Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

Why You May Need More Vitamin D Especially Now

http://vitalplan.com/blog/why-you-may-need-more-vitamin-d-especially-now?

Why You May Need More Vitamin D — Especially Now

Why You May Need More Vitamin D — Especially Now

By Dr. Bill Rawls Posted 06-30-2020

Vitamin D has gotten a lot of attention in the past several years. Maybe you’ve heard how common it is to have low levels. Or perhaps you’ve heard the reports linking a D deficiency to various health risks and conditions. Now it’s in the news again as researchers work to figure out if vitamin D may play a role in COVID-19 outcomes.

So does that mean you should be getting more? Here’s what to know about this important nutrient and ways it can help keep you healthy.

Why You Need Vitamin D

While we humans easily get many of the vitamins and nutrients we need from healthy, whole foods, vitamin D is the exception. It’s often called “the sunshine vitamin,” because the main way we get it (outside of supplementation) is by making it when our skin is exposed to UV light. Otherwise, D is similar to other nutrients and vitamins in that it plays an essential role in ensuring cells can function properly.

Ayurvedic pills as healthy lifestyle symbol. Vitamin capsule background

Let me explain. Vitamins are generally known as cofactors: They act as a key piece or component of the complex biological machinery that allows each cell in the body to perform its specific function the way it’s supposed to. Vitamin D also acts as a chemical messenger that relays crucial signals to cells and various systems.

While vitamin D is important for many types of cells and functions throughout the body, there are two main areas where it’s especially vital:

1. Vitamin D Allows the Body to Absorb Calcium.

We all need calcium for strong bones as well as for our nervous system, and it’s pretty easy to get the calcium your body requires by eating a healthy diet and/or taking supplements. But without adequate vitamin D, it wouldn’t matter how much calcium you consume — your body could not take in the mineral from your gut nor maintain steady calcium levels in your blood.

Doctor in office holding x-rays of a hand and wrist

When you aren’t absorbing or getting enough calcium, the body ends up stealing the calcium that’s stored in your bones. That leaves your bones weak — and you vulnerable to fractures.

Studies have long shown that low levels of vitamin D in the blood increases the risk of fractures in older adults. What’s more, additional research suggests that taking vitamin D supplements along with calcium may help reduce fractures in people over age 65, especially women.

2. Vitamin D Helps Regulate Immune Function.

Virtually all types of immune cells have vitamin D receptors, and the vitamin is known to help control the immune response in ways that may both enhance immunityand potentially guard against autoimmune diseases. For example, vitamin D helps regulate the activity of various types of immune system cells — white blood cells, B cells, T cells, monocytes — in ways that decrease the production of inflammatory cytokines (proteins secreted by the immune system) while increasing anti-inflammatory cytokines.

white blood cells attacking microbe in blood stream

In other words, healthy vitamin D levels help promote a proper inflammatory and immune response. In that way, it helps mitigate or prevent some of the potential damage that might otherwise be caused by inflammation or an improper immune response (as is the case with autoimmune disorders).

This regulatory role is one potential factor in why low vitamin D levels are linked to autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and type-1 diabetes, as well as improved immunity against viruses, including respiratory pathogens and the flu. For example, research suggests that low levels of vitamin D may increase the risk of developing MS by around 40%. Conversely, other research finds that higher levels of the vitamin is linked to lower disease activity and progression.

As far as general immunity is concerned, one study found that adults with low levels of vitamin D were more likely to have reported recently having a cold, cough, or upper respiratory infection. It’s also been suggested that increased sun exposure during warmer months may be one reason colds and the flu are less common in summer than in the winter.

The Vitamin D and COVID-19 Connection

The new coronavirus infects the upper respiratory system and causes much of its damage by triggering an immune system overreaction — it can unleash what’s called a “cytokine storm” that kills healthy cells and damages healthy tissue. So it would make sense that vitamin D’s regulatory powers might be helpful. However, as of now, the research is mixed and there’s still a lot we don’t know about the virus, its effects, and the potential role of vitamin D.

For example, one rapid review published in early May concluded there was no evidence suggesting a vitamin D deficiency left people more prone to infection or severe illness, or that vitamin D might help treat COVID-19. Other studies have come to similar conclusions.

Horizontal close up portrait of young male laboratory scientist working on vaccine effective against new virus

That said, research released around the same time by researchers in Indonesia found that vitamin D deficiency was linked to an increased risk of death due to COVID-19. Other preliminary studies likewise suggest that low vitamin D levels could be a factor in COVID-19 severity, including hospitalization.

So, while it’s still too early to say whether vitamin D is important in your body’s natural defenses against COVID-19, there are a lot of other good reasons to make sure you’re getting adequate vitamin D right now.

Other Ways Vitamin D Keeps You Healthy

In addition to supporting healthy bones and proper immune function, vitamin D also helps deliver these health benefits:

Promotes Heart Health

Inflammation — which is part of your body’s immune response and so is partly regulated by vitamin D — plays a big role in the development of cardiovascular diseases. Vitamin D is also key for keeping arteries flexible and functioning properly, which helps maintain healthy blood pressure.

Stabilizes Mood

Vitamin D is needed for normal brain function, and research has linked low levels with depression. Although it’s not entirely clear how exactly vitamin D may influence mood disorders, a 2008 study found that vitamin D supplements reduced symptoms.

Reduces the Risk of Diabetes

Studies report that low vitamin D translates to a higher risk of type-2 diabetes, potentially because the vitamin may influence insulin sensitivity. (Diabetes develops when your body becomes less sensitive or resistant to the hormone, and so can’t properly regulate blood glucose.) For that reason, vitamin D may also help maintain a healthy weight.

Promotes Longevity

Low serum levels of vitamin D were associated with higher all-cause mortality than normal levels (above 30 ng/mL), according to a report in the American Journal of Public Health.

Are you Vitamin D Deficient?

There’s a good chance you might be. Unlike with other common vitamins and nutrients, for which deficiency is relatively rare, having low vitamin D levels is incredibly common.

A study of more than 26,000 U.S. adults found that 29% were vitamin D deficient, and 41% were vitamin D insufficient according to thresholds outlined by the Endocrine Society. Those thresholds:

  • Vitamin D deficiency: Less than 20 ng/mL (or less than 50 nmol/l — serum level of vitamin D is measured in two different units of measurements)
  • Vitamin D insufficiency: Between 20 nmol/l and 30 ng/mL (or between 50 nmol/l and 75 nmol/l).

The risk for deficiency is even higher for those with darker skin. Their higher levels of melanin — natural pigments that make skin darker — naturally blocks UV light, hampering the body’s ability to readily make vitamin D with relatively modest sun exposure. One study, for example, found that a full 93% of African-American men living in Chicago had vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL — the average was just 17.2 ng/mL — compared to 70% of Caucasian men who had insufficient vitamin D levels.

What’s more, your vitamin D stores may fluctuate with the season and can depend a lot on where you live and how much time you spend outside. For example, if you live in colder climates and spend long winters indoors, your levels during, say, December, are likely to be lower than they are in July.

Cottage against the night sky with the Milky Way and the arctic Northern lights Aurora Borealis in snow winter Finland, Lapland

So, it’s worth asking your doctor about getting tested at least once a year, if not twice, and about supplementing. Likewise, if you suffer from a chronic illness, which stresses cells and can deplete vitamin stores more readily, consider having your vitamin D levels tested a few times a year.

Guidelines on what vitamin D levels ideally should be vary a bit. For example, while the Endocrine Society recommends a target between 30 and 50 ng/mL, the National Institutes of Health considers between 20 and 50 ng/mL to be adequate for adults. In my former medical practice, I found that healthy people generally had levels between about 30 to 40 ng/mL.

And, although you’ll find some experts who suggest either you don’t need that much or need much more, be cautious — especially of overdoing it. Artificially boosting your levels higher than 50 ng/mL could cause neurological and other toxicity issues.

3 Ways to Get Vitamin D

Spend Time in the Sun.

This is not a free pass to skip SPF, however. Everyone’s skin is different and requires different exposure to fill their vitamin D coffers. However, the lighter your skin, the higher your risk of skin cancer and skin damage from unprotected UV exposure.

back view of woman canoeing on a sunny lake

So, find a balance of UV exposure and skin protection that works for you — and err on the side of caution. Maybe that means spending a few minutes in the sun first before reaching for your bottle of sunscreen. Or, perhaps you always protect the sensitive skin of your face, neck, and chest before leaving home, but keep your arms or legs exposed slightly longer.

One study in the U.K., for example, found that just 13 minutes of midday summer sun three times a week (exposed to only 35% of skin surface) yielded levels between 20 and 32 ng/mL for most Caucasians. African Americans, meanwhile, may need many times that amount, according to researchers.

When considering what might work for you, take into account factors such as:

  • Your tendency to burn
  • Your personal skin cancer risk, including your family history
  • Which areas on your body might need more protection
  • Whether you take supplements or consume fortified foods to fill any potential D gap

Eating plenty of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables can also help provide some internal protection from small doses of sun exposure.

Eat Fatty Fish and Other Foods with Vitamin D.

Salmon and tuna are top food sources of D, while egg yolks and some cheeses also contain it in small amounts. And some foods, most notably milk, are fortified with vitamin D, so check labels.

Take a Vitamin D Supplement.

Supplements are an effective way to ensure you’re getting enough D no matter how much or little time outdoors you spend. The government’s recommended dietary allowance is 600 IU (or 15 mcg) per day for adults, but talk to your doctor about what might be best for you and how often to monitor levels.

Pile of fish oil omega 3 gel capsules on wooden board

For example, if you have darker skin you may need more than 600 IU — potentially up to 2,500 IU, suggests the researchers of the Chicago study. Those with chronic illnesses may want to consider taking more, as well. On the other hand, people with lighter skin who spend a lot of time outdoors during summer months may not need to supplement as much.

However you mix and match your lifestyle and dietary tactics to get enough vitamin D, now’s a good time to start paying attention if you aren’t already — for your immunity, bones, mood, heart and metabolic health, and overall wellness and longevity.

References
1. T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University. March 2020. “Vitamin D.” The Nutrition Source. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-d/
2. Aranow, Cynthia. “Vitamin D and the Immune System.” Journal of Investigative Medicine. 2011 Aug; 59(6): 881-886.
3. Ascherio, Alberto et al. “Vitamin D as an Early Predictor of Multiple Sclerosis Activity and Progression.” JAMA Neurol. 2014;71(3):306-314.
4. Ginde, Adit A. et al. “Association Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Level and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.” Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(4):384-390.
5. Lee, Joseph, Oliver van Hecke and Nia Roberts. “Vitamin D: A rapid review of the evidence for treatment or prevention in COVID-19.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. May 1, 2020. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/vitamin-d-a-rapid-review-of-the-evidence-for-treatment-or-prevention-in-covid-19/
6. Raharusun, Prabowo et al. “Patterns of COVID-19 Mortality and Vitamin D: An Indonesian Study.” April 26, 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3585561
7. Jorde, R. et al. “Effects of vitamin D supplementation on symptoms of depression in overweight and obese subjects: randomized double blind trial.” Journal of Internal Medicine. 2009. 264(6): 599-609.
8. Lips, Paul et al. “Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 Oct;173:280-285.
9. Garland, Cedric F. et al. “Meta-analysis of All-Cause Mortality According to Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D.” Am J Public Health. 2014 August; 104(8): e43–e50.
10. Liu, Xuefeng, Ana Baylin and Phillip D. Levy. “Vitamin D Deficiency and Insufficiency Among US Adults: Prevalence, Predictors and Clinical Implications.” Br J Nutr 2018 Apr;119(8):928-936.
11. Northwestern University. “One size doesn’t fit all for vitamin D and men: African-American men in northern regions especially need high doses of supplements.” ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920100100.htm.
12. National Institutes of Health. “Vitamin D: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.” https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
13. Rhodes, Lesley E. et al. “Recommended Summer Sunlight Exposure Levels Can Produce Sufficient (> or =20 Ng ml(-1)) but Not the Proposed Optimal (> or =32 Ng ml(-1)) 25(OH)D Levels at UK Latitudes.” J Invest Dermatol 2010 May;130(5):1411-8.

______________________

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/02/experts-criticize-government-review-of-vitamin-d-for-covid-19/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/01/10/vitamin-d-increases-protection-against-infection-new-model-suggests/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/03/12/the-importance-of-vitamin-d-k-and-magnesium-for-lyme-msids-patients/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/15/the-functional-medicine-approach-to-covid-19-virus-specific-nutraceutical-botanical-agents/

 

 

 

Category:

Supplements, Viruses

Treatment with HCQ, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients With COVID-19 Reduced In-Hospital Mortality

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099

Highlights

  • As of May27, 2020 there are over 1,678,843 confirmed cases of COVID-19 claiming more than 100,000 lives in the Unites States. Currently there is no known effective therapy or vaccine.
  • According to a protocol-based treatment algorithm, among hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
  • Findings of this observational study provide crucial data on experience with hydroxychloroquine therapy, providing necessary interim guidance for COVID-19 therapeutic practice.

Abstract

Significance

The United States is in an acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently there is no known effective therapy or vaccine for treatment of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting urgency around identifying effective therapies.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy alone and in combination with azithromycin in hospitalized patients positive for COVID-19.

Design

Multi-center retrospective observational study

Setting

The Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in Southeast Michigan: large six hospital integrated health system; the largest of hospitals is an 802-bed quaternary academic teaching hospital in urban Detroit, Michigan.

Participants

Consecutive patients hospitalized with a COVID-related admission in the health system from March 10,2020 to May 2,2020 were included. Only the first admission was included for patients with multiple admissions. All patients evaluated were 18 years of age and older and were treated as inpatients for at least 48 hours unless expired within 24 hours.

Exposure

Receipt of hydroxychloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin, azithromycin alone, or neither.

Main Outcome

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3-53). Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.1% (95% CI:16.6%-19.7%); by treatment: hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, 157/783 (20.1% [95% CI: 17.3%-23.0%]), hydroxychloroquine alone, 162/1202 (13.5% [95% CI: 11.6%-15.5%]), azithromycin alone, 33/147 (22.4% [95% CI: 16.0%-30.1%]), and neither drug, 108/409 (26.4% [95% CI: 22.2%-31.0%])​.
Primary cause of mortality was respiratory failure (88%); no patient had documented torsades de pointes. From Cox regression modeling, predictors of mortality were age>65 years (HR:2.6 [95% CI:1.9-3.3]), white race (HR:1.7 [95% CI:1.4-2.1]), CKD (HR:1.7 [95%CI:1.4-2.1]), reduced O2 saturation level on admission (HR:1.5 [95%CI:1.1-2.1]), and ventilator use during admission (HR: 2.2 [95%CI:1.4-3.3]). Hydroxychloroquine provided a 66% hazard ratio reduction, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin 71% compared to neither treatment (p < 0.001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.
_____________________
Excerpt:
Dr. Meryl Nass has uncovered a hornet’s nest of government sponsored Hydroxychloroquine experiments that were designed to kill severely ill, Covid-19 hospitalized patients. On June 14th Dr. Nass first identified two Covid-19 experiments in which massive, high toxic doses – four times higher than safeof hydroxychloroquine were being given to severely ill hospitalized patients in intensive care units.

Regarding the anti-viral Remdesivir:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/02/remdesivir-for-covid-19-not-backed-by-results/

Excerpt: 

Remdesivir isn’t cheap.  In fact, this article states it costs $320 per vial and will be sold for $3,120 per 6 vial treatment:  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/stunning-faucis-remdesivir-costs-9-per-dose-will-sold-3000-per-dose-china-company-linked-soros-will-also-mass-produce-drug/ That’s a lot of money for a drug that hasn’t even been shown to lower viral load.

Hydroxychloroquine in the other hand costs $1 per treatment, while chloroquine costs a measly 30 cents!  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/podcast-evidence-supporting-hcq-azithromycin-for-covid-19/

The article also points out an ugly conflict of interest web between Gilead, the manufacturer of Remdesivir and UNITAID which Soros, Gates, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, are large investors – with Drs. Fauci and Birx associated with the Clinton Health Access initiative.  And of course, Dr. Fauci has worked with Gilead for a long, long time. Government employees should not be allowed to have financial ties to manufacturing companies and then turn around and make public health policy.

 https://principia-scientific.org/a-tale-of-2-drugs-deep-state-chose-money-power-over-lives/

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.

Category:

research, Treatment, Viruses

Interrupted Blood Feeding in Ticks: Causes and Consequences

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32560202/

Interrupted Blood Feeding in Ticks: Causes and Consequences

Djamel Tahir 1, Leon Meyer 1, Josephus Fourie 2, Frans Jongejan 3, Thomas Mather 4, Valérie Choumet 5, Byron Blagburn 6, Reinhard K Straubinger 7, Marie Varloud 8
Affiliations expand

Free article

Abstract

Ticks are obligate hematophagous arthropods and act as vectors for a great variety of pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and helminths. Some tick-borne viruses, such as Powassan virus and tick-borne encephalitis virus, are transmissible within 15-60 min after tick attachment. However, a minimum of 3-24 h of tick attachment is necessary to effectively transmit bacterial agents such as Ehrlichia spp., Anaplasma spp., and Rickettsia spp. to a new host. Longer transmission periods were reported for Borrelia spp. and protozoans such as Babesia spp., which require a minimum duration of 24-48 h of tick attachment for maturation and migration of the pathogen.

Laboratory observations indicate that the probability of transmission of tick-borne pathogens increases with the duration an infected tick is allowed to remain attached to the host. However, the transmission time may be shortened when partially fed infected ticks detach from their initial host and reattach to a new host, on which they complete their engorgement.

For example, early transmission of tick-borne pathogens (e.g., Rickettsia rickettsii, Borrelia burgdorferi, and Brucella canis) and a significantly shorter transmission time were demonstrated in laboratory experiments by interrupted blood feeding.

The relevance of such situations under field conditions remains poorly documented.

In this review, we explore parameters of, and causes leading to, spontaneous interrupted feeding in nature, as well as the effects of this behavior on the minimum time required for transmission of tick-borne pathogens.

____________________

**Comment**

Partial feeding is not rare and needs to be taken into account. Unfortunately, authorities have followed a tightly controlled narrative when it comes to transmission times – which has only served to hurt patients for decades.

There are cases where Lyme (borrelia) has been transmitted within hours:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/12/07/igenex-presentation/

Excerpt:

Bob Giguere of IGeneX states a case by Dr. Jones of a little girl who went outside to play about 8:30a.m. and came inside at 10:30 with an attached tick above her right eye.  By 2 o’clock, she had developed the facial palsy.  At the hospital she was told it couldn’t be Lyme as the tick hadn’t been attached long enough.  They offered a neuro-consult…..

By 4pm she couldn’t walk or talk.

Do not believe what the “experts” tell you about transmission times!

Authorities also talk about ticks having a “grace period” before they transmit which is hog-wash:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/10/grace-period-for-ticks-nope/

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/04/14/transmission-time-for-lymemsids-infection/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/04/26/three-strains-of-borrelia-other-pathogens-found-in-salivary-glands-of-ixodes-ticks-suggesting-quicker-transmission-time/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/11/14/study-shows-ticks-can-transmit-rickettsia-immediately/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/06/28/powassan-can-kill/

 

 

 

 

Category:

Anaplasmosis, Ehrlichiosis, Lyme, research, Rickettsia, Ticks, Transmission, Viruses

ACT Now: Tell Your Officials To Make Mask-Wearing Voluntary

https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/act-now-mandatory-masks-endanger-your-health/?

ACT NOW: Mandatory Masks Endanger Your Health and Your Liberties. Tell Your State and Local Officials To Make Mask-Wearing Voluntary.

OUR STAND

  • As the United States begins to re-open from lockdowns, jurisdictions are instituting measures that dictate how people are able to participate in society. One of the most common is compulsory mask-wearing.
  • Officials throughout the country are seeking policy guidance on masks from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has flip-flopped its position on face coverings several times since March but is now recommending that everyone wear a mask in public.
  • State and local authorities are taking varying approaches in what their emergency mask orders stipulate and how they will be enforced. Rules differ by state and are constantly changing. However, to date, only a handful of states don’t have any mandatory mask measures.
  • Though CDC’s policy guidance encourages the use of face masks, there is substantial evidence showing that masks are harmful and a lack of evidence showing they are effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus. Studies show that wearing a face covering reduces blood and tissue oxygenation — which can be deadly — while increasing carbon dioxide levels. Mask-wearing can also increase the risk of infection and the spread of viral illness, hinder detoxification that occurs via exhalation, impair the immune system and cause many other ailments, both physical and emotional. Moreover, some masks have been found to contain known carcinogens, which put people at risk from inhaling toxic chemicals and having them come into contact with their skin.
  • Lawsuits are now being filed throughout the country to challenge mandatory masks. Despite evidence of harm and questionable evidence of benefit, fall 2020 school guidelines across the country are calling for mandatory masks. Public school systems (e.g., San Diego, California) are concerned that mask requirements in the classroom will spark even more legal battles.
  • It is unethical and unconstitutional to force healthy citizens to abide by measures that can result in physical and emotional harm and that impinge on their ability to move freely throughout society without discrimination. For those with deeply held religious beliefs, mask mandates violate their ability to abide by natural law and follow their convictions to walk in faith, not fear. As such, the decision to wear a mask is a highly personal one and should not be universally mandated; measures that are meant to protect the community as a whole are ineffective if they hurt individuals in that community. Please email and tweet your lawmakers now and urge them to do their part to make sure that mask-wearing is voluntary, not mandatory.

Your home address information is required from the legislative offices to ensure you are reaching out to your designated representatives. Your email and your phone number are used to establish connection with your designated representatives. Messages from non-constituents don’t have the same impact on a legislator as messages from verified constituents, who can vote for that officeholder. We do not share your name and contact information with any third parties unless legally required to do so.

Have a question or need help?

VIEW OUR FAQS

CALL TO ACTION

Do I have to wear a mask? Should I just wear a mask to avoid being heckled or harassed? What if wearing a mask makes me feel unwell? These are just a few of the questions that people are grappling with as a growing number of jurisdictions nationwide institute mandatory mask measures.

At present, all but a handful of states call for mandatory mask-wearing, and many cities have their own mask ordinances.[1]However, Stand for Health Freedom believes that wearing a mask should be an individual’s choice. A growing contingent of individuals are concerned that mandatory mask policies jeopardize bodily, civil and constitutional rights.

Mandatory Masks Can Cause Considerable Harm and Are Not Proven Effective

Evidence that face masks reduce the transmission of viral respiratory infections within community settings is equivocal at best. A recent meta-analysis of scientific literature, including 11 randomized, controlled trials and 10 observational studies, found that there was no clear clinical or laboratory-confirmed evidence that masks prevent infection.[2] To the contrary, the study warned that facemasks “…may even increase transmission if they act as fomites [objects or materials that are likely to carry infection] or prompt other behaviours that transmit the virus such as face touching.”

This echoes World Health Organization (WHO) guidance published on January 29, 2020 entitled, “Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (‎‎‎‎‎2019-nCoV)‎‎‎‎‎ outbreak.”[3] In it, the WHO says, “Wearing medical masks when not indicated may cause unnecessary cost, procurement burden and create a false sense of security that can lead to neglecting other essential measures such as hand hygiene practices.”  Furthermore, the January 2020 WHO guidance stated that “Cloth (e.g., cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance.”

Cloth masks have been found to be particularly problematic.[4] A British Medical Journal (BMJ) study published in April 2020 cautions against the use of cloth masks, citing “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”[5] The WHO affirms increased infection risk with cloth masks in its latest June 5, 2020 guidance.[6] It based its guidance on an earlier BMJ study that found the penetration of particles to be 97% in the cloth mask group, with significantly higher rates of infection and influenza-like illness.[7]

A study on the CDC website that reviewed 10 different randomized clinical trials worldwide on highly infectious respiratory virus transmission found “no significant reduction” in “transmission with the use of face masks.”[8]

Given the lack of evidence for their use,[9] and flip-flopping advice both against and for their use by authoritative health agencies like the WHO, the increasing pressure to wear masks in public — and to be able to access basic services required to maintain one’s health, liberty and livelihood — constitutes an unnecessary power grab and means of controlling the population.

Fear Is Driving Violence And Aggression

Nonstop media coverage of coronavirus has generated unprecedented levels of fear and anxiety.[10] On June 30, Dr. Anthony Fauci warned lawmakers that we could easily see 100,000 new cases of coronavirus each day.[11] Fauci stated that he is unable to accurately predict the incidence and mortality that the US will eventually see, but he declared, “It’s going to be very disturbing, I will guarantee you that.”[12]

Some individuals are now fraught with so much panic and worry that they are becoming violent toward anyone they believe is a threat to their personal safety. Aggression toward those who don’t wear masks is becoming is increasingly common and ranges from verbal threats, to assault and battery, to murder.

In March, an 86-year-old dementia patient was killed in a Brooklyn emergency room after she lost her bearings and grabbed onto another patient’s IV pole to steady herself.[13] The patient, 32-year-old Cassandra Lundy, became irate that the elderly woman, Janie Marshall, had broken social distancing guidelines and then knocked her to the floor. Ms. Marshall — who initially went to the ER for severe abdominal pains — struck her head on the floor, lost consciousness and died hours later. According to reports, Ms. Lundy, who has been charged with manslaughter, told detectives that she shoved Ms. Marshall because the elderly woman “got into the defendant’s space.”[14]

The Great Mask Divide

Masks have become one of the most controversial issues of our time. Those who are seen in public without a mask are often judged and discriminated against, even if they have a condition that precludes compliance. Harassment and discrimination have become rampant,[15] and fellow citizens are policing each other with very little to no knowledge of why someone may or may not be wearing a mask.[16]

Even in communities that have mask exceptions for certain members of the population, those individuals are no longer allowed to fully participate in society because businesses are barring them or won’t provide services to them without a mask. It’s a breach of an individual’s privacy and autonomy to not be able to go into public without being discriminated against, and banning people from entering or participating in society because they don’t wear a mask violates their constitutional rights.[17]

These types of breaches have sparked lawsuits nationwide from individuals claiming they have been personally or financially harmed from mandatory mask measures.[18][19] Some also contend that forcing people with medical conditions to wear masks violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,[20] which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability of “enjoyment of services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations by any person who … operates a place of public accommodation.”[21]

Individual Health Is The Responsibility Of The Individual, Not The State 

With unbridled governmental control throughout much of 2020 — under the guise of emergency orders needed to curb coronavirus — citizens from coast to coast have seen their civil, constitutional and religious rights trampled upon. An onslaught of executive orders have shaped nearly every aspect of our personal lives, from where we can go and what activities we’re allowed to engage in, to how we educate our children, to how we earn a living, to how we worship. They have also dictated which medical philosophies we embrace and which medical treatments we can receive. In doing so, we’ve been extremely restricted in how we’ve been able to care for ourselves and support our immune systems — and we’ve been asked to follow guidelines that are not evidence-based “for the greater good.”

Although the government plays a role in controlling the spread of infectious illness, adults are responsible for their own health; each person has the right to responsibly make choices about what precautions and perceived risks they take. It’s not incumbent on government officials to direct individual health decisions, and granting them this power is dangerous. Individuals are much more qualified than public servants to weigh the risks and benefits of their own personal actions.

Public officials should not impose mandates to seek compliance. Mandates perpetuate the idea that individuals lack the moral or intellectual capacity to make sound decisions for themselves and their children, so the state needs to do it for them. Individuals are capable of making responsible decisions, and those decisions must take a person’s whole health into account. The health of the individual cannot be forsaken or sacrificed for the collective. We can only have a healthy society when that society is made up of healthy individuals. Health is a personal right and responsibility. It is not something that we should look to the government to bestow on us or guarantee.

Masks as “Submission Signaling” 

There is no compelling scientific evidence to justify the widespread push to mandate universal mask-wearing. The demonstrated risks far outweigh the purported benefits. Whereas those who wear masks believe they are “virtue signaling” their concern for the weakest and most vulnerable among us, those who refuse to submit to authoritarian decrees do so because they believe that health is a personal responsibility — and that it is up to them to decide what precautionary measures they implement to avoid a virus with an estimated case fatality rate of .1% to .26%.[22]

At-risk populations and those who are sick can self-quarantine, and society should take the best care of them possible. However, healthy, law-abiding citizens should not be forced to take any precaution that can result in physical and emotional harm and that impinges on their constitutional rights; this includes the right to bodily autonomy, the right to move about freely, the right to participate in society and connect with others, and the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion.

It’s Time to Stand – Urge Your Lawmakers To Make Face Coverings Voluntary

Never before has it been so important for you to stand up for your rights! Mandatory medicine and mandated interventions such as social distancing and mask-wearing have no place in a free society; citizens have the right to make responsible decisions about what is best for themselves and their children based on their own unique circumstances.

Please stand up against medical tyranny by sending your state and local officials a pre-drafted email and tweet urging them to protect everyone in the community by ensuring that masks are voluntary, not mandatory. When you are finished, please share this vital campaign with your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. Remind them that constitutional rights don’t stop being important in times of emergency; they become more important.

SEND YOUR LETTER NOW

References

  1. https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/facing-your-face-mask-duties-list-statewide-orders
  2. https://www.qeios.com/read/1SC5L4
  3. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330987
  4. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle
  6. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/#__ffn_sectitle
  8. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
  9. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
  10. https://qz.com/1812664/the-psychology-of-coronavirus-fear-and-how-to-overcome-it/
  11. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/fauci-coronavirus.html
  12. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/fauci-redford-testimony-senate-coronavirus/index.html
  13. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/nyregion/coronavirus-brooklyn-janie-marshall-cassandra-lundy.html
  14. https://patch.com/new-york/bed-stuy/social-distancing-death-suspect-held-coronavirus-packed-rikers
  15. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1143163319383637&set=gm.4087336354647037&type=3&theater
  16. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/social-distancing-rules-coronavirus.html
  17. LawCornell.edu
  18. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243643797.html
  19. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/social-distancing-rules-coronavirus.html
  20. https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/06/22/lawsuits-against-giant-eagle-mask-policy/
  21. ADA.gov
  22. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?articleTools=true

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Remdesivir For COVID-19 – Not Backed By Results

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/17/covid-19-medication.aspx?

The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results

The HighWire does a deep dive into Anthony Fauci’s NIH-Funded study of Remdesivir, the new Covid treatment darling approved by the FDA today, and uncovered some shocking discoveries.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

June 17, 2020

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Results from trials for the newest COVID-19 drug have disappointed. The first was stopped because of an adverse event; with the second, the WHO reported that more people died on the drug than off it; and the third investigation has significant problems with how the study was conducted
  • Gilead appears unfazed, insisting the drug is effective. The drug company is giving 940,000 vials of the drug to the U.S. government; the combination of scarcity and “generosity” will help set the price
  • Potential price gouging doesn’t upset scientists as much as the idea that a noneffective drug will be used; results from another study showed that using a combination of other drugs was effective

Big Pharma companies have worked hard to portray themselves as benevolent corporations that pour billions of dollars into the creation of drugs and vaccines. Biotech giant Gilead Sciences is no different. They manufacture remdesivir, the newest drug being hyped to treat SARS-CoV-2, which is discussed above in The High Wire video by Del Bigtree from Informed Consent Action Network.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), Anthony Fauci, along with the media, has been making public statements that cannot be scientifically supported.

In a press conference April 29, 2020, Fauci discussed the preliminary results of a remdesivir trial, and claimed the drug has a “clear-cut positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery. This is really quite important for a number of reasons.”1

Yet, the data from scientific studies do not support his claims. He went on to say that while a “31% improvement doesn’t seem like a knock-out 100%, it is a very important proof of concept, because what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus.”

Remdesivir Trial Stopped Early for ‘Benefit’

The most recent data on remdesivir were published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).2 Researchers concluded that the drug worked better than a placebo in reducing the amount of time it took adults to recover from COVID-19 while hospitalized. The study was stopped early for benefit.

However, as Peter Gøtzsche from the Institute for Scientific Freedom wrote, the benefit was not a reduction in mortality but, rather, in shortened hospital days — from 15 to 11 days.3 Bigtree and Gøtzsche (in the video) also pointed out there were several problems with the research design and, consequently, the data.4

The release of the study generated enthusiasm and triggered immediate action across many countries, including the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization May 1, 2020, for remdesivir, as the drug had not been approved for use. They said:5

“While there is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using remdesivir to treat people in the hospital with COVID-19, the investigational drug was shown in a clinical trial to shorten the time to recovery in some patients.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar praised the speed at which the FDA approved the drug for emergency use, calling it “seamless cooperation between government and private industry” and an uncommon approval “two days after the National Institutes of Health’s clinical trial showed promising results …”6

Gøtzsche7 began his written commentary by comparing the expense of remdesivir to Tamiflu, both of which have been touted for treating their respective illnesses. Swiss drug maker Roche claimed Tamiflu, used for influenza, could shorten hospital admissions by 61% and reduce the use of antibiotics to treat respiratory tract infections by 55%.

When the data were finally available for review, however, it turned out that the claims could not be supported. When Tamiflu is used at the first sign of symptoms, it only shortens the length of the illness by 17 hours. In a seemingly parallel journey, the data from the study published in the NEJM appears to have been manipulated to generate statistically significant results, as detailed by Bigtree.

Bigtree points out that Bill Gates said we need a “miracle” treatment that is 95% effective:8 Yet, as Bigtree says, and as has been documented by the CDC,9 the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford10 and corresponding studies,11 the majority of healthy people will recover from SARS-CoV-2 without any secondary effects.

The Results Don’t Live Up to the Promise

So, is Gates referring to the need for a 95% cure of the 5% who experience severe disease, since the majority don’t experience significant illness? This must happen to stop the production of a vaccine that will not have the time to undergo placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized studies to prove safety, which Fauci clearly believed was needed in February 2020:12

“We urgently need a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Although remdesivir has been administered to some patients with COVID-19, we do not have solid data to indicate it can improve clinical outcomes. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard for determining if an experimental treatment can benefit patients.”

In the video, Bigtree outlines the progress of the study, which includes several challenges:

  • The study evaluating the efficacy of remdesivir was designed as an “adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study” performed by the NIAID, headed by Anthony Fauci.13 An adaptive study can be changed to protect patients when the results are obvious. This happens, for instance, if the participants receiving the intervention are doing so well that those on the placebo are moved to the intervention.
  • Although Bigtree mentions a seve-point scale, the researchers wrote the initial measurement was an eight-point scale to evaluate the participant results, one of which was death.
  • While Fauci has been claiming this study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, the placebo that was used was a lyophilized formulation containing hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide. The placebo group, in Bigtree’s words, is receiving a known poison — not saline.
  • One month after the study began, they increased the participants from 197 to 220 and then to 286 in each arm of the study: One received remdesivir and the other got the “placebo.” At this point, there were 572 participants. By the end of the study they had increased the total group to 1063.14
  • It was also noted that with the rising number of participants, if the group ran out of the hydrochloric acid placebo, they could substitute normal saline. As Bigtree pointed out, if the trial ran out of the substance being used as a placebo, they could use what should have been used in the first place, a substance without a known effect.

In the middle of the study (April 20, 2020), the researchers changed the primary outcome measures from eight15 to just three, none of which included measurement of mortality. The idea for the drug was to keep people from dying, but the researchers stopped measuring that important outcome. The final criteria were:16

  • Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen — no longer requires ongoing medical care
  • Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or requiring home oxygen
  • Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities

Gøtzsche Believes the Results of the Study Are Suspect

The increasing number of participants, the “placebo” and the reduction in primary outcome measurements resulted in the conclusion that: “Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”17

However, as Gøtzsche pointed out, physicians use highly subjective data to determine when their patient can be discharged home. He also reports that viral load was not measured by the research team and he questions how an antiviral can be successful if it doesn’t decrease viral load.

Gøtzsche believes the researchers violated “good scientific practice to fish for subgroup results that tell a better story. But this is what the two Danish professors did.”18 He went on to describe the difference between what the Danish researchers were proclaiming and what’s evident from the statistical analysis, writing:

“What is important is that the trial statisticians tested if the primary outcome was different in the various patient categories, those who did not need oxygen, those who needed oxygen, those who needed noninvasive ventilation, and those who needed invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (the most severely ill patients).

There was no difference, which makes it even worse that the two Danish professors embarked on a fishing expedition in the data focusing on only 23 deaths in subgroup 5 out of a total of 86 deaths …”

Other Remdesivir Studies Don’t Yield Positive Results

During the same time period, another team evaluated the use of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. They conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial and enrolled patients who were 18 years and older with lab-confirmed infection in 10 hospitals in China.19

The patients had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. The primary endpoint measurement was how long it took for clinical improvement, measured up to 28 days. Adverse events were reported in 66% of those receiving remdesivir versus 50% of those getting the placebo.

The drug was stopped early in 12% of the patients for adverse effects after researchers found there was no statistically significant clinical benefit to receiving it.

Before the release of the remdesivir study published in The New England Journal of Medicine and the second study in The Lancet, Bloomberg20 reported that the World Health Organization accidentally posted results of a third study.

While the summary was removed, details were published that showed “the drug wasn’t associated with patients getting better more quickly; and 13.9% of patients getting the drug died, versus 12.8% getting standard care.”

Gilead Sciences quickly took action. Infectious disease expert Frederick Hayden, who was involved with the study, told a reporter, “That is not correct. My interpretation of them is not consistent with that headline.”21

Gilead said the study was stopped because of low enrollment, adding that the “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit for remdesivir, particularly among patients treated early,” and it was expected that the following two studies would “add to a growing but still inconclusive body of evidence for remdesivir.”

Gilead appeared to be referring to the study published in The Lancet, whose authors concluded that the drug was not effective, as well as the subsequent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which had several problems with the data.

Remdesivir Hype Lining Gilead’s Pockets

On the same day The Lancet study was published — the one whose authors concluded the drug was not effective — Gilead announced “positive data emerging from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) study.”22 This implies the company may be relying on the court of public opinion, which is swayed by public relations, as opposed to scientific data.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection23 reports that Fauci has a vested interest in the development of remdesivir, and it was he who declared the results to be “highly significant.” When he was asked about the results of the study published in The Lancet, he dismissed it as “not adequate.”

Between the public relations campaign and the excitement Gilead has generated in investors and the public, they may reap a significant financial reward. The company has set up distribution in 127 countries and is expecting to begin commercial sales in June. The drug was initially developed as a potential treatment against Ebola using $79 million in U.S. funding.24

The company donated 940,000 vials to the U.S. federal government, which is in turn sending them to state health departments. However, it is not enough to treat all patients.

The state of Virginia is holding a lottery for the most severely ill patients, while doctors in Alabama have set up a task force to identify those who should receive it. The initial scarcity and apparent “generosity” will likely help Gilead set its price on the medication.

Yet it’s not the potential for price gouging that upsets most scientists. William Haseltine, a scientist whose life’s work is studying viruses and who helped lead the government’s response against HIV/AIDS, explains:

“Remdesivir doesn’t work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect. It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good.”25

You Have At-Home Choices

Buried in the hype of remdesivir was another recently released published study in The Lancet,26which showed that a combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir–ritonavir, and ribavirin was a safe and effective method of reducing viral shedding and lowering hospital admissions in those who had confirmed mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

You have options to protect your health and potentially lessen the severity of the infection if you do get sick. On my Coronavirus Resource Page you’ll find some of the latest news stories and my top tips to help combat the virus. These include ensuring adequate serum levels of vitamin D, getting enough sleep, protecting your gut microbiome and using micronutrients that have demonstrated antiviral effects.

+ Sources and References

_______________________

**Comment**

Remdesivir isn’t cheap.  In fact, this article states it costs $320 per vial and will be sold for $3,120 per 6 vial treatment:  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/stunning-faucis-remdesivir-costs-9-per-dose-will-sold-3000-per-dose-china-company-linked-soros-will-also-mass-produce-drug/ That’s a lot of money for a drug that hasn’t even been shown to lower viral load.

Hydroxychloroquine in the other hand costs $1 per treatment, while chloroquine costs a measly 30 cents!  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/podcast-evidence-supporting-hcq-azithromycin-for-covid-19/

The article also points out an ugly conflict of interest web between Gilead, the manufacturer of Remdesivir and UNITAID which Soros, Gates, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, are large investors – with Drs. Fauci and Birx associated with the Clinton Health Access initiative.  And of course, Dr. Fauci has worked with Gilead for a long, long time. Government employees should not be allowed to have financial ties to manufacturing companies and then turn around and make public health policy.

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.

Early results of the first clinical trial of remdesivir against placebo in coronavirus showed modest benefits, according to The New York Times. Surviving patients given remdesivir were discharged four days sooner than patients given placebo, though no criteria were given for determining improvement. Death rates were not significantly different. About 25% of patients receiving remdesivir had potentially severe side effects, including multiple organ dysfunction, septic shock, acute kidney injury and low blood pressure. Another 23% showed evidence on lab tests of liver damage.

Gilead’s own press release revealed the side effect of acute respiratory failure in 6% of patients in the remdesivir five-day treatment group, and 10.7% of patients in the 10-day treatment group, clearly ominous findings with a drug designed to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.

Dr. Steven Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who has conducted dozens of clinical trials, explained to The New York Times:

“The disclosure of trial results in a political setting, before peer review or publication, is very unusual. Scientists will need to see figures on harms associated with the drug in order to assess its benefits. … This is too important to be handled in such a sloppy fashion.”

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”)

Category:

Activism, Treatment, Viruses