Walker and Shapiro Fail to Change Report’s Chapter 7

September 29, 2020

https://www.lymedisease.org/touched-by-lyme-walker-shapiro-fail-to-change-reports-chapter-7/

TOUCHED BY LYME: Walker & Shapiro fail to change report’s Chapter 7

Drs. David Walker & Eugene Shapiro

The federal Tick-Borne Disease Working Group held another online meeting Tuesday. Its upcoming Report to Congress continues to inch towards completion.

At this stage of the game, the report consists of a series of recommendations that have already been approved by the panel. Still under discussion is proposed language to accompany those recommendations.

And, as we’ve all come to know, language concerning Lyme disease can be contentious indeed.

Which brings us to the TBDWG’s Chapter 7. It offers five recommendations having to do with educating doctors and the public, as well as the issue of patient access to care. Each recommendation comes with some explanatory paragraphs.

This subcommittee was co-chaired by Pat Smith, the only patient representative on the panel. In my view, this chapter succinctly conveys much of what the Lyme community wants from the Working Group. And from Congress.

Where the rubber hits the road for Lyme patients

To offer a flavor of how the conversation went, here’s what went down with Chapter 7’s first recommendation. (I’ve put some words in blue for emphasis.)

Recommendation 7.1: Recommend Federal government websites and educational materials and seminars for clinicians, the public, and public health departments, which discuss Lyme disease, provide information that the state of the science relating to persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease, is limited, emerging, and unsettled; and increase public awareness that there are divergent views on diagnosis and treatment. Consider that shared medical decision-making may be appropriate in some circumstances.

Bear in mind that 7.1 was approved—though not without opposition—during a prior meeting. Nothing at this meeting would change that. These guys were only voting on the language to explain the reasoning behind the recommendation.

Here’s the accompanying text:

Patients with persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease face significant issues of patient access to care involving both providers and insurers, as well as the need for shared medical decision-making in the face of uncertainty. Unfortunately, patients with persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease report that they are systematically denied access to the care they need. For example:

  • 67% report they have postponed or avoided medical treatment due to discrimination, disrespect, or difficulty in obtaining care, and nearly half report they have been denied treatment (Johnson, Stigma, 2019).
  • The majority of over 2,400 survey respondents report traveling more than 50 miles and a substantial minority traveling more than 500 miles for Lyme disease treatment. (Johnson, 2011).
  • 50% of the participants in the MyLymeData patient registry report that their clinicians do not accept insurance coverage; 26% report that they cannot find a clinician who treats persistent Lyme disease; and 18% report that they do not use antibiotics because their insurance will not cover them. (Johnson, Chart Book, 2019).
  • The majority of persistent Lyme patients seeking care at their local hospital report that they had difficulty obtaining treatment (Johnson, 2011); some hospitals deny hospital privileges to physicians and other practitioners who do not follow the IDSA Lyme disease guidelines. (Stricker and Johnson, 2009; Johnson and Stricker, 2010; Wolfram 2008.)
  • 78% of patients with persistent Lyme disease report a delay of six months or more in their diagnosis (Johnson, 2018) and a majority of patients reported seeing seven or more clinicians before being diagnosed (Johnson et all, 2011).

Two panelists kick up a fuss

Can you guess which parts of Chapter 7 made Dr. Eugene Shapiro and Co-chair Dr. David Walker go absolutely nuts? Here are some hints:

At every mention of “persistent” symptoms in Lyme disease, Shapiro wrote margin notes such as “untrue and unsubstantiated,” which quickly flashed across our computer screens. He similarly opposed any reference to the ILADS guidelines, though the rest of the group chose to keep the references in.

During the panel’s discussion, Shapiro dismissed and denigrated anything taken from MyLymeData, LymeDisease.org’s patient registry. He called it “propaganda.” He said patient registries have no scientific validity.

Pat Smith sharply countered that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lists 72 patient registries on its website, including ones for such conditions as Alzheimer’s disease and breast cancer. The CDC sponsors a patient registry for ALS.

And scientific validity? The National Science Foundation awarded a sizable grant to UCLA researchers working with information from MyLymeData. Four published peer-reviewed studies use data from the registry, as well as seven white papers. (White papers compile information from research, but have not gone through peer review. The CDC and other health and scientific organizations use white papers all the time. It’s an accepted practice.)

Shapiro doesn’t care.

Treatment options? What options?

And what seemed to drive Co-chair Walker around the bend? The concept of “shared medical decision-making.”

Shared decision-making is not a new concept in health care. It basically means that your doctor explains all of your treatment options, and together you discuss them and decide which way to go. Medicare even specifically requires shared decision-making for many treatments. Even so, that process is typically denied to Lyme patients seeking anything beyond the meager and inadequate care offered by the IDSA treatment guidelines.

At first, Walker said shared decision-making was standard medical practice and it was utterly unnecessary to mention it in the report. He wanted to leave it out. When there was pushback to that suggestion, he scornfully responded:

“Does that mean I’m supposed to tell my patient to use crystals and homeopathy?”
Despite the fuss kicked up by Shapiro and Walker, however, Chapter 7’s language stayed intact and the caravan moved on. The next meeting is October 27.

See also:

Our summary of TBD Working Group’s Sept. 22 meeting, in tweets

Will Working Group acknowledge patient voices?

TBD Working Group and FACA’s open meeting rules

Our petition to keep Eugene Shapiro off the TBD Working Group

How you can enroll in MyLymeData

TOUCHED BY LYME is written by Dorothy Kupcha Leland, LymeDisease.org’s Vice-president and Director of Communications. She is co-author of When Your Child Has Lyme Disease: A Parent’s Survival Guide. Contact her at dleland@lymedisease.org.

Category:

Activism, Lyme

Comments Off on Walker and Shapiro Fail to Change Report’s Chapter 7

Bioweapon Labs Get More NIH Funding For Deadly ‘Research’ & The Wolf Guards the COVID-19 Hen House

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/09/29/bioweapon-labs-nih-funding-for-deadly-research.

Bioweapon Labs Get More NIH Funding for Deadly ‘Research’

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

September 29, 2020

bioweapon lab

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • EcoHealth Alliance collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for years, collecting coronavirus samples from bats and manipulating it to jump to humans
  • The dangerous gain-of-function research was carried out via a grant awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  • The grant was cut off in April 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic gained steam, and U.S. intelligence agencies started to look into whether the coronavirus that started it all escaped from a biological laboratory in Wuhan, China
  • In August 2020, however, the NIH pivoted, granting a new $7.5-million grant to EcoHealth Alliance — part of an $82-million award being split among 11 research teams looking into the origins of viruses and how they infect people
  • The controversial move means that EcoHealth Alliance’s work will continue, this time targeting Southeast Asia instead of China

EcoHealth Alliance, a corporate-funded nonprofit organization that seeks to uncover novel viruses in the environment, has been working in China for decades, trapping bats and looking for previously unknown coronaviruses that could lead to a global pandemic.1

This may come as a surprise to many, but even more surprising is the fact that the research was carried out via a grant awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).2

While the grant was initially supposed to continue through 2024, it was cut off in April 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic gained steam, and U.S. intelligence agencies started to look into whether the coronavirus that started it all escaped from a biological laboratory in Wuhan, China.3

EcoHealth Alliance collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for years, collecting coronavirus samples from bats and investigating whether they could jump to humans,4 and the NIH told the nonprofit that the project “no longer fit with NIH goals and priorities.”5

In August 2020, however, the NIH pivoted, granting a new $7.5 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance — part of an $82 million award being split among 11 research teams looking into the origins of viruses and how they infect people. The controversial move means that EcoHealth Alliance’s work will continue, this time targeting Southeast Asia instead of China.6

EcoHealth Alliance’s Controversial Gain-of-Function Research

Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, including enhancing either their pathogenicity or transmissibility.7Such research is by its very nature controversial, since there are clear risks should the information be misused or the pathogens escape (or are maliciously released).

Further, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and virologist and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a geneticist, believe gain-of-function research performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology played “an essential causative role in the pandemic.”8 Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, however, said that the funding cut to their China bat research project would pose a threat to the U.S. public health.

“Once this pandemic is over, we know of hundreds of other coronaviruses that we’ve found evidence of in China that are waiting to emerge,” Daszak said in an interview with NPR. “We are now going to be unable to know about the risk of that, which puts us completely at risk of the next pandemic.“9

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, has also long backed dangerous GOF coronavirus research, including that conducted by EcoHealth Alliance. According to Newsweek:10

“Just last year [2019], the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID], the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

Daszak to Lead COVID-19 Task Force

Outrageously, Daszak has also been appointed to lead a task force examining whether COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab, as part of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, which is looking into a variety of issues surrounding the pandemic and offering practical solutions.11 Part of the commission’s goal is to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and avert future zoonotic pandemics.

While Daszak said he would head the investigation with an open mind, critics such as Filippa Lentzos, an expert on biological threats at King’s College London, wrote on Twitter:

“Goodness. I can’t imagine a lead investigator with more vested interests!”12,13

Not only has Daszak been widely criticized for spreading misinformation surrounding the origins of COVID-19 previously, but his longtime collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has been identified as the most probable source of a laboratory leak, is a glaring conflict of interest. If it’s found that COVID-19 did, in fact, leak from a lab, the work of Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance could come under fire, and future funding could be put in jeopardy.

As reported in GM Watch, “… if more scientists fail to speak out against his appointment as the Lancet Commission’s lead investigator, it will reflect the success of a censorship strategy that has not just allowed Daszak to evade serious scrutiny but to be put in charge of investigating himself and his associates.”14

Hundreds of Scientists Called for End of GOF Research in 2014

In 2014, a series of accidents at laboratories led to more than 300 scientists to launch a petition calling for an end to gain-of-function research.15 The U.S. issued a temporary pause as a result16but, according to Ronnie Cummins, co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Alexis Baden-Mayer, OCA’s political director:

“Exemptions to this ‘pause,’ eventually reviewed by a secret government panel, were nonetheless allowed to go forward. The ban was lifted in 2017. Yet between 2014 and 2016, the NIH and Fauci-led NIAID continued funding gain-of-function research overseas at the Wuhan lab, via Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance.

Not surprisingly both Fauci and Daszak have been staunch defenders of the official Chinese government story that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) ‘naturally’ evolved from bats and/or other host species to infect humans.”

In the NPR interview, Daszak said he really doesn’t understand the rationale behind the funding cut from NIH,17 as they were only researching how coronaviruses may spread from bats to people. But as Cummins and Baden-Mayer explained in my interview with them (linked above):

“Daszak and his collaborators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology18 weren’t just studying how coronavirus spread from bats to humans, they were actually making coronavirus capable of spreading from bats to humans. They were the first to create19 a bat coronavirus capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host).

EcoHealth Alliance has since funded additional gain-of-function research that Daszak has championed — without acknowledging his connection.”

Bat Virus Made Capable of Infecting Human Airway Cells

In 2015, the University of North Carolina collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, performing gain-of-function research in which bat viruses were manipulated to create a chimeric virus capable of binding to human upper airway cells. That particular virus was called SHC014-MA15.20

EcoHealth Alliance had funded the research with a U.S. grant,21 but this wasn’t mentioned by Nature, which quoted Daszak as saying the findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger.”22 Cummins and Baden-Mayer pointed out the irony of this statement:

“Daszak’s statement is odd, as it seems obvious that it was the research itself that made the virus a clear and present danger, and that couldn’t be what he meant.

… Even the creators of the coronavirus-SARS chimaera questioned the wisdom of tinkering with viruses to make them more dangerous to humans. As Nature reported, in their paper the study authors conceded that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future.”23

In my previously linked article, they added:

“‘Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue,’ they write, adding that discussion is needed as to ‘whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.’”

NIH Conditions for Restoring Prior Grant Go Unmet

EcoHealth Alliance’s new grant is distinct from the previous grant that funded the Chinese bat research. The new grant is intended to fund the creation of the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases, or CREID, a network of centers focusing on different geographical regions.

EcoHealth Alliance will be conducting research on coronaviruses and other pathogens that may emerge from bats, rodents and primates in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia.24 As for their earlier grant, the NIH notified EcoHealth Alliance that they may restore its funding for the Chinese research if they meet certain conditions, including the following:25

  • Obtain a sample of the SARS-COV-2 virus that the Wuhan lab used to determine its genetic sequence
  • Have independent scientists examine the Wuhan lab to determine if it had possession of SARS-COV-2 prior to December 2019
  • Determine the whereabouts of a Wuhan lab scientist whose photo was mysteriously removed from its website

According to NPR, “The scientist has been the focus of internet conspiracy theories suggesting she was in fact ‘patient zero’ for the coronavirus. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has previously said that the scientist in question was a graduate student who had finished her master’s degree and moved on to other work.”26

EcoHealth Alliance has not met the conditions for the funding to be restored, with Daszak calling them “preposterous” and telling NPR, “I’m not trained as a private detective. It’s not really my job to do that.”27 The conditions do seem unusual, particularly for a U.S. government agency to be requesting of a nonprofit organization — unless, perhaps, they believe the organization knows something they don’t.

NIH Investigation Reveals Rampant Undisclosed Ties to China

The U.S. NIH is investigating 189 scientists from 87 institutions for undisclosed ties to foreign institutions, with 54 being fired or forced to resign as a result.28

Among them,

  • 93% received undisclosed support from China
  • many had active NIH grants while accepting foreign grants that were not disclosed
  • About 75% of those being investigated had received active NIH grants
  • close to half had at least two of them
  • In all, 285 active grants totaling $164 million were counted among those being investigated

Such ties are rampant, and 133, or 70%, of the researchers being investigated did not disclose to the NIH that they had received foreign grants. More than half (54%) also did not disclose their participation in a foreign talent program, while 9% hid ties to a foreign company and 4% did not disclose a foreign patent.29,30

The investigation is part of larger efforts to limit threats to the U.S. economy and national security, as cutting-edge technologies and other information at the forefront of new industries that is being supported by federally funded research could be flowing into the wrong hands.

A broader investigation is also ongoing, with NIH highlighting 399 scientists “of possible concern,” 121 of which the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also investigating.

According to Dr. Michael Lauer, NIH’s deputy director for extramural research, after the NIH looked into the scientists “of possible concern,” 63% of the investigations came back positive, revealing the true scope of the underhanded dealings.31

Meanwhile, Fauci, who also supported GOF research on bird flu viruses 10 years ago,32 continues to support EcoHealth Alliance and their research into novel diseases, noting in a statement about the latest grants, “The CREID network will enable early warnings of emerging diseases wherever they occur, which will be critical to rapid responses.”33

In reality, should further GOF research be allowed to continue, it’s possible that it could “seed” another pandemic.34 Admittedly, it’s quite a coincidence that the very viruses undergoing gain-of-function research turned out to be the ones causing pandemics.

____________________

**Comment**

Humanity is often times very, very stupid.

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/07/29/usas-history-of-testing-bioweapons-on-the-public-were-ticks-used-too/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/25/why-should-we-care-about-lyme-disease-a-colorful-tale-of-government-conflicts-of-interest-probable-bioweaponization-and-pathogen-complexity/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/07/19/biological-warfare-experiment-on-american-citizens-results-in-spreading-pandemic/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/16/48473/?  Secret History of Lyme Disease & Biological Weapons – Most Revealing Interview with Kris Newby

Do you honestly think the public will ever get a straight answer on the tinkering of ticks and releasing them from airplanes in light of the ongoing ‘gain of function’ research?  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/07/31/tick-expert-admits-to-working-on-ticks-dropping-them-out-of-airplanes/

 

Category:

Activism, research, Viruses

Comments Off on Bioweapon Labs Get More NIH Funding For Deadly ‘Research’ & The Wolf Guards the COVID-19 Hen House

COVID Endgame

September 28, 2020

Although, not related to Lyme/MSIDS, this concerns us all.  Please inform yourself and others.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/loretta-mester-hints-fed-preparing-deposit-digital-dollars-directly-each-american

In Unprecedented Monetary Overhaul, The Fed Is Preparing To Deposit “Digital Dollars” Directly To “Each American”

Excerpt from article:   

So this morning, as if to confirm our speculation of what comes next, Cleveland Fed president Loretta Mester delivered a speech to the Chicago Payment Symposium titled “Payments and the Pandemic“, in which after going through the big picture boilerplate, Mester goes straight to the matter at hand.

In the section titled “Central Bank Digital Currencies”, the Cleveland Fed president writes that “the experience with pandemic emergency payments has brought forward an idea that was already gaining increased attention at central banks around the world, that is, central bank digital currency (CBDC).”

And in the shocking punchline, then goes on to reveal that “legislation has proposed that each American have an account at the Fed in which digital dollars could be deposited, as liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, which could be used for emergency payments.“

______________________

**Comment**

The article points out the obvious – that by launching this, the Fed would be able to scrap “anonymous” physical currency, track every single banknote through its lifetime, remotely delete it, make traditional banking obsolete, by-pass Congress, and quietly allow a ‘handful of technocrats’ to quietly take over the United States.

Still think this is just about a virus?

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Comments Off on COVID Endgame

Bad Medicine & COVID19

https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2020/09/27/bad-medicine-and-covid19/

Bad Medicine and COVID19

1-1

Kim Mack Rosenberg and Laraine Abbey-Katzev

Jameslyonsweiler.com Contributors

What is “Bad medicine”? It is both the use of medical interventions that cause more harm than good as well as the failure to use truly helpful interventions. Bad medicine is also the failure to personalize approaches to health that match an individual patient’s needs. With the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 crisis that has put our nation – and much of the world – on an unending lockdown, medicine has run amuck.

Why, more than six months into this situation, is Anthony Fauci just now mentioning the value of Vitamins C and D, both of which are highly protective for contracting viruses? Why wasn’t he loudly and regularly encouraging every American to protect and boost their immune systems with these widely available inexpensive (hello sunshine and Vitamin D!) vitamins from the very beginning?

Here we review some examples of Bad Medicine in relation to COVID19, including Misuse and overuse of ventilators for COVID-19 patients, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials, the failure to use effective (and often inexpensive) therapies, and what may be the biggest “bad medicine” debacle out there – the flu vaccine.

  1. Over-Use of Ventilators for COVID-19 Patients was Bad Medicine

Early reports of large percentages of patients dying when placed on ventilators were deeply concerning. Doctors since have learned that not all COVID-19 patients need ventilation, that they were ventilating too many patients and too soon. Where was the precautionary principle among the panic?  https://bit.ly/363aDM3; https://wapo.st/3kJa2TY

  • SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Trials are Bad Medicine

Many pages could be devoted to issues in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials. Vaccine development is indeed proceeding at warp speed but we need to ask, at what cost? We now have serious neurological injury –including at least one case and possibly two cases transverse myelitis – in the Oxford/Astra Zeneca trials: https://nyti.ms/2FXcjMB and other significant injuries in the early Moderna trials: https://bit.ly/307MAYB We must demand greater transparency on all injuries to fully understand vaccine risks The most compelling questions are the long and short term potential harms signaled from the clinical trials:

  • What impact will messenger RNA (mRNA), used in several vaccine candidates, have on vaccinated people? Even very “pro” mRNA vaccine professionals recognize that there are risks associated with mRNA vaccines – none of which has yet made it to commercial production – including, in particular, the risk of autoimmune diseases (https://go.nature.com/2EzKpFQ) – despite no evidence the public will be screened for autoimmune risks before mass vaccination.  
  • What about the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the manufacture of several candidate vaccines: https://bit.ly/2G0JVZT? These consequences of the injection of cells containing both male and female human DNA in various vaccines are not known.
  • What about use of polyethylene glycol (PEG), a synthetic chemical to which over 70% of people are sensitive –a significant number sensitive to the point of risking anaphylaxis? Moderna has added this dangerous chemical to its vaccine and went so far as to warn its shareholders that use of PEG was risky to the bottom-line but does not tell clinical trial participants of the risk to them and does not test participants for PEG sensitivity.  https://bit.ly/3i2YlWtNot only does PEG carry safety risks, but it may also reduce vaccine efficacy!
  • What about risk of antibody dependent enhancement (or “pathogenic priming”), which creates a possibility that a vaccinated person later exposed to the disease develops far worse symptoms or even dies from a hyper-immune reaction? This risk was seen in animal trials for SARS vaccines years ago and in the recent scandal with Dengvaxia, a dengue fever vaccine, in the Philippines. https://bit.ly/33V6Q0N
  • A silver lining?
  • The distrust surrounding the pharmaceutical industry and government has resulted in Pharma taking the unprecedented step of releasing several trial protocols but we must look at that carefully to determine if these trials were set up for “success” even if the vaccines are not actually safe or effective: https://wb.md/2S9F77f
  • Ignoring or Disparaging Good Medicine is Bad Medicine

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-USA) details in their article titled “COVID 411” many specific nutrients that are among the most noteworthy preventives for boosting our immune systems before we get sick. https://bit.ly/2QMBh3d. In particular, a number of therapies and medicines, particularly when combined with zinc, are promising:

Additionally, there are many other natural therapies and oxidative therapies (using ozone or hydrogen peroxide, for example) that doctors such as David Brownstein, MD, are using with great success: https://bit.ly/34Xz9xA; https://bit.ly/3gQU6Ne. The MATH+ protocol from the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance for severely ill patients is also an good resource: https://bit.ly/3h0Hnrr; https://bit.ly/3bjgOfP.

  • Influenza and Flu Vaccines Shenanigans are Bad Medicine

Del Bigtree really nailed the coffin on flu vaccines on the September 24,2020 episode of The High Wire, entitled “Twindemic 2020?” Watch this episode for the most up to date information https://bit.ly/3i3iBqT – the flu issue is addressed beginning around minute 48.

The influenza vaccine’s risk/benefit ratio is high – vaccinating can cause very serious conditions, including neurological harm, autoimmune disease, and death. https://bit.ly/2RYS3wm We also know that getting a flu shot increases your risk of developing more serious non-flu respiratory infections (including some coronavirus infections). https://bit.ly/3ctdbo0   How do we justify the continued push for universal flu shots when the harm outweighs the good?

Yet, the pharmaceutical industry, with their allies in public health and at CDC, present flu as a major cause of death in the U.S., and push flu shots as if they have saved many lives. This information may help put things in perspective:

  • Flu shots have caused more bad reactions than all other vaccines combined according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. “Seven out of ten petitions filed between 2016 and 2017 to the NVICP were related to damages following influenza vaccine to adults or children…”  https://bit.ly/2G4XFm8
  • Flu shots only prevent actual influenza A or B infections, and their effectiveness varies from 10-60% and in most years recently are under 50% effective and often under 30% effective. https://bit.ly/2FRnypY; https://bit.ly/2G4XFm8
  • The CDC reported that in the 2018-19 flu season: “Among adults hospitalized for the flu, the vaccine’s effectiveness against the H3N2 strain was reported at -43 percent.” This indicates that those who got their flu shot were more likely to be hospitalized for flu than those who did not get the vaccine!  https://bit.ly/2FWKoMM
  • A 2009 study by the American Thoracic Society found “…children who had received the flu vaccine [trivalent inactivated flu vaccine—TIV] had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization [all emphasis mine] in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not…” This makes the emphasis for asthmatics to take flu shots particularly alarming. https://bit.ly/3ctdMpK
  • Over 80% of influenza-like illness – what people generally call “the flu” – are NOT type A or B influenza. They are viral or bacterial flu-like illnesses which are not covered by influenza vaccines.  https://bit.ly/2FRnypY.
  • According to the American Lung Association, flu-caused deaths, as recorded on death certificates over a 13-year period, range between a mere 257-1812 deaths per year in the entire U.S.!  https://bit.ly/3652eYD (p.5).
  • CDC lumps the pneumonia deaths together with flu deaths, but most pneumonia deaths are unrelated to influenza and therefore could not be prevented or lessened by a flu shot – even if they worked! https://bit.ly/3652eYD
  • Universal flu shots violate science and common sense given their high risk to benefit ratio and fact that “Only about 3 percent of pneumonia and influenza deaths occurred in those under age 45.” https://bit.ly/3652eYD (p.6).

CALL TO ACTION: Contact FDA and vaccine manufacturers and demand transparency in all aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials. Call your governor and state and federal legislators and challenge them on flu vaccine mandates. Educate your health care provider about options for early therapeutic interventions of COVID19.

 

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Comments Off on Bad Medicine & COVID19

The Social Consequences of Chronic Pain

https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2020/9/12/the-social-consequences-of-chronic-pain

The Social Consequences of Chronic Pain

iu-10

By Ann Marie Gaudon, PNN Columnist

When someone suffers acute pain from an accident or injury, a positive consequence is that it evokes care and compassion from others. However, when that pain becomes chronic, you don’t often receive flowers, cooked meals and offers of help. Your social connections may suffer, too.

That’s not a small issue for pain patients. A 2008 study found that maintaining social activities are just as important for people in pain as many of the physical and psychological consequences of chronic pain.

Let’s take a look at a short list of five ways that chronic pain challenges the maintenance of social relationships.  (See link for article)

_____________________

**Comment**

An unfortunate truth not only experienced by pain patients but any chronically ill person.

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/26/why-social-distancing-should-not-be-the-new-normal/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/02/10-years-of-headaches-vertigo-and-other-pains-dismissed-as-depression/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/12/no-rash-no-fever-so-much-pain-the-case-of-illy-jaffers-painful-year/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/13/ldn-for-pain-autoimmune-disorders-cancer-and-lyme-msids/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/02/23/testosterone-replacement-in-chronic-pain-patients/

Category:

Pain Management, Psychological Aspects

Comments Off on The Social Consequences of Chronic Pain