Mayla Hsu, Ph.D., Director of Science and Research for GLA joined Ranger Ready Founder and CEO, Chris L. Fuentes, to give helpful tips on how the whole family can safely enjoy the outdoors.
Dr. Hsu & Fuentes addressed common misconceptions regarding ticks and Lyme disease.
“Your backyard is probably the most likely place to be bitten by a tick or bring a tick into your house,” said Fuentes.
I appreciated the video on how to apply repellent. Wearing a tucked in undershirt is smart (albeit hot!) as well as long white socks, tucking pants into the socks. Make sure to also spray shoes. I make everyone strip clothing off in garage, and then put all clothing into dryer on high for 20 min. Then, take a shower when coming indoors. You will need to apply permethrin onto clothing the day before use so there is plenty of time to dry. Spray ALL clothing, hats, socks, pants, shirts, etc. Picaradin is for your skin that you apply before you head outside. You need both types of repellents.
When talking about ticks – she states, “you can squash it.”Please, do not touch the tick if you squash it as you could potentially become infected this way. Many recommend testing the tick.Some states will do this free for residents. Unfortunately, Wisconsin does NOT do this.
More on Ranger Ready: https://rangerready.com They state their product lasts for 12 hours against ticks and mosquitoes. (I have no affiliation with this company)
When you have Lyme disease, the pursuit of sleep can become your white whale: You know you need it to help your body heal, and yet sleep evades you each time your head hits the pillow — even when you’re bone-tired and doing everything right to bring on slumber.
Why is sleep dysfunction so common among Lyme patients, and what can you do to get the restorative rest your body needs to fire up its natural healing processes?
Join a live webinar with Dr. Bill Rawls, author of the bestselling book Unlocking Lyme, who knows firsthand what it’s like to live with chronic Lyme disease and related sleep issues. He’ll shed new light on how Lyme sabotages sleep on a cellular and hormonal level, and share natural ways to simultaneously support your recovery and cultivate much-needed sleep.
PLUS: Don’t miss an exclusive gift for webinar attendees, and have your questions ready for a LIVE Q&A on Lyme and chronic pain with Dr. Rawls.
Dr. Rawls will discuss:
Why sleep dysfunction is both a key component of Lyme disease and an obstacle to recovery
How it’s possible to feel completely exhausted at night and yet still struggle to sleep
Hidden sleep disruptors we encounter every day
The 6 key steps to reclaiming restorative rest
The best herbs and natural remedies that do the double duty of encouraging Lyme recovery and cultivating normal sleep
Numerous insights during the live Q&A with Dr. Rawls
The controversy over hydroxychloroquine is perhaps one of the most perplexing and frustrating. Doctors and health experts around the world have spoken out both for and against the use of the drug, some reporting spectacular benefits while others warn of mortal dangers
In an international poll of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them
French microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult reported a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin administered immediately upon diagnosis led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has found treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin lowered mortality fivefold
Zinc appears to be key. If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore such as hydroxychloroquine or quercetin should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded
There’s no shortage of controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, but the controversy over hydroxychloroquine is perhaps one of the most perplexing and frustrating. Doctors and health experts around the world have spoken out both for and against the use of the drug, some reporting spectacular benefits1 while others warn of mortal dangers.2
Game-Changer or Deadly Treatment?
In one international poll3 of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. The poll was done by Sermo, the world’s largest health care data collection company and social platform for physicians.
In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them. The typical dose used by a majority of doctors was 400 milligrams per day.
French science-prize winning microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,4reported5,6 that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, administered immediately upon diagnosis, led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-27 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients.
According to Raoult, the drug combination “avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosness in most cases.” No cardiac toxicity was observed using a dose of 200 mg three times a day for 10 days, along with 500 mg of azithromycin on Day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days. The risk of cardiac toxicity was ameliorated by carefully screening patients and performing serial EKGs.
As reported by The Highwire (see video above), July 2, 2020, Raoult is quoted as saying failure to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to a COVID-19 patient “should be grounds for malpractice.” Meanwhile, University of Oxford investigators claim the drug is useless and shouldn’t be prescribed at all in hospitalized patients.8
An interesting website tracking hydroxychloroquine trials is c19study.com.9 It lists more than 40 studies and meta-analyses showing positive results of the drug, compared to nine that have reached a negative conclusion.
The Zelenko Regimen
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a primary care physician in Monroe, New York, has also reported excellent results using the drug. He told radio host Sean Hannity he’d had a near-100% success rate using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc sulfate for five days. “I’ve seen remarkable results; it really prevents progression of disease, and patients get better,” he told Hannity.
In the video above, Del Bigtree interviews Zelenko about the criticism levied against him for promoting use of the drug. According to Zelenko, hydroxychloroquine deniers “are guilty of mass murder.”
He points out hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades and is safe even for pregnant and nursing women, so he felt very comfortable prescribing it off-label. He prescribed 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine twice a day, 500 mg of azithromycin once a day and 220 mg of zinc once a day, for five days.
The treatment was initiated within the first five days of clinical symptoms of COVID-19, based on “clinical suspicion” of SARS-CoV-2 infection (not lab confirmed testing, as test results took three days and viral load typically explodes by Day 6).
June 30, 2020, Zelenko and two co-authors published a study,10 currently in preprint, which found treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and five times less all-cause deaths.”
As noted by Zelenko in Bigtree’s interview, the real virus killer in this combination is actually the zinc. The hydroxychloroquine merely acts as a zinc transporter, allowing it to get into the cell. The antibiotic, meanwhile, helps prevent secondary infections.
Concerted Coordinated Effort to Inhibit Use of Effective Drug?
According to Dr. Meryl Nass, the wildly divergent views on hydroxychloroquine appear to have little to do with its safety and effectiveness against COVID-19, and more to do with a concerted and coordinated effort to prevent its use. In the video11 above, Chris Martensen Ph.D., also reviews the “profound lack of integrity” we’re currently seeing when it comes to hydroxychloroquine.
Indeed, there are several reasons for why certain individuals and companies might not want an inexpensive generic drug to work against this pandemic illness. (A 14-day supply costs just $2 to manufacture12 and can retail for as little as $20.13)
One of the most obvious reasons is because it might eliminate the need for a vaccine or other antiviral medication currently under development.14 Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested, and vaccine makers are hoping for a payday in the billions if not trillions of dollars. In a June 27, 2020, blog post, Nass points out:15
“It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past three months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.16
The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, COVID-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for COVID-19. It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked. Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich?”
The fight over hydroxychloroquine may also have political underpinnings. As noted by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson in a May 18, 2020, Full Measure report, “never before has a discussion about choices of medicine been so laced with political overtones.”
Trials Undermine Safety and Efficacy by Using Toxic Doses
Nass’ article17 lists what has occurred with regard to hydroxychloroquine so far, the intention being to keep it as a living document that will be added to as time goes on.
Nass says she wrote it in such a way that it might be read as a “to do list … to be carried out by those who pull the strings,” with the intention of suppressing use of the drug. At the time of this writing, Nass’ list18 contains 27 bullet point entries. I highly recommend reading through it, as I will only highlight a select few here.
Several items on Nass’ list detail the various ways in which safe and effective use of the drug were undermined, which allowed for a false narrative of danger to be crafted.
For example, Nass points out that three large, randomized multicenter clinical trials all used excessive dosages known to be toxic.19 These include the following. She also discusses these trials in other in-depth articles:20,21,22
• The U.K. Recovery Trial23,24,25 — Funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the U.K. government through Oxford University,26 this study randomly assigned patients to usual care or to one of five primary drug treatments: lopinavir-ritonavir; a corticosteroid (low-dose dexamethasone); hydroxychloroquine; tociizumab; or azithromycin. They also used convalescent plasma.
Patients received 2,400 mg of hydroxychloroquine during the first 24 hours — three to six times higher than the daily dosage recommended27 followed by 400 mg every 12 hours for nine more day for a cumulative dose of 9,200 mg over 10 days. The trial ended its hydroxychloroquine arm on June 4, reporting “no benefit.”
• The Solidarity Trial28 — Launched by the World Health Organization and funded by 43 countries and 203,000 individuals and organizations,29 this trial also compares standard of care against four drug options, including hydroxychloroquine, among patients in 35 countries.
Strangely, the WHO does not specify the daily dosage used in the trial. However, the registration of the Canadian30 and Norwegian31 portions of the trial lists a dosage of 2,000 mg on the first day, and a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. This is only 400 mg less than the U.K.32 Recovery Trial’s toxic dose.
The hydroxychloroquine arm was halted May 25,33 following the publication of the Surgisphere study34 in The Lancet. June 3, after tremendous controversy had been raised over the veracity of the study, and a day before the study was retracted for using fabricated data,35,36 (and this despite having undergone peer-review), the hydroxychloroquine arm was restarted.37
June 17, 2020, the hydroxychloroquine arm was stopped again, this time “based on evidence from the Solidarity trial, U.K.’s Recovery trial and a Cochrane review of other evidence on hydroxychloroquine.”38
• The REMAP-CAP Trial (Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia)39 — Here, patients either received nothing, a combination of lopinavir and ritonavir, or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with lopinavir and ritonavir.
REMAP used the same toxic dose as the Recovery Trial but for six days instead of 10. What’s more, only critically ill hospitalized patients were included in this trial. Nass addresses other concerns as well in her June 19 blog40 about this study.
Is Lifesaving Medicine Withheld to Ensure Profits?
What possessed the study designers and investigators of these three huge clinical trials to use such exaggerated dosages? Hydroxychloroquine has been on the market for 65 years and both toxic and the effective dosages for a variety of ailments are well documented. Doctors who have reported excellent treatment results in the field stayed within the recommended hydroxychloroquine dosages.
Were they trying to purposely sabotage these trials using dosages known to be toxic? Doctors have also reported that best results are observed when the drug is administered early, while symptoms are still mild or moderate, yet in these trials the drug was not given until it was too late.
A July 1, 2020, retrospective analysis41,42,43 of 2,541 patients in the Henry Ford Hospital System in Detroit, Michigan, found use of hydroxychloroquine alone cut mortality by more than half, from 26.4% to 13.5%. (Hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin had a mortality rate of 20.1%, and azithromycin alone had a mortality rate of 22.4%.)
More than 90% of the patients had received the drug or drugs within 48 hours of admission into the hospital. No adverse heart-related events were observed among those given hydroxychloroquine.
All three trials above that used toxic hydroxychloroquine doses — Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP — also failed to include zinc, which appears to be a key factor. As noted by Zelenko above, the hydroxychloroquine is really only used to drive the zinc in to the cells. Nass observes:44
“The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.
In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.”
Facets That Need To Be Discussed
Aside from that, there are two additional facets of what’s going on that are not yet being discussed:
1. What we’re seeing happen right now is that patients are being turned into guinea pigs en masse. As of June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated the only way a patient should receive hydroxychloroquine is by enlisting in a clinical trial.45
Similarly, in the U.K., treating physicians have been asked to enroll all hospitalized COVID-19 patients into the Recovery and REMAP trials. As of July 9, 2020, Recovery had enrolled more than 12,000 subjects.46
What this means is that thousands of patients are having their treatment selected via randomization by computer rather than by their own doctors’ choice of treatment. The U.K., by the way, has one of the highest COVID-19 death rates in Europe already.47 By removing physician and patient choice of treatment, the death toll might end up being far worse than it needs to be.
Importantly, will this trend continue post-COVID? Now that doctors are being groomed to accept having their patients treated by randomization rather than with the treatment any given doctor believes to be best, will they sign up their future non-COVID patients as subjects just as easily?
2. Secondly, three recent papers48,49,50 argue that the excessive doses of hydroxychloroquine used in the Recovery Trial were not actually toxic. This creates a serious contradiction that has yet to be addressed. As noted by Nass in an email to me:
“For argument’s sake, say they are right, and even high doses are safe. Well then, why are the FDA, European Medicines Agency, pharmacy boards, governors, etc. restricting this drug that is so safe you can even overdose it and be fine?
Either the drug is so toxic at normal doses that it can’t be used for a life-threatening illness, or it is perfectly safe at extremely high doses. You can’t have it both ways.“
Zinc Is a Crucial Key
In conclusion, let us circle back to where we started — with the reports of treatment success. A study51 posted on the prepublication server medRxiv, May 8, 2020, compared outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with either hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone, or Zelenko’s triplet regimen of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc.
While the addition of zinc sulfate had no impact on the length of hospitalization, ICU duration or duration of ventilation, univariate analysis showed it was associated with other positive effects:
Increased hospital discharge frequency
Decreased the need for ventilation
Decreased ICU admission rates
Decreased the rate of transfer to hospice for non-ICU patients
Decreased mortality
As noted by the authors:52
“After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53 …) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449 …). This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.”
In short, to maximize effectiveness, you need zinc. As explained in “Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?” hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore,53,54 meaning it shuttles zinc into your cells, and zinc appears to be a “magic ingredient” required to prevent viral replication.55
If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded. As noted in the preprint paper, “Does Zinc Supplementation Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine to Win Todays Battle Against COVID-19?” published April 8, 2020:56
“Besides direct antiviral effects, CQ/HCQ [chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine] specifically target extracellular zinc to intracellular lysosomes where it interferes with RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity and coronavirus replication.
As zinc deficiency frequently occurs in elderly patients and in those with cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, or diabetes, we hypothesize that CQ/HCQ plus zinc supplementation may be more effective in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality than CQ or HCQ in monotherapy. Therefore, CQ/HCQ in combination with zinc should be considered as additional study arm for COVID-19 clinical trials.”
So far, no major clinical trial has bothered to follow this rather commonsense advice. Unfortunately, due to the corruption and politicization of science on this matter, it’s hard to offer any clear recommendations. In the end, it probably comes down to who you trust.
Quercetin — An All-Natural Safe Home Alternative
That said, if you suspect you’ve contracted COVID-19, it probably wouldn’t hurt to give a version of Zelenko’s regimen a try, at the first sign of symptoms. As explained in “Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?” quercetin is also an ionophore and has the same mechanism of action as hydroxychloroquine — it improves zinc uptake by your cells.
Personally, I’m taking quercetin and zinc at bedtime as a prophylactic each day. The reason it’s best to take them in the evening, several hours after your last meal, and before the long fast of sleeping, is because quercetin is also a senolytic (i.e., it selectively kills senescent or old, damaged cells) that is activated by fasting. So, why not maximize the timing and use of quercetin?
Zelenko points out that the debate on HCQ is an ideological one on whether you trust real-world clinical data or only data derived from a lab. This is exactly what we face with Lyme/MSIDS. We have doctors who have successfully treated patients yet mainstream medicine sniffs at this because their clinical success hasn’t been replicated in a lab setting.
CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARDS LYME INFECTION IS MISPLACED
Some medical professionals and their patients have dismissed Lyme disease, believing the prevalence and potential damage a Lyme infection can cause is over-exaggerated. But what happens if your family is directly affected? A researcher from the University of Pennsylvania shares his story “Lemons and Lyme” in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.
“One day, when traveling in California for a meeting, I received a call informing me that one of my sons, then aged 39, had been walking his dog when he collapsed into unconsciousness with a heart rate of 35/minute and had been taken to a local hospital,” writes Plotkin.¹ A Lyme infection was suspected.
His son was diagnosed immediately by a cardiologist familiar with Lyme disease.
“My son Alec received a pacemaker and, of course, an intravenous antibiotic,” writes Plotkin. “Fortunately, he has recovered, but his experience convinced me that a cavalier attitude towards Lyme infection is misplaced.”
Furthermore,
“An aspect of Alec’s case is instructive in that he was not exposed in the woods or someplace where ticks are an obvious hazard but within sight of his own house.”
Some people don’t get Lyme disease until they GET Lyme disease.
Plotkin SA. Lemons and Lyme. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2018;7(4):267-269
____________________
**Comment**
I’m thankful this medical professional had the cajoles to admit this. In time, the treatment of Lyme/MSIDS will get the proper attention it deserves – if only due to the fact it is going to affect so many people it will become undeniable.
What’s interesting about the MMWR paper is that one of the authors, a CDC epidemiologist, allegedly solicited IDSA doctors for evidence of harm from IV antibiotic treatments, essentially bribing them by offering co-authorship of the report if anecdotes were used. No such solicitation was made for IV treatment success stories. There has been hot debate on Lyme treatments for decades. The MMWR paper is only one example of bias which is embedded within the CDC. There are many success stories using IV therapy by a Wisconsin Doctor and IDSA founder who disagreed with his colleagues on how to treat Lyme disease. https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/26/cdc-playbook-learning-from-lyme/
There are many who would profit from this treatment but due to this biased paper and the propaganda it promotes, most doctors are scared to death to treat patients with IV antibiotics. This is just another great example of how doctors who treat Lyme patients have been singled out and crucified on the Lyme crucible and how politics has driven science.
Some people are so biased they couldn’t hear truth if it slapped them in the face. They don’t care if there’s a back-story of corruption – if all the research has been rigged for a predetermined outcome. All they believe in is placebo-controlled, randomized trials in black and white. Unfortunately, regarding Lyme/MSIDS, those too have been corrupted by “scientists” with conflicts of interest that reads like a rap sheet: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/13/lyme-science-owned-by-good-ol-boys/
Hopefully, these facts are enlightening you to the fact that authorities and science are not to be solely trusted. Both are being used right now to sway people – rather than remaining objective.
Question everything and run things by your practitioner(s) who is/are working on the front-line. Get numerous opinions and then use your God-given brain to make decisions.
ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.
Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.
When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.
Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.
(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide an thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.
Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week
later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.“And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:Why then are we reading headlines such as
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not “enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.
In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that
“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group.
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”
From Ref #2
“Summary:
Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”
C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
Even Medpage today published an article that concluded that some politicians are pushed masks for fear mongers, not toward evidence-based medical purposes.
3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement
This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have heard of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.
Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.“Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups.Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431
Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199
Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets“Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”
Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550498
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate“…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”
There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget .
They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.
We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.
A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore
Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.
If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:Why then are we reading headlines such as
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not “enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/06/fraudulent-hcq-covid-19-study-in-lancet-exposed/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/24/influence-of-conflicts-of-interest-on-public-positions-in-the-covid-19-era-the-case-of-gilead-sciences/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/16/aaps-sues-fda-for-irrational-interference-of-access-to-life-saving-hydroxychloroquine/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/podcast-evidence-supporting-hcq-azithromycin-for-covid-19/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/09/hcq-breakthrough-icmr-finds-its-effective-in-preventing-coronavirus-expands-its-use/
Remdesivir (BTW: studies have only shown it to reduce days in hospitalization from 15 days to 10 days) https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/02/remdesivir-for-covid-19-not-backed-by-results/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/15/covid-19-drug-remdesivir-could-cost-up-to-3120-per-patient-maker-says/
Zelenko points out that the debate on HCQ is an ideological one on whether you trust real-world clinical data or only data derived from a lab. This is exactly what we face with Lyme/MSIDS. We have doctors who have successfully treated patients yet mainstream medicine sniffs at this because their clinical success hasn’t been replicated in a lab setting.