Archive for November, 2020

Flu Vaccine Education

**UPDATE **

Originally, the flu vaccine was a measure to protect the elderly, but go here for a blast from the past when four scientists researching the Flu vaccine during the 1960s found it to be ineffective and refused to give it to their own families.  The scientists state they were prevented from publishing their negative findings.

Despite this, the ineffective and dangerous vaccine has increasingly been pushed on everyone 6 months old and up, including pregnant women despite the fact the flu vaccine is linked to increased risk of miscarriage.

Now a recent Japanese study shows NO BENEFIT on hard outcomes: hospitalization and death. Another perfect example of how the massive push to vaccinate people for the flu has been a waste of time and effort.  Do not expect to read about this in the news.

Further demonstrating the diabolical history behind vaccines, the military mandated the Adenovirus vaccine for ‘cold-like symptoms’:

”…when it was shown that the vaccine contained a contaminant which caused cancer in laboratory animals, it was taken off the market, but that was 3 years after the division’s scientists have pointed out the danger…”

The Adenovirus vaccine (which contains live adenovirus Type 4 and type 7 can be shed in stool and and breast milk and infect contacts – particularly children, pregnant women, and those with immune system problems, as well as harming the unborn) is still available for United States military personnel.  It is not available to the general public.

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/flu-vaccine/

Education: Flu Vaccine

9 FLU VACCINE FACTS

Are Mandates Science-Based?
DOWNLOAD/PRINT PDF

1. THE FLU VACCINE INCREASES THE RISK OF CONTRACTING A NON-FLU RESPIRATORY ILLNESS BY 65%.

Although some studies suggest positive effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of illness caused by flu viruses, that benefit is potentially outweighed by the negative effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of non-flu respiratory illness.1 To address the concern among patients that the flu vaccine causes illness (i.e., acute respiratory illness), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a three-year study,2 published in Vaccine, to analyze the risk of illness after flu vaccination compared to the risk of illness in unvaccinated individuals.

The study found there is a 65% increased risk of suffering from a non-flu acute respiratory illness within 14 days of receiving the flu vaccine. The authors state, “Patients’ experiences of illness after vaccination may be validated by these results.”

This is important because although flu vaccines target three or four strains of flu virus,3 over 200 different viruses cause illnesses that produce the same symptoms—fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose—as influenza,4 and more than 85% of acute respiratory illnesses do not involve the flu.5

2. THE FLU VACCINE DOESN’T REDUCE DEMAND ON HOSPITALS.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) funded a study6 to measure the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination on hospitalization among the elderly. The study analyzed 170 million episodes of medical care and found that “no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations.”

In addition, a 2018 Cochrane review7 of 52 clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of influenza vaccines did not find a significant difference in hospitalizations between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults. Instead, the reviewers found “low-certainty evidence that hospitalization rates and
time off work may be comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults.”

Furthermore, the Mayo Clinic conducted a case-control study8 to analyze the effectiveness of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in preventing flu hospitalization in children 6 months to 18 years old. The study evaluated the risk of hospitalization in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children over an eight-year period. The authors state: “TIV is not effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalization in children.” Instead, “[W]e found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV vaccine.”

3. THE FLU VACCINE DOESN’T PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE FLU.

Households are thought to play a major role in community spread of influenza, and there has been a long history of analyzing family households to study the incidence and transmission of respiratory illnesses of all severities. As such, the CDC funded a study9 of 1,441 participants, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, in 328 households. The study evaluated the flu vaccine’s ability to prevent community-acquired influenza (household index cases) and influenza acquired in people with confirmed household exposure to the flu (secondary cases). Transmission risks were determined and characterized.

In conclusion, the authors state: “There was no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced.”9,10

Furthermore, a systematic review5 of 50 influenza vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states: “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

4. THE FLU VACCINE FAILS TO PREVENT THE FLU ABOUT 65% OF THE TIME.

The CDC conducts studies to assess the effects of flu vaccination each flu season to help determine if flu vaccines are working as intended.11 As circulating flu viruses are constantly changing (primarily due to antigenic drift mutations),12flu vaccines are reformulated regularly based on a “best guess” of which viruses might circulate during the coming flu season.3 The CDC states: “CDC monitors vaccine effectiveness annually through the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) Network, a collaboration with participating institutions in five geographic locations… [A]nnual estimates of vaccine effectiveness give a real-world look at how well the vaccine protects against influenza caused by circulating viruses each season.”13

Data from the CDC’s Influenza VE Network indicate a 65% vaccine failure rate between 2014 and 2018 (Fig. 1).11

5. REPEAT DOSES OF THE FLU VACCINE MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF FLU VACCINE FAILURE.

Studies have observed that influenza vaccines have low effectiveness in individuals who are vaccinated in two consecutive years.9 A review of 17 influenza vaccine studies published in Expert Review of Vaccines states, “The effects of repeated annual vaccination on individual long-term protection, population immunity, and virus evolution remain largely unknown.”14

6. DEATH FROM INFLUENZA IS RARE IN CHILDREN.

Before the widespread use of the influenza vaccine in children, between 2000 and 2003, each year kids age 18 and younger had about 1 in 1.26 million or 0.00008% chance of dying from the flu.15 In a 2004 report, the CDC stated, “Deaths from influenza are uncommon among children with and without high-risk conditions.”16

7. THE FLU VACCINE DOESN’T REDUCE DEATHS FROM PNEUMONIA AND FLU.

The National Vaccine Program Office, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded a study17 to examine flu mortality over the period of 33 years (1968–2001). The study found that there has been no decrease in flu mortality since the widespread use of the influenza vaccine. The authors state: “We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group… [W]e conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

Furthermore, the National Institute of Health (NIH) funded a study6 to measure the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination on mortality among the elderly. The study analyzed 7.6 million deaths and found “a sharp increase in influenza vaccination rates at age 65 years with no matching decrease in hospitalization or mortality rates.”

8. PATIENTS DON’T BENEFIT FROM THE VACCINATION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS.

A review18 of more than 30 influenza vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states, “Our review findings have not identified conclusive evidence of benefit of HCW [healthcare workers] vaccination programs on specific outcomes of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalization or death due to lower respiratory tract illness), or all cause mortality in people over the age of 60.” The authors conclude, “This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza.”  In addition, “There is little evidence to justify medical care and public health practitioners mandating influenza vaccination for healthcare workers.”

9. FLU VACCINE MANDATES ARE NOT SCIENCE-BASED.

A Cochrane Vaccines Field analysis19 evaluated studies measuring the benefits of flu vaccination. The analysis, published in the BMJ, concludes: “The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising… Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured… Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken.”

DOWNLOAD/PRINT PDF

References

  1. Dierig A, Heron LG, Lambert SB, Yin JK, Leask J, Chow MY, Sloots TP, Nissen MD, Ridda I, Booy R. Epidemiology of respiratory viral infections in children enrolled in a study of influenza vaccine effectiveness. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2014 May;8(3):293-301. Epub 2014 Jan 31.
  2. Rikin S, Jia H, Vargas CY, Castellanos de Belliard Y, Reed C, LaRussa P, Larson EL, Saiman L, Stockwell MS. Assessment of temporally related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination. Vaccine. 2018 Apr 5;36(15):1958-64.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Selecting viruses for the seasonal influenza vaccine; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm.
  4. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 13;(3):CD001269.
  5. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269.
  6. Anderson ML, Dobkin C, Gorry D. The effect of influenza vaccination for the elderly on hospitalization and mortality: an observational study with a regression discontinuity design. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7;172(7):445-52.
  7. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 1;2(2):CD001269.
  8. Joshi AY, Iyer VN, Hartz MF, Patel AM, Li JT. Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):e23-7.
  9. Ohmit SE, Petrie JG, Malosh RE, Cowling BJ, Thompson MG, Shay DK, Monto AS. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the community and the household. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 May;56(10):1363.
  10. Physicians for Informed Consent. Newport Beach (CA): Physicians for Informed Consent. Vaccines: what about immunocompromised schoolchildren? Dec 2019. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/immunocompromised-schoolchildren/rgis/.
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC seasonal flu vaccine effectiveness studies; [cited 2020 Apr 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.htm.
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How the flu virus can change: ‘drift’ and ‘shift’; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How flu vaccine effectiveness and efficacy are measured; [cited 2020 May 14]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm.
  14. Belongia EA, Skowronski DM, McLean HQ, Chambers C, Sundaram ME, De Serres G. Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2017 Jul;16(7):723,733.
  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC wonder: about underlying cause of death, 1999-2018; [cited 2020 May 2]. https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html; query for death from influenza, 2000-2003. Between 2000 and 2003, there were 61 annual deaths from influenza out of 77 million children age 18 and younger, about 1 death in 1.26 million.
  16. Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004 May 28;53(RR-6):1-40.
  17. Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Feb 14;165(3):265-72.
  18. Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 2;(6):CD005187.
  19. Jefferson T. Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence. BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):912-5.
______________________
Cochrane’s 2018 review9 of 52 clinical studies on vaccines for preventing influenza in adults, including pregnant women, found only 15% of the studies were well-designed and conducted. Based on 25 studies that looked at inactivated influenza vaccines, Cochrane concluded they have only a minor protective effect against influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI), noting:

“Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% … 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI …

In its 2018 review10 of 41 clinical trials on live and inactivated vaccines for preventing influenza in children, they found:

“Compared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4%, and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% …

This particularly frightening statement was given:

“Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardized approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed.”

The Cochrane review also concluded that recommendations for routine use of influenza vaccine as a routine public health measure was not supported by the published evidence base and stated,

“The results of this review provide no evidence for the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may only be advised as an individual protective measure.” 13

Category:

Activism, vaccines

Gilead Pyramid Scheme With China, Soros, & Gates at the Top

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-11-09-china-soros-gates-plot-to-dictate-science.html

China, George Soros and Bill Gates plot to dictate science and worldwide drug distribution, while exploiting U.S. hospitals and taking advantage of Americans

Monday, November 09, 2020 by: Lance D Johnson

(Natural News) Public health officials under a Trump administration or under a potential Biden administration will never offer a scientific strategy to strengthen human immunity. This is because fearful, weak and obedient populations are easy to control and profit from, and pharmaceutical companies own the media narrative and every politician’s reputation and economic figures. The proof is obvious. The federal government dumped over $10 billion into pharmaceutical companies in 2020, looting public funds to develop only drugs and vaccines — which populations are being psychologically trained to anticipate and to depend upon.

One of the companies that enjoyed free taxpayer money was Gilead. The Department of Defense paid Gilead $34.5 million to develop remdesivir, a potential treatment for Ebola virus. The National Institutes of Health awarded Gilead $6 million taxpayer dollars to speed up its development and sunk another $30 million of taxpayer dollars into clinical trials to observe Remdesivir’s effect on covid-19 patients.

Gilead loots American taxpayers and moves business to China

The U.S. FDA recently granted Remdesivir the agency’s coveted “orphan drug status” so the drug could be fast tracked through the FDA’s drug review process – despite shoddy data on its safety and effectiveness. As soon as Gilead got what they wanted, the company took remdesivir out of the U.S. and partnered with China to exploit world populations through a sophisticated pyramid scheme. More specifically, Gilead partnered with a drug facility in China owned by George Soros.

After the swift move to China, Gilead’s stock price surged 20 percent in Shanghai. BrightGene Bio-Medical Technology, a Suzhou based company, is using new technology to synthesize and distribute Remdesivir to the world. Chinese researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology filed an application to patent Remdesivir. China will now have control over the world’s template covid-19 treatment plan, ultimately to rip off Americans for a drug that American taxpayers primarily funded in the first place. Gilead has already partnered with Chinese Health Authorities to conduct new clinical trials for Remdesivir. Why is an American company working with China to dominate the drug market?

George Soros is in on the deal. Gilead is partnered with Wuxi Pharmaceuticals, a molecule drug discovery and research facility owned by George Soros. This astonishing connection was revealed in George Soro’s own financial portfolio, which lists the partnering facility at 666 Gaoxin Road, East Lake High Tech Development Zone, Wuhan, China. This is the same Chinese city where the outbreak began. The Wuhan Institute of Virology was the lab funded by the US National Institutes of Health to study gain-of-function properties of coronaviruses.

China not only has the ability to manufacture bio-weapons and understand how they infect humans, but they also have the patent on the treatment that they can now use to control the rest of the world.

Gilead, Bill Gates, and George Soros will take advantage of Americans by utilizing a drug purchasing ring called UNITAID

Gilead is a well-connected company, involved in a drug purchasing ring called UNITAID. This worldwide drug distributor oversees a “patent pool” that allows pharmaceutical companies to share their drug patents with other companies. The original patent holder receives royalties when they allow other companies to produce generic drugs derived from their patented drug. This allows the original patent holder to distribute their drug to both rich and poor nations, while capitalizing on both. The original drug, Remdesivir, is sold at a high price to the U.S., and provided cheaply to African countries, all while the original Chinese patent holder profits immensely. China is now included in UNITAID’s “drug pool” – giving the communist country the cheapest prices on the new drug. America is not included, and U.S. patients will pay over $3,000 for this standardized treatment.

This UNITAID drug distribution network was derived from the United Nation’s Global compact. UNITAID is financially supported by WHO (Bill and Melinda Gates), UNAIDS, Global Fund, Roll Back Malaria Partnership, and Mr. George Soros himself. Soros has not only set up a facility to profit from Remdesivir, but he uses those profits to set up the system that enables him to take advantage of the U.S. in a sophisticated price gouging scheme, while still profiting off the drug’s distribution around the world through UNITAID’s drug pool. This all came to fruition first and foremost after Gilead claimed a monopoly on coronavirus treatment science while using taxpayer funds and the U.S. FDA for fast-track approval to push their questionable drug forward.

This is why people around the world are being taught to live in fear of the virus instead of taking personal action to strengthen their immune system.  

George Soros, Bill Gates, and the drug and vaccine companies are strategizing to profit from and dominate the world population for years to come, while specifically targeting U.S. hospital systems and Americans.

Sources include:

CivilianIntelligenceNetwork.ca

MarketWatch.com

NaturalNews.com

WSJ.com

____________________

For more:

Going back to 1997, Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Board of Directors at Gilead and after 2001 he held share packages valued at $5-25 Million. Gilead originally developed Tamiflu. George P Shultz, US Secretary of State also was on the board. He sold stocks at a value of more than $7 million. CA governor’s Pete Wilson’s wife also sat on the board.

“‘I don’t know of any biotech company that’s’ so politically well-connected [as Gilead],‘ Andrew McDonald, of the analyst firm Think Equity Partners, told Fortune.” (Source: “Virus Mania, How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion Dollar Profits At Our Expense”)

Excerpt:

Approximately $70 million in U.S. taxpayer funding began Gilead’s partnership with the U.S. Army, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop remdesivir. Initially for treating Ebola, it failed to show benefit and was shelved. If remdesivir is used to treat COVID-19, Gilead shareholders, not the taxpayers, will profit.

Our government doesn’t want people to be healthy.  They profit too much off of sick people.  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/21/how-government-cures-drive-out-real-cures/

Category:

Activism, Treatment, Viruses

Treatment Varies For Bell’s Palsy in Children With Lyme Disease

https://danielcameronmd.com/treatment-varies-for-bells-palsy-in-children-with-lyme-disease/

TREATMENT VARIES FOR BELL’S PALSY IN CHILDREN WITH LYME DISEASE

Treatment varies for Bell’s palsy in children with Lyme disease

“The UK county of Hampshire is a high incidence area of Lyme disease,” according to a recent article in the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. ¹ Hampshire is a county in southern England. The study aimed to investigate the extent of idiopathic Bell’s palsy in children, the degree of variation in treatment, and “whether Lyme disease was being considered as a cause and being investigated and treated appropriately.”

By

The retrospective review included 93 children with idiopathic Bell’s palsy to the University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust from 2010 to 2017. Idiopathic facial nerve palsy, formerly called Bell’s palsy, is seen in early Lyme disease.

Very few children in the study with Bell’s palsy reported a tick bite or rash. In fact, only 14% had a tick bite, while 5% had a rash. Lyme disease testing was performed on 76 of the 93 children. Of these, 22 (29%) were positive for Lyme.

Neuroimaging was performed on approximately 20% of the children. The most common findings were consistent with inflammation or infection of the facial nerve.

Surprisingly, despite increased awareness of Lyme disease in the Hampshire region, nearly 1 in 5 children in the study were not tested for the tick-borne disease.

Additionally, the authors point out, “even in the absence of other signs or symptoms of Lyme disease, an FNP could be the sole presenting sign.”

Bell’s palsy treatments

“We found significant variation in medical management, with some children appearing to receive no treatment,” the authors write.

• Only 73.1% were treated with an antibiotic.

• The number of treatment days varied from 1 to 28, with a median of 14 days.

• 44% of the children were treated with the oral steroid, prednisolone.

• Over 17% were prescribed an antiviral medication.

• Nearly 20% received neuroimaging. The most common findings were consistent with inflammation or infection of the facial nerve.

The study was not designed to determine the outcome for these children. The study raises several unanswered questions: Could steroid use in these children affect the outcome? Could little or no treatment affect their outcome? Would any of these children develop long-term complications?

Study Conclusions

  • “Lyme disease is a significant cause of FNP in this endemic area of the UK, and there was a large degree of variability in management prior to national guideline publication.”
  • “In areas endemic with Lyme disease, Lyme disease should be considered as the likely cause of facial nerve palsy in children until proven otherwise.”
  • “All children presenting with [facial nerve palsy] FNP to health care providers in these areas should have Lyme serology tested and empirical treatment for Lyme initiated pending the results of tests.”
  • “Areas with endemic Lyme disease should consider introducing local guidelines supporting routine investigation and management for FNP, including empiric treatment for Lyme disease in accordance with NICE guidelines to improve care and reduce variability.”

(NICE refers to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellent, which developed guidelines for clinicians on the investigation and management of Lyme disease.)

Editor’s note: The number of cases of facial nerve palsy could be higher as the numbers reflect only Bell’s palsy in children, who were evaluated at their hospital. Yet, many doctors treat Bell’s palsy in their office.

Related Articles:

Steroids harmful to patients with Bell’s palsy caused by Lyme disease

Case report: 46-year-old Canadian man with Bell’s palsy

Clinical judgement leads to successful lyme disease treatment in young child

References:
  1. Munro APS, Dorey RB, Owens DR, Steed DJ, Petridou C, Herdman T, Jones CE, Patel SV, Pryde K, Faust SN. High frequency of paediatric facial nerve palsy due to Lyme disease in a geographically endemic region. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jan 25;132:109905.

______________________

**Comment**

This right here is why I’m losing hair.  Seriously.

  1. Lyme disease should be considered in ANYONE presenting with facial palsy as it is a hallmark symptom of early Lyme (although many don’t get it – just like the EM rash)
  2. They state only 14% had a tick bite.  Please know that’s what they found.  I’m sure there were many others that weren’t found.  Nymphal tick bites are painless and impossible to see.
  3. Only one in five were even tested!  The fact only 29% were positive isn’t surprising.  Lyme serology testing is abysmally poor missing anywhere from 50-86% of all cases:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/01/16/2-tier-lyme-testing-missed-85-7-of-patients-milford-hospital/  We need to stop relying upon testing for diagnosis of Lyme disease.  It should always be clinically diagnosed which means doctors/nurses need to be educated to know what to look for.  It’s high time this “wait and see” paradigm changes as the longer it takes for diagnosis and treatment the worse the outcome.
  4. It’s also high time we throw CDC 2-tiered testing into the trash bin.  There are smaller CLIA-certified labs with far more sensitive testing.  We also need a direct test and we needed it 40 years ago.  This reliance upon faulty testing for diagnosis and entrance criteria into research studies must end.
  5. Treatment was all over the map with some not getting ANY treatment. This is unacceptable.  
  6. They used steroids – a big “no, no” in those with Lyme – unless they are using antimicrobials concurrently and are being carefully watched.  Catabolic steroids depress the immune system which will make infections worse.  Since mainstream medicine vilifies trained ILADS doctors who know this fact, their egos prohibit them from learning from others with training and experience.  It’s a sad state of affairs.  Please note Dr. Cameron’s related link in the “related article” section at the end.
  7. Some doctors were more willing to give steroids and anti-virals than antibiotics.  This is a prime example of doctors fearing retribution since our ‘authorities’ have made it abundantly clear they will come after doctors for utilizing extended antibiotics for Lyme.  While they won’t come after doctors for handing out steroids and anti-virals – both of which can have serious side-effects, they single out antibiotics.  The question you must ask yourself is why?  (Perhaps they don’t want people to recover?)
  8. I feel badly for these kids.  More than likely they are still suffering.  It blows my mind, after just reading Polly Murray’s “The Widening Circle,” that doctors are still not treating Lyme disease (a bacterial infection) with antibiotics and the respect it deserves.  They would rather sit back and study these poor kids like lab rats.  When early treatment (a few weeks or a month) would often completely resolve these cases, they continue with outdated propaganda that will assuredly maim and kill many. 
  9. In Murray’s book, it was clear that doctors chose not to treat many of these poor people.  It was also clear that those who were treated with antibiotics always improved.  Why is this fact not accepted?  Again, logic does not matter in the topsy-turvy world of Lyme/MSIDS.

For more:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/category/lyme-disease-treatment/

Category:

Lyme, research

The Price of Truth – Irish Doctor & UK Nurse Speak on COVID-19

http://  Approx. 13 Min.

Video credit David Poland of @RylandMedia – this interview sent to me by Health Freedom Ireland @HealthFreedomIE

Nov. 6, 2020

The Price of Truth

A compassionate and emotionally charged interview with a brave Irish doctor, one who tried to speak up. To speak up for a balanced and proportionate response to this challenging viral issue. Compassion. Rationality. Logic. Science. And more – those virtues that seemed to suddenly disappear in 2020.

Can we bring them back, before it is too late?

___________________

UK Nurse Quits Job:  “I Can’t Lie Anymore”

https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/u-k-rebellion-students-medical-professionals-and-public-resist-lockdowns/  Go here for video

While the UK resisting lockdowns is newsworthy, what I want to draw your attention to is the UK nurse speaking in the video about how she quit her job because she refuses to lie anymore about the COVID ‘pandemic.’  It’s a sad day when a medical professional must quit their job for speaking the truth.

Excerpt:

“Unfortunately I can’t lie anymore,” said the nurse, explaining how she took a screenshot of internal hospital data showing there were just three people across three hospitals in the region infected with COVID.

The total deaths from these three hospitals across the last 7 months is just 76 people, roughly 10 deaths a month, according to the nurse, who questioned why it was necessary for her region to go into lockdown given such sparse figures.

“I’ve decided there’s no point, I have gone against the rules within the NHS, I have shared confidential information that people need to see,” said the nurse, adding that other doctors and nurses were trying to speak out. (Source.)

___________________

**Comment**

Doctors are vilified for defying the COVID narrative similarly to how doctors have been vilified for defying the Lyme narrative:  

Doctors vilified for defying COVID narrative:

The media needs to be held to account for the continuing fear-mongering and  COVID propaganda:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/21/media-continues-to-undermine-science/

The conflicts of interest must end:  

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Moose Ticks Are Dining on Local Deer

https://www.telegram.com/story/sports/2020/10/29/outdoors-moose-ticks-dining-our-deer/

Moose ticks are dining on local deer

Back-breaking work begins after succeeding in hunt
By Mark Blazis
Correspondent
Tufts University infectious disease authority Dr. Sam Telford collects a vial of engorged moose ticks from a local white-tailed deer.Tufts University Infectious disease authority Dr. Sam Telford Collects a vial of engorged moose ticks from a local white-tailed deer.Photo/Mark Blazis

Any time you shoot a deer that’s heavier than you are is worthy of celebration. So I was ecstatic when I dropped a big buck with my arrow last Monday evening. Few events are more exciting than finally getting a deer you’ve worked hard for. But once he’s down, the reality of potentially backbreaking work just begins.  (See link for article)

_____________________

**Comment**

Excerpt:  

Besides the ubiquitous moose ticks — also called winter ticks — there were many lice, louse flies and only male deer ticks, which are of no value to Sam’s research. “The female deer ticks must have already engorged and dropped off,” Sam concluded disappointingly.

This article mentions a very practical tip: spraying the area under dead bucks with permethrin or other acaricide right away to kill any females that drop off that could lay 2,000-3,000 eggs infesting your yard.
Hanging deer in the backyard can unintentionally spread ticks and disease.

Laying the ground with an insecticide-sprayed tarp is the answer to this.

Telford states that moose ticks in Northern New England suck the blood of 1st year moose enough to cause over half of them to die every winter. He states they don’t prefer human blood but the native Americans had an expression for them that translates, “bite like fire,” so they evidently DO bite humans!

Moose ticks also typically spend their entire life on one host.

The article states there were abundant, wingless louse flies or keds – which unfortunately Telford did not collect. The female releases her young on the forest floor where they attach to bedded deer, which they feed on almost exclusively.  Again, the article states they don’t care for humans but they CAN carry bacteria and their potential disease threat remains unclear.

Yet, the following articles show THEY DO TRANSMIT TO HUMANS:

It’s truly unfortunate that transmission studies remain in infancy.  The one all the researchers refer to has an inch of dust on it.

Category:

Ticks, Transmission, Uncategorized