I know I react to foods, but it’s long been hard to sort out what the problems ones are.
So as a rule, I avoid any food that contains ingredients that are not themselves natural foods. That rules out virtually all processed foods.
Like brain damage? Keep eating processed foods with excitotoxins. That is, if the effects are real—the mainstream considers MSG and aspartame perfectly safe. And maybe one neurosurgeon just has it wrong. It’s so hard to tell these days, what with most all studies having financial interests that drive the results.
Excitotoxins are chemicals added to food to make them taste better. Aside from good 'ol sodium chloride (salt), that’s the only chemical I’m game for.
Expect the FDA to protect you? Don’t. Their de facto role is to protect industry from financial harm.
I’ve considered myself quite aware of what is healthy and what is not, but I recently started reading Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills @AMAZON, by Russell L. Blaylock MD and I am shocked at what I am hearing about common chemicals like aspartame (think diet drinks).
Excitotoxin: a substance added to foods and beverages that literally stimulates neurons to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees. Can be found in such ingredients as monosodium glutamate, aspartame (NutraSweet(R)), cysteine, hydrolyzed protein, and aspartic acid. Citing over five hundred scientific studies, Excitotoxins explores the dangers of aspartame, MSG, and other substances added to our food. This is an electrifying and important book that should be available to every American consumer
Additives that may contain MSG or Excitotoxins: Carrageenan, Enzymes, Soy Protein Concentrate, Soy Protein Isolate, and Protein Concentrate. Protease enzymes of various sources can release excitotoxin amino acids from food proteins.
There are a growing number of clinicians and basic scientists who are convinced that a group of compounds called excitotoxins play a critical role in the development of several neurological disorders including migraines, seizures, infections, abnormal neural development, certain endocrine disorders, neuropsychiatric disorders, learning disorders in children, AIDS dementia, episodic violence, lyme borreliosis, hepatic encephalopathy, specific types of obesity, and especially the neurodegenerative diseases, such as ALS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and olivopontocerebellar degeneration.1
An enormous amount of both clinical and experimental evidence has accumulated over the past decade supporting this basic premise.2 Yet, the FDA still refuses to recognize the immediate and long term danger to the public caused by the practice of allowing various excitotoxins to be added to the food supply, such as MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and aspartame. The amount of these neurotoxins added to our food has increased enormously since their first introduction...
These toxins (excitotoxins) are not present in just a few foods, but rather in almost all processed foods. In many cases they are being added in disguised forms, such as natural flavoring, spices, yeast extract, textured protein, soy protein extract, etc. Experimentally, we know that when subtoxic levels of excitotoxins are given to animals in divided doses, they experience full toxicity, i.e., they are synergistic. Also, liquid forms of excitotoxins, as occurs in soups, gravies and diet soft drinks are more toxic than that added to solid foods. This is because they are more rapidly absorbed and reach higher blood levels.
It should also be appreciated that the effects of excitotoxin food additives generally are not dramatic. Some individuals may be especially sensitive and develop severe symptoms and even sudden death from cardiac irritability, but in most instances the effects are subtle and develop over a long period of time. While the food additives, MSG and aspartame, are probably not direct causes of the neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, they may well precipitate these disorders and certainly worsen their pathology as we shall see. It may be that many people with a 1 propensity for developing one of these diseases would never develop a full blown disorder had it not been for their exposure to high levels of food borne excitotoxin additives. Some may have had a very mild form of the disease had it not been for the exposure. Likewise, food borne excitotoxins may be harmful to those suffering from strokes, head injury and HIV infection and certainly should not be used in a hospital setting.
... Unfortunately, for the consumer, the corporate food processors not only continue to add MSG to our foods but they have gone to great links to disguise these harmful additives. For example, they use such names as hydrolyzed vegetable protein, vegetable protein, textured protein, hydrolyzed plant protein, soy protein extract, caseinate, yeast extract, and natural flavoring. We know experimentally that when these excitotoxin taste enhancers are added together they become much more toxic than is seen individually.10 In fact, excitotoxins in subtoxic concentrations can be fully toxic to specialized brain cells when used in combination. Frequently, I see processed foods on supermarket shelves, especially frozen or diet foods, that contain two, three or even four types of excitotoxins.
...There is also evidence that several nutrients can significantly reduce excitotoxicity. For example, combinations of coenzyme Q10 and niacinamide have been shown to protect against striatal excitotoxic lesions. Methylcobolamine, phosphotidylserine, picnogenol and acetyl-L-carnitine all protect against excitotoxicity as well.
Of particular concern is the toxic effects of these excitotoxic compounds on the developing brain. It is well recognized that the immature brain is four times more sensitive to the toxic effects of the excitatory amino acids as is the mature brain.This means that excitotoxic injury is of special concern from the fetal stage to adolescence. There is evidence that the placenta concentrates several of these toxic amino acids on the fetal side of the placenta. Consumption of aspartame and MSG containing products by pregnant women during this critical period of brain formation is of special concern and should be discouraged. Many of the effects, such as endocrine dysfunction and complex learning, are subtle and may not appear until the child is older. Other hypothalamic syndromes associated with early excitotoxic lesions include immune alterations and violence dyscontrol.
WIND: well worth a read, particularly for parents.
What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?
If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases...
Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II...
WIND: this is intellectual dishonesty and outright scientific fraud in the form of a mandatory reporting guideline.
Assumptions are heresy—guesses, not science. And contributions to a death matter hugely; that’s why pre-COVID reporting guidelines made sense and still do and are still used for everything but COVID.
And arbitrarily assigning the cause of death to COVID when 2/3/4/other co-morbidities are present is not just intellectual incompetence, it is patently ridiculous. Who can take the CDC seriously after this?
The whole thing stinks of political influence designed to rally support for the totalitarian policies of lockdowns and required masking, leaving the US Constitution in tatters to this day. That might have been defensible way back a year ago when so much was unknown, but here we are a year later with no credible scientific evidence for efficacy, and garbage data from the CDC to boot. So we will never know what really happened.
A little-noticed, peer-reviewed study published last October by a science and public health journal claims the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ignored federal laws and regulations when it changed how the government counts deaths from COVID-19, caused by the CCP virus, also known as the novel coronavirus.
...The 10 authors of the study compared fatality counts compiled using the new system propounded by the CDC in an alert issued on March 24, 2020, early in the initial national lockdown and the procedures used by the CDC and all state and local public health officials since 2003. The latter procedures are described in two handbooks, one for physicians and a second for medical examiners and coroners.
“These handbooks have been used successfully for 17 years without need of update. They remain in use today for all causes of death except where involvement of COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed. When involvement of COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed, the March 24th, 2020 COVID19 Alert No. 2 guidelines are used instead,” according to the study.
Based on data for all recorded U.S. deaths through Aug. 23, 2020, the new CDC system counted 161,392 that were attributed to the virus. Using the older system, the death total was only 9,684.
... The same weekly alert updated as of March 14, 2021, read: “For 6 percent of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 3.8 additional conditions or causes per death.”
...Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity? Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why?”
WIND: makes you wonder a bit, doesn’t it?
We can safely assume that no one in the government will attempt to answer the questions, either the legal ones or the intellectual/medical ones.
“Follow the science” and “trust the experts” is for the gullible.
... The CDC has a very helpful tool that allows anyone to compare open vs closed states. The results are devastating for those who believe that lockdowns are the way to control a virus. In this chart we compare closed states Massachusetts and California with open states Georgia, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.
What can we conclude from such a visualization? It suggests that the lockdowns have had no statistically observable effect on the virus trajectory and resulting severe outcomes. The open states have generally performed better, perhaps not because they are open but simply for reasons of demographics and seasonality. The closed states seem not to have achieved anything in terms of mitigation.
What’s striking about all the above predictions of infections and deaths is not just that they were all wrong. It’s the arrogance and confidence behind each of them. After a full year and directly observing the inability of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” to manage the pathogen, the experts are still wedded to their beloved lockdowns, unable or unwilling to look at the data and learn anything from them.
WIND: lockdowns destroy lives and economies and result in huge numbers of deaths of younger people. That’s all that ever did and all they ever will do, a fact has been obvious for more than half a year now. But repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it forever.
BTW, the CDC data is GIGO, since it was corrupted by arbitrary changes to decades-long practices in reporting standards.
Fearmongering and mental illness at the CDC
Meanwhile, we have CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walenksy who thinks fearmongering is the way to process the fantastically good news on COVID. Particularly her own personal irrational mental state.
"I'm going to pause here, I'm going to lose the script and I'm going to reflect on the recurring feeling I have of impending doom," Walensky said, appearing to grow emotional. "We have so much to look forward to. So much promise and potential of where we are and so much reason for hope. But right now I'm scared."
"I'm speaking today not necessarily as your CDC director, and not only as your CDC director, but as a wife, as a mother, as a daughter, to ask you to just please hold on a little while longer," she said. "I so badly want to be done, I know you all so badly want to be done, we're just almost there, but not quite yet. And so, I'm asking you to just hold on a little longer, to get vaccinated when you can, so that all of those people that we all love will still be here when this pandemic ends."
It is a rigorous fact that emotions impair rational faculties. And Dr Walensky herself admits to severe anxiety as in “recurring feeling I have of impending doom” and being “scared”. But why should we want to hear neurotic personal feelings?
She is thus by her own admission psychologically unfit to serve. Does she not have friends or peers that see she needs pyschiatritric help more than anything else? A “top expert” who who has to go “off script” to detail her personal emotional problems is prima facie evidence of severely impaired professional judgment. If I had any trace of confidence left in the CDC, it’s now vaporized. What an embarrassment to the medical profession.
And since Dr Walensky plays the “wife and mother and dauther” card, I also feel a personal revulsion to her comments. That is, as the proud father of 3 very capable daughters, I am thoroughly disgusted with Dr Walensky doing all professional women a huge disservice by looking weak, biased, and emotion-driven, and thus pandering to all the worst stereotypes about women. Leaders cannot lead by looking unstable and weak and it’s (like it not) worse for a woman.
Upgrade Your Mac Memory At much lower cost than Apple, with more options. Lloyd recommends 64GB for iMac or Mac Pro for photography/videography.
Easy to see this coming a mile away as a civilian: I am already 15 months late on a colonoscopy and there are millions like me for that and other things. Obvious stuff.
Patient: doctor, my finger hurts. Doctor: let’s amputate.
The spat-upon (for truth telling) Dr. Scott Atlas warned about it around June of 2020, if not earlier. No one wanted to hear it, and it all became a political battle. And still no one wants to hear or talk about it honestly (meaning politicians and the press). Ironically is is the corrupt WHO (on the payroll of the CCP) that is most willing to sound the alarm, a year too late.
by Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe
....Early on in the pandemic, WHO found that globally, in 122 out of 163 countries, noncommunicable disease services had been disrupted, and that 1 in 3 countries in the European Region had partially or completely disrupted cancer services.
At the Kyrgyzstan National Center of Oncology, the number of cancers diagnosed in April last year dropped by 90%, while in the Netherlands and Belgium in the first lockdown of 2020, it dropped by 30–40%. Delayed diagnosis and treatment in the United Kingdom are expected to result in an increase in the number of deaths from colorectal cancer by 15%, and 9% for breast cancer over the next 5 years.
A crisis of noncommunicable diseases, including cancer, is brewing, brought on by the pandemic. ...
The impact of COVID-19 on cancer in Europe is complex, and has been referred to by some as a “deadly interplay”. Due to travel restrictions and the enormous strain on health systems of fighting COVID-19, cancer services have been disrupted across the entire WHO European Region, significantly delaying diagnosis and treatment, directly impacting the chances of a cure or survival for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients.
The impact of the pandemic on cancer in the Region is nothing short of catastrophic. It has made us realize the actual human cost of neglecting a noncommunicable disease such as cancer.
WIND: the statement is blatantly false in one respect: the crisis was not brought on by the pandemic, but by the response to it—the policies of politicians egged on by the irresponsible medical establishment, vilifying anyone aiming for debate. Policies based on bad science, bad data, bad thinking.
If 2020 accomplished anything, it was to show just how dangerous it is for a thinking person to “trust the data” or “trust the science” and the worse than having your fingernails pulled out: “trust the experts”. Because it’s total bullshit in the short and medium term.
The deadly fallout from the 'radioactive' COVID hysteria by government COVID policies will play out in the years to come.
The death toll will not be known for years, and will likely be suppressed, at least at first. Or just not accounted for. It surely will be at least 10X higher than the death toll from COVID itself. And since COVID policies damaged younger generations the most, the life years lost will be far greater.
I’ve long disliked bad air, and my neighbors do a great job making it worse with their leaf blowers and smoky fires. But hey, their driveways looks nice and clean.
I’m not ready to step up and use computer models for deaths from air pollution, but I do believe that bad air has an impact on health that can be quite serious.
And now, millions of people no longer have access to N100 or N95 particulate respirators, with the supply sucked up by COVID. How many people will die down the road because they had to work or exercise without a proper respirator? (Amazon says "Prioritized for organizations on the front lines responding to COVID-19").
“PM 2.5” means particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller. A micron is one-millionth of a meter. The N100 particulate respirator I favor removes 99.75% of PM 2.5, and the N95 removes 95%. Properly fitted tightly against the face of course. I have used them even while riding a double century, both for pollen and desert dust and highway dust from high-speed traffic.
Millions of people die prematurely every year from diseases and cancer caused by air pollution. The first line of defence against this carnage is ambient air quality standards. Yet, according to researchers from McGill University, over half of the world's population lives without the protection of adequate air quality standards.
The researchers focused on air pollution called PM2.5 -- responsible for an estimated 4.2 million premature deaths every year globally. This includes over a million deaths in China, over half a million in India, almost 200,000 in Europe, and over 50,000 in the United States.
"In Canada, about 5,900 people die every year from air pollution, according to estimates from Health Canada. Air pollution kills almost as many Canadians every three years as COVID-19 killed to date," says co-author Parisa Ariya, a Professor in the Department of Chemistry at McGill University.
Small but deadly
Among the different types of air pollution, PM2.5 kills the most people worldwide. It consists of particles smaller than approximately 2.5 microns.
"We adopted unprecedented measures to protect people from COVID-19, yet we don't do enough to avoid the millions of preventable deaths caused by air pollution every year," says Yevgen Nazarenko, a Research Associate at McGill University who conducted the study with Devendra Pal under the supervision of Professor Ariya.
WIND: air quality standards are a joke even in modern areas, as you can see for yourself in the summer in the San Francisco Bay Area once the gardeners start their leaf blowers, and the traffic begins.
Saving geriatric people with a few years of life left is a worthy public policy goal. But goals don’t save people—good policies do. We’ve had terrible policies, failing both to protect the elderly and the young/poor/disadvantaged.
Government policies have failed to save so many elderly lives, while killing children and damaging lives for hundreds of millions. This is largely ignored and at best minimized in politics and the “news” today—see the UNICEF article below, and it is only one of many painful outcomes around the globe.
Policies ought to be about valuing life to its fullest extent, which means minimizing death and suffering. The key is to apply risk assessment, and then to apply mitigations to minimize damage to all groups. More on that below the article.
The GOOD news is that real hope has emerged with vaccines and the early signs of herd immunity. But the policy damage cannot be done and it seems likely that the same errors will be made for future events.
NEW YORK, 11 March 2021 – One year since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, the latest available data from UNICEF uncover a devastating and distorted new normal for the world’s children.
“One year into the COVID-19 pandemic, progress has gone backward across virtually every key measure of childhood,” said Henrietta Fore, UNICEF Executive Director. “The number of children who are hungry, isolated, abused, anxious, living in poverty and forced into marriage has increased. At the same time, their access to education, socialization and essential services including health, nutrition and protection has decreased. The signs that children will bear the scars of the pandemic for years to come are unmistakable.”
How the COVID-19 pandemic has affected children:
As of March 2021, 13 per cent of 71 million COVID-19 infections in 107 countries (62 per cent of the total global infections) with data by age are among children and adolescents under 20 years of age. [WIND: children hardly notice they have COVID, with few exceptions]
In developing countries, child poverty is expected to increase by around 15 per cent. An additional 140 million children in these countries are also already projected to be in households living below the poverty line.
Schools for more than 168 million schoolchildren globally have been closed for almost a year. Two-thirds of countries with full or partial closures are in Latin America and the Caribbean.
At least 1 in 3 schoolchildren has been unable to access remote learning while their schools were closed.
Around 10 million additional child marriages may occur before the end of the decade, threatening years of progress in reducing the practice.
At least 1 in 7 children and young people has lived under stay-at-home policies for most of the last year, leading to feelings of anxiety, depression and isolation.
As of November 2020, an additional 6 to 7 million children under age 5 may have suffered from wasting or acute malnutrition in 2020, resulting in almost 54 million wasted children, a 14 per cent rise that could translate into more than 10,000 additional child deaths per month – mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. With a 40 per cent decline in nutrition services for children and women, many other nutrition outcomes can worsen.
As of November 2020, more than 94 million people were at risk of missing vaccines due to paused measles campaigns in 26 countries.
As of November 2020, in 59 countries with available data, refugees and asylum seekers are unable to access COVID-19-related social protection support due to border closures and rising xenophobia and exclusion.
Around 3 billion people worldwide lack basic handwashing facilities with soap and water at home. In the least developed countries, three quarters of people, more than two-thirds of schools and a quarter of health care facilities lack the basic hygiene services needed to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. On average 700 children under-five die every day from diseases caused by the lack of water, sanitation and hygiene.
“Children must be at the heart of recovery efforts,” said Fore. “This means prioritizing schools in reopening plans. It means providing social protection including cash transfers for families. And it means reaching the most vulnerable children with critical services. Only then can we protect this generation from becoming a lost generation.”
WIND: how many lives have to be sacrificed on the alter of bad government policies?
I myself suffered from Long Haul COVID for six months. I have two parent in their 80's; they are at risk and I don't want to lose them. My wife is at risk for two factors. I have three kids, at least one might be at risk due to a health condition.
So when I write about this stuff, it is with a lot of 'skin in the game', and a passionate desire to see suffering and death minimized. I will not sit at the “children’s table” and look at only one side.
Policies failed to protect the elderly/vulnerable while harming everyone. Early on (at least by April), the elderly and vulnerable should have had special opportunities for N95/N100 masks*, special priority for testing, special options for interacting with society so as to minimize exposure, etc. All of that and more. Far more could have been done for high risk groups**.
Second, the strict lockdowns have caused massive damage, hurting the poor and disadvantaged most of all. Especially young people and children. While doing little if anything to protect the elderly and vulnerable.
Every life is precious, but when a 5-year-old dies, a long life is lost, versus that of an elderly person. An adult mind must recognize the difference. The two cannot be considered equal from a moral and ethical standard. But the policies just crushed everyone with no science to show it had any value at all.
We did not save the elderly and vulnerable by lockdowns and masks. We did not do much of anything to protect those most at direct risk from COVID. We did not make sure nutritional deficiencies were addressed as a national do-it-now priority, to increase baseline health.
So we got a lose-lose outcome: lots of dead elderly and lots of dead young people and innumerable lives ruined.
Might there ultimately be 10X (at least) deaths from COVID policies for every death claimed to be from COVID itself?
And damn good news, which you should extirpate from your day (the propaganda and hypnosis stuff formerly known as “news”).
Update: Facebook has censored the WSJ, in spite of the WSJ citing evidence from a range of prominent medical sources, such as the New England Journal of Medicine. Maybe Facebook should censor itself. Facebook has long been a dumptser-fire, but people continue to use it as their only news source.
Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news
Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we’d call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?
In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.
Now add people getting vaccinated. As of this week, 15% of Americans have received the vaccine, and the figure is rising fast. Former Food and Drug Commissioner Scott Gottlieb estimates 250 million doses will have been delivered to some 150 million people by the end of March.
There is reason to think the country is racing toward an extremely low level of infection. As more people have been infected, most of whom have mild or no symptoms, there are fewer Americans left to be infected. At the current trajectory, I expect COVID will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life.
WIND: yep, obvious back in early February that the “war” has largely been won.
But “normal life”... no—politicians will see to that. They will not gladly acknowledge their tryanny and evils, let alone the vast carpet bombing of America by policy.
The coronavirus pandemic has been a great tragedy, there can be no doubt about that. But it has also exposed profound issues in America that now threaten the very principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.
First, I have been shocked at the enormous power of the government, to unilaterally decree, to simply close businesses and schools by edict, restrict personal movement, mandate behavior, and eliminate our most basic freedoms, without any end and little accountability.
Second, I remain surprised at the acceptance by the American people of draconian rules, restrictions, and unprecedented mandates, even those that are arbitrary, destructive, and wholly unscientific.
This crisis has also exposed what we all have known existed, but we have tolerated for years: the overt bias of the media, the lack of diverse viewpoints on campuses, the absence of neutrality in big tech controlling social media, and now more visibly than ever, the intrusion of politics into science. Ultimately, the freedom to seek and state the truth is at risk here in the United States.
All legitimate policy scholars should, today, be openly reexamining policies that severely harmed America’s families and children, while failing to save the elderly. Studies, including one in January from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Bendavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannidis, have shown the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures was small at best and according to the study’s senior author Ioannidis, “usually harmful” – in his words, “pro-contagion.” President Biden openly admitted their lack of efficacy in his speech to the nation on January 22, when he said, “there is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”
Separate from their limited value in containing the virus -- efficacy that has often been “grossly exaggerated” in scientific journals, as documented by epidemiologists and biostatisticians Chin, Ioannidis, Tanner, and Cripps – lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. The harms to children of closing in-person schooling are dramatic, including poor learning, increased school dropouts, and social isolation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups.
...A recent study confirms that up to 78% of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over three months...
...CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults – college age – after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing the AMA reports of drug overdoses and suicides. An explosion of insurance claims for these psychological harms in children just verified this, doubling nationally since last year; and in the strictly locked down Northeast, there was a more than 300% increase of teenagers visiting doctors for self-harm.
...Domestic abuse and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and specifically to the loss of jobs, particularly in the strictestlockdowns. Given that many in-person schools have been closed, hundreds of thousands of abuse cases are never reported, since schools are the number one agency where abuse is noticed. Finally, the unemployment “shock” from lockdowns, according to a recent NBER study, translates into what they called a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths over the next 15 years from the lockdowns, disproportionately affecting minorities and women.
We know we have not yet seen the full extent of the damage from lockdowns, because it will last for years, even decades. Perhaps that is why lockdowns were not recommended in previous pandemic analyses, even for infections with far higher lethality.
To determine the best path forward necessarily means admitting that social lockdowns and significant restrictions on individuals are deadly and extraordinarily harmful, especially on the working class, minorities, and the poor.
Instead of rethinking failed policies and admitting their errors, some have chosen to employ smears in opinion pieces and through organized rebukes against those of us who disagreed with what was implemented and who dared to help the country under a President they despised – apparently, the ultimate transgression.
.... I was one of the first to push for increasing protections to those most at risk, particularly the elderly, because they were dying by the tens of thousands because the chosen policies implemented by states, recommended by other Task Force members, were failing to protect them...
...The claim in a recent JAMAopinion piece by three Stanford professors that “nearly all public health experts were concerned that [Atlas’s] recommendations could lead to tens of thousands (or more) of unnecessary deaths in the US alone” is patently false, absurd on its face. As pointed out on February 10 by Zinberg, the proposal called the Great Barrington Declaration, is “far closer to the one condemned in the JAMAarticle than anything [Atlas] said”. Yet, that policy declaration was co-authored by medical scientists and epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford, and it has already been signed by over 50,000 medical and public-health practitioners.
WIND: “tyranny” and “evil” are apropos as to government policies.
Besides the very elderly aside and some unusual situations, it seems that this entire pandemic is almost entirely* about obesity. Look at the statistics for death with/without obesity.
But no one want to call it what it really is: an obesity pandemic and a geriatric pandemic.
The statistics prove that.
If an obese person gets COVID and dies, is that a death from COVID, or a death from an inherently morbid state of the body?
By what objective rationale can a very weak person or an obese person be said to have died from COVID, when persons without those situations would NOT have died? To do so is to igore a key factor, which is as anti-scientific as it gets.
No one wants to talk about it.
* Clarifier insered for those too literal-minded to understand reasonable generalizations.
As readers know, I was an early support of masks, meaning N95 and N100 masks propertly fitted and worn. BUT, the reality “on the ground” is leaky and often filthy masks improperly fitted and often worn below the nose. WTF.
Indeed, it might be that masks made things worse, by encouraging risk taking. No one can prove that supposition wrong, and it might well be correct.
For many months now, my position has been that 90% of the time, masks have only one ugly purpose in most circumstances: virtue signaling and its corollary, social conformity. The other 10% of the time/place, I stick with the risk assessment position that masking is worthwhile.
I see people every day riding their bikes with no human within 100 yards, fully masked. These are probably the people to rat on you when a totalitarian state gains full control, unable to think for themelves, but with a intense need to conform and comply, no matter how idiotic—second handers.
Ummm... mask mandates were associated with an average 1.32% decrease in the growth rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths during the first 100 days after the mask policy was implemented.
...mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies
Show me the data. Show me the science. Well, it looks like junk data and junk science and tyranical mandates to any rational thinking person, based on this report. Which was obvious six months ago or anyone not caught up in the hysteria.
If this study by the CDC is accepted as true based on its junk observational science and nearly junk statistical significance (p-value = 0.01), then masks do next to nothing.
If this study is what it looks to really be, that is, junk science based on highly dubious data and equally dubious statistical analysis, it is a fly-buzzed pile of horse manure.
Since no one can look anywhere in the world and see that the infection and death rate curves have been impacted by mask mandates, it seem overly generous to give masks any benefit of the doubt at all.
Given all the highly questionable GIGO COVID statistics on infections and deaths, that figure is a rounding error. We’re also to believe that influenza dropped to about zero cases from 56 million last year. C'mon man... Soviet propaganda is more persuasive than this CDC twaddle.
Policy makers like mandates, regardless of consequences, behaving like children who cannot understand that every issue has pros and cons. So mask mandates are likely to stay for a while.
I had hoped to be able to announce today or tomorrow that the English language version of my book about covid-19, titled “Covid: why most of what you know is wrong”, would be out and available for purchase. The Swedish language version (titled “Varför det mesta du vet om covid-19 är fel”) came out last week and is available for purchase here. Unfortunately, Amazon, in a bizarre act of censorship, have decided that they will not be selling it on their
platform. Here is what Amazon wrote to my publisher:
Hello, We’re contacting you regarding the following book(s):
Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong by Sebastian Rushworth (AUTHOR) (ID: PRI-PVV8BRDXPZJ)
Due to the rapidly changing nature of information around coronavirus, we are referring customers to official sources for advice about the prevention or treatment of the virus.
Amazon reserves the right to determine what content we offer according to our content guidelines. Your book does not comply with our guidelines. As a result, we are not offering it for sale.
If you have questions or believe you've received this email in error, reply to this message.
My publisher is now trying to find an alternate solution to get the English language version of the book out.
WIND: the only speech that matters in the context of free speech is offensive speech. And there is nothing offensive about any MD doing fact-based coverage about COVID-19. Our political and tech overloads are now waging all-out war on any views that deviate from the official COVID-19 propaganda.
How many voices are being silenced, for how many topics? COVID-1984.
UPDATE March 11:
After initially refusing to sell my book about covid, apparently because they felt that the contents were too controversial, Amazon have now changed their minds, and the book is available to purchase on their platform, as both a kindle e-book and a paperback. You can find it here. @AMAZON
Amazon don't provide any reason for their about face, but I have no doubt that it is thanks to pressure from many of you. So thank you!
For those of you who read e-books, but not in the kindle format, the book is also available to purchase as an e-book in the Apple Books app and at bokus.com.
Here's what Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has to say about the book:
Covid-19 has triggered a pandemic, and a panic. Many people are bewildered by the avalanche of information, often contradictory. On his blog, Sebastian Rushworth has been a voice of calm reason throughout, trying to help people make sense of what is going on. As a front line doctor in Sweden he has had a front-row seat, and keen understanding of the disease, and our response to it. He takes the reader though some of the science, in order to explain what he is talking about. It is clear, it is reasoned. He believes that the Swedish response, although widely critizised, has been based on good evidence, and may end up being seen as the best way to have handled the pandemic. If you want a guide to what is really going on with Covid-19, then I fully recommend this book. You will end up with a much more complete understanding, which is what we are all looking for, I think.
Although the book is about covid in particular, it is also about science and scientific methodology more generally. The goal is to educate the readers about how to read and understand medical science, so that they are able to draw their own conclusions, and are no longer beholden to other people's interpretations.
Please buy it, read it, review it, and discuss it with friends and family. My hope is that it can contribute in some small way to ending the current madness.
WIND: it is a positive force to buy books of those who are under pressure from "censors" regardless of whether you plan to read it.
Over the course of this pandemic I have often wished that Hans Rosling was still alive. For those who are unaware, he was a medical doctor and a professor at Karolinska Institutet who had a particular interest in global health and development. In 2012, Time magazine declared him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
During the last few months of his life, in 2017, he wrote an excellent book called “Factfulness” @AMAZON, that summed up most of his thinking, and described how many of the things people “know” about the world are completely wrong. Hans Rosling is something of a hero of mine, and if he was still alive, I’m sure he would have contributed to bringing som sanity to the current situation. With his global influence, I think people would have listened.
Two of Hans Rosling’s former colleagues at Karolinska Instituet, professor Anna-Mia Ekström and professor Stefan Swartling Peterson, have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and come to the conclusion that least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID directly.
And while almost all the people who have died of COVID have died in rich countries and been old, the vast majority of people who have died of lockdown have died in poor countries and been young. This means that the number of years of life lost to lockdown is many times greater than the number of years of life lost to COVID-19 (as I’ve written about on this blog previously).
The specific causes of death are malnutrition, caused by shutting down the global economy, lack of vaccination, caused by shutting down childhood vaccination programs, and treatable diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, that have been prioritized down as a result of efforts to fight COVID-19.
These unintended consequences of the efforts to fight COVID have caused the rate of childhood deaths to increase in 2020 for the first time in decades. The two professors also note that rates of childhood marriage and of teen pregnancy and abortion have increased significantly as a result of taking children out of school. They have been interviewed about their findings on SVT, the Swedish public broadcaster. If you speak Swedish, you can watch a documentary that discusses their conclusions here.
I have to say, I’m very impressed with SVT for producing this documentary, and daring to put a lot of the numbers in perspective. The documentary clearly shows that COVID-19 is nowhere near as deadly as the 1918 Spanish flu, and is in fact very much in line with the flu pandemics of 1957 and 1968. And they note that more people died of smoking last year than of COVID. But we haven’t made smoking illegal. And they also note that anti-democratic governments in many countries have taken advantage of the pandemic to move forward their positions, get rid of opposition, and limit human rights.
Lockdowns are inherently racist and elitist, with unclear benefits but proven harms. We all need to stand up and tell our governments that we don’t support what they are doing, and we will not vote for any politician or party promoting continued lockdowns and restrictions as a solution to COVID-19, unless they can clearly show that that benefit to society as a whole is greater than the harm.
WIND: when government gets involved in society, the results are invariably disastrous. Are there any objectively true exceptions to the “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help” kiss of death?
If anything, these studies of deaths from COVID policies undercount. And do not even attempt to account for the misery inflicted by government tyranny upon the vast majority of the world population.
Life years lost is what really matters for public policy
And worst of all: moral courage is required to call it like it really is: the value of the life of a 7 or 15 or 23 year-old greatly exceeds than that of an 75 or 83 or 95 year-old. The only MORAL/ETHICAl comparison to be made here is life-years-lost, on the basis that all lives have equal value (ignoring the fact that the most productive and functional years should probably be overweighted). Life-years-lost is the ONLY objective and therefore ETHICAL metric to treat everyone fairly and to appropriately and ethically compare. Judged ethically in this manner, there is going to be something like a 3X or greater life-years lost due to government policies. That is, horrific human carnage due to government policies, that the press won’t talk about. A contemptible and vicious war on life by governments under the banner of false morality.
Garbage data in, garbage policies out
Then there just plain old GIGO: the world is taking “COVID deaths” as some hard medical fact, when in truth no objective scientist could accept these numbers as anything but highly suspect.
Certainly there have been many deaths from COVID. But the claimed COVID deaths are far higher than the reality. What is that reality?
There is no objective medical science behind COVID deaths. If a crash-dead motorcyclist with COVID is a “COVID death” according to the CDC, then anything goes, and it’s a case of GIGO. Financial incentives to diagnose anything COVID-like as such, presumed cause of death with no medically justifiable proof, taking 2/3/4 conditions all deadly in a frail person and claiming COVID is the one thing responsible so as to form public policy... that’s idiotic, nay it’s pure evil—because the mass death of millions from government policies is the result.
Should you get a COVID vaccine? Probably, if you are at high risk—basic risk management. Lots of things in life are like that—place your bet based on a judgment call, weighing risks like hospitalization or death or Long-Haul COVID against vaccine side effects.
All the vaccines are experimental, needing special licensing approvals. Think on that a moment: this is one giant guinea pig experiment conducted on a scale never before seen in history. Of course, it’s not just the vaccine—governments are putting children’s physical and mental health on the line in an “all in” poker strategy where half of the “science” is bluffing.
If you are not at high risk it’s a tougher call. Particularly since the virus is mutating so fast. The smart move is is getting sun exposure for Vitamin D and other benefits of photobiomodulation, and by eating a nutrient-dense diet free of added sugars and excess carbohydrates, and considering magnesium supplementation. Make yourself stronger, so no matter what happens, you’ll come out of the gauntlet in better shape.
...Should individuals who already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection receive one or two shots of the currently authorized mRNA vaccines. In this short report, we show that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose in individuals with pre-existing immunity is equal to or even exceeds the titers found in naïve individuals after the second dose. We also show that the reactogenicity is significantly higher in individuals who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the past. Changing the policy to give these individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and free up many urgently needed vaccine doses.
...individuals with pre-existing immunity also experience more severe reactogenicity after the first doses compared to naïve individuals. This begs the question if individuals with pre-existing immunity should even receive a second dose of vaccine.
...antibody titers of vaccinees with pre- existing immunity are not only 10-20 times higher than those of naïve vaccines at the same time points (p <0.0001, two tailed Mann Whitney test), but also exceed the median antibody titers measured in naïve individuals after the second vaccine dose by more than 10-fold...
These findings suggest that a single dose of mRNA vaccine elicits very rapid immune responses in seropositive individuals with post-vaccine antibody titers that are comparable to or exceed titers found in naïve individuals who received two vaccinations. We also noted that vaccine reactogenicity after the first dose is substantially more pronounced in individuals with pre-existing immunity akin to side-effects 2,3 reported for the second dose in the phase III vaccine trials vaccine dose serving as boost in naturally infected individuals providing a rationale for updating vaccine recommendations to considering a single vaccine dose to be sufficient to reach immunity.
Using quantitative serological assays that measure antibodies to the spike protein could be used to screen 4,5 expanding limited vaccine supply but also limit the reactogenicity experienced by COVID-19 survivors.
Conflict of interest statement
The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai has filed patent applications relating to SARS-CoV-2 serological assays and NDV-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines...
WIND: with a p-value of .0001, that is a very high confidence in the results. Too bad the group was not larger, but the truth is that the far larger vaccine studies hardly do better, in that they fail to include more than a tiny proportion of subjects that contracted COVID prior and/or after—and we’re basing public policy on those studies. The apparent conflict of interest is perhaps tolerable, because if you’re in the field you’re in the field and hopefully filing patents regularly. But why hasn’t the CDC funded independent studies a month ago? Incompetence as usual.
Why don’t we hear such issues explicitly addressed? These and many more:
Is there scientific evidence with high statistical validity (p=0.0001) that the vaccine has any meaningful value for those who have already had COVID? Particularly when weighed against the side effects (which are not tracked worth a damn).
What exactly does “permanent disability” after a COVID vaccination mean? Who pays for those acquiring a “permanent disability”? (Answer: they’re SOL).
Is there a robust ethical arguments that the vaccine be offered to or required of those who have already had COVID?
Is there any ethical and scientific justification for giving the vaccine for low-risk individuals?
Is there any ethical and scientific justification for giving the vaccine to children?
Is there independent scientific evidence with high statistical validity (p=0.0001) that the vaccine really does beat COVID out in the wild, inlcuding emerging mutations?
There is talk of a “vaccine passport” being bandied about. Big tech companies are gettting involved. But where is the ethical/moral argument that should be a prerequisite to such an idea? And by which system of morality can this be justified? Because there isn’t just one philosophical system: we have collectivist ideology versus the individual rights on which this country was founded.
By refusing to take a COVID vaccine, one might become a 2nd-class citizen, deprived of the right to participate in the public sphere in various ways. That includes airlines and public transportation. It could move on to employment and other areas. And who is to say it might not end up at Walmart?
A world where the government can de facto take control of your own body, that is, coerce you into taking a vaccine or anything else seems dystopian . It should concern anyone who cares about individual rights. You should not have to rely upon a religious exemption, as if a reason based on dogma were a better reason than legitimate intellectual and personal-situation concerns. Nor should a doctor get to decide on your behalf.
Seat-of-the-pants science on the new vaccines
It is not “science” to call something safe when no data exists. The fact is that all the advice we are getting is based on the logical fallacy “absence of proof is proof of absence” when it comes to side effects. If side effects are hardly tracked, we basically don’t and cannot know.
Assumptions based on “no data” clearly fall into the potential-harm category. Is doing risk assessment based on best guesses (“no data”) consistent with medical ethics of “first do no harm”? And if one is doing risk assessment, by what metric (or ethics) does it make any sense to vaccinate very low risk people?
The whole COVID vaccine thing seems to be a rush-to-judgment, scientifically speaking. Which isn’t science.
Worse, the new vaccines are based on mRNA and are thus could be said to be unprecedented in their unknown risk profiles when used for hundreds of millions of people of varying genetic backgrounds, immunostatus, sex and pregnancy,etc. The WHO acknowledges that last group explicitly, and uses circular reasoning in allowing other unknown groups. There are dozens of “no data” blank spots in the knowledge about the vaccines for dozens of subgroups.
Most concerning issues: ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement), neurological issues
Then there is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)—severe reponse to in-the-wild COVID for vaccinated persons. This phenomenon is well documented in the literature for other vaccines, killing many hapless vaccinated people. When I see“studies” that seem to be mainly opinions on what “should” happen, I don’t feel better about it—I want to see scientific data, non theoretical opinions.
We cannot rule out a virus mutation that would turn neutralizing antibodies into non-neutralizing antibodies, possibly after tens of millions are vaccinated. Low odds on that presumably, but the consequences could be catastrophic. Has that been fed into a risk assessment model?
* All COVID vaccines are experimental aka “investigatory” as of early 2021. This is why they required special use authorization.
Federal health officials have no plans to develop a database for adverse events to people who receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told The Epoch Times. “At this time there are no specific plans to develop a public database of deaths and adverse events associated with vaccination,” a spokesperson said via email.
If a link between an adverse event or death to a vaccination were verified, the health officials would communicate the findings and consider if additional regulatory actions were warranted, such as product labeling.
The number of deaths post-vaccination submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is up to 288 as of Jan. 29. The system is passive and anyone can submit reports. Health professionals are encouraged by public health officials to use the system.
Over 3,000 patients have suffered adverse effects after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, including 106 who have suffered a permanent disability, according to VAERS reports.
WIND: note the logical fallacy at work (circular reasoning): no tracking to be done, but if a link is “verified” , then they’ll consider tracking it.
What does this mean for anyone suffering from a permanent disability after vaccination (as per above)? Does that mean the vaccine is involved, or not? Since data is not going to be collected in a meaningful way, there will be no basis to make a claim that one was harmed—because of lack of evidence. Given the lack of evidence, no basis for a claim exists.