Ross Walter Nutritionist and Naturopath health articles and blog

a new digital passport is needed to return to life after the coronavirus

25/5/2020

There have been a lot of accusations of conspiracy theories, fear-mongering and pseudoscience being used against those who have posted contrary information, links, articles and videos through this coronavirus pandemic, and theories of what might be coming in the future.

Slowly, more of the alleged theories are appearing to be coming true. More studies are showing the virus was man-made in a lab in Wuhan, China. Studies are showing the PCR testing for coronavirus is inaccurate but being used by the WHO and world governments to make radical changes to restrict our way of life. Classifying COVID-19 deaths is a complete scam, orchestrated by the WHO to cause fear amongst populations, by classifying deaths by any chronic disease, shooting, suicide, or other cause as being from the virus, and the mortality statistics then promoted by a biased and alarmist media.

More accurate statistics of the plandemic are emerging, of a survival rate of 99.9% on average, with very little to no medical treatments available and no coronavirus vaccine. So why all the fuss?

Despite having many less incidences and deaths now, or nearly none at all now, we are seeing tighter restrictions in workplaces, having to give names and contact details prior to entry into shops or cafes, being recommended to wear masks when we go out now (but not earlier in the plandemic when there were more cases!)... what other restrictions do the authorities have in mind?

Well, here's a new one. Are you ready and wanting to travel, access various services or enter your workplace, when restrictions are allegedly "reduced"? Well, make sure you have your "COVI-PASS" digital passport ready to show the authorities, to prove who you are and that you have been a good and faithful citizen with up-to-date coronavirus vaccination, immunity test status to the coronavirus, and a good health rating. This is highly reminiscent of Nazi Germany...

The COVI-PASS is developed and available from a UK cyber security firm (VST Enterprises), and has now been accepted under contract by the United Nations for "various projects", including the post-coronavirus situation. VST say on their website that the digital passport will be expanded to be a much broader personal ID and health passport to cover all personal identification, financial transactions, health testing and history, and proof of vaccinations. Their clients and users of the digital health passport include private companies, airlines, hotel chains and leisure organisations. They say that the COVI-PASS will facilitate safe return to work and life. Why, when cases have dropped almost to nothing, naturally? More details here - https://v-healthpassport.co.uk/

The COVI-PASS is the implementation of the outcomes of the world-wide digital ID plans from the ID2020 summit in 2018. The ID2020 alliance believes it is a human right to "prove one's identity". No, a right to PRIVACY is an essential human right. Bill Gates and Microsoft are an alliance partner to the ID2020 project. More on this alliance can be read here - https://id2020.org/

If you value your right to privacy and right to choose your health options, I guess these services, and maybe more, might be limited to you in the near future. Unless you send a clear message to your governments, employers and companies that you will not be a part of their New World Order of authoritarian control of your health and your life.

0 Comments

Proof that the coronavirus is a man-made, genetically-modified virus, and not the result of a natural mutation

16/5/2020

0 Comments

In the very early days of the coronavirus making the news (late January 2020), a study was pre-published (awaiting official publishing and peer-review) which suggested that the coronavirus may be man-made (Pradhan et al. 2020). The authors of the study performed an analysis of the genome of the virus, and found it was mostly based on the 2002 SARS virus, but also allegedly found to have 4x insertions of the HIV virus in its genetic code. Such genetic differences could not have happened naturally. This caused a major stir at the time, and the scientists were criticised as perhaps mocking the seriousness of the new epidemic (as a pandemic hadn't been announced at that time), and the authors of the study withdrew it from publishing due to pressure from the scientific community. The authors intended to revise the study and perhaps republish it.

Many rumours and debates have persisted as to the origins of the virus - did it come from bats or another animal, how did it cross over into humans, and was this a natural process or man-made?

A few months have passed and more studies have been published on many aspects of the coronavirus. The official line from the WHO and our governments is that the coronavirus was a natural development or mutation, from a still-unknown animal source, and some studies have published these findings.

But governments and their agencies lie. They all do. All the time.

I've not believed a lot of the scary information in the media since day 1 of this infection. I've looked into the statistics of it and why they do not make any sense and cannot be believed. The testing of the virus is questionable and inaccurate, and the classification of deaths is a rort - a process recommended by the WHO to falsely inflate death rates, which has so many people unnecessarily scared of this virus, leading to politicians making disruptive and damaging policy changes which have affected us all. For what intents and purposes we still do not fully understand, but a lot of things in this pandemic stink of untruths. Especially on the issue of whether the virus is man-made or not.

A pivotal new study was published in the prestigious Nature Medicine journal (Andersen et al., 2020). The authors investigated the genetic code of a key part of the coronavirus and compared this to other known coronaviruses, to come to a conclusion that the new coronavirus was a natural mutation from one of several possible animal sources, of which still has not been identified. Their conclusion was pretty definitive. Except their conclusion and theories were not supported by their own results, but it helped negate many "conspiracy-theory" social media posts and instead supported the narrative of the media and governments and their health departments.

The figure (shown above) from the Andersen study clearly shows the genetic code differences between the different animal coronavirus types and the 2002 SARS coronavirus too. The marked and different coloured areas show the genetic differences. A major problem with the scientists' conclusions is the INSERTION of a 12-nucleotide section in the "Human-SARS-CoV-2" coronavirus sequence (notes with a star in the figure) which is COMPLETELY MISSING from every other coronavirus type known. Such a large genetic difference cannot happen randomly or naturally. It's not even in the alleged bat coronavirus as the source of this pandemic. The coronavirus didn't come from bats. Such an insertion can only come from a lab.

The scientists claim the impact of this inserted sequence is unknown but that it appears to enhance infection in human cells. But they still claim that the virus is of natural origin!

The details of one study is not be enough proof to make an assertion that the coronavirus is man-made...

In a another recent pre-published study (Wu et al., 2020), the scientists compared the genetic code of the new coronavirus with the earlier SARS and MERS pandemic viruses, and a bat coronavirus too. They also looked at the equivalent of the genetic family tree of the coronavirus, with respect to a major component of the virus - its spike protein that is used to attach to and infect a cell. It was found that the coronavirus was closest to the 2002 SARS virus and the bat coronavirus, with some major differences. Some minor mutations were found to exist between the current coronavirus and SARS coronavirus, and the virus binds more strongly to ACE-2 receptors (and other receptors) on human cells than SARS, hence why it can infect more people. See the phylogenic tree diagram above.

The phylogenic tree diagram (a genetic evolutionary family tree) for the coronaviruses starts in the 12 o'clock position and is progresses clockwise to newer generations of coronaviruses. Notice that the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is more recent. Early coronaviruses are highlighted in pink, as containing a particular location or sequence, called a "furin cleavage site", in its spike protein. The furin cleavage site disappeared several generations ago in the coronavirus family tree, but somehow magically reappears again in this new coronavirus genetic code. The ACE-2 and furin binding sites on cells throughout the body (not just in the lungs) increases the infection of this virus throughout the body to affect more organs as has been seen. This study also noted the addition of the same 12-nucleotide section of genetic code noted in the previous study that was missing from other coronavirus strains. This insertion is thought to be a reason why this virus is stronger than SARS. The study also found and recommended many medications, nutrients and herbals which would be effective against the furin site of the virus - including 4 HIV medications which is significant given the earlier finding of the alleged HIV insertions in the coronavirus genetic code. The WHO have announced trials of HIV drugs to determine their effectiveness against this virus (Kupferschmidt & Cohen, 2020).

The above finding of the coronavirus specifically using the ACE-2 receptors on cell walls to infect cells is very important. Several studies have been published in recent years by scientists performing genetic modification on the SARS coronavirus and others, and even creating a chimera virus - containing genes from multiple viruses, even from different animals. In one such study by Menachery et al. (2015), genes from a bat coronavirus spike protein were added to a mouse coronavirus genome and tested for its ability to infect human airway cells through their ACE-2 receptors. The man-made virus was tested in mice AND HUMANS with significant infections occurring. The study concluded that there was "a significant risk of a SARS coronavirus re-emergence". The fact that scientists are deliberately manipulating (ie, "playing with") the genetics of deadly viruses, and testing them for their ability to cause human disease, is a major concern.

This study included a Chinese Virologist, Shi Zhengli (or Zheng-Li Shi), who just happens to be the team leader of the researchers in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a BSL-4 biowarfare lab where this study was conducted, just a few miles from the alleged epicentre of the pandemic in the Wuhan seafood market... And the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a US government agency.

The Chinese virologist and world expert on bat coronaviruses, Shi Zhengli, has been a part of several other published studies on coronavirus research. In another study published in 2008, Shi Zhengli and colleagues created new chimera coronavirus by "inserting different genetic sequences of the SARS coronavirus into different animal coronaviruses", to investigate how well the man-made virus could infect the ACE-2 receptors of human and animal cells (Ren et al., 2008). They found that the chimeric virus initially didn't infect human cells, so the scientists then combined a human HIV virus with it, which then DID enable it to infect human cells. Their work was to deliberately get the genetically modified virus to infect human cells. The authors wrote that this was the first time that a virus was proven to cross over from animals into humans - but was only done through deliberate genetic modification in a lab (in Wuhan).

The above studies compared a bat coronavirus to the new virus, and found a high genetic similarity of up to 96% (Xiao and Xiao, 2020), but more importantly are the differences. The bat coronavirus lacks the furin binding site, and lacks the huge gene insertion that is responsible for its infective ability in humans. According to testimonies by local Wuhan residents and those who frequented the seafood market, the bats which were found to host the bat coronavirus lived 900 kilometres away in caves, and bat was NOT traded or ever a food source in the Wuhan market (Xiao and Xiao, 2020).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have an online tool called BLAST (NIH, 2020) for logging, comparing and researching the genetic code of organisms. After my earlier research articles on the coronavirus topic when I questioned the government and media narrative, a follower sent me details on how to use the BLAST tool to check on the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus for similarities with the genetic code of other viruses. Using the BLAST tool, it reported 4 similar gene sequences in the coronavirus that matched other viruses - or more accurately, 4 matching gene sequences from 1 other virus. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus, HIV type 1.

See the BLAST results in the figure above.

Two of the 4 HIV sequences in the SARS-CoV-2 virus code matched 100%, one matched at 94%, and another at 79%, still being very significant. See screenshot for results. This finding does seem to confirm the finding in the original study by Pradhan and colleagues (2020), and confirm the study by Ren, Shi Zhengli and colleagues that they inserted HIV genes into a genetically-modified SARS virus to increase its ability to infect human cells. Somehow, somewhere and by someone, accidently or deliberately we cannot determine at this time, this genetically-modified lab-made chimeric virus escaped into the wild to infect humans. It is almost beyond any possibility that the current coronavirus was a natural mutation and animal crossover event.

Is there evidence of knowledge and technology for scientists to CREATE a virus - YES.

Is there evidence of the SARS and other animal coronaviruses being genetically modified - YES.

Is there evidence of deliberate experimentation of coronaviruses to increase their ability to infect human cells - YES.

Is there evidence of the HIV virus being used in coronavirus experiments and being found in people infected with coronavirus - YES.

Is there evidence that the coronavirus was the result of a natural mutation and crossover into humans - based on these studies and evidence, it is highly unlikely at best. I'd say NO.

Based on the evidence here, this would lead to an uncomfortable conclusion that the coronavirus is not a natural mutation of any known coronavirus strain, but in fact a man-made strain. And if it is indeed man-made, as it appears, then more uncomfortable questions need to be asked - was it released accidentally or deliberately, by whom, and for what purposes?

There have been a lot of theories labelled as "conspiracies" in this pandemic. As more evidence is found, more of those conspiracies are becoming fact.
If the virus is man-made, then anything which comes afterwards, in the form of new laws, restrictions, recommendations and mandates, must seriously be questioned and stopped.

An independent worldwide and open investigation MUST be conducted NOW to find out who is responsible for this pandemic - how the man-made coronavirus escaped from a lab, why, and for what or whose benefit. This cannot be conducted by the WHO, UN, CDC, FDA or other government or world health agencies as they are already suspiciously involved in this pandemic or involved in the suppression of scientific studies or educated voices who have questioned their actions (or lack thereof) in recent times.
Also, the genetic modification of all infective viruses and bacteria MUST STOP NOW. These dangerous practices cannot be allowed to happen again.

(Full PDF document with graphics and references is available from the link below. Feel free to download and share this!)

References:
Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I., Holmes, E.C., & Garry, R.F. (2020). The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452. Doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9

Kupferschmidt, K., & Cohen, J. (2020). WHO launches global megatrial of the four most promising coronavirus treatments. Science Magazine. Retrieved 14th May 2020 from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/who-launches-global-megatrial-four-most-promising-coronavirus-treatments

Menachery, V.D., Yount, B.L Jr, Debbink, K., Agnihothram, S., Gralinski, L.E., Plante, J.A., Graham, R.L., Scobey, T., Ge, X-Y., Donaldson, E.F., Randell, S.H., Lanzavecchia, A., Marasco, W.A., Shi, Z-L., & Baric, R.S. (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nature Medicine, 21, 1508–1513. Doi: 10.1038/nm.3985

National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2020).

Pradhan, P., Pandey, A.K., Mishra, A., Gupta, P., Tripathi, P.K., Menon, M.B., Gomes, J., Vivekanandan, P., & Kundu, B. (2020). Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. BioRxiv (preprint). Doi: 10.1101/2020.01.30.927871

Ren, W., Qu, X., Li, W., Han, Z., Yu, M., Zhou, P., Zhang, S-Y., Wang, L-F., Deng, H., & Shi, Z. (2008). Difference in Receptor Usage between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and SARS-Like Coronavirus of Bat Origin. Journal of Virology, 82 (4), 1899-1907: doi:10.1128/JVI.01085-07
Wu, C., Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, P., Wang, Y., Wang, Q., Xu, Y., Li, M., Zheng, M., Chen, L., & Li, H. (2020). Furin, a potential therapeutic target for COVID-19. Retrieved 14th May 2020 from http://chinaxiv.org/user/download.htm?id=30223

Xiao, B., & Xiao, L. (2020). The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. Retrieved 14th May 2020 from https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus

proof_that_the_coronavirus_is_man-made_gmo_virus.pdf
File Size:	959 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

0 Comments

The COVIDsafe app will not work to keep you safe or protected from COVID-19

8/5/2020

0 Comments

The Australian government has very quickly released a smartphone app called "COVIDsafe" in an attempt to make people aware of exposure to someone who tests positive to the coronavirus. This app is a modified form of the one used in Singapore, and now other countries are looking at using similar systems.

The Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has called the "contact-tracing" app a "vital tool" in protecting Australians against coronavirus. He urged all Australians to install the app, saying the sooner they did so, the sooner we would be able to go to the pub! As a form of coercion, some possible restrictions may be lifted, but only if more people download and install the app.

There has been a lot of scepticism and concern over the new app, that it is a breach of privacy, or tracking your location when you are being told to "stay at home", but that capability is not yet operational as are other functions, such as how the government will use the data collected. My concern, however, is that it is a complete waste of taxpayers' money and will NOT work! It will not do what it is supposed to, and will not protect you to keep you safe from COVID-19 either.

Firstly, what do we know about the new COVID-19 app:
1) You need to have an Android or Apple smartphone, or the app won't work
2) The COVID app must be launched and running all the time, or the app won't work
3) You must have Bluetooth turned on and mobile data turned on, or the app won't work
4) Bluetooth uses a wireless frequency to "talk" to other devices such as mobile phones of those around you within about a 10m distance. But only if their phone's Bluetooth setting is turned on too, or the app won't work
5) The app really needs to be installed and running on in EVERYONE's phone around you, you won't get notified if they later test positive, or the app won't work
6) Only if someone is in your Bluetooth zone for a period of 15 minutes will the app record their details for future reference or to warn you of a possible coronavirus exposure
7) If someone were to just quickly walk past you in your Bluetooth range, but coughed or sneezed on you as they went past, that will NOT record their phone or details! So the app won't work
8) The mobile phone data collected by the app will only be sent to the government servers on a manual basis - you need to initiate that (allegedly), or it won't work
9) The mobile phone data allegedly does not collect location details
10) If someone were to test positive to COVID-19 at a later time, they are supposed to update their app with that information, and the app will then identify the phones of people they were in contact with (again, only those who were around you for 15 mins and who had Bluetooth turned on and the app installed and running!), to let them know to get tested too. If someone got tested and didn't update their app, then obviously the app isn't going to help inform or protect you from the virus
11) It is very common for software to initially come out with basic features, and more added in later which you might not know about... so who knows what will happen later...
12) Everything depends on the accuracy of the COVID-19 pathology test too. Recent studies have shown that the PCR test used will report between 20-80% false positive (ie not true) confirmations of the virus. The test also reports false negatives (ie, you have the virus but it says you don't!), which is a much worse situation. If the test doesn't work, the app won't either.
13) The app will not protect you from exposure from someone who visits a supermarket 2 hours before you, and handles some food or touches the same EFTPOS sales terminal as you, and who later tests positive.

In short, the app is next to useless! It won't keep you safe from COVID-19. It will not protect you, your family or anyone around you from the coronavirus. The messages from the PM and government are patronising and misleading, and the dependence on the app to end the restrictions needs to stop.

This is yet another example of government incompetence...

Have you installed the app or had any issues with it? Or are you even going to install it?

0 Comments

how accurate is the coronavirus testing - you will be shocked!

6/5/2020

0 Comments

In this whole pandemic saga, there have been many crazy and amusing moments, mostly from the multitude of funny memes on the topic, and well as some questionable government decisions. But this one is probably the weirdest...

I have been questioning all along for the accuracy of the testing kits or processes used to determine if someone actually has the coronavirus or not. This is very important, as EVERYTHING we have had to endure in recent times - from the social distancing, lockdowns, job losses, business closures, food shortages, toilet paper shortages (!), and tyrannical government decisions to restrict your normal rights, is ALL dependent on the accuracy of the coronavirus testing and the resulting statistics.

The PCR test that is the main test, is not accurate with some studies showing that it gives a false positive result in 20-80% of tests in people who do not have any symptoms. The PCR test also returns false negative results too (that you don't have the virus, when you actually do) which is a much worse situation. The inventor of the PCR process has said publicly that it should never be used for diagnostic testing - as it was developed for a different purpose.

Published by Reuters today, the Tanzanian government ordered some testing kits, and on some suspicion, they tested some non-human samples and they tested POSITIVE! (article link here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/tanzania-suspends-laboratory-head-after-president-questions-coronavirus-tests-idUSKBN22G295?fbclid=IwAR10Rg-n8Qeoif92xTtyATptNJZCFVLXJ_DJLB7FRxLUt7Zm6oGOIVw67tI)

Their scientists tested samples from a goat (remember that the coronavirus is only transmissible in humans!) and some fruit (a pawpaw!), and both tested positive to coronavirus! This is not supposed to happen!

Again, the coronavirus test is not accurate. Yet we have all had to make massive changes to our lives and lifestyles based on these inaccurate tests. I hope in the washup of this pandemic, that there will be inquiries into the testing and reporting of the statistics to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

I wonder what might come out of this finding, that non-human samples test positive to coronavirus - that there might be government directives to not eat goat or pawpaw?!

Stay healthy!

0 Comments

Open letter to health officials Re: Coronavirus prevention

4/5/2020

1 Comment

Open letter to all Australian Health Ministers, Health Departments, Doctors, Politicians and Health Regulators, re: coronavirus prevention and containment

I am a Clinical Nutritionist and Naturopath, based in Brisbane and with many years of experience in treating acute and chronic health conditions. I am an evidence-based practitioner, using only proven therapies and treatments for my clients. I specialise in inflammatory and immune system related conditions.

Regarding the current coronavirus infection spreading around the world and Australia (confirmed as a Pandemic by the World Health Organisation), I have been following the statistics and government advice, and I would like to share my thoughts, based on evidence and clinical experience.

Regardless of how the coronavirus came to be, the following facts are relevant:

SARS-CoV-2 is the official virus name, and the infection itself is COVID-19, as designated by the WHO, herein referred to as “coronavirus”
The coronavirus causes a respiratory infection, allegedly transmitted via aerosol droplets, mucus secretions and infected fomites (objects touched by those infected with this virus)
The TGA have recently published announcements to all health practitioners to not recommend any treatments or products that claim to prevent or treat this coronavirus, unless there is proven evidence of their effectiveness against this specific virus
With this virus being so new, there was NO evidence of anything, pharmaceutical or natural as being proven effective at the time of the TGA announcement
The virus appears to survive much longer than other viruses out of the body on surfaces
Improved hygiene practices such as washing of hands, coughing into the crook of one’s elbow, and self-isolation have been proven in the past to be effective in reducing the risks of other respiratory infections
There are no published studies showing the effectiveness of handwashing or improved hygiene against this specific coronavirus. I’m not saying that this should not be done, as past published evidence and anecdotal evidence (from observations, not clinical studies) shows handwashing can reduce transmission risks
But the TGA and health departments have only been recommending handwashing, sanitising, social distancing (a totally new concept), and other hygiene practices as preventions or to reduce the risks of this coronavirus, despite a lack of evidence
There are many other preventative and treatment strategies and products which have similarly been proven to be effective in the past against all other known coronaviruses (which cause the common cold infections, and previous pandemic viruses of SARS and MERS), but according to the new TGA guidelines, these preventions or treatments cannot be recommended by any health practitioners because there is “no current evidence”. All health practitioners in Australia are effectively "gagged" and cannot make any recommendations to prevent infections or save the lives of our fellow Australians.

I will summarise some statistics of the pandemic, and bring to light some new and missing evidence, and proven recommendations for further reducing the risks of this new virus. Or you can jump to the Conclusions for a brief summary!

Statistics

Some statistics on the current coronavirus infection include (as at 28th March 2020):
Country   Coronavirus Mortality Rate

Australia 0.39%
USA 3.0%
China   3.9%
Italy   10.10%

Conclusion: the Italian Government, like Australia, is classifying deaths by many causes as from COVID-19 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020b). Italy also has demographic, cultural and other factors contributing to a higher incidence and mortality rate (Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, 2020). There is a significant difference in mortality rates in different countries, or more accurately, by location.
There are many other major causes of daily deaths in the world, compared to the coronavirus:
Reason Daily Deaths

Hunger 2,500 (UN, Food and Agriculture Organization)
Malaria 2,739 (UNICEF)
AIDS   2,100 (HIV.gov)
Influenza 795 - 1,781 (CDC/WHO)
Coronavirus/COVID-19 270 (as at 11/3/2020), now approx 2000

Total deaths per day 144,000 (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2010)

Conclusion: we cannot believe the "official" death rates, when the Australian government and health departments from WHO recommendations, classifies any death as a "COVID-19" death even if someone were to die from a chronic health condition (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020b).

These are additional statistics I have analysed (as at 28th March 2020):
Number coronavirus incidences by location/hemisphere
Coronavirus Northern Southern Equatorial
incidences Hemisphere Hemisphere Region

No. countries affected 133   48 16
Incidences confirmed   96.8% 1.4% 1.8%
Deaths confirmed 98.8% 0.22% 1.0%

Conclusion: There is a significant difference between the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths between those who live in the northern hemisphere vs southern.

Or a different analysis of the Australian mortality rate (as at 30th March 2020) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020):
Australian Population 25,464,116
Coronavirus incidences   4,460
Coronavirus deaths 19
Coronavirus incidences (% population)   0.000175%
Coronavirus deaths (% population) 0.000000746%

Conclusion: Is this really worth shutting the country down for?

What is significant about the northern hemisphere as a factor of the coronavirus?
It is typical to see many more respiratory infections in winter than summer. Transmission rates and incidences of the common cold, influenza and pneumonia are greatly increased in the cooler months. The infection started in China, in their winter, and spread much more quickly through northern hemisphere countries in their cooler months of winter and early spring. There are several reasons for this difference in seasonal activity in respiratory infections:

Humidity and temperature – the warmer months are generally more humid, especially in more tropical areas. Humidity appears to slow rates of infection transmission by causing infected droplets from coughing or sneezing to fall to the ground instead of floating more in the air and being transmitted to infect people nearby. In the MERS coronavirus outbreak, studies showed a higher temperature and humidity resulted in significantly less lower respiratory tract infections of 45% (Fagbo et al., 2017)
Latitude – Where one lives on the planet, especially their latitude or distance from the equator, determines their Ultra-Violet (UV) light exposure in a given period. People in cities closer to the equator are exposed to more UV-B light on their skin. Direct UV-B radiation on exposed skin is needed to make vitamin D. People living much further away from the equator need more time in direct sunlight to make the same amount of vitamin D (Leary et l. 2017; van der Mei, 2007; Tamerius et al., 2011)
Vitamin D deficiency – vitamin D acts as an anti-inflammatory hormone in the body, and regulates the expression of many genes to have a major systemic benefit to one’s health. Vitamin D isn’t just needed for bone health, but assists the immune system, reduces the rates of viral respiratory infections and influenza, reduces lung conditions like asthma, and can even reduce the risks of many cancers (Hossein-Nezhad & Holick, 2014; Martineau et al., 2017). Vitamin D can also offer antiviral and antibacterial actions as well as stimulating the innate immune system (which identifies and deals with unknown or new infections) (Martineau et al., 2017). Vitamin D deficiency can occur in any season, even in sunny Queensland in summer! (Leary et l. 2017). Vitamin D deficiency, especially in winter, can be a major cause of respiratory infections (Fagbo et al., 2017) and in this study, a vitamin D deficiency amongst a large percentage of the population (which occurs in winter) is the cause of influenza respiratory infection epidemics (Cannell et al., 2008).

There are other factors for the seasonal causes of influenza infections, including temperature, other concomitant infections, other nutrient deficiencies (selenium, vitamin E) (Tamerius et al., 2011), and more. There are other environmental and cultural factors which contribute to the differences in mortality rates between many countries, such as smoking status, air pollution, sleep quality and quantity and others.

The fact that Australia is now entering the cooler months highlights the importance of reducing the risks of respiratory infections using vitamin D supplementation interventions.

Virus Transmission and Severity, and the Germ Theory
The transmission of a virus, its severity, and the rate of incidences and mortality depend entirely on the strength and function of each individual person's immune system. This is confirmed with the majority of people with the coronavirus having very mild symptoms. It is only when someone is immune compromised or with a chronic health condition which has reduced their immune system function, that the infection to take hold in their body more quickly and severely. Having a compromised or immune system, perhaps together with ineffectual medical treatments (or no treatments) any virus is going to cause more severe complications like pneumonia.

The transmission, severity, incidences and mortality are not dependent on the coronavirus at all. This is old 1800s germ theory "science". Yet the health officials and media are blaming the virus and trying to stop the virus itself, which is futile and prolongs the pandemic. Washing hands, regular hygiene and isolation are not enough! In conjunction with improved hygiene, prevention and treatments should also focus on the individual, by supporting one's immune system to protect them for prevention, or to fight off the infection better.

The old Germ Theory promoted by Koch and Pasteur no longer applies as not everyone who is exposed to a virus actually develops symptoms or has the infection. This breaks Koch's famous postulates of the germ theory (MedicineNet, 2019), which states that a pathogen must cause the disease in EVERY case of exposure, which doesn't happen. Some more recent experiments have been conducted and results published, after deliberately infecting individuals with a flu virus - even with a strain that was similar to the one which allegedly caused huge mortality rates in the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. In this study, researchers found less than 40% of those who inhaled the virus actually developed symptoms! And of those who did develop symptoms, they were very mild to mild, and none had any serious symptoms at all (Cannell et al., 2008).

Evidence-based preventative (and treatment) strategies which should be recommended:

Vitamin D - Vitamin D supplementation can reduce risk of infections by reducing inflammation, reducing viral replication rates, reducing age-related morbidity, Vitamin D supplementation during winter has been shown to support immune system function and reduce the incidence of influenza A by approximately one third (Urashima, Segawa, Okazaki, Kurihara, Wada, & Ida, 2010). A very recent study by Grant et al (2020) found evidence that vitamin D supplementation could reduce the risk of influenza and COVID-19 infections and deaths, but required a higher therapeutic dose than the low recommended daily intakes.
Vitamin C – In early studies, a vitamin C deficiency is associated with pneumonia (an often deadly complication of a COVID-19 infection). Vitamin C deficiency is also associated with a reduced immune system function and increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, and vice versa, with infections causing a decrease in vitamin C concentrations (Hemilä, 2017). Several studies are currently underway in China using vitamin C interventions, with results still to be published.
Zinc - is deficient in 49% of adults in the coronavirus risk age group of 51-70 (Boudrealt et al. 2017), and in people who are frequently exposed to stress. Zinc is needed for good immune system support, as well as reducing inflammation and oxidative stress, and improving the immune system response against viruses (Wessels, Maywald, & Rink, 2017). A zinc deficiency is often seen in those with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and contributes to lung injury from the use of a respirator (Boudrealt et al. 2017).
Keeping up good water intake – water is needed to keep mucous membranes moist as they act as a protective barrier against viruses in the respiratory tract (Chen, 2009)
Eating a good variety of quality foods – your food provides nutrients needed for immune systems function. Nutrient deficiencies reduce immune system function and increase susceptibility to infections.
Reducing intake of refined and processed carbohydrate foods - in a recently published study from China, patients with COVID-19 who had poorly managed blood sugar levels and Type 2 Diabetes were at much higher risk of increased incidence, more severe symptoms, and a higher mortality rate. High blood sugar increases inflammation and blood pressure, but reduces immune system function, whereas a well-controlled blood sugar level improved the outcomes of those with COVID-19 and pre-existing diabetes (Zhu et al., 2020). Type 2 Diabetes develops over time from a diet high in carbohydrate-rich foods (>60% of total daily energy from poor food choices), causes insulin resistance, insulin depletion from pancreatic insufficiency, obesity, and cardiovascular and heart disease, being the highest risk factors for incidence and mortality of COVID-19 (Frost, 2003).
Getting sufficient and quality sleep - as sleep is needed to maintain good function of the immune system Studies show reduced sleep reduces immune system function and increases susceptibility to respiratory infections (Prather, Janicki-Deverts, Hall & Cohen, 2015)
Moderate and regular exercise - a moderate exercise program can improve immune system function and reduce the risk of infections, but intensive training seen with athletes can have the opposite effects (Jones & Davison, 2019).

These recommendations and interventions are cheap, very easy to recommend and implement, and will have a very quick response. They can also reduce the strain on the hospital system by reducing infection rates and severity of symptoms, or in the case of those already having severe symptoms in hospital, these interventions can shorten the severity of symptoms and save lives.

I started recommending these preventative treatments back in January when news of the infection emerged. At the time there was no TGA ban on such advice.

The TGA and Expert Recommendations
The scientifically referenced and relevant recommendations in this document have been proven in the past to be safe and effective against many respiratory infections such as influenza and other types of coronavirus. New evidence has been published recently on these preventions and treatments, yet these recommendations are not approved by the TGA, and one must really ask why?

I see the TGA's guidelines of effectively banning all Australian health practitioners (medical and alternative/complementary) from giving any preventative or treatment advice, as being overly cautious. Yes there was little to no evidence for anything (either medical, pharmaceutical or natural) being effective as a preventative or treatment against this particular coronavirus at the time of their guidelines being announced. However, in times of something new like this novel coronavirus, past evidence and anecdotal evidence MUST be seen as the highest form of scientific evidence available. To restrict or ignore past evidence and anecdotal evidence is immoral, and will likely cause many more people to lose their lives in this virus outbreak, as well as prolong the outbreak, disrupt many businesses and perhaps cause the collapse of many companies, threaten the livelihoods of many workers and especially the casual workforce, affect the economy and stock markets, reduce investments, cause further desperation and panic amongst the public, cause social unrest, and more.

There have been a lot of new published studies since the TGA guidelines were announced, giving more clues as to what are some of the causative factors for increased risk of a COVID-19 infection, and for suitable preventions and even treatments. The TGA guidelines now must be updated to reflect this new evidence, and allow health practitioners to give additional preventative strategies and treatment options and further 'flatten the curve" for all Australians.

We have next to nothing to lose by implementing these preventative strategies, but there is so much to lose if we do not.

COVID-19 PCR Testing
The current PCR pathology test for COVID-19 is highly inaccurate. The PCR process was developed to increase the amount of a subset of the genetic code of a virus DNA (Ghannam & Varacallo, 2018). The inventor of the PCR process has publicly said it should not be used for pathology testing, based on studies showing it is inaccurate as PCR testing is not standardised with different labs or countries use different variations of the test (Teo & Shaunak, 1995), is not designed to give a definitive binary result of a "positive" or "negative" confirmation, is affected by contamination that can produce misleading results (Ghannam & Varacallo, 2018), is not consistently reproducible and gives a high percentage of false positive and false negative results that were observed in all laboratories (Defer et al., 1992; Zhuang et al., 2020). Even the World Health Organisation's PCR Working Group demonstrated high levels of false-positive and false-negative results (World Health Organisation, 2011).

In addition, limiting testing of the coronavirus to only people who meet a set criteria is skewing the rates of incidences. Hence the rates of incidences are not accurate and cannot be believed, yet the government and health authorities are making significant changes to laws to restrict rights and freedoms based on inaccurate statistics of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as an inaccurate test used to determine those statistics, and more recently the COVIDSafe app that is also reliant on accurate PCR testing!

We can't actually believe any of the "official" statistics of incidences or mortality rates of this pandemic when:

The PCR test is inaccurate, as explained here, and
The WHO and governments (including Australia) are recommending deaths from chronic health conditions and all respiratory infections (flu or pneumonia), to be caused by COVID-19, whether the patient was tested by a faulty PCR test or just ASSUMED to be having the virus (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020b).

Thus inflating the true incidence rates and the mortality rates, which then gets turned into a fear campaign by the media, and knee-jerk reactions by state and federal governments to implement a raft of laws to restrict our rights and freedoms as well as wrecking the economy and many businesses, all for a generally mild infection for most people.

Instead, consider using faecal testing, as the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been detected in stool samples (Warish et al., 2020).

Flu vaccinations during the coronavirus pandemic
The Federal and state governments of Australia have been adding new laws to mandate flu vaccinations for healthcare workers or for the public to visit relatives in aged care, or even for general work. I believe that this decision is irresponsible, is not based on scientific evidence and can actually increase the risks of someone getting the coronavirus. The flu vaccine does not prevent or reduce the risks of getting the coronavirus infection - it's a different type of virus. Several published studies, however, have found that flu vaccinations can cause a phenomenon called "vaccine-associated virus interference"; that is, recently vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk for other respiratory virus infections, especially coronaviruses (Wolff, 2020). This study, on military personnel found a 36% increase in coronavirus infection risk after a flu vaccine (Wolff, 2020).

Another study by Cowling and colleagues (2012), found those who had the flu vaccine, who had no other respiratory viruses beforehand, over a follow-up period of 9 months had a significantly increased risk of confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infections compared to a placebo group. The study also found no significant reduction in confirmed flu infections in the test group (those who had the vaccine), meaning that the flu vaccine was ineffective.

Herd immunity
Herd immunity has been discussed by some experts and being used as a strategy by some countries such as Sweden and Japan. Herd immunity is a theoretical belief that if sufficient numbers of people are immune to in infection (the "herd"), the spread of the infection could be reduced or stopped, thus protecting those who are not immune to the infection.

The theoretical percentage of the population who need to be immune to an infection has been increased over time from 50% to 80% to 90% to 95%, depending on the infection. The estimate has increased as outbreaks were still occurring in populations which had reached the previous "herd immunity" levels through vaccinations for many infectious diseases. Outbreaks still occur in populations with 100% vaccine coverage. Hence vaccination programs are not working.

The NHMRC have published a suggested herd immunity rate for the coronavirus in Australia of 61% (MacIntyre, 2020), based on the rate of transmission, in turn based on a faulty test as described above.

Unfortunately, health officials have confused herd immunity with "natural immunity" from contracting an infection, and "vaccinated immunity" from vaccinations. They are very two different concepts. Herd immunity never occurs from vaccinations for several reasons:

Vaccines only give short-term temporary "immunity" from 6 months (in most flu vaccines) to just a few years for most others. Vaccine-induced immunity is significantly reduced at 5 years after initial whooping cough vaccination and 2x boosters (Lavine, Bjørnstad, de Blasio, Storsaeterf, 2012), and other studies show the same for other vaccines
Not everyone who gets a vaccine develops immunity. This is why boosters or multiple shots are needed, to try and force immunity a second or third time (or more) in those who did not achieve immunity from previous shots. Seroconversion rates (ie, immunity developed via antibodies) can be as low as 16% effectiveness in the annual flu vaccines for some age groups (Sequirus, 2018) , hence in most vaccines, many people do not develop immunity
With 75.2% of the Australian population being adults over 19 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020a) and assuming that most adults do not get regular boosters, when the temporary vaccine immunity wears off a couple of years afterwards, those adults are no longer immune. So there is no longer any "herd" to protect those who cannot have the vaccine; herd immunity does not exist!
Vaccinated women of a child-bearing age who have lost their temporary vaccine immunity cannot pass on this immunity to the foetus, in comparison to women with natural acquired immunity passing that onto the foetus via the placenta and breastfeeding (Jackson, 2006).

Herd immunity is only possible from more people being exposed to the actual infection, and developing antibodies that last a lifetime. Countries that are implementing a herd immunity strategy to combat the coronavirus allow healthy and younger people to continue their normal lives without any lockdowns or business shutdowns. Yes they may contract the infection but without chronic health conditions they are likely to develop only mild or even no symptoms. But they will develop immunity, will shorten this pandemic as the virus will die out, and will increase the level of true natural herd immunity that will protect others.

Those at risk of the virus with chronic health conditions should be recommended to continue to isolate themselves, but those who are young and healthy should be allowed to leave their homes, travel, and resume normal daily activities.

Herd immunity is never achieved from vaccination programs. In fact, the population loses more herd immunity as more people are vaccinated.

Recommendations:
For the prevention of coronavirus infections, reducing transmission rates, reducing duration and severity of symptoms, and other benefits, I recommend the State and Federal governments and their respective Health Departments undertake the following:

Increase social media marketing and traditional media coverage of better preventative strategies – more than just washing your hands and improved hygiene practices
Include recommending preventative strategies that are evidence-based, and have previously been shown effective against respiratory infections, viruses in general and/or other coronavirus strains:
- Vitamin D – at least 1200IU per day, and safe sun exposure regularly. A study by Grant et al. (2020) recommended a higher dose of 10,000IU per day for a few weeks, followed by 5,000IU per day to get vitamin D levels in the range of 100-150nmol/L for the best benefit of prevention, and a higher dose for treatment
- Vitamin C – at least 1000mg per day for children, and up to 6-8g per day for adults. A Cochrane systematic review of placebo-controlled trials found that children taking 1-2g (1000-2000mg) vitamin C daily shortened the duration of a common cold infection (a type of coronavirus) by 18% and reduced their severity. In adults the results were smaller (Hemilä & Chalker, 2013). Best results for reducing respiratory infection duration and symptoms, including preventing pneumonia (a major complication in COVID-19 infections), requires a higher therapeutic dose of up to 6-8gm per day for adults (Hemilä, 2017).
- Zinc – 20-30mg per day for adults, and age/weight equivalent for children
- Other nutritional advice – eating a healthy diet for a variety of nutrients
- Reducing foods that cause high blood sugar levels - such as sugary foods and drinks, grain-based products, and dairy foods
- Drinking sufficient water - to keep mucous membranes moist and prevent viral infections, and even using saline nasal sprays if required
- Getting good quality and quantity sleep - of 7-8 hours per night
- Moderate exercise.
Recommend cautions on using or self-prescribing anti-inflammatory medications such as Aspirin, NSAIDs, and others during a coronavirus infection. Studies have shown that the 1918 Spanish flu did not cause the high number of deaths, but from bacterial pneumonia (National Institutes of Health, 2008)) in conjunction with a new medication at that time - Aspirin, which was prescribed in too high a dose and it affected lung function in those who took it (Starko, 2009). NSAIDs and other anti-inflammatory medications suppress the immune system responses to an infection, leading to more severe symptoms, a longer duration of illness and higher risks of serious complications and deaths (Basille, Plouvier, Trouve, Duhaut, Andrejak, & Jounieaux, 2017).

Conclusion
The novel coronavirus pandemic is nothing like what we have seen before. Hence novel strategies must be implemented to deal with it. Banning recommendations of previously-proven prevention and treatment strategies is immoral when there are many lives at stake.

There are many factors which influence your individual risk for contracting this infection, most of which are environmental. There are also cultural and geographic factors which can significantly increase your risk, which we see in the referenced studies here.

Incidences of respiratory infections (from colds, flu, pneumonia, asthma, and the new coronavirus) can be reduced with preventative vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, and other natural interventions, and these should be recommended.

The reported statistics of incidences and mortality are highly inflated due to inaccurate PCR testing, and manipulative recording of deaths to blame the cause on COVID-19. Then these inaccurate statistics are used by governments to implement knee-jerk reactive legislation that destroys lives in many other ways with failed businesses, investments, jobs, and the economy.

A natural "herd immunity" strategy should be implemented to combat the virus, by allowing those who are fit and healthy to resume normal lives, travels and work. Those at risk with chronic health conditions should continue to isolate themselves while also working on improving their immune systems as detailed above. This way, we have a chance of achieving the herd immunity rate of 61% which can slow down the true rate of incidences and mortality, and bring this pandemic to an end quickly.

Please consider the abovementioned simple, cheap, and readily-available preventative and treatment recommendations in the overall prevention and treatment plans for the coronavirus pandemic. All of this evidence (and more) is available in peer-reviewed medical journals. Clinical Nutritionists and Naturopaths like myself have been using and recommending these preventions and treatments for all manner of viral infections with great success in the past, and they should be considered based on past evidence of safety and effectiveness against this coronavirus. As the medical system has no effective strategies or proven medications for this specific infection, it makes sense to use existing therapies such as the above. If not, in the reviews and inquiries after this pandemic, the public will be wondering why these simple and effective therapies were not allowed, or not tried, and why more peoples' lives could not be saved.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ross Walter
Clinical Nutritionist, Naturopath and Herbalist. ATMS

NB - a PDF copy of this article is available from the link below. Feel free to download and share this information to your family, friends, elected officials as needed.

coronavirus_letter_and_research_to_health_ministers.pdf
File Size:	646 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

References:

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020a). Australian Demographic Statistics, Sept 2019. Retrieved 28th March 2020 from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mf/3101.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020b). Guidance for Certifying Deaths due to COVID-19. Retrieved 20th April 2020 from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1205.0.55.001

Basille, D., Plouvier, N., Trouve, C., Duhaut, P., Andrejak, C., Jounieaux, V. (2017). Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs may Worsen the Course of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Cohort Study. Lung, 195 (2): 201-208. doi: 10.1007/s00408-016-9973-1.

Bootman, J.S., & Kitchin, P.A. (1992). An international collaborative study to assess a set of reference reagents for HIV-1 PCR. Journal of Virological Methods, 37 (1):23-41. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 54 (12): 1778-1783. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis307

Boudreault, F., Pinilla-Vera, M., Englert, J.A., Kho, A.T., Isabelle, C., Arciniegas, A.J., Barragan-Bradford, D., Quintana, C., Amador-Munoz, D., Guan, J., Choi, K.M., Sholl, L., Hurwitz, S., Tschumperlin, D.J., & Baron, R.M. (2017). Zinc deficiency primes the lung for ventilator-induced injury. JCI Insight, 2 (11): e86507. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.86507

Cannell, J.J., Zasloff, M., Garland, C.F., Scragg, R., & Giovannucci, E. (2008). On the epidemiology of influenza. Virology Journal, 5 (29). DOI: 10.1186/1743-422X-5-29

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. (2020). Global Covid-19 Case Fatality Rates. Retrieved 29th March 2020 from https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

Chen. (2009). The 13 Best Natural Cold and Flu Fighting Strategies. Retrieved 23rd March 2020 from http://www.dralisonchen.com/2015/02/13-best-natural-cold-flu-fighting-strategies/

Cowling,B.J., Fang, V.J., Nishiura, H., Chan, K-H., Ng, S., Ip, D.K.M., Chiu, S.S., Leung, G.M., & Peiris, J.S.M. (2012). Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine.

Cruciani, M., Mengoli, C., Loeffler, J., Donnelly, P., Barnes, R., Jones, B.L., Klingspor, L., Morton, O., & Maertens, J. (2015). Polymerase chain reaction blood tests for the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised people. Cochrane Database Systemetic Reviews, 1 (10): CD009551. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009551.pub3.

Defer, C., Agut, H., Garbarg-Chenon, A., Moncany, M., Morinet, F., Vignon, D., Mariotti, M., & Lefrère J.J. (1992). Multicentre quality control of polymerase chain reaction for detection of HIV DNA. AIDS, 6 (7): 659-663.

Fagbo, S.F., Garbati, M.A., Hasan, R., AlShahrani, D., Al-Shehri, M., AlFawaz, T., Hakawi, A., Wani, T.A., Skakni, L. (2017). Acute viral respiratory infections among children in MERS-endemic Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2012-2013. Journal of Medical Virology, 89 (2):195-201. doi: 10.1002/jmv.24632

Fine, P., Eames, K. & Heymann, D.L. (2011). ‘‘Herd Immunity’’: A Rough Guide. Vaccines Journal, 52: 911. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir007

Frost, G. (2003). Glucose | Glucose Tolerance and the Glycemic (Glycaemic) Index. Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition (Second Edition), London. Doi: 10.1016/B0-12-227055-X/00560-5

Ghannam, M.G., & Varacallo, M. (2018). Biochemistry, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). StatPearls Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535453/

Grant, W.B., Lahore, H., McDonnell, S.L., Baggerly, A.A., French, C.B., Aliano, J.L., & Bhattoa, H.P. (2020). Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients, 12 (4), 988. Doi: 10.3390/nu12040988

Hemilä, H. (2017). Vitamin C and Infections. Nutrients, 9 (4): 339. doi: 10.3390/nu9040339

Hemilä, H., & Chalker, R. (2013). Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1: 1465-1858. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold

Hossein-nezhad, A., & Holick, M.F. (2014). Vitamin D for Health: A Global Perspective. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88 (7): 720–755. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.011

Jackson, K.M. (2006). Breastfeeding, the Immune Response, and Long-term Health. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 106 (4): 203-207

Jones, A.W., & Davison, G. (2019). Exercise, Immunity, and Illness. Muscle and Exercise Physiology: 317–344. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814593-7.00015-3

Lavine, J., Bjørnstad, O., de Blasio, B.F., & Storsaeterf, J. (2012). Short-lived immunity against pertussis, age-specific routes of transmission, and the utility of a teenage booster vaccine. Vaccine, 30 (3): 544–551. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.065

Leary, P. F., Zamfirova, I., Au, J., & McCracken, W. H. (2017). Effect of Latitude on Vitamin D Levels. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 117 (7), 433. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2017.089

MacIntyre, R. (2020). Busting the myths about COVID-19 herd immunity, children and lives vs. jobs. NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence, Integrated Systems for Epidemic Response. Retrieved 14th April, 2020 from https://iser.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/busting-myths-about-covid-19-herd-immunity-children-and-lives-vs-jobs

Martineau, A.R., Jolliffe, D.A., Hooper, R.L., Greenberg, L., Aloia, J.F., Bergman, P., Dubnov-Raz, G., Esposito, S., Ganmaa, D., Ginde, A.A., Goodall, E.C., Grant, C.C., Griffiths, C.J., Janssens, W., Laaksi, I., Manaseki-Holland, S. Mauger, D., Murdoch, D.R., Neale, R., Rees, J.R., Simpson, Jr, S., Stelmach, I., Kumar, G.T., Urashima, M., & Camargo, Jr, C.A. (2017). Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. British Medical Journal, 356: i6583. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6583

MedicineNet. (2019). Medical Definition of Koch's Postulates. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7105

National Institutes of Health. (2008). Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic. Retrieved 2nd April 2020 from https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic

Prather, A.A., Janicki-Deverts, D., Hall, M.H., & Cohen, S. (2015). Behaviorally Assessed Sleep and Susceptibility to the Common Cold. Sleep Journal, 38 (9): 1353–1359. doi: 10.5665/sleep.4968

Starko, K.M. (2009). Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919 Pharmacology, Pathology, and Historic Evidence. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49 (9): 1405–1410 doi: 10.1086/606060

Tamerius, J., Nelson, M.I., Zhou, S.Z., Viboud, C., Miller, M.A., & Alonso, W.J. (2011). Global Influenza Seasonality: Reconciling Patterns across Temperate and Tropical Regions. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119 (4). doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002383

Teo, I.A., & Shaunak, S. (1995). PCR in situ: aspects which reduce amplification and generate false-positive results. The Histochemical Journal, 27 (9):660-669.

Urashima, M., Segawa, T., Okazaki, M., Kurihara, M., Wada, Y. & Ida, H. (2010). Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91, (5): 1255–1260. Doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094

van der Mei, I.A.F., Ponsonby, A-L., Engelsen, O., Pasco, J.A., McGrath, J.J., Eyles, D.W., Blizzard, L., Dwyer, T., Lucas, R., & Jones, G. (2007). The High Prevalence of Vitamin D Insufficiency across Australian Populations Is Only Partly Explained by Season and Latitude. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (8): 1132–1139. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9937

Warish, A., Angel, N., Edson, J., Bibby, K., Bivins, A., O'Brien, J.W., Choi, P.M., Kitajima, M., Simpson, S.L., Li, J., Tscharke, B., Verhagen, R., Smith, W.J.M., Zaugg, J., Dierens, L., Hugenholtz, P., Thomas, K.V., & Mueller, J.F. (2020). First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Science of the Total Environment, pre-proof. Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764

Wessels, I., Maywald, M., & Rink, L. (2017). Zinc as a Gatekeeper of Immune Function. Nutrients, 9 (12): 1286. doi: 10.3390/nu9121286

Wolff, G.G. (2020). Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season. Vaccine Journal, 38 (2): 350-354. Doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.005

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2011). The use of PCR in the surveillance and diagnosis of influenza. Report of the 4th meeting of the WHO working group on polymerase chain reaction protocols for detecting subtype influenza A viruses, Geneva, Switzerland 2011. Retrieved 30th March 2020 from https://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/final_who_pcr__meeting_report_aug_2011_en.pdf

World o Meter. (2020). COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic statistics. Retrieved 29th March 2020 from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Zhu, L., She, Z.G., Cheng, X., Qin, J-J., Zhang, X-J., Cai, J., Lei, F., Wang, H., Xie, J., Wang, W., Li, H., Zhang, P., Song, X., Chen, X., Xiang, M., Zhang, C., Bai, L., Xiang, D., Chen, M-M., Liu, Y., Yan, Y., Liu, M., Mao, W., Zou, J., Liu, L., Chen, G., Luo, P., Xiao, B., Zhang, C., Zhang, Z., Lu, Z., Wang, J., Lu, H., Xia, X., Wang, D., Liao, X., Peng, G., Ye, P., Yang, J., Yuan, Y., Huang, X., Guo, J., Zhang, B-H., Li, H. (2020). Association of Blood Glucose Control and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 and Pre-existing Type 2 Diabetes. Cell Metabolism, 31: 1-10. Doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021

Zhuang, G.H., Shen, M.W., Zeng, L.X., Mi, B.B., Chen, F.Y., Liu, W.J., Pei, L.L., Qi, X., & Li, C. (2020). Potential False-Positive Rate Among the 'Asymptomatic Infected Individuals' in Close Contacts of COVID-19 Patients. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi, 41 (4), 485-488. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200221-00144.

1 Comment

a new digital passport is needed to return to life after the coronavirus

Proof that the coronavirus is a man-made, genetically-modified virus, and not the result of a natural mutation

The COVIDsafe app will not work to keep you safe or protected from COVID-19

how accurate is the coronavirus testing - you will be shocked!

Open letter to health officials Re: Coronavirus prevention

COPYRIGHT

Archives

Categories