The Impatient Patient

https://www.globallymealliance.org/blog/the-impatient-patient

by Jennifer Crystal

When would I get better? Why was I not seeing improvement every day?

Recently a friend’s toddler son asked her for a snack. Holding his baby sister, my friend told her son he’d need to wait a minute. He looked at her squarely and asked, “Does anyone like to wait?” Kids have a way of telling it like it is. The truth is, no one is great at patience, especially when we’re hungry, tired, or anticipating a big event. Perhaps the hardest time to wait is when we’re sick. “Patients” are ironically named because when we’re stuck in bed waiting to feel better, waiting for medication to work, waiting to live, we become very impatient.

I was impatient even before I got sick. A high-achieving lifestyle and the pressures that come with it always made me feel like I needed to hurry up and reach the next goal. If I didn’t, I might miss an important opportunity. I felt that if something didn’t happen right away, it might never happen at all. Then I got sick with chronic active Epstein-Barr virus, Lyme disease, babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, and possible Bartonella and all that forward motion and achievement came to a grinding halt. I was bedridden, hooked up to an IV, with nothing to do but wait. When would I get better? Why was I not seeing improvement every day?

Unfortunately, it often takes a long time for late-stage tick-borne illnesses to develop (for me, it took eight years to get an accurate diagnosis), which means it can take a long time to get better. Due to Herxheimer’s reactions, trial and error periods to figure out each person’s individual protocol, and setbacks from factors that are both in and out of our control, recovering from tick-borne illness is not a linear process. It can be especially hard to be patient when you feel like you’re taking two steps forward and one step back, or even one step forward and two steps back. Whether you’re three or ninety-three, no one likes to be slowed down.

When days, months, and even years of our lives are lost to illness, we feel increased urgency. We’re afraid that we’re losing precious time, as I discussed in my post “ A Lymie’s View from 39”. Illness-induced FOMO—fear of missing out—naturally manifests as impatience. A natural response to this impatience is to push our bodies to do more than they can so that we don’t miss out entirely. The minute I started to feel a little bit better, I’d go out and spend that energy. And while I enjoyed whatever I did, I paid for it with a flare of symptoms that sent me back to bed for days.

Not waiting caused damage, just as if my friend had not asked her son to wait, she might have dropped the baby or spilled the snack. She told him to wait because she had everyone’s well-being in mind. In just a few minutes, her son got his snack, and no one was hurt in the process. Patience paid off. Still, waiting—especially when it involves resting—goes against everything society has taught us about leading productive, meaningful lives. Though work-life balance has become more valued, busyness and achievement are still seen as badges of honor.

What bothered me most as an impatient patient was that I wasn’t doing anything. A friend who’d spent years recuperating from a traumatic brain injury helped reframe my thinking by telling me, “Your body is working really hard to heal right now. In order to let it do its job, you need to rest.” This realization helped me be more patient and loving with my sick body, more willing to give it what it needed—rather than fight against it—so that I could achieve my long-term goal of health.

Now that I have achieved and retained remission, I still can be impatient; it’s simply my nature. But I have learned to slow down; to pace myself; to trust my doctors, medications, and body; and most of all, to trust the process. I can’t get back the years I lost to illness. But I’m enjoying the ones I have now—which I wouldn’t have gotten if I’d pushed through the sicker years—and it truly does feel like the life I was meant to live is unfolding in its own time. I have to trust that it will continue to do so, as long as I am patient.

For more blogs, click here

Writer

Jennifer Crystal

Writer

Opinions expressed by contributors are their own. Jennifer Crystal is a writer and educator in Boston. Her memoir about her medical journey is forthcoming. Contact her using her email.

Email: lymewarriorjennifercrystal@gmail.com

https://vitalplan.com/blog/do-you-really-need-a-multivitamin?Do You REALLY Need a Multivitamin?

Do You REALLY Need a Multivitamin?

By Dr. Bill Rawls Posted 05-07-2021

I’ve been on the fence as to whether or not to take multivitamins for my whole life. Growing up in the 60s and 70s, there was always a bottle of multivitamins on the breakfast table. Every morning, each person at the table would take their turn. The basic “One A Day” was popular at the time, but chewable products were also making their debut. Flintstones were my favorite — they tasted like candy.

The idea of taking a multivitamin came with America’s shift toward processed food products in the mid-20 century. Fast food was a radical change from freshly prepared meals that had been the norm, but ready-made foods seemed to be a better fit for the fast pace of American life. Not only that, processed foods were specifically designed to appeal to our preferential tastes for carbohydrates and fats. I don’t think anyone thought that these new foods were nearly as nutritious as the freshly prepared foods people had been eating before, but that was okay; multivitamins were there to fill the void.

Both fast foods and multivitamins became the standard that is still with us today. Currently, half of all Americans and 70% of those over 65 take a multivitamin product.

The big question is: does taking a multivitamin really do anything?

white plastic bottle, tablets arranged into a question mark, blue background

Most average “once-daily” multivitamin products contain synthetic forms of vitamins and minerals. These aren’t the same as the forms of vitamins and minerals found in natural whole foods. When someone takes a standard multivitamin, the body has to expend energy to convert these synthetic substances into a form the body can actually use, which seems to defeat the whole purpose.

On top of that, numerous clinical studies failed to show a clear benefit of taking multivitamins for improving health or reducing the incidence of chronic illness and cancer. As recent as 2018, research published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reviewed data from 179 individual trials and concluded that multivitamin supplements did not help prevent or improve cardiovascular disease. Another study examined data from more than 30,000 people over six years. It likewise found that people who took multis and other nutrient supplements had about the same risk of dying as those who didn’t take a multivitamin.

That being said, some people still feel more comfortable taking multivitamins just for peace of mind. They believe by taking extra vitamins and minerals, their bases are covered if they don’t always eat healthily or are stressed.

And who isn’t stressed sometimes? Maybe when people are under stress or even as we age, we do need a little extra support.

At different points in my life, I’ve gone back and forth between taking and not taking multivitamins regularly. Growing up, I took them every day. After becoming an adult and shifting to a healthier diet, I felt that multivitamins weren’t as necessary, and I gave them up. Later in middle age, a health crisis precipitated by Lyme disease caused me to rethink a lot of things, including whether to take multivitamins.

two types of Homeopathic supplements on wooden spoon

I read opinions from experts who felt that the reason why studies consistently failed to show benefit was that they were all using unnatural synthetic forms of vitamins and minerals. They reasoned that if the natural forms of the vitamins, termed bioavailable, were used, the outcomes could have been different.

There’s no doubt that our body burns up a lot more vitamins and minerals when we’re stressed, and I was definitely stressed. Though I was particular about following a healthy diet, I wanted to give my body any advantage it could get. I again decided to take a multivitamin, but this time, not just any multivitamin off the grocery store shelf.

I found a top-quality product that exclusively provided bioavailable forms of essential vitamins and minerals and started taking it regularly. Did I notice any difference? Maybe a little. I certainly couldn’t say it was more than embracing a healthy diet, but it did give me peace of mind. Though I was confident that it wasn’t doing any harm with the doses I was using, it certainly wasn’t a total solution to my ongoing health issues either. Perhaps I needed more than just a multivitamin.

Nourishment vs. Protection

Multivitamin products and herbal products often get lumped together under the category of natural supplements, but they couldn’t be more different. They both have value, but that value is as different as apples and oranges.

To understand the difference, you have to think about the body as a complex collection of living cells. The body contains several trillion cells of about 200 different types. A person’s health is a reflection of the health of the cells that make up that person’s body. If a person’s cells are all healthy and all the cells in the body are functioning in harmony, then that person is the definition of good health.

To function properly, a cell must receive a steady supply of pure water, oxygen, and nutrients. Nutrients, including carbohydrates and fats to generate energy, amino acids to synthesize new proteins, and vitamins and minerals for enzymatic functions, must all be absorbed through the intestinal tract.

Everything that happens inside a cell is a function of enzymes. We need vitamins and minerals because they are key components of enzymes. To function properly, cells need an adequate supply of vitamins and minerals, but having more than the cell can use at one time doesn’t add any benefit. In fact, saturating a cell with excessive vitamins and minerals could even be harmful.

Healthy green salad with avocado, mangold leaves, red beans and cherry tomatoes. Vegan snack, vitamins, vegetarian food and diet concept

No doubt, the best source of vitamins and minerals is a healthy diet. Still, if a healthy diet isn’t consistent, logic would suggest that supplementing with essential vitamins and minerals could be beneficial. That being said, supplemental vitamins and minerals must be supplied in the form that the body can easily use — dumping unnatural synthetic forms of vitamins in the body is like putting cheap gas into your car; it works, but it’s not the best thing for the engine.

The key takeaway is that bioavailable vitamins and minerals are necessary for normal cellular functions and that greater quantities of vitamins and minerals are required when cells are stressed, but that vitamins and minerals alone do nothing to protect cells from being stressed.

This is where a group of plant chemicals, called phytochemicals, goes above and beyond the benefits offered by multivitamins. Plants produce a spectrum of different types of phytochemicals to protect cells against a wide range of physical, chemical, and biological (insects and microbes) stress factors. When we consume phytochemicals, either from foods or supplements, all those benefits are transferred. When our cells are protected from stress, they function better, burn out slower, and require less in the way of vitamins and minerals.

A few protective phytochemicals have become household words. Resveratrol, a phytochemical found in grapes and wine, is a potent antioxidant known for slowing aging. Resveratrol has also been found to protect mitochondria, the source of energy for cells. Less well known, pterostilbene is a phytochemical with similar properties found in blueberries. Phytochemicals called catechins, found in green tea, slow aging and prevent chronic illness by protecting cells from damaging antioxidants.

Though fruits and vegetables are an important source of protective phytochemicals, our food plants have been cultivated primarily to provide high yields of nutrients, especially carbohydrates. That has come at the expense of protective phytochemicals. This where the plants we define as herbs have a clear advantage.

Mushrooms growing on tree trunk, surrounded by greenery

Herbs are wild plants. Their value isn’t supplying nutrients. If you had to depend on eating herbs as a sole food source, you’d go hungry. Herbs, however, are an excellent source of protective phytochemicals — their true value is protecting cells. The wild plants defined as herbs are plants that humans have selectively been using for thousands of years for both culinary and medicinal purposes.

Adding Herbs for Organ and Cellular Protection

Adding herbs into your life provides a level of protection to your cells unmatched by any food source or multivitamin product. A good place to start is taking a few herbal ingredients along with your multivitamin. Some possible choices that provide exceptional protection for cells of the body against every type of possible stress include:

green leaves with white flowers

Trans-resveratrol from Japanese knotweed

Trans-resveratrol, the most bioavailable form of resveratrol, is well-known for offering cardiovascular support and antioxidant properties.

brown pine bark pieces

Pine Bark Extract

Potent antioxidants and other chemical compounds in Pine Bark Extract help the body maintain vascular tissue and support the integrity of blood vessels. PBE is also supportive to the immune system.

purple milk thistle flower

Milk Thistle Extract

Silymarin, the primary chemical component of milk thistle, offers potent support for the liver; it increases natural antioxidants found in liver cells. It is the most widely researched of all liver-related herbs and is well known for low toxicity and safety.

red hawthorn berries

Hawthorn Leaf Extract

Supports the cardiovascular system, blood flow to the heart, oxygen delivery to tissues, and healthy blood vessels.

purple powder

Maqui Berry

Maqui Berry is a Patagonian berry that is wild-harvested by the Mapuche people of Chile and Argentina. Their traditional Maqui Berry beverage is credited for contributing to their extraordinary strength and stamina.

orange flowers

Lutein & Zeaxanthin

These twin carotenoid compounds account for the yellow color in vegetables. They build up in the retina of the eye and maintain a healthy retina during normal exposure to sunlight. They also accumulate in the skin to support its health. Prevention Plus contains the same amount of these substances as compared to ocular supplements recommended by ophthalmologists.

Adding Herbs for Stress and Optimal Health

If you’re under stress or want to gain even more protection for your cells, consider adding on some herbs with adaptogenic properties. All herbal traditions recognize herbs with nonspecific properties that can be used daily to invigorate the body and promote longevity. In Traditional Chinese Medicine, they’re called tonics. In Ayurvedic medicine, the traditional medicine of India, they’re referred to as rasayanas. In the second half of the twentieth century, Western science began categorizing these and other herbs as adaptogens.

Herbs that fit the definition of adaptogen have been defined by science to:

  • Assist the body in resisting a wide range of physical, chemical, and biological stress factors.
  • Have nonspecific actions in the body that do not cause drug-like effects.
  • Are non-toxic and do not harm or disrupt normal functions in the body

collage of nine herb photos, mixture of leaves, mushrooms, powders, and bark

There are many herbs defined as adaptogens or herbs that complement adaptogens that can be taken daily to protect cells from stress and support optimal health. A few to consider are:

  • Rhodiola
  • Reishi
  • Cordyceps
  • Ashwagandha
  • Gotu kola
  • Turmeric
  • Japanese knotweed
  • Chinese skullcap
  • Shilajit

The Bottom Line

Your cells must have vitamins and minerals to function. A healthy diet is the best source, but admittedly, eating healthy all the time can be challenging. A multivitamin can help fill the void, but bioavailable forms are always the best choice. The limitation of multivitamins must be respected, however; multivitamins have little capacity to protect cells from stress and therefore shouldn’t be expected to reduce risks of chronic illness and cancer.

Herbs have a clear advantage for protecting cells against stress — the spectrum of phytochemicals in herbs protect cells against all types of stress. When cells aren’t stressed, they don’t have to work as hard, use fewer nutrients, and burn out slower.

Why not take both? Why not ensure your cells have a ready supply of bioavailable vitamins and minerals and protect your cells with herbal phytochemicals at the same time? Combining a daily herbal product with bioavailable vitamins and minerals may be the best of all possibilities!

Looking for More Wellness Tips?

Join our newsletter for bi-weekly tools, education, and savings to boost your health.

References
1. Jenkins, DJA et al. “Supplemental Vitamins and Minerals for CVD Prevention and Treatment.” J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jun 5;71(22):2570-2584.
2. Chen, Fan et al. “Association Between Dietary Supplement Use, Nutrient Intake, and Mortality Among US Adults: A Cohort Study.” Ann Intern Med. 2019 May 7; 170(9): 604–613.
3. Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School. “Vitamins and your heart.” Healthbeat. Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/vitamins-and-your-heart
4. Tapsell, Linda C. et al. “Foods, Nutrients, and Dietary Patterns: Interconnections and Implications for Dietary Guidelines.” Adv Nutr. 2016 May; 7(3): 445–454.
5. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. “Reduction in the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes with Lifestyle Intervention or Metformin.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2002 Feb 7; 346(6): 393–403.
6. Dehghan, Mahshid et al. “Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study.” Lancet. 2017 Nov 4; 390(10107): 2050-2062
7. National Center of Complementary and Integrative Health. “Rhodiola.” Retrieved from https://nccih.nih.gov/health/rhodiola
8. Hewlings, Susan J. and Kalman, Douglas S. “Curcumin: A Review of Its’ Effects on Human Health.” Foods. 2017 Oct; 6(10): 92.
9. Ratan ZA, Youn SH, Kwak YS, et al. Adaptogenic effects of Panax ginseng on modulation of immune functions. J Ginseng Res. 2021;45(1):32-40. doi:10.1016/j.jgr.2020.09.004
10. Liao LY, He YF, Li L, et al. A preliminary review of studies on adaptogens: comparison of their bioactivity in TCM with that of ginseng-like herbs used worldwide. Chin Med. 2018;13:57. Published 2018 Nov 16. doi:10.1186/s13020-018-0214-9
11. Panossian AG, Efferth T, Shikov AN, et al. Evolution of the adaptogenic concept from traditional use to medical systems: Pharmacology of stress- and aging-related diseases. Med Res Rev. 2021;41(1):630-703. doi:10.1002/med.21743

https://danielcameronmd.com/involuntary-body-movements-lyme-disease/  Postcast Here

INVOLUNTARY BODY MOVEMENTS DUE TO LYME DISEASE DISMISSED AS PSYCHOSOMATIC

involuntary body movements lyme disease

Hello, and welcome to another Inside Lyme Podcast. I am your host Dr. Daniel Cameron. In this episode, I’ll be discussing a case involving a man in his 70’s who had an abrupt onset of involuntary body movements, including jerks in his left arm. The man was initially dismissed as having a functional disorder, when in fact, his involuntary body movements was due to Lyme disease.

Li and colleagues described this case, entitled “Lyme neuroborreliosis presenting as spinal myoclonus” in the journal BMJ Case Rep.. [1]

While visiting the Czech Republic, the man developed a large round erythematous rash on his left arm.  He also removed a tick from his thigh. Doctors prescribed amoxicillin and the rash resolved within 3 days.

Three weeks later, the man was evaluated at a clinic in Canada for radicular pain down his left arm. His symptoms progressed, which included involuntary body movements in multiple limbs.   “Within 1 week, these jerks progressed to his contralateral arm and bilateral legs as well as the trunk, consistent with propriospinal myoclonus,” the authors explain.

Propriospinal Myoclonus (PSM) is an extremely uncommon movement disorder characterized by myoclonic jerks, writes Verma and colleagues,2 adding that “PSM has sometimes been dismissed as psychogenic in some cases.”

Multiple Emergency Room Visits

The man, who presented to multiple emergency rooms, was given Pregabalin to treat his pain. Doctors diagnosed the patient with a functional disorder.

During this third visit to the emergency room, the man was finally diagnosed with Lyme disease. Laboratory tests were positive for Lyme disease by IgM EIA and Lyme IgM Western blot.

He subsequently tested positive for Borrelia afzelli. His spinal tap revealed an elevated protein with a lymphocytic pleocytosis.  His MRI showed abnormal patchy cauda equina nerve root enhancement and anterior spinal cord enhancement at C5–C6.

The patient was treated successfully for Lyme disease with 7 weeks of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

This is not the first case of propriospinal myoclonus. Propriospinal myoclonus was described in a 60-year-old woman following a tick bite and erythema migrans, the authors write. However, a spinal tap later revealed she was positive for Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies.

Editor’s note: This is a good example of a Lyme disease patient being dismissed as having a psychogenic or functional disorder instead of being recognized as involuntary body movements lyme disease.  The authors published a photo of the rash which was clearly a typical erythema migrans (EM) rash. The initial 3-day course of antibiotics would not be expected to be effective in treating Lyme disease.

The following questions are addressed in this episode:

  1. What is radicular pain?
  2. Can involuntary body movements be a symptom of Lyme disease?
  3. The patient was treated briefly for the rash. Your thoughts?
  4. What is propriospinal myoclonus?
  5. This movement disorder is often dismissed as a psychogenic illness?
  6. What is the significance of a diagnosis of psychogenic illness?
  7. The patient wasn’t diagnosed with Lyme disease until his 3rd ED visit?
  8. How do you interpret the laboratory tests?
  9. What are your thoughts about this patient’s treatment?

    Thanks for listening to another Inside Lyme Podcast. You can read more about these cases in my show notes and on my website @DanielCameronMD.com. As always, it is your likes, comments, reviews, and shares that help spread the word about Lyme disease. Until next time on Inside Lyme.

      Please remember that the advice given is general and not intended as specific advice as to any particular patient. If you require specific advice, then please seek that advice from an experienced professional.

      Inside Lyme Podcast Series

      This Inside Lyme case series will be discussed on my Facebook and made available on podcast and YouTube.  As always, it is your likes, comments, and shares that help spread the word about this series and our work. If you can, please leave a review on iTunes or wherever else you get your podcasts.

      References:
      1. Li X, Kirschner A, Metrie M, Loeb M. Lyme neuroborreliosis presenting as spinal myoclonus. BMJ Case Rep. Dec 29 2019;12(12)doi:10.1136/bcr-2019-233162
      2. Verma R, Praharaj HN, Raut TP, Rai D. Propriospinal myoclonus: is it always psychogenic? BMJ Case Rep. Jul 29 2013;2013doi:10.1136/bcr-2013-009559

      _______________________

      **Comment**

      Another symptom that is frankly so bizarre that it’s hard to believe, until you’ve had it yourself.  

      Mainstream medicine needs to wake up.

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-senate-hearing-reveals-only-a-little-over-half-of-nih-fda-employees-have-taken-coronavirus-vaccine

      US Senate hearing reveals only a little over half of NIH, FDA employees have taken coronavirus vaccine

      Testifying before the U.S. Senate, Dr. Anthony Fauci said ‘a little bit more than half, probably around 60 percent’ of employees have taken one of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC’s Dr. Rochelle Walesnsky said she doesn’t know how many CDC employees are vaccinated.
      Mon May 24, 2021 
      Featured Image

      WASHINGTON, D.C., May 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said during a U.S. Senate hearing that he estimates just under half of employees at the NIH have not taken a COVID-19 vaccine.  (See link for article)

      ____________________________

      **Comment**

      Director of the CDC, Dr. Walesnsky doesn’t know how many CDC workers have taken the jab because neither the injections nor reporting of injections is mandated for employees.

      The article points out that Reuters immediately swung into “fact-check” mode so the public wouldn’t develop any sort of “vaccine” hesitancy.

      “This fact-check is technically correct only,” Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor told LifeSiteNews. “Yes, the quote [about ‘refusing’] appears to be wrong, but that’s not why Reuters went after it. This is a narrative check.”

      “If ordinary Americans realize even a large number of people at government health agencies aren’t getting the vaccine, then they might not as well,” he explained. “That’s become the main goal of so-called fact-checks — to push a media-approved narrative. These fact-checks are then used to lower the number of people who see content the press doesn’t approve of and, in some cases, ban those outlets entirely. For daring to disagree.”

      Make sure to be aware of the backstory surrounding all of this.

      Be aware of the many deaths and adverse reactions after these injections.

      For more:

      https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/24/delay-vaccination-for-people-with-covid-19-infections.aspx?  Interview with Dr. Noorchashm in Link

      If You’ve Had COVID, Please Don’t Get Vaccinated

      Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked  May 24, 2021
      STORY AT-A-GLANCE
      • An international survey of 2,002 people found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine
      • Dr. Hooman Noorchashm has repeatedly warned the FDA that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated
      • At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected; the immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens exist
      • The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage, which could lead to major thromboembolic complications
      • Noorchashm believes that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination, while vaccination should be delayed for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus

      In their race to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population, health officials are urging everyone to get a COVID shot, regardless of whether or not they’ve already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and spending billions of dollars in taxpayer funded propaganda to convince people to get the vaccine.

      This is an important distinction, however, with at least one scientist warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated.

      That scientist — Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate — warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.1

      Unfortunately, health agencies continue to assert that everyone should get vaccinated, even if they’ve already acquired natural immunity via previous infection.

      CDC: Get Vaccinated Even if You’ve Had COVID

      The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19. Despite this, they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated:2

      “You should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again.”

      Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. This is why, for instance, proof of prior diagnosis with chickenpox, measles and mumps is allowed instead of vaccination to enter most U.S. public schools3 — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune.

      If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:4

      “If you have had COVID-19, you have some protection against reinfection. This means that you are less likely to become infected and seriously ill, and less likely to infect others if you are exposed to the virus again.

      Over time, the protection that you get after an infection wanes and there is an increased risk of getting infected again. At present, we estimate that the protection after having had COVID-19 lasts at least six months from the time of infection.”

      People With Prior COVID Have More Vaccination Side Effects

      An international survey of 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine.5 Those who had previously had COVID-19 had a greater risk of experiencing any side effect, along with the following, specifically:

      Fever

      Breathlessness

      Flu-like illness

      Fatigue

      Local reactions

      Severe side effects leading to hospital care

      The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but the mRNA side effects tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.

      According to the researchers, the findings should prompt health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:6

      “People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.

      Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.

      In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”

      Surgeon Warns of Immunological Dangers, Blood Clots

      Noorchashm has written multiple letters to the FDA, warning them that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”7

      He describes the case of 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman of New York, who died within one day of receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

      “There will be many more in the coming months as we carelessly and indiscriminately vaccinate the already infected, millions a day … It is a near certainty,” he continued.8 At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected.

      The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.9 According to Noorchashm:10

      “Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium.

      Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients. If a majority of younger more robust patients might tolerate such vascular injury from a vaccine immune response, many elderly and frail patients with cardiovascular disease will not.”

      What’s more, Noorchashm quotes one of his previous medical school professors, who said, “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know.” In the case of a vaccine-induced antigen specific immune response, which may trigger thromboembolic complications 10 to 20 days after vaccination, including in those who may already be elderly and frail, the reaction isn’t likely to be registered as a vaccine-related adverse event.

      Immediately Delay Vaccination for These Key Groups

      In his repeated letters to the FDA, Noorchashm suggests that the FDA “immediately and at the very minimum” delay COVID-19 vaccination for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus.

      Because so many cases are asymptomatic, he recommends clinicians “actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”11 As it stands, Noorchashm points out that by ignoring what he believes to be an imminent risk for a sizable minority of people, the FDA’s credibility, and that of the mass vaccination campaign in general, is at grave risk:12

      “Can you imagine if the public, without having received any real warning from FDA, becomes aware of an increasing number of such vascular/thromboembolic complications? What do you suppose will happen to the level of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ then?

      And, what kind of accountability do you think the public will demand from our experts and federal regulators — especially if they knew, or should have known, that this immunological danger might exist?

      The aim of benefiting the majority of our public and saving the nation from this pandemic by quick and aggressive vaccination is an ethically sound one — but where we know of real or likely risks of harm and mortality, we ought to mitigate the risks to those in potential harm’s way.

      So doing is the only reasonable, ethical, and likely legal option you can pursue as public health regulators — for in America, we no longer sacrifice the lives of minority subsets of people for the benefit of the majority.”

      At least 62 cases of myocarditis, or heart inflammation, in people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are being investigated by the Israel Health Ministry. Most of the cases occurred in men under the age of 30 who were in good health, and two deaths have been reported as a result.13,14

      No Proof of Efficacy in People Who’ve Had COVID-19

      In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.15

      But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong.”

      There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”16 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:17

      “At this stage, there is no need to systematically vaccinate people who have already developed a symptomatic form of Covid-19 unless they wish to do so following a decision shared with the doctor and within a minimum period of time. 3 months from the onset of symptoms.”

      When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls.

      “It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial,” Massey says in a “Full Measure” report.18

      CDC Allows Misinformation to Continue

      Massie spoke with multiple officials on numerous occasions, who acknowledged the misinformation and implied that it would be fixed.19,20 It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary.

      “As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:21

      “Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

      Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording just phrases the mistake in a different way and still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.22 Meanwhile, increasing numbers of breakthrough COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated are being reported, which the CDC has been reporting.

      As of April 26, 2021, there have been 9,245 reported cases of COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals, including 132 deaths.23 Note this is not total deaths from the vaccine, which is rapidly approaching 4,000.

      However, May 14, 2021, the CDC announced it will no longer report breakthrough cases unless they involve hospitalization or death,24 which will obscure the actual number of breakthrough cases occurring, artificially driving down rates and making the vaccines appear to be more effective.

      The CDC also changed recommendations on PCR tests for the fully vaccinated, which will further drive down the appearance of breakthrough cases by making them less likely to “test positive.”

      PCR tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 cycle thresholds (CTs),25 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,26as the accuracy will be extremely low, with false positives artificially driving up case numbers.

      In April 2021, the CDC recommended the CT be lowered to 28, but only for people who are fully vaccinated.27 Under this guidance, someone with a CT of 30 would not be considered to have COVID-19 if they were fully vaccinated, but if they were not, then their test would be “positive.” 

      This is beyond obvious that they are rigging the system to create data that fit their fake narrative, which is pushing the entire population to get a vaccine they don’t need, will harm or kill them and which will generate tens of billions of dollars in annual recurring revenue for the drug companies.

      In return, the drug companies have no legal risk for any complications, adverse effects or deaths and are given billions of dollars in free advertising from the U.S. taxpayers to get this dangerous gene therapy.

      The Big Lie — Natural Infection Isn’t Adequate

      Why is it that the media continue to promote the fake narrative that natural immunity — the type acquired by getting infected by and recovering from a virus — isn’t as powerful or long-lasting as vaccine-acquired immunity?28,29 Do you think it might be to support vaccine sales?

      Did they forget that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t intended to be a long-term solution, and have NEVER been shown to provide immunity benefits? The original warp speed test only showed reduced symptoms.

      Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla exacerbated this charade by stating that not only will people need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, but annual vaccination will probably be necessary.30

      Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated, however, for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.31,32 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.33

      There continue to be many unanswered questions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, many of which most of the public has never heard of, such as imprinting and Th2 immunopathology. If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in a giant experiment, acting as a guinea pig to see what will ultimately bear out.

      That being said, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:34

      1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
      2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
      3. Report the injury on the CHD website

      ________________________

      For more:

      “You see it in each country, it’s the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths.  I’m following this closely and I a doing experiments at the Institute with patients who became sick with Corona after being vaccinated. Luc Montagnier, French virologist

      • The group Doctors For COVID Ethics also recently wrote a paper where they state COVID injections are “needless, ineffective and dangerous.” They delivered notices of liability for COVID-19 “vaccine” harms and deaths to every member of the European parliament.
      Please educate yourself on the backstory of COVID.