COVID-19 already likely have protective immunity, and vaccination of these groups significantly increases risk of autoimmune reactions.
  5. Protections expressed by the Nuremberg Code require individuals “to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force.”
  6. Informed consent is the standard for all medical interventions. The FDA fact sheet for the healthcare provider reads: “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse [the] vaccine.”
  7. College-age women may be at unique risk for adverse events following administration of the experimental COVID vaccinations currently available. According to the CDC, all cases of life-threatening blood clots subsequent to receiving the J&J vaccine have so far occurred in younger women. In addition, “women are reporting having irregular menstrual cycles after getting the coronavirus vaccine,” and 95 miscarriages have been reported to VAERS following COVID vaccination as of April 24, 2021.

This is the position of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and it is my position.  This push for vaccination when these questions still remain may appear prudent in an emergency situation to those who have been selected and elected to lead us, however, after five months of availability to evaluate this approach it is actually coercive and blatantly ignores the science that supports these points.  This course of action is, in my opinion, an egregious lack of insight, or if done knowingly is actually malevolent.

As a family physician, whose job revolves around vaccination of children and adults, and one who is given the mission of providing appropriate preventative medical care to his community, I cannot in good conscience support the propaganda behind this vaccine.

I Wish I Would Have Know This Sooner . . .

After graduation from medical residency, I served for four years as my AirForce Reserve unit’s biological/chemical weapons expert & physician. My job was to understand the risks of all the known biologic and chemical weapons that could be used on a human being, including severe viral and bacterial diseases that could pose a threat. My training was specifically focused on how to prevent and treat the effects of these illnesses in those under my care, military or otherwise.

I spent four years reading and researching where and when various types of masks, respirators and protective equipment would and should be used. Never once was a surgical or cloth mask ever found to be effective. Even N95 masks failed the rigors of these encounters.

This week our fearless Dr. Fauci says it’s “common sense” to wear two masks. So, my question to him and all of the other emperors of medicine is, what about three masks?

Even better yet, 10 masks makes even more “common sense!!” Where does this stop? (I stop at 11, because, my ears flop over at 12 masks.)

I’m thinking that 100 masks is 100% effective right?

I guess those filtered gas masks really aren’t essential then?!

One surgical mask decreases risk by 1-2% (yes, that’s the benefit of a mask that we’ve been required to wear). You’re more likely to have a 40% COVID risk reduction by throwing salt over your shoulder when you leave the house . . . (that’s the actual placebo effect).

The whole reason for mask wearing is to decrease “asymptomatic” transmission of COVID-19. That means, masks are supposed to decrease your risk of spreading or inhaling this virus when you or the person near you have no symptoms. Initially, we recommended wearing masks, because we did not know how infective the COVID-19 virus was to humans. We also knew that there was limited access to the N95 masks used in the hospital setting.

However, in the last 12 months, we’ve learned a great deal and we have a tremendous amount of data about treating this virus in the outpatient setting. You can follow Dr. Nally’s COVID-19 treatment protocol here.

How Contagious is COVID-19?

What’s the actual risk of spreading the virus when you have no symptoms? It’s about 0.06% if you have prolonged contact (3 hours continuous face-to-face) with a person within six hours of that person having onset of symptoms (i.e. – fever, sore throat, fatigue, headache, loss of taste or smell, or runny nose). It is very rare to be infected at all with COVID-19 asymptomatically if you contact a person 6-9 hours before they have symptoms.

In fact, a recent study revealed there were no positive tests (or asymptomatic spread) among 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.  So, why are we still wearing masks? Because it is politically convenient, increases fear, and increases your likelihood of getting a vaccine.

Are There Unintended Consequences of Mask Wearing?

Is wearing a mask to decrease a minimal risk by 1% more worth the risk? Increased bacterial and fungal infections that are on the rise as a consequence of chronic and continued daily mask wearing.

I’m seeing patients with increased frequency of facial rashes, fungal infections, non COVID-19 induced bacterial infections. Reports are coming from my colleagues, all over the world, that suggest bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.

Why? Because we are wearing and re-wearing of dirty masks. Untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time. And, there is no way around this when 330 million people are required to wear a mask to go to Wal-Mart or Costco.

In a recent report in Emerging Infectious Diseases, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests what experts have stated all along: There is no conclusive evidence that cloth masks protects users from coronavirus, especially since most people do not use them correctly and do not keep them clean.

The report actually says, “To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks. More randomized controlled trials should be conducted in community settings to test the efficacy of cloth masks against respiratory infections.”

So, why, again, are we wearing these masks?

What is Your Chance of Surviving A COVID-19 Infection?

What is the actual chance of survival if you get COVID-19 and are not treated?

< 20 years old – 99.98%
20-50 years old – 99.97%
50-70 years old – 99.5%
> 70 years old – 95%

Those numbers are even better if your are following a ketogenic or carnivorous lifestyle.

Sadly, I’ve had patients over age 70 tell me “pneumonia is an old man’s best friend.”  It is very true that pneumonia, the common cold, influenza and COVID-19 can all cause death in the older frail adult.  This is not something new, though if you listen to CNN you may think death should never occur.

But, thousands of physicians and over 200 different journal articles within the last 11 months demonstrate that if you are treated with azithromycin and either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin plus Zinc, Vitamin D, Niacin, Vitamin C and Melatonin, you improve your risk of survival of a COVID-19 infection by an additional 10-40%.  75% of those studies demonstrated significant improvement even when hydroxychloroquine was started late.  Africa has a mortality rate (1.3 per 100,000) that is 100 percent lower than the US (120 per 100,000) because they have hydroxychloroquine available over-the-counter and many people take it “every Sunday” as preventative medication for malaria.

Mind you, these medications were never FDA approved for treatment with COVID-19.  But, we as licensed physicians have the autonomy to use medication “off-label” as long as we have discussed the risks, side-effects and expectations of these medications and you are aware that they were never FDA approved.

I have treated hundreds of patients with these combinations with great success in my clinic over the last 11 months.

Yet, in the last two weeks Fry’s Pharmacies (Kroger Pharmacies) are now refusing to dispense hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for any COVID related virus.  Why?  Because they can make a huge profit on the Experimental COVID-19 vaccine.  Why dispense a generic medication when you can make twice the profit from a vaccine?  However, this experimental vaccine’s effectiveness is still yet to be confirmed, and probably less effective on newer strains as stated by the Surgeon General this last week (https://news.yahoo.com/us-surgeon-general-covid-19-184157789.html).

In my opinion, this is malpractice on the part of Fry’s Pharmacy and malfeasance on the part of the pharmacist.

Until they issue a public apology to you and me, I recommending you and I stop using Fry’s Pharmacy all together.  Any company that mandates the use of an Experimental Vaccine with a side effect profile experienced by up to 20% of those who receive it, and at the same time refuses to provide access to proven treatments overseen by a physician should not receive the business or the trust of the public.  If your pharmacist refused to dispense these medications with a valid prescription from your doctor, please let me know.

The pharmacists claim they won’t dispense hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin “because the FDA has not approved their use for viral infections.”  Yet, these drugs are safe enough to be over the counter in many other countries and because of the vaccine, this is all political.  Both of these drugs have been use very safely for decades with millions of people around the world for multiple disease processes.

The FDA issued it’s updated statement on the use of ivermectin.  “Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. In general, the drug is well tolerated. It is currently being evaluated as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”  These drugs are considered “generally safe” for multiple disease processes used over long periods of time, and yet, the politics and finances of this issue have now become more important than your health.  Neither the FDA or the NIH has stated that these drugs are contrindicated, they just have not been approved, and because of that “they are not recommended.”

As of January 14, 2021, the NIH has stated that ” currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”  Similar statements have been issued on hydroxychloroquine.  However, “well conducted clinical trials” will not occur for some time, as these types of studies take years to be designed, funded and put into place.  Because ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are generic drugs, there is no incentive for any pharmaceutical company to run these types of studies. The FDA will never change it’s position for this same reason.

Any physician, organization or pharmacy that places politics and finances over your health and wellbeing and tries to get between the doctor and patient should experience you and I protesting with our wallets and our feet.

Two essential things come out of this.  First, the CDC, FDA and NIH have shown us as a nation how untrustworthy they are.  Second, if you and I are not vigilant, mandates for the use of an experimental and potentially dangerous vaccine will be come the “new normal.”

I recommend you go to https://stopmedicaldiscrimination.org/ and sign the petition to prevent travel companies, airlines and other businesses from mandating this and any other experimental vaccine.  And, then tell Fry’s Pharmacy and any other pharmacist that plays politics with your health where they can put the rest of their medications.

Sources:

  1.  Kory P, et al., Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. FLCCC Alliance; Version 5; Nov 28, 2020.
  2. Rajter JC, et al. Use of Ivermectin is associated with lower mortality in hospitalized patients with corona-virus disease 2019. Chest Journal Open Access Jan 2021; 159(1): 85-92
  3. Guilherme Dias de Melo, Françoise Lazarini, Florence Larrous, Lena Feige, Lauriane Kergoat, Agnes Marchio, Pascal Pineau, Marc Lecuit, Pierre-Marie Lledo, Jean-Pierre Changeux, Herve Bourhy, Anti-COVID-19 efficacy of ivermectin in the golden hamster. bioRxiv 2020.11.21.392639
  4. Vora, Agam, et al. “White paper on Ivermectin as a potential therapy for COVID-19.” Indian Journal of Tuberculosis 67.3 (2020): 448-451.
  5. Gorial, Faiq I., et al. “Effectiveness of Ivermectin as add-on Therapy in COVID-19 Management (Pilot Trial).” medRxiv (2020).
  6. Scheim, David. “Ivermectin for COVID-19 Treatment: Clinical Response at Quasi-Threshold Doses Via Hypothesized Alleviation of CD147-Mediated Vascular Occlusion.” Available at SSRN 3636557 (2020)
  7. Rajter, Juliana Cepelowicz, et al. “ICON (Ivermectin in COvid Nineteen) study: Use of Ivermectin is Associated with Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID19.” medRxiv (2020). medRxiv.org
  8. Chowdhury, Abu Taiub Mohammed Mohiuddin, et al. “A comparative observational study on Ivermectin-Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin therapy on COVID19 patients.” ResearchGate.net
  9. NIH Statement on Ivermectin:  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-ivermectin/
  10. FDA Statement on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals

 

Davy Crockett & Why Congress Has NO Right to Give Charitable Relief

A “sockdolager” is a knock-down blow. This is a newspaper reporter’s captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old “Bear Hunter” from Tennessee.
From “The Life of Colonel David Crockett”, by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support — rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.

There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.

The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.

Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.”

He replied: “I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”

I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and —”

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”

“Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.

So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.

The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

“So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

He laughingly replied:

“Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”

“If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”

“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.”

“My name is Bunce.”

“Not Horatio Bunce?”

“Yes.”

“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

He came upon the stand and said:

“Fellow citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“NOW, SIR,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

The Religion of the Mask

A commentator and pastor recently noted that we a have reached a mark where two seemingly contradictory ideology’s define our society.

  1. There is a denunciation of all claims of absolute truth.
  2. There is powerful fanaticism in which one position or group is absolutely right, nothing at all ambiguous, and any divergent view should be expunged, removed or destroyed.

Interestingly, the second ideology will always attempt to fill the void created by the absence of the first. This contradiction of ideologies held within the same human mind is the definition of “double-mindedness” found biblically. It is also one of the signs of the times.

It is and always has been, that in the absence of absolute truth, “my truth” progresses down the road of authoritarian power to become “kneel before Zod!” It is the direction that corrupts the soul drawing one, in the words of Emperor Palpatine, to seek for “Power, unlimited power!”

In the absence of absolute truth, the Beatitudes are replaced with fanaticisms. These are ever-changing, non-eternal, and often entirely arbitrary relating to one’s ability to hold or grab power. Humility and healing are thrown out with the bathwater and half-truths are elevated to the level of ultimate individual justice.

The latest fanaticism is our wearing of masks. We’ve progressed miles past science in this personal truth and we now sit squarely in the realm of voodoo. Yet, this voodoo gets louder and stronger and more obnoxious the more it is proven to be a complete and utter fraud.

In Arizona, we’ve had a mask mandate for almost 150 days, Ohio for 112 days, Maryland for 106 days, New York for 128 days. Yet all of these states are currently threatening more shutdowns of schools, business, and gatherings because of a new “surge” in coronavirus.

Absolutely nowhere upon the earth have masks been scientifically shown to slow COVID-19 in real time after almost 6 months of trying. Not a state, not a country, . . . nowhere has this mandate been effective. The science published by the CDC itself even said masks would be ineffective for control of respiratory bacterial and viral infections prior to COVID-19 rearing it’s ugly head.

Yet, today through the necromancy of media, mask wearing has become the sign of worthiness for worship at the alter of Baal. It’s become the symbol of false righteousness many times over. The witch doctor atop the CDC has incredulously taught us through a daily camera dance, much like the rain dance of old, that masks are better than a vaccine.

Masks are a vaccine, of sorts, not meant to kill the virus, but to kill hope, liberty and civility within the human soul. The more they don’t work, the more we continue to and agree to wear them. Action is our communication with Providence that our fear is our greatest certainty and the flatness of the earth actually brings us comfort.

It’s no wonder we’ve attempted to elected one of our elders with dementia. He is the mask personified. The twice failed presidential candidate with a 49 year track record of public “service” never once improving humanity, government or the human condition. Let’s just try using him harder this time. It has to work. What could go wrong?

This failure has literally become sacramentalized. Fundamentalization of failure into the religion of the mask becomes a personal truth, when the increasingly preposterous becomes our governing idol.

This is the exact opposite of creation. It is the only religion that can exist in the absence of absolute truth. God’s grace steps into the void and compels the creation of good and holy. In opposition to this, the religion of the mask is the fanaticism that propels the abuse of everything so that one might worship the oppressed and then celebrate the anointing of nothing at all. Power over the abyss is the destination of those that govern.

It is the greatest swindle of all time. It is working on you, and it is working on me . . . so sayeth the mask.

(Adapted from Steve Deace’s mask commentary)

– Update – November 18, 2020 –

The Danish Study on Masks was finally published today. It is the largest and the ONLY randomized control trial (RCT) on 6000 people wearing masks and the results . . .

Masks DON’T protect you!!!

Authors state, to the chagrin of the CDC, that the results were NOT statistically significant, but Reuters and NY Times is going to spin this to say they protect you from others . . . that statement is, again, NOT statistically significant.

The CDC, prior to changing its position on universal mask-wearing, had previously cited 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” Now, the CDC and other elite institutions would have us believe that coronavirus is somehow different. The Danes were the first to actually study the effect of large-scale universal mask-wearing specifically against the spread of COVID-19.

Remember in science class when you found out that the placebo effect was up to 40%? The FDA will NOT approve ANY drug or medical treatment unless is passes 40% effectiveness (placebo) for effect.

Masks ARE NOT, and never have been, any more effective than placebo. . . Period. Hard stop. End of story. And, the ONLY RCT trial ever done now proves it. I can give you a Skittle and you’re probably less likely to get COVID-19 then you are wearing a mask. . . the reason is placebo, up to 40% reduction if I tell you that “it’s a powerfully protective Skittle.”

Interestingly, this study was completed in October, but three medical journals refused to publish it because it “wasn’t politically correct.”

Hmmm. That should tell you something.

Should I Get A Flu Shot?

Before you answer that question let me ask you a question.  Did you know that the influenza viral strain has multiple sub-types? The Influenza A viral strain that has 198 different sub-types and influenza B has just as many, meaning there are at least 400+ different strains of Influenza. Oh, did I tell you that we have recently identified Influenza C & D sub-types as well? Yes, this means that there are over 600+ sub-types of influenza.

Herd Immunity

You might be able to immunize the herd if the average age of those in the herd lived for 200 years. Anyone telling you getting your flu shot improves herd immunity doesn’t understand virology. Herd immunity goes out the window with influenza and with most mRNA viruses like coronaviruses.

In order to vaccinate the population against influenza 33%-44% of the population must have immunity to all viral types in a given year.   With COVID-19, the estimate is 60-75% must be immunized to all 170+ known strains of coronavirus.

You may have antibodies to one of those flu strains, yet what about the other 400-600 strains you might be exposed to next year? Just because you have antibodies, doesn’t mean you are immune. This applies to Influenza and it applies to coronaviruses.

The influenza vaccine (which only covers 4-5 of the 600+ influenza strains possible). Which one do you pick this year? Hence the CDC cartoon.

Does the Influenza Vaccine Reduce Risk of Hospitalizations?

Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip due to increased flu vaccination each year. And at over 40% of the population being immunized, herd immunity should have been achieved.

Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continued to climb. It was hard to believe, so researchers at the National Institutes of Health set out to do a study adjusting for all kinds of factors that could be masking the true benefits of the shots. But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result: flu shots had not reduced deaths among the elderly. It’s not what health officials hoped to find.

The two studies below demonstrate that yearly flu vaccine for those over age 65 does nothing to decrease influenza related death. These studies funded by the government in 2005 and 2006 were suppressed. Your doctor and I never heard anything about them. Yet, the CDC still says “Get your flu shot.”

mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk of Other Viruses

Last, the influenza vaccine actually increases your susceptibility to coronavirus infection. Yes, you read that correctly. A recent study by Wolff demonstrates that influenza vaccinations are not benign.  Influenza vaccine increases risk of Coronaviruses by 36%, non-influenza viruses generally by 15%, and human metapneumovirus by 59%.

And, a second study trying to confirm the findings above reveals increased risk of parainfluenza virus in adults (increased by 4.6% of vaccinated adults and only 2.6% of unvaccinated adults.

So, what is the answer? Waiting for the perfect vaccine or an antibody test is not the answer. Anyone telling you this is selling something.

Please be aware, I am NOT an anti-vaccine physician.  Vaccines are life saving.  But, it is essential that you and I understand the pros and cons of each and every vaccine we use or recommend.  I am a huge proponent of most childhood vaccines, pneumonia vaccines and the new shingles vaccine, because they work. The science confirms their effectiveness.  The science does not confirm the effectiveness of the influenza vaccines.

What should I  do?

We now know that ketogenic diets improve resistance to viral infections by enhancing T-Cell immunity. This is specifically important for influenza and coronaviruses.

The answer is protect yourself. Wash your hands, stay home when you are sick, clean and sterilize frequently touched surfaces. Keep yourself healthy and understand how to reverse hyper-insulinemia (the one factor that makes this and coronaviruses significantly more severe.)

So, wash your hands and pass the bacon!

Oh, and take your vitamins.

The Benevolent Tyranny of Social Distancing and Masks

“NowThis News” is a progressive website with cheery music, snackable videos and catchy BLM colors we’ve all subliminally come to recognize designed specifically to deliver leftist education to your newsfeed.  You’ve probably scrolled past their content a few times while doing your daily doom-scrolling: “Elizabeth Warren’s Greatest Moments” or “Drag Queen Kyne Uses Tik Tok to Teach Math.”

Last September, “NowThis News” released a particularly telling video article from a more than chipper young authoritarian millennial demanding that we all “Stop Saying ‘Hey Guys.’” because it excludes women.

Half way through her sinister monologue she mentions a few other goals that the modern feminists want to achieve: “reproductive rights . . . LGBTQ rights, and the general reprogramming of most people’s minds” (italics added).

Wait . . . What?!

This last phrase caught my attention.  “the general reprogramming of most people’s minds” sounds almost unreal.  That’s just too Orwellian, too spot-on-the-nose to really be serious, right?!  Yet, it was published in deadly earnest.  This is an example of progressive social engineering at its finest.  They attempt to nudge and drug each of us into a state of compliance with leftist ideals.   This is the explicit goal of the “woke” progressive leadership.

They aren’t hiding it. They don’t want to persuade you.  They openly want to brain wash you and your children.  And, it’s working.

Today, the first time in months for example, I was able to go back to church services with my family with “Arizona’s Phased attendance protocols” in place.  It was wonderful to meet with other members of my church and “fellowship with the saints.”

Yet, as I read through the attendance instructions required to be compliant in our state and as a “Global Citizen,” I was shocked at the verbiage I read.  A statement found in the opening pages of these instructions read: “. . . we should sustain and uphold the laws where we reside. . .  governments enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest. We acknowledge that in exceptional circumstances all individual rights may be restricted. . .“(Emphasis added).

When is it ever OK to restrict all individual God given rights to “secure the public interest?” Yet, many I spoke with feel that “it’s different today. This is just short term.” The explained that it is justified to give up liberty and rights for short term security.  In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  14 days of quarantine has now become 6-12 months of social distancing, lock-downs, school closures and $10-14 trillion lost in economic output this year alone as calculated by the congressional budget office. That is essentially the equivalent of wiping out the income of 30 million U.S. families this year and over the next five years.

Though it may seem humane to remove ones rights to protect the masses in crisis, it actually just strips the populace of their humanity.  It changes the person, from a subject with rights to a mere object to be controlled for the desired outcome deemed most important to the ruling leader.  This is the worse kind of tyranny because it is tyranny sincerely exercised for the “good of its victims.”  In the words of Lewis, “Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C.S. Lewis predicted this development back in 1954 with crystalline precision in a remarkable essay, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.”  Back then, even as today in 2020, a growing number of Westerners became squeamish about the use of the death penalty.  They were then, and many are today, disgusted with the idea of punishing criminals because they simply deserve it; but rather they feel better using rehabilitation as a means to deter them and others from criminal behavior.

C.S. Lewis wrote that the very ideas of “deterrence” and “rehabilitation,” compassionate though they may seem, undermine the entire concept of justice.  This concept is the key to a functioning republic and to society as a whole.  It is the reason the American experiment has been successful for nearly 250 years.

Wait, are you saying that enacting a mandate of social distancing and mask wearing “for the good of the people” undermines justice?

YES.  That’s exactly what Lewis wrote about in the 1950’s and its even more applicable today.

Justice, as defined by Lewis, is nothing more than giving every person what he or she deserves.  The only way we evaluate the justice of a punishment at all is by asking whether the person punished actually deserves it.  The natural objection that “the death penalty is unjust” boils down to the argument that “no one deserves the death penalty,” argued Lewis.

Completely different from justice, deterrence and rehabilitation, much like mask wearing and social distancing, are forms of social engineering.  These forms of punishment are tools for making people do what the punisher’s want, not for providing a consequence of a person’s action that they deserve.  Lewis wrote, “when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether.” Instead of having a person with rights, we have reduced the person, instead, to a mere object, a patient or a case.  We have removed the justice that is due, instead, to objectify the being under the guise of a cure for the common good.

It’s like the patient shows up at the doctor’s office with a serious case of syphilis, the consequence of promiscuous sexual relationships. Instead of treating the disease and killing the bacteria that causes the rash and terribly painful urogenital discharge, the doctor says, “let me send you to counseling to talk about your rash.  Let’s just rehabilitate the bacteria.  You can describe the discharge and have a few group sessions so others can understand your pain, and the bacteria should be much nicer.”

These two different governing ideas of punishment proceed along entirely separate tracks and arrive at very different destinations.  Justice – though sometimes fearsome and always imperfect – treats the human being as a moral agent of choice whose actions have weight, and therefore whose actions also have consequences.  In contrast, the “moral busybodies” of the world today (we call them “Karens”) are interested not in justice, but in social engineering.  Social engineering is a very dangerous illusion which, in Lewis’ words, “disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without an end in sight.”

Exactly as C.S. Lewis predicted, the logic of this social engineering has now begun to careen toward its gruesomely logical conclusion.  Social engineering is based upon the idea that human beings are effectively bags of meat and chemicals, pure matter to be therapeutically manipulated by “compassionate” and “progressive” healers.

However good their intentions may be, those “progressive healers” are in fact proposing to set themselves up as gods over men. “The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments,” wrote Lewis. “If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment.”   If a positive COVID-19 test was seen, a person will no doubt be forced to get vaccinated for the “cure of the populace.”

You can see this everywhere in modern life.  You can see it in the endless classification of EVERYTHING as a mental illness, implying the best way to fix emotional problems is with the right cocktail of medications.

You can see it in the insistence that gender and sexuality are mere social constructs, whose injustices can be rectified with surgery and hormone injections.

You can see it as the Freudian idea that religion is just a holdover from primitive tribal fantasy and really isn’t “essential.”

All of these ideas take for granted that our enlightened leadership – many of whom were never elected, and especially those best versed in Critical Race Theory and inter-sectional politics – have the right to tinker with our brain chemistry until they reprogram our minds “just right.”

This doctrine, merciful though it may appear, really means that each one of us, from the moment he disagrees with leadership or breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.  And, it is being accepted without resistance in the schools, churches, shops and hospitals across the country.

This isn’t a bug, it isn’t a feature. It is pure leftist Marxism.  It is modern materialism philosophy with the potential to turn even well-intentioned people into coercive monsters.  We were warned.  It is happening.  Now it’s time to fight back.

(adapted from – Spencer Klavan’s “C.S. Lewis On The Leftist Effort to Reprogram People’s Minds”)

Masks Are Symbolic

Over the last few months, our fearless infectious disease leader, Dr. Anthony Fauci,  and the Ivory Tower of medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine, have clearly informed us that mask wearing by the healthy is little more than symbolic ‘Virtue Signaling.’

For those Karen’s and Felicia’s who have tried to shout me down like a Tourette’s tick with ‘Social Media Science,’ in Wal-Mart, in the big box stores, at the gas station and at the burger shop, lets look closely at what the New England Journal of Medicine said on May 21, 2020.

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

So, why have we been ordered to wear are masks everywhere by mayors and governors and city officials across the country?  Symbolism.  Pure and simple symbolism.  From that same NEJM article:

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they also serve as a talisman [an object that acts as a charm to avert evil and bring good fortune] that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.

The Surgeon General was widely mocked and ridiculed for suggesting in March that masks might even increase the spread of the virus.  Yet, here, in the “journal of all medical journals,” the NEJM provides the same warning to mask-wearers:

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active COVID-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early COVID-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of COVID-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.

However, suddenly on June 17th, 2020, Dr. Fauci suddenly changed his tune, and contrary to all the scientific evidence and over 50 years of medical literature on the subject, said wearing a mask is “better than nothing.” Within weeks, executive orders for mask wearing were signed across the nation. 

The argument should have been over.  Anyone advocating for universal mask wearing by the healthy, according to all the mask wearing literature, is merely engaging in virtue signaling, not actual public health.

Cities and states across the nation have mandated mask wearing (some even advocate using bananas). I’m not telling you to break the law.  I am saying that the mask mandate has done nothing to “slow the spread” as so many people have now bought into.  Research demonstrates that homemade masks do little to stop the spread of viral infections.  It also demonstrates that properly fitted surgical masks worn correctly decrease this risk of viral spread in a highly controlled setting at the very best by only 2-5%.

In the most recent comprehensive review of the mask wearing literature, the authors stated, “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face-masks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of face-masks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”

What is effective is washing your hands regularly with soap and water, avoiding those who are actually sick or have fevers over 101 degrees, eating a healthy diet that prevents diabetes risk and getting adequate sleep.  Those at high risk for infection can and should be vigilant about avoiding exposure to those who are sick.

For the rest of us, it’s time to unmask.  I, myself, struggle daily to maintain enough virtue in my bones for myself, let alone signal others about it all day long.

 

Coronavirus, Mask Wearing & Death – Similarities to 1918 Flu

Isn’t it interesting, back in April and May, 2020, those of us closely watching the data stated that this virus would look much like the influenza pandemic of 1918.  Look closely at the numbers of deaths in St Louis (who participated in the 1918 quarantine – red line) and Arizona, who has done much the same in our approach (in the 2nd graphic below).

The death count curves are nearly identical.   Interestingly, the numbers of those that died St Louis are almost identical to Arizona’s graph below, directly from the Arizona Department of Health Website.  We know that the rates of infection differ between the two viruses and a number of things including domicile proximity, health of the city or state, transportation methods, sanitary condition, etc. play a significant role in the infection rates.  My point is not to compare the two viruses, but to point out that the effect of quarantine did exactly what we expected it to do.

We expected the resurgence of the virus.  Let’s say that again.  We expected it.  However, the media and many health professionals that I interact with seem horrified that it occurred.

 

We predicted this pattern months ago.

I am surprised at the number of health professionals that are just beside themselves about this virus.  I recognize that, in its most severe form, this virus can be deadly.  And, so is the flu, RSV and other RNA viruses.  Do these professionals not read history?  Do they not read the actual scientific literature?  Do they not see the patterns that diet and control of hyperinsulinemia have on this virus?

Instead, these medical professionals have remained quiet, and in some cases cheered, as our government over-reach and personal liberty infringement took place.  We’ve lost our ability to travel, participate in group gatherings and church services.  Quarantine, mask wearing and social distancing has essentially done nothing for our community in the last 3 months.

Our initial reasoning for quarantine was to take the peak off of hospitalizations.  That was done.  Yet continued suppression of personal liberties has done nothing for the overall health of our society.  The second wave of infection was going to occur no matter what we did.

Instead, the media fear mongering, social distancing and force wearing of masks has lead to increased risk of suicide, overdose and drug addiction.  Estimates are as high as 150,000 deaths due to the effects of quarantine and social distancing mandates.  In fact, much of the anxiety and PTSD that is expected will not be seen until 4-6 month after the quarantine occurs.

According to a recent JAMA report, “It is possible that the 24/7 news coverage of these unprecedented events could serve as an additional stressor, especially for individuals with preexisting mental health problems.” Our routines have been completely upended and even things like wearing a mask or waiting in lines at the grocery store can make you feel tense.

Some common signs of pandemic-induced stress are:

  • Fear and worry about your own health and the health of your loved ones
  • Changes in sleep or eating patterns
  • Difficulty sleeping or concentrating
  • Worsening of chronic health problems
  • Worsening of mental health conditions
  • Increased use of alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs

What we know from research after the SARS outbreak is that post-traumatic stress (PTSD) is possible, especially in front line healthcare workers. In one particular study, about 10 percent of the hospital employees had had high SARS-related PTSD symptoms post-outbreak. And about half of them still had symptoms three years later. Other studies have shown that when a person’s PTSD symptoms persist for more than 6 months after an event, they are very likely to continue to persist over the long term.

A significant part of the problem in both the lay public and among health care workers is confusion about actual risk of disease, what can be done to prevent/treat the disease, and how to access treatment.  I see this confusion today in many physicians and nurses I interact with in my community.

If you are having symptoms of anxiety, stress or depression, don’t be afraid to reach out for help.  Knowledge is power.  The more you know, the less fear and anxiety you will have.

Wear your mask if you want.  Initially, when we didn’t know how invective this virus was, I was all for using any protection available.  But, since the end of April, the data has changed my mind.  Wearing a mask isn’t doing anyone any good.

Some cities and states have mandated mask wearing. I’m not telling you to break the law.  I am saying that the mask mandate has done nothing to “slow the spread” as so many people have now bought into.  Research demonstrates that homemade masks to little to stop the spread of viral infections and surgical mask that have been properly fitted and worn correctly decrease this risk of viral spread by only 2-5%.  In the most recent review of the mask wearing literature, the authors stated, “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face-masks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of face-masks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”

What is effective is washing your hands regularly with soap and water, avoiding those who are actually sick or have fevers over 101 degrees, eating a healthy diet that prevents diabetes risk and getting adequate sleep.  Those at high risk for infection can and should be vigilant about avoiding exposure.

 

 

 

Coronavirus Risk, Vaccines and Herd Immunity

In order to fully understand the current “pandemic” coronavirus (COVID-19) infection, it is essential that one understands some basics about the immune system.  Second, we will look at how a poor understanding of the immune system has duped many about how the body actually responds to this virus.

Normal functions of the immune system include defense against infections and detection and destruction of malignant or abnormal cells. As our immune system ages and these capabilities decline, there is increased susceptibility to infections and cancer and an increased incidence of autoimmune disorders. The study of age-related changes in immune function is a relatively new area of investigation, which is limited by incomplete understanding of the complexities of immune mechanisms in general.  These age related changes make it clear why COVID-19 is mild in some and severe in others.

July 5, 2020 – ADHS -Data Dashboard – COVID-19 Deaths by Age Group

The coronavirus tends to be more problematic in those over age 55.  In fact, 87% of all deaths in Arizona due to COVID-19 are in those over age 55.  The clinical presentation of infections in older patients may be different from that in younger patients. Older adults with severe infections tend to have fewer symptoms, and fever is absent or blunted in 20 to 30% of those over age 55 years old. This suggests a decreased ability to mount inflammatory cytokine responses (small proteins used as signaling molecules between cell) in the face of infection. Signs of infection in older adults can be nonspecific and include falls, delirium (confusion), anorexia (loss of appetite), or generalized weakness (Norman DC, Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(1):148).

Immune System & Aging

All immune cells originate from stem cells in the bone marrow, and there is a general decline in the total bone marrow cellular tissue as we age (Geiger H, Rudolph KL. Trends Immunol. 2009;30(7):360). Production of pro-B cells is significantly decreased with aging, resulting in a smaller number of B cells leaving the bone marrow, while T cell precursors seem to be less affected (Cancro MP, Hao Y, Scholz JL, Riley RL, Frasca D, Dunn-Walters DK, Blomberg BB., Trends Immunol. 2009;30(7):313. e-pub 2009 Jun 18). 

The immune system is divided into innate and adaptive immunity. The innate immunity refers to immune responses that are present from birth and not learned, not adapted, and not refined as a result of exposure to micro-organisms/antigens. In contrast, adaptive immunity, which consists of the responses of T and B lymphocytes, is generated and then refined over the lifetime of a person as a result of repeated exposure to antigens from bacteria, viruses or fungi. Aging affects both innate and adaptive immunity, although innate immune mechanisms are better preserved overall (Weiskopf D, Weinberger B, Grubeck-Loebenstein B, Transpl Int. 2009; 22(11):1041).

Innate Immunity

The innate immune system consists of epithelial barriers (skin, gastrointestinal and respiratory protective lining), macrophages, neutrophils, natural killer (NK) cells, natural killer T (NKT) cells, dendritic cells (DCs), and complement proteins. Additional normal defenses include production of mucus in the proper quantity and viscosity, local antimicrobial proteins, and normal sweeping function ciliary cells.

Though some innate immune mechanisms are decreased in the adult over 55 years old, other mechanisms appear to be more active.. The result of these changes is a propensity to develop chronic inflammation. The result of aging of the innate immune system may be most accurately characterized as a state of immune dysregulation characterized by low-grade, chronic inflammatory changes  (Shaw AC, Joshi S, Greenwood H, Panda A, Lord JM, Curr Opin Immunol. 2010;22(4):507).  This is why many of my patients feel that the “Golden Years” are full of lead.

Adaptive Immunity

 Adaptive immunity consists of the functioning of two types of white blood cells: T and B lymphocytes.  T and B lymphocytes mediate control cellular and humoral immune responses, respectively.

Cellular Immune Response and the T Cells

There are several key changes that occur to T cells during aging.

Thymus – The thymus gland is most active early in life, reaches maximum size within the first year of life, and then undergoes a steady decline with age. By age 7, the part of the thymus and it’s activity decrease to less than 10 percent of the total thymic space. The functional thymic cortex and medulla are progressively replaced by fatty tissue. These changes become almost complete some time between the ages of 40 to 50 (Flores KG, Li J, Sempowski GD, Haynes BF, Hale LP. J Clin Invest. 1999;104(8):1031).  As a result, the number of T cells exiting the thymus is significantly decreased and gets progressively lower between the age groups of 40 to 54, 55 to 69, and 70 to 90 (Naylor K, Li G, Vallejo AN, Lee WW, Koetz K, Bryl E, Witkowski J, Fulbright J, Weyand CM, Goronzy JJ. J Immunol. 2005; 174(11):7446).

T Cells Change Over Time – T cell receptors become less divers after age 65.  The production of new T cells is dramatically reduced in the very old. T cell populations are largely composed of persistent long-lived lymphocytes. Age-related defects in the signaling pathways of CD4 T cells have been identified due to changes in T cell receptors (Li G, Yu M, Lee WW, Tsang M, Krishnan E, Weyand CM, Goronzy JJ. Nat Med., 2012 Sep;18(10):1518-24. e-pub 2012 Sep 30).

T Cell Numbers Decrease – There is a decrease in the numbers of (helper) CD4 T cells, an increase in CD8 T cells, and a decrease in CD28 with aging. Reduction in CD28 results in an impaired ability of T cells to proliferate and secrete IL-2, an essential cytokine in promoting growth of T cells (Kaltoft K, Exp Clin Immunogenet., 1998;15(2):84).  Because (helper) CD4 T cells are important in stimulating B cells, the ability of T cells to help B cells grow, expand and produce antibodies diminishes with aging (Haynes L, Maue AC., Curr Opin Immunol, 2009;21(4):414. E-pub 2009 Jun 6).

Decreased Cytokine Signaling – T cells respond specifically to cytokines like IL-2, IL-6, TNF-alpha. With aging over 50 years, production and signaling of these cytokines diminishes and has been found to be directly correlated with degree of frailty in older adults (Marcos-Pérez D, et al., Front Immunol. 2018;9:1056. Epub 2018 May 16).

Humoral Immunity

B Cells – B cells produce their own surface membrane immunoglobulin and differentiate into plasma cells, which then make immunoglobulin for the blood or secretions. These immunoglobulins are the mediators of humoral immunity. B cells respond to antigen exposure (protein markers or flags on the surface of bacteria or viruses) by producing antibodies, which then bind to antigens to fight concurrent infections or prevent future infections.  B cells produce primarily the immunoglobulin IgM. Upon stimulation with and antigen, B cells switch to the production of IgG, IgA, or IgE. The ability of B cells to respond to antigens and produce antibodies is their main job.

The numbers of B cells precursor in the bone marrow (pre-B cells), as well as peripheral B cells, decrease with age.  Immunoglobulin levels (IgM), on the other hand, do not change with aging, and may actually increase (Frasca D, Landin AM, Lechner SC, Ryan JG, Schwartz R, Riley RL, Blomberg BB. J Immunol. 2008;180(8):5283). However, quantities of specific antibodies (ie, those generated by encounters with antigens through infection or vaccination) decline with age (Lazuardi L, Jenewein B, Wolf AM, Pfister G, Tzankov A, Grubeck-Loebenstein B, Immunology. 2005;114(1):37).

Antibody production from vaccination is also noted to be lower in those over age 55.  This is why booster vaccinations are required (Weinberger B, et al, Front Immunol. 2018;9:1035. Epub 2018 May 15).

Memory B & T Cells – The generation of long-lasting protective immune memory is one of the most unique and important characteristics of the adaptive immune system. Memory is essential for individual defense from infections to which you have previously been exposed. As the thymic output declines, individuals rely more on re-expansion of experienced memory cells for defense against infections.

Memory responses from immunoglobulins to previous infections appear to be relatively well-preserved as we get older, compared with new responses of B and T cells. Data suggest that memory B and T cells, once elicited by antigen during youth, are quite resilient to the impact of age (Stacy S, et al, Mech Ageing Dev, 2002;123(8):975;  Kovaiou RD, et al, Int Immunol, 2005;17(10):1359. Epub 2005 Sep 1).

An example of this  was seen during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, in which older adults were better protected from H1N1 infection than middle-aged adults, probably because of the persistence of memory lymphocytes producing antibodies generated in response to an H1N1 virus that circulated prior to 1957 (Hancock K, Veguilla V, Lu X, Zhong W, Butler EN, Sun H, Liu F, Dong L, DeVos JR, Gargiullo PM, Brammer TL, Cox NJ, Tumpey TM, Katz JM. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(20):1945). The antibody avidity for 2009 H1 was higher in older adults than in middle-aged adults (Monsalvo AC, Batalle JP, Lopez MF, Krause JC, et al. Nat Med. 2011;17(2):195. E-pub 2010 Dec 5).

Ketogenic Diets Improve T Cell Function

T Cells were found to function more efficiently on fatty acid oxidation, instead of glucose metabolism.  Ketogenic diets have been found to have a protective effect on preservation of T cell immune responses  (Goldberg EL, et al, Sci Immunol Nov 2019 4(41): eaav2026).  The ketogenic diet was found to expand the presence of T cells and improve the inflammatory changes common with aging and diminished immune function (Goldberg EL, Shchukina I, Asher JL, et al. Nat Metab 2020: 2, 50–61).

COVID-19 and the Immune System

Mechanism of COVID-19 infection. ( https://pediaa.com/difference-between-innate-and-adaptive-immunity/)

Information about the coronavirus has dramatically changed in the last six months since it was discovered.  Initially, it was suspected that humoral related antibodies were essential to mount an effective attack against COVID-19.  This is why the focus has been directed at screening for active infection, quarantine and measurement of antibodies.

What we now know is that most individuals with asymptomatic or mild symptoms generate a highly functional T cell response.  In fact, 50% of  those who have been exposed to coronavirus formed a T cell (cellular immunity) response without activation of B cell response (humoral immunity) and had no antibody formation  (Li X, Geng M, Peng Y, Meng L, Lu S. J Pharm Anal. Apr 2020; 10(2): 102-108).

A large Swedish study demonstrated that twice as many exposed family members and healthy individuals who donated blood during the pandemic of COVID-19 generated memory T cell responses (cellular immunity) versus those generating antibody responses (humoral immunity). This imply’s that the seroprevaleance (presence of antibodies like IgG & IgM found on B-cells) as an indicator has grossly underestimated the extent of population level immunity against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). And none of these patients with this type of immune response have experience further episodes of COVID-19 to date (Sekine T, Perez-Potti A, Rivera-Ballesteros O, et al. bioRxiv (Biology) Jun 2020; e-pub:  174888).

What this all means is that 50% of people get exposed and form immunity with T cells, instead of B cells an may never even know they’ve had the virus.

Increased Susceptibility to COVID-19

As you can see above, age over 55 places one at greater risk for severe COVID-19 infection and complications.  This is due to the effect age has on the immune system.

Three additional maladies (hypertension, diabetes, elevated cholesterol & coronary artery disease) are also significant risk factors for severe COVID-19 infections.  These are also are the four most common medical problems that I see in my clinic, and they affect 85% of the people in my practice.  All four are caused and driven by hyperinsulinemia.

Hyperinsulinemia is defined as an elevated insulin production (2-30 times normal) when ingesting any form of carbohydrate or starch.  It starts 15-20 years before the onset of diabetes and is the cause of hypoglycemia, elevated fasting blood sugar, pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney disease, idiopathic neuropathy, hypertension and coronary artery disease.

Elevated insulin, even small elevations, puts a load on the immune system.  The higher your insulin response to starches or sugars, the more likely you are to have hypertension, diabetes and heart disease.  We found that those with elevated insulin levels and those over 45 years old with stressed immune systems are the most susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection.

We know that just four or more hours of elevated blood sugar and insulin increases the cytokine IL-6 significantly.  This has a suppressive effect on T cell immunity.  The body raises insulin chronically to protect itself from the damage caused by chronic elevation in blood sugar.  Chronic elevated blood sugars can lead to severe inflammation and clotting disorders.  The body attempts to raise insulin to protect angainst these issues, however, the chronic elevation in insulin leads to chronic elevation in the cytokines IL-2, IL-6, TNF-alpha, PAI-1, NF-kB, ROS and eventually IL-33.

Innate immunity affected by elevated glucose, insulin and PKC (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130196/#R56)

Should We Be Waiting For A Vaccine?

As a preface to this section, please be aware that I am a very strong proponent of safe and effective vaccine use.  Because the RNA vaccines are so new, long-term efficacy, safety and adverse reaction studies are essential before these vaccines can be recommended across the board.  It takes at least 4-5 years to 1) bring a vaccine to market and 2) complete adequate safety studies.

Let’s start by looking at the effectiveness of current RNA viral vaccines. The most common RNA vaccine currently in use is the influenza vaccine, quadravalent (four flu strains) and high dose (five flu strains) versions.  Over the last 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip due to increased flu vaccination each year.

Instead, as you can see above, influenza deaths among the elderly continued to climb. It was hard to believe, so researchers at the National Institutes of Health set out to do a study adjusting for all kinds of factors that could be masking the true benefits of the shots. But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result: flu shots had not reduced deaths among the elderly.

It’s not what health officials hoped to find.  I was shocked when I read these studies.  Two studies, here and here, demonstrate that yearly flu vaccine for those over age 65 does nothing to decrease influenza related death. These studies funded by the government in 2005 and 2006 were suppressed and I never heard about them. Yet the CDC still emphasizes to the elderly, “Get your flu shot.”

One reason these vaccines are ineffective is that viruses like influenza and corona-viruses are highly antigenic.  That means that there are hundreds of strains and the virus is changing rapidly.  Influenza has over 600 strains.  Our current high dose vaccine only covers five of these strains.

SARs-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is known to have over 160 strains. “There are too many rapid mutations to neatly trace a COVID-19 family tree.” Said Peter Forster, geneticist at the University of Cambridge.  “We used a mathematical network algorithm to visualize all the plausible trees simultaneously.” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020).  Dr. Forster’s research identifies 160 genomes within the hundreds of additional variants of the three central COVID-19 strain variants.

A second reason, as stated above, is that 50% of people who are exposed to COVID-19 mount a T cell immune response without ever forming antibodies through B cell immunity.  And, the antibodies that do form only give 3-4 months of protective effect.

Another other very fascinating concern found when making RNA virus vaccines is the potential to increase susceptibility to other viruses.  In a Department of Defense study, looking at 6000 military personal vaccinated in the 2017-2018 season, those who got the influenza vaccine demonstrated an increases susceptibility to corona-viruses by 36%. Those who were vaccinated with the flu vaccine had additional increased susceptibility to non-influenza viruses by 15%, and increased susceptibility to human metapneumovirus by 59%.

A second influenza study demonstrated an increased risk of para-influenza virus in adults (increased by 4.6% of vaccinated adults and only 2.6% of un-vaccinated adults.)  Though the researchers dismissed it as calculation error, the p value reflects that the vaccine played some roll (P=0.04) in the increased susceptibility.

Herd Immunity?

As with any other infection, there are two ways to achieve herd immunity: A large proportion of the population either gets infected or gets a protective vaccine. Based on early estimates of this virus’s infectiousness, we will likely need at least 70% of the population to be immune to have herd protection.

If the Penn State study is correct, the up to 50% of the U.S. population may have already been exposed as of the first week in March 2020, and by today, we may already be at Herd Immunity levels.  This may be why we are now seeing continued drop in death rates across the country, despite increase infection counts (due to increased testing frequency).

Should we push for a vaccine?  Do the math on a vaccine that covers only four out of 600+ strains like the quadravalent influenza vaccine.  For a vaccine to create “herd immunity,” currently being touted across the airwaves as the way to return to normal, it would require the average human to be vaccinated every year for 100 years, and would take 200-400 years to create any semblance of herd immunity.  And, that’s after 4-5 years studying the safety of a vaccine in large populations.

Influenza and HPV, the two most widely used RNA vaccines, still have a number of post-market adverse reactions including: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), convulsions, febrile convulsions, myelitis (including encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis), facial palsy (Bell’s palsy), optic neuritis/neuropathy, brachial neuritis, syncope (shortly after vaccination), dizziness, and paresthesia (tingling of the extremities) (Package-Insert—Gardasil.pdf; Package-Insert—Fluzone High Dose.pdf).  Though these adverse events occur more rarely, it is essential you and I understand the risks of these newer RNA vaccines.  Because it is an RNA virus, any coronavirus vaccine will come with similar risks.

What Can You & I Do?

First, our focus should be continued protection of our elderly and immune-compromised.  Our focus should be placed on improving the immune systems of those at risk through diet, hand washing & quarantine of the ill.  The evidence does not support quarantine of the healthy.  Evidence does not support general public mask wearing.  And there is no evidence that continued business closure is beneficial.

  • Reduce your risk of hyperinsulinemia.  Follow a carbohydrate restricted diet, exercise, control blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol and limit risk factors that suppress your immune system. Quit smoking, vaping, etc.
  • For my patients with insulin resistant/hyperinsulinemia, I recommend Berberine 500mg twice daily with meals. (Talk to your doctor before you add any supplements or medications.)
  • Use over-the-counter Zinc 10-30mg once daily – this has been shown to improve T cell control of viral replication.
  • Use over-the-counter Melatonin 5-10mg nightly – this helps in sleep recovery and strengthening the T and B cell immune response.
  • If you have been diagnosed with COVID-19, using Vitamin B3 (Niacin) has been show to be protective on the lungs.  Niacin is found in meat, fish and eggs (there’s reason for that ketogenic diet, again!)
  • Ensure your loved ones, especially the elderly and immune suppressed, understand the truth about their risk of infection.
  • Make a list of the things this pandemic has taught you. What can you do to better protect yourself in the future?
    1. We live in a society with a limited supply chain.
    2. We have become excessively dependent upon foreign business and supply
    3. We have become dependent upon “just-in-time” and over-night delivery systems
    4. We have a number of local and Federal deficiencies in our health care system
    5. How important to your health, personal liberty and constitutional rights is defense of the borders?
    6. How has freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly affected your family and your physical, emotional or spiritual health?

Consider the following poem in all of this:

Don’t be afraid to go outside and be a human being again.  And, pass the bacon.

Is COVID-19 Really Getting Worse?

600% Increase in COVID-19 Testing

COVID-19 testing in Arizona as of June 21, 2020 (azdhs.gov).

The media keeps stating that corona virus has “spiked” in Arizona.  What they’ve not been saying is that the frequency with which Arizona doctors and hospitals are testing went from 2500 tests per day to almost 15,000 tests per day just after the first week in May.  In fact, 17,663 tests were reported on yesterday alone.

Our testing frequency increase 600% in the last 6 weeks.  Of course we are going to see increased numbers of positive tests.  That is to be expected.  Additionally, what you are not being told is that the number of positive tests has remained consistent around 8-10% of all those tested.  We are not seeing a “spike.” We are getting a much clearer picture of the prevalence of this virus.  And, the large majority of those being tested are under 45 years old, those with the least likelihood of severe symptoms.

The Virus Can Be Lethal, But So Is Influenza and Childhood Pneumonia

Don’t get me wrong, this virus has the potential to be lethal in 1-2% of those that are infected, those who are immuno-compromised, but the majority of those getting positive tests (98-99%) will quickly recover without significant problems.  That is identical to influenza.  And you can see from the graphic below that the majority of those who have died in Arizona are those over 65 years old with significant other disease risk factors.

CDC estimates that there have been 62,000 deaths from influenza from October 2019 to April 2020.

As of this week, the CDC’s provisional death counts for COVID-19 from January to June 2020, excluding influenza, are 45,524. That’s still less than influenza numbers above.

809,000 children died in 2017 from bacterial pneumonia in 2017.  That’s 2200 children that die every day from preventable pneumonia, yet we haven’t mandated masks for this epidemic.

As you can see below, death from COVID-19 has continued to decline, despite what the media is saying.  If it were truely spiking, we would have seen a rise in COVID-19 deaths around June 6th-15th (Arizona’s Quarantine Orders ended on May 31st), giving a 7-14 day incubation period after people began working and interacting.   Yet that isn’t what the Arizona Department of Health is reporting.  The number of deaths continues to fall.

Death from coronavirus in Arizona as of June 21, 2020 (azdhs.gov)

12,285 people died in Arizona from heart disease in 2017 and 11,719 died from cancer.  We know that high carbohydrate intake combined with high fat foods is the number one risk factor for both of these diseases, yet there has been no city or state mandate on these risk factors.  And, we know that hyperinsulinemia (the underlying cause of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and most cancers) is the primary risk factor in severity of illness in COVID-19 patients.

I have yet to hear Governor Ducey or Mayor Hall issue an executive order on time spent in a bakery or proximity to Krispy Kreme.

Is Hospital Bed Space Still an Issue?

Possibly, but during our low point in hospitalization at the beginning of April in Arizona, hospitals were still at 60-70% of capacity.  As of the writing of this article, Arizona is at 85% of capacity.  This was to be expected.

Will we reach capacity over the next 2-4 weeks?  Epidemiological projections claimed that even with quarantine of the state we would max out our hospital capacity in April.  We didn’t even come close.

A Rise in COVID-19 Cases is Expected

St. Louis vs Philadelphia Quarantine vs No Quarantine – 1918 Spanish Flu Deaths

If you look at history, the only time where viral infection quarantine was incorporated into a city versus one that was not (St. Louis & Philadelphia), you will see that a rise in viral infection and death naturally occurred after removing the quarantine orders.  This is visible in the red indicator at 80-110 days in St. Louis.  Our rise in COVID-19 cases and fatalities is to be expected.

The whole point of this was to unload burden on hospital facilities, not stop the spread of infection all together, as that will never happen.  The goal of decreased hospital burden has been accomplished. 

Why All the Hype?

Your guess is as good as mine.  I have wracked my brain as to why our leaders persist in forcing the average healthy American to feel anxious, fearful and insecure over a virus that is no more problematic than the flu.

Why would mandates for mask wearing occur 6 months after the outbreak of the virus occur when death rates are falling and data shows us that many people have already had this infection without knowing it?  If you look at the cities in Arizona where mask and social distancing mandates have been enacted in the last week, you may recognize that these are the more progressive left leaning cities.  This push to change the way we live our lives seems to come from this group and is amplified by the left-leaning media.  Motive may revolve around the poll box in November.

Though you and I have felt this deeply in our homes and wallets, liberals running for office at all levels across the state and nation likely feel they have politically benefited from the outbreak of the coronavirus. The subsequent regulations on social distancing, mask wearing and business closures gave Democrat elected officials more power over individual lives and business operations than they have ever had before. Combine that with the ability to blame our current president for the economic consequences of the virus and you can see why some would salivate for another outbreak to rescue their hopes for unseating this president.

Is This A Method to Move Us to Main Streamed Contact Tracing?

A second reason for the hype could be a desire to move people to allow wide spread “contact tracing.”  This is much like facial recognition software that we see used so often in the latest spy thrillers. However, contact tracing uses the GPS in your phone to track your location, travel and your contacts.

As of last month, contact tracing software was added to Android and IOS phones.  Apple released iOS 13.5 and iPadOS 13.5 for iPhones, iPods, and iPads on May 20th. They went live alongside minor software updates for Apple TV and HomePod devices. The iOS update mainly adds new health-related features—most notably the much-discussed Exposure Notification API that was co-developed with Google to help local, regional, and national governments enact contact-tracing strategies to battle the COVID-19 pandemic.  These are not automatically turned on, but you can find them under the privacy settings of your phone.  Added without your consent, contact tracing and facial recognition cameras used individually or in coordination are arguable violations of human rights and rights to privacy.

Several Supreme Court cases have recognized a right to travel. For example, in Kent v. Dulles (1958), the court wrote, “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. . . . Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”

In addition to the right to travel, in Toomer v. Witsell (1948), the Supreme Court asserted that the act of shrimping (and, more generally, pursuing one’s livelihood) was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. (“Shrimping” means to fish for shrimp.)

And in the well-known case of Meyer v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court determined that constitutionally protected liberty “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

There is a strong argument that the Constitution protects the freedom to move, travel, and do business. However, constitutional interests are not absolute, and argument arises that this could be limited by pressing public health interests, especially during a state of emergency.  Hence the need for cities and states to declare “state of emergency” before enacting these orders.

In order for liberty-infringing public health laws to be constitutional, they must be the least restrictive means of protecting health. With regard to the novel coronavirus, this may not be the case.

A Change of American Values

There are those on the left who have a profound dislike for what you and I see as the traditional American culture and political mores of the United States. Remember Barack Obama’s words about those who “cling to Bibles and guns,” Hillary Clinton’s labeling of Trump supporters as “deplorable,” and the recent emphasis across the nation by many to get “transformational change?”  Understand that it is not just mere reform or improvement the Democrats desire, they want a wholesale difference in the way Americans interact with each other, think and operate day-to-day.

Fear of your neighbor, because of unseen illness or skin color, makes you and I more likely to accept governmental regulation and vote for help at the ballot box.  History has demonstrated this fact for hundreds of years. When the government appears smarter than your doctor, you’re more likely to vote for single payer health care.   Think about it.