Ross Walter Nutritionist and Naturopath health articles and blog

What is an mRNA vaccine, how does it work, and what are the issues with this new mRNA vaccine technology?

13/12/2020

One of the new vaccine delivery systems being used by some of the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers (Pfizer and Moderna), is the "messenger RNA" or mRNA type vaccines. But what are these, how do they work, are there any issues with these technologies?

Messenger RNA are produced naturally in your cells. mRNA is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is created in the nucleus based on a subset of your DNA, being a particular gene. The mRNA is basically a complementary copy of a specific gene which moves out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm of the cell (Brody, 2020). Within the cytoplasm of a cell are ribosomes, tiny organelles which can be found floating or attached to the Endoplasmic Reticulum, both being protein-making factories to make a type of protein, being copies of the mRNA or gene, for use in the body (British Society for Cell Biology, 2020; Moderna, 2020).

mRNA vaccines are a new technology that tries to simulate a coronavirus infection, without actually having an infection, to train the immune system cells (the white blood cells) to recognise a coronavirus infection in the in the future and to respond more quickly to the infection. The mRNA in the vaccine is injected into the body, somehow gets into cells, which trains the cells to produce a piece of protein which matches the "spike protein" on the surface of the coronavirus, which the cells release and this stimulates an immune system response and trains the immune system to recognise and destroy the virus in a future infection (Pfizer, 2020). Allegedly.

The mRNA vaccines may be seen as having some advantages over other types of vaccines, which typically contain a dead form of the virus or bacteria, or a live (but weakened) form of pathogens. In many cases, as has been shown in many published studies, the live viruses in vaccines can become re-activated to cause the actual infection to which you are supposedly being "immunised" against. The mRNA vaccines do not actually contain the coronavirus, but a portion of the "spike protein", there is a very low risk of actually contracting COVID-19 from the vaccine (European Commission Research and Innovation, 2020).

mRNA vaccines are a very new development and not used or approved for use in vaccines before. Hence their testing for safety and efficacy MUST be done thoroughly and properly, and not rushed or fast-tracked because of some perceived emergency. The USA has an "Emergency Use Authorisation" or EUA which allows medical devices, which includes vaccines, to be fast-tracked (ie, where testing requirements are reduced) to speed up the development and delivery of such devices where there is no other option for treatment (FDA, 2020). But there is another option, it's called "your immune system"!

One possible reason why we have seen so much opposition to the drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) being recommended for its antiviral effects by governments and health departments or organisations or medicine regulators, is that if HCQ was recommended officially by the authorities, it would negate and stop the EUA requirements for any fast-tracked vaccine for COVID-19! In such a scenario, the COVID vaccine manufacturers would have to stick to the full and proper testing protocol for their products, which would take on average 7 years or more to complete in order to test, apply for approval and then produce their products. In our current COVID situation we have seen vaccine manufacturers skip standard testing processes, use unscientific testing protocols, announce a fraudulently-derived effectiveness percentage of their products, and PRODUCE tens of millions of vaccine doses, while they are still testing their product, with the regulator approval seeming to be a mere rubber stamp formality without the usual thorough investigations or analyses done to confirm the safety and effectiveness before being approved for public use.

The mRNA vaccines will not prevent COVID-19 infections. They MAY (or may not) prime your immune system to more quickly recognise a future pathogen displaying the same coronavirus spike proteins and this MAY (or may not) result in the production of antibodies. In some published studies, having a level of antibodies does not mean that you are "immune" to that infection! Multiple doses of the mRNA vaccines are needed, as the first dose does not always cause production of antibodies, leading to an initial low efficacy rate.

The mRNA vaccines will not prevent the transmission of the virus to others. It takes time (approximately 2 weeks) from the start of an infection for the immune system to ramp up its production of white blood cells to fight the infection. During this time, you can be infecting other people around you.

The mRNA vaccines will not stop an active COVID-19 infection in someone.

I still have some questions about the mRNA vaccines which need investigating and answering, because I am far from satisfied with the (lack of) thorough testing being done on these new vaccines:

1) How do the mRNA molecules in the vaccine get INTO a cell to produce the coronavirus spike proteins, when the mRMA molecules are normally only RELEASED from a cell?
2) For how long will a cell continue to make and release the COVID mRNA to stimulate the immune system?
3) How many cells are likely to become COVID mRNA protein producing factories, and how much mRNA will be produced by these "infected" cells?
4) Will the immune system see your cells with the COVID mRNA in them as being "infected" and destroy them, thus effectively stopping the vaccine from working?
5) What is the true "seroconversion" rate (the % of people who develop antibodies) after each vaccine dose for different age groups?
6) How long will the "immunity" from the COVID-19 vaccines last?
7) What is the true effectiveness rate of these mRNA vaccines in preventing COVID-19 infections?
8) What are the long-term potential adverse effects of these mRNA vaccines? (No-one knows as they are very new, and there have been NO long-term trials done).

We don't know the answer to ANY of these questions, which we really should know, especially for this new vaccine technology.

mRNA vaccines have been experimented with before, but none have been successful. Using mRNA vaccines in animal trials have suggested that the technique wasn't as safe as hoped (Chemical and Engineering News, 2018).

Contrary to many social media posts and memes, mRNA vaccines do not change your DNA! mRNA does not need to nor can enter the nucleus of the cell to change your DNA or your genes. mRNA is only used by cells outside of the nucleus... It is important to make sure that in any scientific debate or opposition to this new vaccine technology that both sides have their facts correct.

Despite the fact that mRNA vaccines cannot change your DNA, there are still MANY concerns for these new vaccines, and many questions still need to be asked and answered. MUCH more scientific testing must be done over a longer period, to truly show their safety and efficacy. And whenever there is a risk of side effects, especially in something new like this, and more so when the infection is not serious in 99.99% of the population (who quickly recover), there MUST be a choice for getting this vaccine or not.

References:

British Society for Cell Biology (2020). Ribosome. Retrieved 8th December 2020 from https://bscb.org/learning-resources/softcell-e-learning/ribosome/

Brody, L.C. (2020). Messenger RNA (mRNA). Retrieved 8th December 2020 from https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/messenger-rna

Chemical and Engineering News. (2018). Can mRNA disrupt the drug industry? Retrieved 8th December 2020 from https://cen.acs.org/business/start-ups/mRNA-disrupt-drug-industry/96/i35

European Commission Research and Innovation. (2020). Five things you need to know about: mRNA vaccines. Retrieved 8th December 2020 from https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccines.html

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020). Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). Retrieved 8th December 2020 from https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization

Moderna. (2020). The Science and Fundamentals of mRNA Technology. Retrieved 8th December 2020 from https://www.modernatx.com/mrna-technology/science-and-fundamentals-mrna-technology

1 Comment

December 04th, 2020

4/12/2020

0 Comments

Several of the major pharmaceutical companies who are close to finishing their clinical trials of their COVID-19 vaccines have announced some very impressive results of their effectiveness, at around 95%.

Considering that no vaccine in history has come close to being 95% effective in allegedly preventing an infection, and many vaccines have never been able to be produced despite huge budgets and years of trying (such as the common cold virus, HIV, and the SARS and MERS coronavirus vaccines) how are these companies getting such results just in a few months after the outbreak? Let's look into this in more detail...

Some of the major pharmaceutical companies close to finishing their trials and producing COVID vaccines include AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna. I'll look into each of them in turn.

AstraZeneca
AstraZeneca have been running multiple trials together with Oxford University, in the UK, USA, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Africa (AstraZeneca, 2020).

AstraZeneca are being very secretive about the details of their clinical trials and their results, and not releasing the data which allegedly shows positive results (The Guardian, 2020b). After some of their competitors released their trial protocols, AstraZeneca finally released their trial protocol, but not their data. They aim to develop a vaccine with 50% effectiveness (being the FDA requirement for vaccine approval) (Becker's Hospital Review, 2020).

AstraZeneca are creating a genetically-modified vaccine using a defective modified chimpanzee adenovirus with the coronavirus spike protein. The vaccine attempts to stimulate an immune response to the coronavirus spike protein, so that the immune system will recognise the spike protein in a future infection (AstraZeneca, 2020).

Pfizer
Pfizer are developing a new "messenger RNA" (mRNA) vaccine, which does not actually contain the COVID-19 virus. Instead, the mRNA vaccine trains cells to produce a piece of protein which matches the "spike protein" on the surface of the coronavirus, which the cells release and this stimulates an immune response and trains the immune system to recognise and destroy the virus (Pfizer, 2020). Allegedly.

Pfizer is testing their mRNA vaccine on 44,000 volunteers. They reported 170 COVID-19 cases in the volunteers, with 162 in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccine group.

They get their 95% effectiveness by comparing the COVID cases between the placebo group against the vaccine group, as (8/162) * 100% = 4.9% or rounded up to 5% COVID cases in the vaccinated group compared to 95% in the non-vaccinated group. Therefore, they say their vaccine is 95% effective!

Moderna
Moderna are producing a very different mRNA based vaccine, and currently testing on 30,000 volunteers. In this trial, 95 people still contracted COVID-19, with 90 of them in the placebo group and 5 in the vaccine group.

Moderna claim their 95% vaccine effectiveness using the same method as Pfizer: (5/90) * 100% = 5.5%, hence 94.5% effectiveness or rounded up to 95%.

The COIVID vaccine clinical trials are supposed to be about:

1) Testing for efficacy (ie, effectiveness) of the vaccine to PREVENT infections, to prime the immune system and produce ANTIBODIES against the infection, to prevent TRANSMISSION of the infection, and prevent DEATHS!
2) Testing for safety, to make sure that those receiving the vaccine do not get any serious adverse effects (or ANY adverse effects, which is actually impossible), and that the vaccine is not worse than the actual infection in the short term or in the long term.

But none of the major clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines have been designed to record or test for these 2 critical elements of safety or efficacy! None of the current vaccine trials have been setup to detect that the vaccine will result in a reduction of infections, a reduction of symptoms, the production of antibodies, a reduction of serious outcomes such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths, or a reduction in transmissions (Doshi, 2020). Then what the hell are they actually testing?! It seems they are "testing" NOTHING at all. Other than perhaps some basic maths, which they have no real evidence for...

The vaccine companies are in fact just committing FRAUD, to deceive the regulators, the media, politicians, doctors, and YOU, for their personal financial gain. The "testing" of their vaccines is simply a race to the finish line - to be the first to be able to mass-produce billions of vaccines, while fudging the paperwork to make it look like it works, when it doesn't. As shown above, they aren't even testing their vaccines properly.

And the vaccine companies are committing FRAUD by skipping over the usual test phases (ie, animal trials, which have typically found a lot of problems in past vaccines) as well as ignoring proper safety and efficacy outcomes that they are supposed to be testing for (British Medical Journal, 2020).

They also have no idea of the long-term implications of the COVID vaccines in 3 or 6 or 12 months, or years after vaccination, as no long-term testing will be done before being released to the public. The manufacturers are also not looking at testing specific age groups - for children who have had next to no effects or deaths from the virus, or the elderly with their reduced immune response to all other vaccines, or pregnant women, or those with comorbid conditions. There will be no testing done on these factors, and people in these groups have actually been excluded from the vaccine trials (Doshi, 2020). See the attached table showing all these groups being excluded from the major vaccine trials (Doshi, 2020).

Many governments and health regulators have said that they would approve "safe and effective" COVID vaccines. I hope they will read far more into the manufacturer's testing data than the fudged effectiveness figures they are already quoting... UPDATE: I was confident that the regulators would do the right thing, but then this is 2020 and common sense and science has completely gone out the window. The UK health regulator has today (2nd Dec, 2020) approved the Pfizer COVID vaccine based on their fraudulent 95% effectiveness claims. The UK will begin rolling out this vaccine within days). (The Guardian, 2020). Also, if the Pfizer vaccine has only recently been completed and only just approved, how can they start rolling out millions of doses within days, as the company and government have said, unless it had already been producing that many vaccines for months?! So they have been producing an untested and unapproved vaccine for months, and just doing the paperwork (ie, "testing" and data manipulation) as a formality...

Most governments, such as in the USA and Australia, have already exempted the vaccine manufacturers from any liability from lawsuits due to any side effects, adverse reactions, or deaths that may result from their COVID vaccines. This isn't helping those companies to keep them honest or to test for or make a safe or effective product, as we have just seen.

Some of these concerns, and more, have been raised by other doctors and scientists, including Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the British Medical Journal, who I have referenced in this article (Doshi, 2020). He has been calling for independence and transparency in the COVID-19 clinical trials and their data and findings.

And the worst thing is... the government, and your favourite airline, cafe or restaurant, and even your job, are ready to stop you using any of these services, based on a BS pathology test which doesn't work, and a BS vaccine which also hasn't been tested properly, not likely to work or be as effective as the manufacturers say, or even be safe (as it has not been tested for this!)... All of our future lives are likely to depend on the outcomes of these vaccines, the lobbying from the pharmaceutical companies, and the stupid politicians that implement new laws based on all these fraudulent and untested vaccines.

If you make more people aware of this information and that our lives cannot and must not be dependent on these vaccines, we can stop this madness.

My next article will be on other findings of theses vaccine trials...

References:
AstraZeneca. (2020). Clinical Study Protocol - Amendment 2 -A Phase III Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Multicenter Study in Adults to Determine the Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of AZD1222, a Non-replicating ChAdOx1 Vector Vaccine, for the Prevention of COVID-19. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://s3.amazonaws.com/ctr-med-7111/D8110C00001/52bec400-80f6-4c1b-8791-0483923d0867/c8070a4e-6a9d-46f9-8c32-cece903592b9/D8110C00001_CSP-v2.pdf

Becker's Hospital Review. (2020). AstraZeneca releases COVID-19 vaccine protocol. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/astrazeneca-releases-covid-19-vaccine-protocol.html

Doshi, P. (2020). Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us? British Medical Journal, 371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4037

Pfizer. (2020a). mRNA - Technology at the forefront during a global pandemic. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/mrna_technology_at_the_forefront_during_a_global_pandemic

Pfizer. (2020b). A Phase 1/2/3, placebo-controlled, randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and efficacy of SARS_COV-2 RNA vaccine candidates against COVID-19 in healthy individuals. Pfizer.

The Guardian. (2020a). UK approves Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine for rollout next week. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/02/pfizer-biontech-covid-vaccine-wins-licence-for-use-in-the-uk

The Guardian. (2020b). Oxford Covid vaccine works in all ages, trials suggest. Retrieved 3rd December 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/27/covid-vaccine-uk-oxford-university-astrazeneca-works-in-all-ages-trials-suggest

0 Comments

The COVID-19 vaccine won't be mandatory, but illegal coercion will be used to try and make you get it

4/12/2020

0 Comments

If you haven't figured it out already, the whole coronavirus political agenda and resulting restrictions, lockdowns and infringements on your daily lives, is NOT about a virus. It's about governments implementing new laws for controlling the population and implementing a mass vaccination program, for a virus which affects next to no-one under 50 years of age or who has no existing chronic health conditions. Or in other words, the virus does NOT affect 99.999% of people.

The Australian Government, and other governments worldwide, have said that they would like everyone to get the coronavirus vaccine when it becomes available. Many stoopid politicians (yes, you Dan Andrews and others) have said that we can't go back to "normal" (I really hate that word now!) until a vaccine is available and the whole population gets it.

Unfortunately the Australian constitution (section 51, xxiii) states that the government cannot make any medical treatment mandatory or to use coercion to enforce a mandate, and medical treatments can only be given lawfully with the individual's full informed consent. This includes vaccinations. Various state laws in Australia also have a charter of human rights that similarly prevent medical treatments without full consent.

So instead the state and federal governments and politicians have already been warning us that a COVID vaccination will be "as close to mandatory as possible", which the Prime Minister has said recently (ABC news, 2020). But that means using coercion, which is also illegal. Never mind a few broken laws from hypocritical and lying politicians... it wouldn't be the first time.

If you decide that the new, untested, and unproven, and even unnecessary COVID vaccination is not your cup of tea, and you quite rightly want to decline it because you have read the research on the lack of safety testing or the lack of inert placebo-controlled trials (some COVID vaccine tests are using the dangerous meningococcal vaccine as the "control" group!) or you simply want to exercise your right to not have a "medical treatment" or be coerced into some government-sponsored propaganda... then you might be in for a shock.

The Australian government updated many laws during the alleged pandemic, including the Biosecurity Act (2015). It now states that (Hart, 2020):
• If an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure (wearing of a mask or vaccination), they can only do so if the individual consents to the measure, BUT
• An individual failing to comply with a biosecurity measure may be committing an offence, and
• The penalty for failing to comply with a biosecurity measure is 5 years in jail, or a 300-unit penalty, or both.
• Under Commonwealth Law, a "penalty unit" implies a fine of $222.
Hence a 300-unit penalty for not complying with a directive to get the COVID vaccine, which is legally voluntary (!), IF such a vaccine can actually be developed, can be $66,600! Or 5 years jail, or both.

I don't think there are enough spaces in jail for everyone who is likely to tell the government where to go with a COVID vaccine requirement, or enough court time to process all the cases. There are a couple of legal firms around Australia who are challenging many of the ridiculous fines being handed out by over-zealous police around the country, based on illegal "laws".

The potential penalties of 5 years in jail or a $66,600 fine, or both, is ridiculous, excessive, and just plain stupid - for a virus that is found only after testing people who have no symptoms, where only 0.3% of those who are tested are given a "positive" test result, based on a PCR test that reports up to 80% of results as false positives, which only causes issues in people over 50 years of age who have one or more existing chronic health issues, and when 99.9% of them still survive...

If these penalties are so excessive, to attempt to coerce you into a non-existent vaccine, while claiming that this is "voluntary" or "not mandatory", you have to wonder why does the government want to force this onto you, your family and you kids? Do you think this is fair?

Stay informed, and stay healthy!

References:
ABC News. (2020). COVID vaccine likely to be mandatory in Australia, Scott Morrison says after signing deal with Oxford University. Retrieved 4th November 2020 from https://www.abc.net.au/.../morrison-coronavirus.../12572992
Hart, E. (2020). Covid-19: Less haste, more safety. British Medical Journal, 370. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3258

0 Comments

Why we should not rely on PCR testing for COVID-19

4/12/2020

0 Comments

I've written about the PCR testing being used for testing COVID incidences in the past, in detail. Here's just a quick summary and reminder:

The PCR testing process used for COVID and other viruses was never invented for or intended to be used for diagnostic purposes! It was only designed to generate an increasing amount of genetic material (DNA or RNA) given a subset of some existing DNA/RNA.

The rt-PCR test being used for COVID testing involces a cycling function of a number of rounds that the test is repeated to generate enough DNA/RNA or genetic material from a sample to determine an alleged positive or negative result. The more cycles or rounds done in the lab, the more DNA/RNA material is generated, giving more genetic material, and therefore more people test positive for COVID.

If you cycle the test sample material 60 times, EVERY sample will generate a high amount of genetic material which is interpreted as a positive test result!
If you cycle the test sample material 30 times, SOME samples will generate a moderate amount of genetic material which can be interpreted as a positive test result, or a negative result!

If you cycle the test sample material just 10 times, every sample will have a low result of genetic material and NO-ONE tests positive!

There is no "gold standard" rule or recommendation by the WHO or anyone for how many PCR cycles are used for COVID testing. Different countries have a different number of cycles! Hence very different results of alleged incidences...

This means that the governments and labs have full control of how many people test positive or negative to COVID. And the results can be manipulated as needed...

We all should be very concerned by this abuse of science, being used to create fear of a pandemic that doesn't really exist. There MAY be a virus, but in many people who test positive but don't have or get any symptoms, there is something else going on - with the major issue being the PCR testing and interpretation of the results.

0 Comments

New COVID-19 vaccines may increase the risks of HIV infection

4/12/2020

0 Comments

In a troubling article published today (31st October 2020) in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal, and scarily ironic being Halloween, the authors of the article express concern that several of the current COVID-19 vaccines in testing may actually increase the risk of acquiring HIV, the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus linked to causing AIDS (Buchbinder, McElrath, Dieffenbach & Corey, 2020).

The COVID vaccines being developed and tested are based on new technologies, rather than tried and tested techniques of vaccine development and delivery in the past. Several of the current COVID vaccines underway are using a genetically-modified type of virus called adenovirus type-5 (Ad5) with parts of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, in an attempt to stimulate an immune response and therefore immunity to the virus. An article in the Science journal (Cohen, 2020) shows 4 of the current COVID vaccines being tested are using the Ad5 vector that raised these concerns 10 years ago.

The authors of the Lancet article published today were involved in the attempted development and testing of an HIV vaccine over 10 years ago, using the same genetically-modified Ad5 virus, but all studies during testing found that the HIV vaccine actually INCREASED the risks of acquiring HIV. This finding confirms similar studies in monkeys (Buchbinder, McElrath, Dieffenbach & Corey, 2020).

A strange finding in several studies earlier in the coronavirus pandemic, which I wrote about at the time, found that the coronavirus was a genetically-modified mix of several viruses, including the 2003 SARS coronavirus AND the HIV type 1 virus... Coincidence?! I think not.

Considering that it is the strength and good functioning of your immune system that is the ONLY thing that can prevent and protect you from any infection, and also assist you in overcoming the infection and get you back to health, the findings from the old HIV vaccine testing, and in the published Lancet article, are very concerning. The alleged purpose of any vaccine is to IMPROVE your immune system function and prevent a future infection of that pathogen. But these studies and many more show this not to be true. Some of the new COVID vaccines may INCREASE your risk of getting HIV, which reduces your immune system function (as allegedly HIV infects your immune system's white blood cells), and can then lead you to be more susceptible to COVID or ANY other infection in future.

The authors of the Lancet paper suggest that some of the new COVID vaccines will increase the risks of acquiring HIV, and they recommend testing should be done more thoroughly to prevent this. They also recommend people getting this vaccine be given full informed consent documents so they can weigh up the considerable risk of HIV based on a large amount of published studies showing this risk using the modified Ad5 virus in the COVID vaccines. Wishful thinking perhaps, as sadly, "informed consent" is never given by doctors who administer any vaccine, and the repercussions of not getting the COVID vaccine based on government warnings (despite the 99.9% survival rate of those who get it) will be severe.

Stay informed, and stay healthy!

References:
Buchbinder, S.P., McElrath, M.J., Dieffenbach, C., & Corey, L. (2020). Use of adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines: a cautionary tale. The Lancet, 396 (10260), E68-69. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32156-5

Cohen, J. (2020). Could certain COVID-19 vaccines leave people more vulnerable to the AIDS virus? Science. Retrieved 31st October 2020 from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/could-certain-covid-19-vaccines-leave-people-more-vulnerable-aids-virus. Doi:10.1126/science.abf3359

0 Comments

Doctors and scientists rally against COVID restrictions

4/12/2020

0 Comments

In October 2020, a group of doctors, scientists, medical academics, epidemiologists (scientists who study epidemics and diseases in populations), experts in public health, and some who work at the US National Institutes of Health and the CDC, came together to discuss the coronavirus pandemic and actions by health officials (WHO, UN, and government and state health policies and came up with The Great Barrington Declaration of their thoughts and recommendations over the coronavirus pandemic thus far.

The Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by many experts, to show their support to the group and the recommendations it makes. Some of the key points in the declaration include:

1. Lockdown policies are causing devastating effects on short and log-term public health, including fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health, leading to greater mortality in years to come
2. Keeping children out of school, when they are the least affected by the virus, is a grave injustice
3. Keeping lockdowns and restrictions in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, more so in the lower socio-economic areas and communities
4. Herd immunity can occur in healthy people being exposed to the wild virus, which can then protect the vulnerable, and that this is NOT dependent on a vaccine (as vaccinations do NOT confer any herd immunity, due to only giving a very short-term "immunity" if at all)
5. The vulnerable still need to be protected to minimise mortality, such as in the elderly who have a 1000 times higher risk of death from the coronavirus (due to existing chronic health issues)
6. People who are at minimal risk of death should live their lives normally to build up personal immunity and herd immunity
7. Nursing homes should use only staff who have acquired immunity from the virus
8. Elderly people should have food delivered to their home, to minimise contact with others who may be infected, but should be able to meet family members outside their home, not inside (to reduce infections)
9. Healthy and younger people should live their lives as normal. Schools and universities should open for in-person teaching. Sports should be resumed. Workplaces should be opened and work resumed.

In support of the declaration, many other health experts, doctors and specialists, and scientists have also signed the declaration in agreement with its recommendations. As a concerned citizen, or even as a health practitioner, or in any other role, you too can sign this declaration! The Great Barrington Declaration can be read and signed here:
https://gbdeclaration.org/

To date, the declaration has been signed by:
533,347 concerned citizens
10,595 medical and public health scientists
29,275 medical practitioners

The number of medical practitioners and scientists in agreement is significant! And this is only in 2 weeks after the declaration was released. Share this wide and get more people to sign!

While I think this is a good start, and a measured response by medical and health experts, I believe it doesn't go far enough or explain what people can do to minimise their risks of this or any other infection, as I have explained in many previous articles, by improving one's nutrition, lifestyle factors, and improving the immune system function to better deal with infections for prevention and in treatments.

0 Comments

check your vitamin D levels for coronavirus prevention!

14/8/2020

0 Comments

I've been checking on the vitamin D pathology results of clients through winter, and have yet to see ANYONE with sufficient vitamin D needed for good health, which is not at all ideal.

A quick recap - vitamin D is made in your body from direct sun exposure on your skin. There are many factors needed for this to occur, such as sufficient cholesterol levels, good liver and kidney function and more.

Vitamin D production is also dependent on your location, or distance from the equator. The further you are from the equator, especially in winter, the more time you need to spend in the sun to make sufficient vitamin D. In summer, the amount of time you need to spend in the sun in most capital cities in Australia to make the same amount of vitamin D is similar (at 6-9 mins daily, as shown in the attached table). In winter, however, the differences between the capital cities are very different. Much more time is needed in winter to make the same amount of vitamin D, at 9-12 minutes for northern cities, or up to 52 minutes daily in southern cities such as Melbourne (Diamond et al., 2005). Spending an hour outside in Melbourne in shorts and t-shirt every day in winter isn't going to happen!

Those at high risk of vitamin D deficiency include the elderly, who we have seen in the coronavirus pandemic have had the greatest loss of life, those in aged care and hospital, shift workers, mothers with breastfed infants, and those with darker skin who need 3-4 times this sun exposure to get the same vitamin D levels (Diamond et al., 2005).

Vitamin D acts as an anti-inflammatory hormone in your body, to reduce inflammation, as well as being a massive immune system booster (Prietl, Treiber, Pieber & Amrein, 2013) and prevention of most respiratory infections such as the common cold, flu (Fagbo et al. 2017), and even the new coronavirus (Grant et al., 2020). Normally, your vitamin D levels should be high through summer from the warmer weather and sun exposure, and high enough to keep your levels sufficient through the colder months. But sun-safe programs of avoiding the sun and wearing sunscreens reduce or even prevent the production of vitamin D, which explains why most people do not have enough of the preventative benefits of vitamin D. It is well known in published studies that a low vitamin D level in winter increases your risk of any respiratory infection.

I was not surprised when the coronavirus outbreak and pandemic occurred in the northern hemisphere during and immediately after their winter, being their highest risk period of low vitamin D levels. Southern hemisphere countries, such as here in Australia, were mostly protected as we were coming out of summer and when vitamin D levels are highest.

But now, being in the period of lowest vitamin D levels in Australia, this is the time of highest risk, but also the most critical time to prevent and reduce incidences of flu and the coronavirus, by addressing the major cause of respiratory infections and a low immune system function - by checking and improving your vitamin D levels.

You can get your vitamin D levels checked with a quick blood test. This can be requested through your GP, or even through me! Vitamin D testing is a paid-for test, at about $30 (ex GST) to the lab at the time of the test.

What result should you look for? In Australia, optimal vitamin D levels need to be at a minimum of 100 nmol/L. Other countries use different units of measurement, so your result may need to be converted.

If you are supplementing with vitamin D through winter or as a preventative for the coronavirus, GREAT! The dose is important too, more so if you have low levels. Therapeutic doses require a minimum of 3000-5000IU per day for adults for at least 6 weeks (Diamond et al., 2005), in order to increase your levels and get health benefits.

There are other factors which can reduce your vitamin D levels, which may need to be investigated and treated, in order to improve your results.

If you are in winter and further from the equator (NB, especially those in Victoria!) get onto the above high dose vitamin D supplementation to reduce your risks of the coronavirus, reduce incidences and mortality, and be able to get back to your free lives again!

References:
Diamond, T.H., Eisman, J.A., Mason, R.S., Nowson, C.A., Pasco, J.A., Sambrook, P.N., & Wark, J.D. (2005). Vitamin D and adult bone health in Australia and New Zealand: a position statement. Medical Journal of Australia, 182 (6), 281-285. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06701.x

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

Grant, W.B., Lahore, H., McDonnell, S.L., Baggerly, C.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

Prietl, B., Treiber, G., Pieber, T.R., & Amrein, K. (2013). Vitamin D and Immune Function. Nutrients, 5 (7): 2502–2521. doi: 10.3390/nu5072502

0 Comments

Masks were not recommended in the 2003 SARS coronavirus pandemic, and people were fined for recommending masks!

10/8/2020

0 Comments

In the 2003 SARS coronavirus pandemic, health officials and scientific experts were recommending that people NOT wear a mask, as they were not an effective protection against the virus!

Individuals and companies that were "cashing in" on the promotion of masks for prevention were being fined $22,000 and $100,000 respectively as a penalty, as there was no scientific evidence that they were effective. The same studies show this today with the new coronavirus, despite what "common sense" or logic may suggest.

Masks then were only possibly useful for 15-20 mins, after which they became damp from moisure from your breath, and they stopped doing their job, and actually increased your risks of respiratory infections.

Here's a link to a news article at the time:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html

Nothing has changed with the science, except that masks are being recommended and people are being fined for NOT wearing one (of any dubious quality or material), despite the evidence that they don't work.

0 Comments

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is not the cure for coronavirus!

3/8/2020

0 Comments

What are the facts on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?
HCQ is a medication which has come under intense scrutiny in the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, but much more recently after a group of doctors in the USA came out in public and the media to say how good it is at reducing deaths of those in hospital and infected with this virus. These doctors, and many others, have said that they have treated hundreds of people with HCQ (together with other prescriptions) and their patients recovered quickly and they had no deaths.

Since then the social media censors have gone into overdrive and have removed all mentions of the doctors' media interviews, posts and articles. These platforms have banned or silenced many high profile accounts of people who shared the videos of these doctors, including President Trump! Some of the doctors who took part in the recent video have since been fired for speaking out about the benefits of using HCQ.

What is hydroxychloroquine used for?
HCQ is mainly used to treat malaria, a parasitic infection which is very common in many parts of the world. Malaria causes symptoms of fevers, chills, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms - similar to COVID. HCQ has also been prescribed for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus (SLE). This drug has been used for 65 years, but recent speculation for using it against COVID-19 threatens its availability for those taking it for valid conditions. Its precise method of action is "unknown", according to the product's manufacturer! (Sanofi-Aventis, 2020).

What do the studies say about hydroxychloroquine?
HCQ was suggested as a possible coronavirus prevention and treatment as a result of a similar drug, chloroquine, was researched as a treatment after the 2002/3 SARS pandemic. A key study found that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on the SARS coronavirus by preventing the virus binding to the ACE-2 receptors (which the new coronavirus also uses to infect cells), in monkey cell cultures (Vincent et al., 2005). But HCQ and chloroquine are different drugs, with similar chemical structures. Both are used for similar conditions, such as malaria, and have similar actions and side effects too. But this study on chloroquine in 2005 doesn't prove that HCQ would work on the new coronavirus, hence why new studies were needed. Note that studies on cell cultures often do not reflect reality of how cells (or medications) work in the WHOLE body! Similarly, animal studies also aren't always reflective of how effective a medication will be in humans. Many further studies over a long period of time are required to determine if a drug will be effective in humans, but overall the incidence rates around the world are decreasing while studies are ongoing for HCQ.

The SARS coronavirus, and the MERS coronavirus pandemic in 2012/3 both died out on their own, without any widespread use of HCQ or chloroquine, and no vaccine has been able to be produced since then.

In April 2020, The Qld Government and University of Queensland announced a clinical trial of HCQ for people with a COVID-19 infection. Due to very low numbers in Qld, finding suitable candidates for the study has proven difficult. In the meantime, the Qld government made it illegal for doctors to prescribe HCQ, with a $13,000 fine if they did (Queensland Times, 2020). Similarly, other state governments (such as Victoria) also banned prescribing of HCQ, as did the federal government's medicine regulator, the TGA. In June 2020, the WHO and UK discontinued using HCQ in trials for its effectiveness against the coronavirus, as no benefit was found for people severely affected with the virus, as well as its many risks (WHO, 2020). Why is time and money being wasted on yet another study on HCQ, when there have been many other such tests around the world?! There are over 140 other trials investigating the use of HCQ in coronavirus cases, which is a huge waste of effort and money (ABC News, 2020).

Will HCQ benefit everyone? (Side effects, contraindications and cautions)
HCQ is not for everyone, especially not for children under 6 years, and those with some specific health conditions. The medication should not be used in those with severe gastrointestinal, neurological or blood conditions, as explained on the drug's Product Information insert, but not detailing what these conditions actually are. If you are using this medication, periodic blood tests are recommended, so that any issues from taking it can be seen, and the medication stopped if so. The medication may exacerbate some conditions, such as with psoriasis. Caution is advised in those with liver and kidney conditions (Sanofi-Aventis, 2020).

There are many side effects of taking HCQ, so it is not an entirely safe medication, but then again no medications are. The most serious concerns are with it causing chronic heart toxicity and death. The drug also has other side effects affecting the heart, if one has pre-existing heart conditions such as heart disease, arrhythmic conditions, or low potassium or magnesium levels. The medication can cause severe low blood sugar levels and loss of consciousness that can be life threatening, especially in those on diabetic medications. Irreversible eye damage and vision disturbances can occur in some people on long term or high dose HCQ therapy, which can also cause kidney damage. Many people have experienced skin rashes and lesions, itching and dryness, and increased pigmentation. Other side effects include low white cell counts (and therefore reduced immune system function), muscle weakness, gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea, low appetite, cramps, vomiting), vertigo, tinnitus, deafness, headache, nervousness, mania, vivid dreams, and suicidal behaviour. There are many more side effects available on the Product Information insert (Sanofi-Aventis, 2020).

HCQ has many interactions with other medications. Check with your Doctor or Pharmacist before taking this medication. The drug has NOT been tested for its effects on fertility, nor in pregnancy. However the drug does cross the placenta, and hence should be avoided in pregnancy. HCQ is also secreted in breast milk, and as infants are very sensitive to this medication, together with no safety data in infants, this medication should also be avoided if breastfeeding.

People taking this medication also need to be aware of it causing visual disturbances when driving or operating heavy machinery.

So do you still want to take this medication?!

HCQ is also known in studies to cause gene mutations and chromosomal and DNA breaks, which can lead to cancers.

More recent studies on HCQ
In April 2020, a study was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, on the use of HCQ on COVID-19 patients. The study looked at medical data of 96,000 coronavirus-affected patients, and claimed that those who were treated with HCQ or chloroquine had a higher risk of death and heart rhythm problems than those who did not receive these drugs. The authors concluded that they were unable to confirm a benefit of using HCQ to improve survival rates from the virus (Mehra, Desai, Ruschitzka & Patel, 2020). The study had a huge impact, with the WHO and other scientists stopping their trials of HCQ for COVID-19 patients. Intense scrutiny of the study started, and shortly afterwards, claims of many discrepancies and accusations of the data being falsified to reach its conclusions. An independent investigation started, and the company that provided the data for the research failed to prove that the data was accurate, and as a result, the authors of the study retracted it (Mehra, Ruschitzka & Patel, 2020).

One of the problems with this study and many others on HCQ that show little or no benefit is that the research studies were only looking at using this drug as a monotherapy, or on its own. This is a very reductionist approach to research, and one of the major problems with researching medications, and medicine in general. There is never just one cause of a disease or infection, and similarly there is never just one solution for any treatment. The doctors in the USA who came out in public promoting HCQ were also prescribing zinc and azithromycin, an antibiotic, TOGETHER, to get their alleged good outcomes.

The trouble with some scientific research is that scientists are not always trying to prove something works, but many studies are deliberately designed to show that something does NOT work, even though other studies show it does work. This corruption of science is based on bias and competition for money for research funding or profits has been happening for many decades. Good quality scientific studies are hard to find these days, and just because a study has been published doesn't mean that it is good, or that you can believe the conclusions. Hence why there are some studies showing the benefits of HCQ, and some that don't because of bad study design, incorrect dosing (too little to have any effect, or too high a dose to cause increased side effects), or just using the drug on its own.

There are many published studies on HCQ being used on its own, with some showing benefits, and others highlighting the risks of its use or showing no benefit. There are fewer studies showing the use of HCQ together with azithromycin, and less again on the triple therapy of HCQ, azithromycin and zinc. A pre-published study found that the addition of zinc sulphate to the HCQ and azithromycin combination reduced mortality by about 50% compared to the double therapy (Carlucci, Ahuja, Petrilli, Rajagopalan, Jones & Rahimian, 2020).

Alternatives to HCQ
Studies show that HCQ appears to work by increasing the uptake of zinc and increases the effects of chloroquine against virus infected cells (Xue et al., 2014). Zinc is a major mineral that is needed for the immune system, so a deficiency in zinc will increase your risks of contracting the virus (or a cold or flu). Zinc also has anti-viral actions against coronaviruses, anti-inflammatory activity and many other benefits (te Velthuis et al., 2010). Eating zinc-rich foods or supplementing with zinc (together with other nutrients) can be done without taking a drug which has a long list of interactions, cautions and side effects.

Again, zinc shouldn't be taken alone, similar to taking HCQ alone. I have written before on using natural, safer and more effective methods, such as zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, herbal remedies and others, before the TGA banned such recommendations and advice. Since then, there have been a lot of studies showing the effectiveness of these natural supplements against the coronavirus to reduce risks of getting the infection and severity of symptoms because they improve your immune system function. The dosing of these supplements is very important to getting the best benefits from them.

Conclusion
Some doctors have said HCQ is a safe and effective "cure" for the coronavirus. It's not. It cannot or should not be used as a monotherapy, as it needs other treatments to work effectively. And it's not suitable for everyone either... So we should not be relying on this medication alone, or even at all, at this time. There are justified reasons why HCQ should not be freely available, and it should only be prescribed for its intended uses and conditions for which it has more thorough testing and research.

Luckily there are many other better and safer natural preventatives and treatments which can help your immune system to better protect you against the coronavirus. But sadly, I've not seen any government health department or doctor recommend these simple and effective preventatives or treatments.

Don't wait for your health departments or regulators to change their rules on HCQ to save you, because that won't happen quickly enough. Don't wait for the vaccine either, as previous coronavirus vaccines have never been able to be made or were effective. But you CAN reduce your risks and severity of this infection in other better ways.

References:
ABC News. (2020). How did The Lancet's now-retracted study on hydroxychloroquine make it through peer review? Retrieved 30th July 2020 from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-05/hydroxychloroquine-study-the-lancet-peer-review-coronavirus/12324118

Carlucci, P., Ahuja, T., Petrilli, C.M., Rajagopalan, H., Jones, S., & Rahimian, J. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. medRxiv, 20080036; doi: 10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036

Mehra, M.R., Desai, S.S., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A.N. (2020). Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet, Published online May 22, 2020 from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

Mehra, M.R., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A.N. (2020). Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet. Published online June 5, 2020 from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext

Queensland Times. (2020). Queensland to join trial of virus drugs but state needs more patients. Retrieved 30th July 2020 from https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-to-join-trial-of-virus-drugs-but-state-needs-more-patients-20200421-p54lsu.html

Sanofi-Aventis. (2020). Australian Product Information - Plaquenil (Hydroxychloroquine Sulphate). Retrieved 30th July 2020 from https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2010-PI-05655-3

te Velthuis, A.J.W., van den Worm, S.H.E., Sims, A.C., Baric, R.S., Snijder, E.J., & van Hemert, M.J. (2010). Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PLoS Pathogens, 6 (11):e1001176. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176

Vincent, M.J., Bergeron, E., Benjannet, S., Erickson, B.R., Rollin, P.E., Ksiazek, T.G., Seidah, N.G., & Nichol, S.T. (2005). Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virology Journal, 2, 69. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2020). WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19. Retrieved 1st August 2020 from https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR1b2TQqt03QpQO0e-UmjsnsAss8gapc9SlfGxqspoG8mYDbFuXZkSfqrbQ

Xue, J., Moyer, A., Peng, B., Wu, J., Hannafon, B.N., & Ding, W-Q. (2014). Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore. PLoS One, 9 (10): e109180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109180

0 Comments

This is not a real pandemic...

25/7/2020

0 Comments

This is not a real pandemic.

A real pandemic doesn't need:

Faulty virus models that showed huge incidence rates and death rates, which didn't eventuate or come anywhere near close to those predictions from so-called experts
Pathetic advice to "wash your hands" and "stay at home", but not give any proven advice to improve your immune system function with good nutrition, supplements, and lifestyle improvements
Government authorities banning recommendations of proven advice by health professionals for improving your immune system
A world pandemic spokesman who is an IT nerd pretending to be a doctor, giving all sorts of health and medical guidance and recommendations to governments, the UN and WHO, while at the same time being the highest contributor for funds to the WHO, while also funding EVERY aspect of this pandemic, for his own financial benefit
A man-made GMO virus, created in a lab in Wuhan China, and funded for by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a US government agency
A useless WHO, who sat back for over 2 months or more as the epidemic initially spread through China, and who actually believed the Chinese communist government when they said that there was either "no problem" with people falling sick, or it was "all under control", when it wasn't. This allowed many people to move around or leave China to spread the infection worldwide
Rigged incidence rates from faulty PCR test results showing 80% false positive results in people with no symptoms
Inaccurate and scaremongering news reporting from all major media sources, based on those faulty incidence rates
Staged hospital scenes of overflowing hospital wards, when in reality doctors and nurses are being told to take extra holidays and take leave because the wards are almost empty of patients
Manipulated death certificates, from dodgy WHO guidelines to classify deaths from coronavirus based on assumptions or symptoms, without any testing, from non-health professionals (mortuary staff), or without autopsies to confirm the true cause of death
To bribe asymptomatic people with money to get tested for coronavirus, to increase the incidence rates when those rates and deaths had dropped to almost nothing
To recommend not wearing a mask for 5 months of the pandemic, then turn this completely around and mandate wearing of masks when incidences and deaths are at their lowest levels
To cause unemployment of millions of people in businesses, from the forced closure and shutdowns, but not reduce the government workforce
Restrictions to basic human rights, and the implementation of new guidelines and recommendations, which aren't LAW but give the impression that they are, and using police and armed forces to implement these new guidelines or face fines or imprisonment
Forced testing, or the need to bribe people to get a test in asymptomatic people (ie, that you DON'T have symptoms)
To mandate vaccination against the flu for work purposes (in childcare, nursing, healthcare, and aged care) or to visit your isolated loved ones in aged care, when a flu vaccination won't protect against the coronavirus, but actually makes you more susceptible to other respiratory infections such as coronavirus
Dobbing in your neighbour or anyone else, if they aren't complying with government recommendations (ie, that are NOT actually laws)
You to be living in fear of possible viral contamination
Closed businesses and services, and a wrecked economy
Recommend everyone stay home, except teachers and children who still have to go to school and sit in a classroom that's not possible to social distance from everyone, and not wear a mask (up until recently), because schooling is more important than possibly catching a deadly infection that will affect everyone else
To silence people on social media platforms, who have valid reasons to criticise the often idiotic decisions made by governments, businesses, and "health" authorities
People being arrested if they don't comply with a "stay at home" order, but then authorities are letting convicted criminals out of prison (in the USA) so they don't get coronavirus. (Why not just give them a mask, if masks are so effective?!)
You to install an app on your phone which doesn't work, to allegedly try and trace people who may have been within a short distance of you who may test positive at a later time, when not having a compatible phone or operating system makes it impossible to install, or not turning on Bluetooth, or not starting the app, or not updating the app when you test positive, or not having the IT infrastructure (in government) to actually analyse the data, or that someone needs to be within spitting/coughing/sneezing distance of you for more than 15 minutes in order to record their details, or it won't work!
You to know that it has only caused all this disruption to lives, businesses, the economy, when it has only caused deaths in 0.0004% of the population
To have a natural survival rate of 99.9%, when we are told that "there is no cure", or "that we do not have any immunity to", or when there is no vaccine to save you.

This isn't a real pandemic. It's a PLANdemic.

Be informed. Be empowered. And stay healthy!

0 Comments

The PCR test for COVID-19 cannot prove you have the virus!

20/7/2020

0 Comments

I have written a few times before on the testing for the coronavirus, based on studies showing its inaccuracies (and therefore ineffectiveness) of its use, why the media scaremongering campaigns should be ignored, and why various governments should NOT be implementing policies based on the PCR test results.

Here's some more detail, as to how the PCR process works, or really DOESN'T work, and why it cannot prove that you have the coronavirus.

The PCR testing process was developed by Dr Kary Mullis in 1985, who received a Nobel prize for chemistry in 1993 for his invention. The PCR process was designed to amplify or replicate pieces of DNA (ie a subset of a known RNA/DNA sequence) to increase their numbers substantially, to allow for this to be used for research purposes. Dr Mullis always stated that the PCR process should not be used for diagnostic testing for many reasons:

1) The small subset of an RNA/DNA sequence that is used in the PCR process is not the actual virus! It might be a very small part of it, or the sequence might actually match RNA/DNA of another virus, or it could be a contaminant

2) The PCR process is highly affected by contamination. If there are any other RNA/DNA or contaminants in the sample, they too will be amplified and replicated and thus affecting the outcome of the process to cause false positive or false negative results

3) The PCR process is run a number of times, called cycles, to repeat the process and further amplify the number of RNA/DNA subsets in the sample, until sufficient numbers are produced

4) The outcome of the PCR test is a sample with an exponential number of RNA/DNA pieces. The test outcome is just a count or number of those RNA/DNA pieces. The test result does NOT give a "positive" or "negative" outcome!

5) How do the labs determine the number of DNA/RNA particles in a test sample is deemed "positive" or "negative"? That depends on the lab and how they decide to interpret the result!

6) There is no standard or universally accepted protocol for the number of cycles used in the PCR process. Different countries use a different number of cycles, and even use a different number of cycles for different tests. If a too-small number of cycles is performed, ALL test results will have small numbers and all people will receive a "negative" test result. Or if too many cycles are run, EVERYONE will return a "positive" result!

From the TGA's own website (TGA, 2020), they say:

"The reliability of COVID-19 tests (using PCR) is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from asymptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear"
"The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is still being determined".

The other coronavirus testing used in Australia is a serology (blood spot) test, which determines whether someone has been exposed to the coronavirus and developed antibodies, and therefore if they have immunity to the virus. This testing is also flawed because (TGA, 2020):

It cannot be used in someone who currently has a respiratory infection (a cold, flu or COVID-19), as development of antibodies takes approximately 2 weeks or longer to produce
Someone who has recently had COVID-19 may not have developed antibodies yet when tested, and so this can give a negative result to this test
The blood spot antibody testing is not specific enough to the coronavirus - as antibodies to other human coronaviruses (such as the common cold virus) will give a positive test result! (TGA, 2020). Hence someone who has not had the coronavirus may show positive to having antibodies.

The TGA confirm these issues on their website, saying there is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests (TGA, 2020). It seems that the Australian and state governments aren't listening to their own medical regulator on COVID-19 testing.

To make matters worse, the WHO have given recommendations to governments and their health systems to record COVID deaths based on assumptions (ie, not testing), and when someone dies WITH COVID, rather than FROM it. This is highlighted when 98% of those who allegedly die from COVID have 2 or more chronic health conditions. In many countries and cases, deaths have been recorded as from COVID from suicides, shootings, accidents and other unrelated deaths. The WHO and health authorities seem to want to inflate the incidence and death rates - why?!

Even with the very inaccurate PCR test, the average rate of positive COVID-19 test results in Australia is just 0.3% of all COVID-19 tests performed! In reality, that figure, if the test was accurate, would be much, much lower.

Here's some more very interesting statistics:

The total COVID-19 mortality rate in Australia is only 122.
The mortality rate in Australia of positive tests is only 0.01%.
The mortality rate in Australia as a percentage of the population is just 0.0004%.
Or more positively, 99.99% of Australians survive this virus.

In the early days of the outbreak, the government and health officials were predicting over a hundred thousand deaths, which if had occurred, would justify some of their restrictions, lockdowns and changes to our way of life. But not for the statistics we have here.

So why are our health authorities and governments causing such a fear campaign over such low incidence and mortality statistics? Why are the same people relying on these inaccurate and unscientific tests to control everyone for longer?! Because there's a lot of other things going on in this plandemic... No sane or well-meaning politician would be implementing the restrictions and recommendations they are doing, based on these statistics, for something which has such a miniscule impact on your health or on the country. There is another agenda going on that they don't want you to know about.

Question everything. And stay healthy!

0 Comments

the coronavirus is insignificant and shouldn't even be news

9/7/2020

0 Comments

Here's some perspective of the coronavirus situation...

Over 4 million people this year have died from hunger, with around 9 million dying every year from a lack of food. A further 815 million people (over 10% of the world's population) suffer chronic undernourishment (World Hunger, 2017), which is not just confined to developing countries, as many in western countries are also suffering hunger and a lack of nutrition. Over 45% of all child deaths are from poor nutrition (Global Nutrition Report, 2015).

If you believe the statistics, around 500,000 people have allegedly died from coronavirus around the world. But these statistics are based on corrupt WHO recommendations for classifying deaths from assumptions being made, no testing to confirm, no autopsies being recommended, and an inaccurate PCR test that is not designed for diagnostic purposes.

What would be the true numbers of covid deaths, we might never know. But one thing is for sure - the coronavirus should be a very minor player in world health issues at the moment. But it isn't because of clever planning and marketing by those who only want you to see that the virus is the only thing that is affecting people.

I haven't even gone into the statistics of other causes of death due to chronic diseases or other infections such as influenza, which kill many, many more people in the world each year.

But we have a media scare campaign over a man-made virus to which just 0.3% of people test positive for, and a mortality rate of those who test positive of just 0.1%... This virus should not even be a published news story, because it is so insignificant in the overall picture of health in the world.

Have you seen any doctor, health official, government, or media outlet during this whole scare campaign, recommending that you can reduce your risks of coronavirus by getting the right nutrition or addressing nutritional deficiencies? No, of course not. Why?

How do you know if you have nutritional deficiencies? You have some if you:
1) Get an infection
2) Have a chronic disease condition
3) or if you have any symptoms at all.

You can easily get tested to see what deficiencies you may have, and then get the results analysed holistically and naturopathically to look for these deficiencies. Sadly, a doctor or GP doesn't interpret your results to look for these as they aren't trained to. This is where I can help!

If you do eat the right nutrition and address deficiencies, you can improve your immune system to better protect you from the coronavirus, as well as solving the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and also reducing and preventing all chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, mental health and neurological conditions, and even cancer.

See my earlier articles on how to support your immune system better for reducing your health issues.

And stay healthy.

0 Comments

Do masks protect you or prevent coronavirus infections?

6/7/2020

1 Comment

There is a growing push in these times of the coronavirus, bizarrely many months into the plandemic, to wear a mask for alleged prevention of the virus. So what is the truth of wearing a mask - can a mask prevent a coronavirus infection or reduce your risks? We'll see...

The push to wear a mask for coronavirus prevention and protection seems to be much more in the USA than other countries, possibly due to the highest incidence rates of the virus, combined with a media industry which borders on propaganda more than facts, and vulnerable people who believe the media scare campaigns. Sadly, the mask-wearing people have taken that propaganda and turned against those who are not wearing a mask in public, with verbal abuse, beatings, and preventing people from shopping for groceries or travelling to work. The abusers seem to have lost their brains, that if you are wearing a mask and you believe it will protect you, then it is of no concern of yours what other people do, or not do such as not wearing a mask if they choose to! This is ironically similar to the vaccine issue, but that's a whoooole other topic for another day!

Being in Australia as I am, next to no-one is wearing a mask when going out in public to the shops etc. You would be lucky to see one person in a thousand wearing a mask!

Here are some facts regarding the use of masks for coronavirus protection or prevention:

Look at the boxes of sterile medical masks and note what the box says. It will usually have statements such as "resistance to penetration by synthetic blood", "single use only", "Re-use or extended use, beyond ONE HOUR may lead to infection or cross-contamination", "store in a cool, dry place. Avoid excessive heat (40C or 104F) (but in hot weather or a fever and on your face, this is a problem!), "this mask should not be used in any surgical setting or where significant exposure to liquid, bodily or other hazardous fluids may be expected", "should not be used in a clinical setting where the infection risk levels through inhalation exposure is high" or "Wearing an ear loop mask (ie, a "surgical mask") does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection" or "<company name> makes no warranties, either express or implied, that the mask prevents infection or the transmission of viruses or diseases", or more specifically for the coronavirus with one box of masks quoting "this product will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants". Seems like a pretty accurate assessment of their own product...
The standard "ear loop" surgical masks are not meant to be worn for long, and appear to only offer minimal protection from larger splashes of body fluids like blood or mucus from coughing or sneezing (FDA, 2020), but are not designed to filter or stop tiny viruses! In addition, these masks are loose fitting and often have gaping holes in the sides, top, or bottom, hence only very minimal protection.
The N95 respirator masks (also known as P2 masks in Australia) that sold out within days of the coronavirus outbreak, may offer more protection in that they are more fitting to the face and less gaps around the edges. These are for the protection from airborne particles and liquid contamination to the face (FDA, 2020). These are named as they filter out 95% of airborne particles (CDC, 2020a). These should be discarded after each patient encounter.
The Centers of Disease Control (CDC) in the US does NOT recommend that the public wear N95 respirators to protect themselves from respiratory diseases including coronavirus (COVID-19). But these N95 respirators must be reserved for health care workers (FDA, 2020).
But instead, the CDC recommends that the general public use simple cloth face coverings when in public to slow the spread of the virus! (FDA, 2020).
People with chronic respiratory, cardiac, or other medical conditions that make breathing difficult should check with their doctor before using N95 masks, as they can make it more difficult to breathe! (FDA, 2020). N95 respirators are also labelled as "single-use" or disposable devices.
N95 masks are not designed for children or those with facial hair, as a proper fit cannot be achieved (FDA, 2020).
Some N95 masks come with a valve, to make breathing easier. But these valves permit droplet release from the mask, thus putting others at risk! As such, these masks may protect the wearer only, but not those around them who are more at risk of a viral infection (Healthline, 2020).
If the medical-grade masks or respirators have the above warnings on them, do you think your wearing of these masks for more than an hour, or even wearing your fancy home--made masks made from spare fabric are going to give you any better protection?! Nope.

So what does the science say? Here goes:

A very recent article published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (Klompas et al., 2020) quoted "wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection", and "The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic", no doubt from media scare campaigns and politicians who know nothing about health.
The same NEJM article suggested that masks are symbols that "may help increase health care workers' perceived sense of safety" in their workplaces. And a similar symbolic benefit could also apply to the general public who might wear a mask, so if you wear one but someone around you doesn't, you are protected right?! No need to abuse that person for exercising their right to not wearing one. Perhaps they have a medical condition that precludes them from wearing one on advice from their doctor - it's none of your business!
A recent study (MacIntyre & Chughtai, 2020) investigated the results of multiple trials on the use of masks and respirators in the community and healthcare settings. Trials in healthcare workers found that respirators (ie the N95/P2 type mentioned above) were effective if worn continually in a shift, but not effective if worn intermittently. Surgical masks were not effective, and cloth masks were even less effective and can even increase the risk of infection.
An RCT study on using cloth masks in a hospital situation for 4 weeks found an increased risk of respiratory illnesses in people who wore them. The study also found that these masks allowed 97% penetration of infectious airborne particles compared to other medical masks at 44% (MacIntyre et al., 2015).
The CDC recommends some people should NOT wear a mask - children younger than 2 years old, anyone who has trouble breathing, or anyone who is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance (CDC, 2020b).
The CDC also recognise that masks may not be possible in every situation or for some people. Wearing a mask may exacerbate a physical or mental health condition, lead to an emergency or cause other safety concerns (CDC, 2020b). Under privacy laws, someone does NOT have the right to ask why you are not wearing a mask! It's illegal to ask, so you don't have to tell them.
The CDC recommends that masks not be worn while engaged in activities that may cause the mask to become wet such as swimming or if the mask causes difficulty breathing, such as when exercising, or in hot and humid weather (CDC, 2020b). There have been reports of runners, cyclists, and even drivers suffering heat-related illnesses or breathing difficulties, or fainting and having accidents from wearing masks. Use common sense if you must wear a mask!

Our bodies are constantly in contact with microbes of many types, with most being benign or harmless or even beneficial to us! Only a few can cause infections. We cannot prevent contact with all of these microbes, hence it is best to focus instead on strengthening your immune system!

One possible benefit for wearing masks, however, is that those people participating in the recent BLM riots in the US and elsewhere were not likely to be able to be identified on CCTV cameras and therefore get away with their crimes. Perhaps similarly, those wearing masks might be able to evade the increasing number of facial recognition cameras and tracking systems that are being rolled out at the moment.

Some final questions to ponder:

If the 1.5m social distancing recommendation works, then why do we now need masks 4 months into the plandemic?
If masks work, then why do we still need to social distance ourselves?
If both social distancing and masks work, then why do we still need the lockdowns?

The use of masks to prevent contracting a respiratory infection like the coronavirus or others, appears questionable based on evidence from published studies. Since both social distancing and masks don't work, the government recommendations to follow these instructions are all about compliance, and not for your protection or health.

References:
Centers of Disease Control (CDC). (2020a). Understanding the difference: surgical mask vs N95 respirator. Retrieved 1st July 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/UnderstandDifferenceInfographic-508.pdf

Centers of Disease Control (CDC). (2020b). Considerations for Wearing Cloth Face Coverings. Retrieved 4th July 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020). N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks. Retrieved 1st July 2020 from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks

Healthline. (2020). A Certain Type of N95 Mask May Do More Harm Than Good. Retrieved 1st July 2020 from https://www.healthline.com/health-news/certain-type-n95-mask-harm-covid19-spread

Klompas, M., Morris, C.A., Sinclair, J., Pearson, M., & Shenoy, E.S. (2020). Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era. New England Journal of Medicine, 382: e63. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372

MacIntyre, C.R., Seale, H., Dung, T.C., Hien, N.T., Nga, P.T., Chughtai, A.A., Rahman, B., Dwyer, D.E., Wang. Q. (2015). A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 5 (4): e006577. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

MacIntyre, C.R. & Chughtai, A.A. (2020). A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 108: 103629. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103629

1 Comment

A brief history of the COVID-19 saga, what might be yet to come, and recommendations to prevent this happening again

3/6/2020

0 Comments

Just in case you arrived on earth from a distant planet in the last few weeks, you might notice that things are have been a little weird, crazy, or absolutely dumbfoundingly stupid of late. We have had a little issue with a little bug called the "coronavirus", or "SARS-CoV-2" (aka "SARS version 2") which causes an infection called "COVID-19" which you are statistically unlikely to get, suffer from (directly at least), or die from. Yet the entire planet is suffering from a "we're all gonna die" media campaign.

Here is a summary of observations and learnings from the coronavirus pandemic thus far:

The virus is man-made, as shown from multiple studies of the genetic code of the virus
Studies have not found an animal host source of the virus, and other studies have found no close relative to the coronavirus, based on genetic analysis and comparison to similar strains
Scientists in various biowarfare labs around the world (China, USA, UK, Australia and perhaps more countries) are complicit in the development of the genetically-modified man-made coronavirus at the centre of this pandemic, through years of repeated genetic manipulation of other coronavirus types to increase their ability to infect human cells. The main lab responsible for much of the genetic modification of the coronavirus, based on their published studies of their work, was based in Wuhan, China
The initial statistics of incidences and mortality rates from the country of origin, China, cannot and should not have been believed, being a communist country with a secretive government with a history of suppressing the media and inaccurate information being told
The PCR testing of the coronavirus, used to determine incidences of infection, is inaccurate
Statistics of coronavirus incidences therefore are inaccurate and should be ignored
The WHO have directed countries (and their medical systems) to classify deaths (by "falsifying" death records) as being from COVID-19 based on an inaccurate test, and/or assumptions of infection without testing, or deaths from chronic diseases, suicides, shootings, flu and pneumonia and other respiratory conditions, and other deaths as being from the virus
Statistics of coronavirus mortality rates therefore are inaccurate and should be ignored
The media are experts in manipulating the inaccurate statistics to create an environment of fear throughout the world during this alleged pandemic
The fear from the media has caused major divisions in families, workplaces, friends and communities, between those who believe the media scare campaigns and those who have done their own research or who have personal experience, or who are "free thinkers"
Governments and authorities have recommended people to "report" those who do not appear to be believing or following the recommended guidelines, thus further dividing communities in a time they keep broadcasting "we are all in this together"
Governments and their health authorities and even the WHO have not recommended simple, cheap, effective and proven ways to prevent or treat people from the coronavirus. They have deliberately withheld information, lied about effectiveness (or non-effectiveness) of preventative strategies and treatments, and instead promoting hygiene and isolation until medications or a vaccine are available (for which there are still none available)
Governments and their health authorities and even the WHO, have ignored the many natural preventions and treatments that have past evidence of effectiveness against other viruses, thus contributing to more infections and deaths
There is plenty of quality published evidence of the effectiveness of natural therapies such as therapeutic doses of vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, selenium, to support or improve one's immune system function against any infections, as well as lifestyle improvements of regular exercise, reducing stress, improving sleep, and eating a nutritious diet and low processed food to reduce blood sugar levels. However this advice and recommendations have not been suggested by the WHO or government health authorities - why?
The WHO, governments and health regulators, such as Australia's TGA, have effectively banned and gagged all health practitioners (both medical and complementary/alternative) from making any recommendations to prevent or treat the coronavirus, and have actively prosecuted companies and individuals who have spoken out against the government or defied these regulatory guidelines
It is well known in many published studies of the seasonal nature of respiratory infections around the world, for the common cold, flu, pneumonia, and even asthma. Such respiratory infections occur at much higher rates in the colder months of the year, in this case the northern hemisphere countries being far more affected being their winter and autumn during the early months of the pandemic
The seasonal effect of all respiratory infections occurs when the sun is further away from one hemisphere of the earth, which receives less solar radiation, resulting in low sun exposure and low vitamin D levels. Vitamin D is a potent anti-inflammatory compound, and immune system strengthening hormone. A vitamin D deficiency is a key causative factor in respiratory infections as shown in many published studies. Yet the government health authorities have not mentioned preventative advice to get safe sun exposure or vitamin D supplementation to reduce incidences or mortality rates
The media and government health authorities have focussed on the virus itself - to try and avoid the virus through unproven mass isolations, lockdowns and shutdowns, and hygiene practices, still being based on old 1800s "germ theory" practices that an exposure to a germ will mean an infection with the virus
The "germ theory" of old has been disproved, as not everyone who is exposed to an infective pathogen will actually "catch" the infection or show symptoms. Whether someone exposed to a virus will develop symptoms, and how quickly (or not) they get over the infection is due to the effectiveness and strength of their immune system, NOT the effectiveness and strength of the virus
Humans cannot avoid a virus or other pathogens, but we can improve our immune system effectiveness and strength to find and deal with infections such as the coronavirus
Some countries such as Sweden, Taiwan, Japan and others did not implement nationwide lockdowns, business shutdowns or "preventative" isolations for their populations. They did, however, recommend voluntary isolation of those at risk, with chronic health conditions, respiratory and cardiac conditions or the aged. The rest of the population could carry on as usual. If they were exposed to or become infected with the coronavirus, they would then develop a personal immunity and community herd immunity to the virus into the future
Herd immunity is a theory that if a certain percentage of a population are immune from an infection, they can "protect" or reduce incidences amongst those who are not immune, and the infection can die out in time. However herd immunity is only possible through a reasonable percentage of the population actually contracting the infection and developing antibodies to it. Antibodies produced from a natural infection last a lifetime. Unlike from vaccines which simulate a forced infection - antibodies may not be produced at all, hence why multiple boosters are required, or if they are produced, only last a few months to a few years at most. Hence herd immunity cannot occur even in 100% vaccinated populations. Mandating a flu vaccine or coronavirus vaccine (if it can ever be produced) will not allow a herd immunity to occur
The WHO is open to corruption through large private donations of alleged philanthropy, but in reality being for influence of the world's health organisation. The Gates Foundation are the second largest donor to the WHO, behind the USA, which suggests a huge conflict of interest especially given the foundation's many other investments in this pandemic. Such influence over the WHO must stop
The Gates Foundation are major investors in every part of this pandemic - from funding biowarfare labs who perform genetic modification of coronaviruses, to funding many pharmaceutical companies to develop untested fast-tracked vaccines or medications, to funding the reuse of existing medications that have no proven evidence of effectiveness against this virus, to developing virus test kits, to pretending to being an alleged health advocate or expert on this virus pandemic, to funding a company developing RFID tracking chips being injected at the same time of the vaccine, funding a worldwide technology platform to track people using their implanted ID chips in real time, and many other conflicts of interest with other companies
The UN have aligned with a UK cyber security firm to produce an electronic COVID-19 identification and health status passport called COVI-PASS. Plans have been made to record the coronavirus pathology testing results, virus immunity status, and vaccination status, and more, to be recorded and needing to be held by every person. Intentions are for this system to be used for other tracking and identification purposes for travel, workplaces, and many other locations, and potential restrictions imposed on those who do not meet certain eligibility criteria
Deeper investigations of mortality rates and published studies suggest a mortality rate from COVID-19 at just 0.1%, being on par with a severe seasonal influenza (Fauci, 2020)
With such a small mortality rate, based on corrected and proven statistics resulting in a survival rate of 99.9%, the massive worldwide disruptions were completely unnecessary
A mandated worldwide vaccine, as frequently being promoted by Bill Gates and many governments, based on these corrected mortality rates, is completely unnecessary given a 99.9% survival rate in those who have the coronavirus infection
The worldwide shutdowns, lockdowns, isolations, and their resulting effects on families, businesses, companies, stock markets, investments, and the economy, were completely unnecessary
Educated and expert scientists and medical/health commentators on social media platforms have provided a more balanced and even more accurate source of information during the pandemic, and those working in hospitals giving their first-hand personal and proven accounts of their experiences which are the opposite of the government information being given
Social media platforms have increased censorship of many aspects of the pandemic, to suppress sharing of information and even deleting entire accounts from knowledgeable experts, scientists, doctors, virologists, and more, because their expert scientific opinion differs from the approved government narrative or the opinion of the platform owners and their advisors. Luckily Trump has very recently banned social media platforms from censoring personal opinions and even expert advice that didn't fit the beliefs of the platform owners - freedom of speech is to reign again!

Recommendations that are needed in the aftermath of this plandemic:

There needs to be an independent investigation of the recommendations by the WHO to all governments on how to classify COVID-19 deaths, and investigations into every classified death and adjustments to statistics made accordingly to make them accurate
Investigations by the media authorities in all countries, to improve the accuracy of news information, as much of it has been a fear-based scare campaign, highlighted by opinionated and biased TV hosts who do not have a clue of what is really going on in this plandemic
The genetic modification of dangerous pathogens, to increase their ability to infect human cells, or any other "gain of function" testing or manipulation MUST be banned worldwide from now and forever
The WHO need to be completely disbanded and a new and independent government-only funded health organisation created, for the benefit of every person. There should be no corporate or private sponsorships or funding allowed, no conflicts of interest allowed, and equal opportunities being given for proven natural therapies to be recommended for prevention and treatment options, along with safe and effective medical treatments as needed
Many more people of the world have awoken to the massive manipulation of them during this plandemic. People are now aware of the corruption and conflicts of interest in the WHO, state and federal governments, and the media, to lie, to cause fear, to divide communities, and implement new laws to restrict movements, interactions, and lifestyle choices. Any further restrictions or mandates related to this plandemic, because of the abovementioned manipulations of incidence and death rates, corruption and conflicts of interest, are unnecessary and will not be tolerated by the people.

Keep aware. Keep disbelieving. Keep researching. Keep informed. And keep healthy.

(References provided in previous posts on this topic on this page)

0 Comments

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

25/5/2020

0 Comments

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/abs@.nsf/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/abs@.nsf/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

The most dangerous and unqualified doctor in the world is Bill Gates

6/4/2020

37 Comments

An unlikely organisation has emerged from the coronavirus pandemic fires of doom, which the media have been feverishly stoking about the current outbreak, in an attempt to be the hero and saviour of us all. Are they really going to save us, or what might their real intentions be?

I'm talking about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started by Bill Gates, the founder of the Microsoft Corporation, but of late he has mostly been working through his family foundation as an apparent philanthropist. The foundation aims to “ensure that more young people survive and thrive”, by being able to “access quality healthcare and education”. In reality the major aim and funding of the foundation is for the prevention of common infectious diseases through drugs and vaccinations.

Sorry this is long, but there's a LOT of evidence of too many coincidences and pre-planned projects in place leading to this pandemic and this current situation that we are all in.

The trouble is that the foundation may not be as as innocent or as generous as they try to portray. The reasons for this are as follows:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) used to receive all their funding for health programs from the governments of the world. Now they also allow private "donations" from organisations such as the Gates Foundation, which are actually one of the largest sponsors of the WHO, second only to the US government. Such large donations, especially from a private organisation, carry a lot of political weight, or in other words "favours" or influence over decisions and outcomes. A published study in 2015 specifically mentioned the Gates Foundation as having a huge influence over world governments in their decision-making. The study suggests that "big philanthropy" is actually good for the donor's business, and warns world governments and large organisations that such philanthropy can overly influence political decisions and needs to be analysed for risks and side effects on the development or decisions of these countries and organisations. Details of this study is here: https://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/GPFEurope/Philanthropic_Power_online.pdf
The Gates Foundation also has major shareholdings in many pharmaceutical companies, after investing many hundreds of millions of dollars with them. The purpose of this, of course, is to make money from the increasing share price and dividends paid out on the shares owned. There’s nothing wrong with making money, but given the rest of the points here, it starts to get a little suspicious.
Bill has been hinting or warning several times in recent years about a worldwide pandemic which will kill a large percentage of the population (he has estimated about 30 million people will die in a pandemic). Even as recently as 2017 and 2018, Gates was giving speeches to large audiences and warning world leaders, medical professionals and scientists that we need to be prepared for pandemics and bioterror attacks. He said “because history has taught us there will be another deadly global pandemic". No, history only tells us what happened in the past! It was like he KNEW a pandemic was about to happen! He also said "And, as biological weapons of mass destruction become easier to create in the lab, there is an increasing risk of a bioterror attack". Well, that's what you get when you give your Foundation's money to BSL-4 biowarfare labs for research, Bill! Here's a website link of his which details a speech he gave (which includes the above quote) on this issue in full: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Shattuck-Lecture
Again in 2019, Bill Gates featured in and produced a Netflix documentary series called "Explained", and in an episode called "The Next Pandemic", he said in an interview that he predicted a coronavirus-style pandemic which would kill millions of people. He even warned of such a virus coming from a "wet market" (a market selling fresh meat, fish or produce, often associated with live animals) in China! He said it would take years to find a cure for a new virus outbreak. Just months later, it happened - is Bill psychic too?! Details of the documentary featuring Bill Gates and his prediction can be found here: https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/31/bill-gates-predicted-coronavirus-type-pandemic-kill-millions-2019-netflix-documentary-12159314/

On October 18th, 2019, a high-level pandemic planning exercise called "Event 201" was hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum, to plan for a global viral pandemic. By pure coincidence (again!) this meeting was simulating a pandemic caused by a new coronavirus outbreak! None other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were a major sponsor of this event. Just 6 weeks after this planning event the first known cases of a new coronavirus started appearing in Wuhan, China. Coincidence?! The odds would be nearly impossible for this to happen... In an official John Hopkins University press release (on Nov 6, 2019), the coronavirus pandemic simulation estimated a death toll of 65 million people within 18 months. Various social media "fact-checking" (ie "censorship") has confirmed that this Event 201 took place, but they have been denying that the simulation actually predicted the number of deaths. However, information from the University shows that they actually DID include predictions of death rates of approximately 65 million people, and their predictions can be read here: https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/11/06/event-201-health-security/
In 2015, the Pirbright Institute, a biotechnology research organisation in the UK, filed a patent for a live attenuated coronavirus to be used in the production of coronavirus vaccines. The Pirbright Institute is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Very recently (in November 2019, just before the coronavirus outbreak and another coincidence?!) the institute received $5.5 million dollars (their largest funding donation) from the Gates Foundation for research into human diseases and vaccine development. Details here: https://www.pirbright.ac.uk/news/2019/11/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-funds-development-pirbright%E2%80%99s-livestock-antibody-hub
Another type of coronavirus was responsible for the SARS pandemic in 2002. Luckily this one fizzled out with only 800 deaths. In the aftermath of this infection, many institutions and research organisations rushed to patent the SARS virus and its genetic sequence. This was apparently to prevent other scientists from working on the virus. Natural things and organisms are not meant to be patented, as patents are supposed to be for inventions or futuristic ideas. The Gates Foundation funded Pirbright Institute owns the SARS coronavirus patent. And this patent expired the day before the first case of the new SARS-CoV-2 infection was announced.
The Gates Foundation have funded another vaccine research and drug production company, called Moderna. Within a few weeks of the coronavirus outbreak starting, Moderna was apparently ready for human testing of their coronavirus vaccine! The timing of this is unheard of, being a world record by several orders of magnitude over past vaccine development times. It’s almost as if they already had a vaccine ready and waiting! Moderna announced on 25th February 2020 (just a few weeks after the outbreak became known), that they have not only created a coronavirus vaccine in record time, but have tested it on animals, and now is ready for human testing. This process normally takes many months to years to get to this stage. No vaccine company managed to develop a vaccine for the SARS or MERS coronavirus outbreaks in 2003 or 2013 respectively, or since, so how could Moderna do this within days?! What about all the other communicable diseases for which there is no vaccine for, such as malaria, the common cold, and HIV? If this company can somehow create a new vaccine and have it ready in weeks, then why haven’t they done the same for other infections? Had they already been working on this one for some time, as planned? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-moderna-human-testing/?fbclid=IwAR27_MQ7ySGwnWPg4HCpBLCznt4vbgbh8yn8ALhhZ8CCvWPJ_pML7DlyQHg#
The Gates Foundation also very recently funded another pharmaceutical company (Inovio Pharmaceuticals) with $5 million for work on a portable "drug delivery device" for a DNA-based coronavirus vaccine. What is a DNA-based vaccine? No idea, but we will find out shortly, as the company is starting human trials in April 2020. Details here: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/story/2020-03-12/inovio-pharm-gets-5m-from-gates-foundation-to-further-covid-19-vaccine-project
Bill has said publicly several times in interviews or presentations that the world population is too high, and needs to be reduced. In a 2010 TEDx talk he said, ”The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”. A segment of his public talk when he said this statement is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNmj6Ug-a4A. Some people have said that his words have been taken out of context, and that he was talking about reducing population growth, rather than reducing the actual population. But note that was not what he said in this video.
It is interesting that Bill Gates and his Foundation are huge promoters of vaccines to developing countries. I personally think people in these countries preferentially need 1) improved nutrition, 2) clean water, and 3) better sanitation and modern utilities such as electricity and waste processing (ie sewerage systems) to reduce infections, illnesses and deaths. But not the Gates Foundation, as their priority is just vaccines for population control. It was these 3 improvements to our lives that massively slowed the incidences and deaths from infections, decades before vaccines were made available.
On 28th February, 2020, Bill Gates actually had an article published in the New England Medical Journal, one of the major scientific and medical journals! In his article, he was talking about the coronavirus, which he again referred to as the "once-in-a-century" pandemic, to urge governments to help poorer countries in this outbreak, and to fund vaccines and treatments, and strengthen their healthcare. Where will a lot of this government (ie, taxpayer) funding go to - to companies funded by the Gates Foundation! Details of his published article is found here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2003762
On 29th February 2020 (one day after the last point), Bill Gates announced to the world that the coronavirus IS a pandemic and should be announced as such, over a week before the WHO officially did announce the pandemic. In his announcement, he claims that the coronavirus is a "once-in-a-century pathogen" which may kill up to 50 million people. Bill was generously offering solutions to the pandemic through his Foundation – obviously, as he appears to have planned well for such a situation! Of course one of his solutions is a fast-tracked vaccine, using techniques from one of the companies his Foundation has funded, that apparently make it possible to produce vaccines within weeks. Never mind the testing process which is supposed to take years before they can be made available to the public. Bill’s pre-emptive announcement that this is a pandemic is found here: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bill-gates-coronavirus-pandemic-solutions-2020-2?r=US&IR=T
Microsoft, with Bill Gates still on the board of directors at the time (in January 2018) were a founding partner of a summit named ID2020. This summit was held at the United Nations, and attended by and formed alliances between governments, the UN, non-government organisations and private companies. This event's objectives are to "improve lives through digital identity", and "accelerating access to digital ID... to vulnerable populations", and more. Their manifesto lists a number of points, one being "the ability to prove one's identity is a fundamental and universal right". No, the right to privacy, and being free to roam and not being tracked 24/7 is a fundamental and universal human right. Microsoft have pledged financial and technology resources to this project. Details of the ID2020 Summit and its purpose can be found here: https://id2020.org/manifesto and here: https://www.teleinfotoday.com/enterprise-it/digital-transformation/accenture-microsoft-create-blockchain-solution-to-support-id2020
In a recent interview (24th March 2020) with Chris Anderson (the Curator of TED Talks), Bill suggested that there should be a system of "certificates" that people will need to carry around to show who has recovered from the COVID-19 infection, and who is vaccinated (when the COVID-19 vaccine is made available), as he doesn't want people moving around the world who haven't been vaccinated for this infection. This is sounding like restrictions of movement or travel, unless you have been vaccinated and have identification papers to prove it - much like everyone having to carry ID papers with them at all times in Nazi Germany. France is using such movement certificates now for people to be able to leave their houses. However the "certificates" being considered by Bill are in a digital form, of either a microchip being inserted under the skin, or a "quantum-dot tattoo". A segment of this interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGsqtF0MhlI&fbclid=IwAR2cLpYvlYHCXfFYEaROYb0qRlOpRotjIRCAibjY-v1cr6vt8j36QnJIyG0
The Gates Foundation have also funded a project with MIT in December 2019, to develop a digital form of vaccination certificate, by storing data in encapsulated microparticles stored under the skin. These particles are injected at the same time as the vaccine using a microneedle patch, rather than a typical needle and syringe. More details about this technology, a related published study, and the Gates Foundation funding of it can be found here: http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
In an interview with CBS on 2nd April 2020, Bill was giving advice on health policy and strategies on the current pandemic. He was also giving estimates of how long this issue will last. Again he was promoting his vaccine companies and vaccines being the key to stopping this pandemic, before we can go back to our normal lives. Note the hint that you may not be able to go back to your normal life without a vaccine (and a fast-tracked vaccine which won't go through all the usual tests for safety). As he is not a doctor or health expert, he should not be interviewed or having a say on this topic, because of all of his conflcts of interest here. He did also suggest that there could be more pandemics in the future. His interview can be viewed here: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/extended-interview-bill-gates-on-coronavirus-pandemic/
In a recent online Q&A session on Reddit (March 2020), Bill called for a "national tracking system similar to South Korea" to monitor people with an infection to "understand where the disease is". Again, more monitoring, tracking and control of the population. Details of this can bre read here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/03/18/bill-gates-calls-for-national-tracking-system-for-coronavirus-during-reddit-ama/
On 28th March 2020, The Gates Foundation announced an alliance with the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (run by Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife) and Mastercard and the Wellcome charity for finding affordable treatments for COVID-19. They announced they were working together with the WHO on a "COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator" to evaluate and repurpose existing drugs for treating this infection. They claim that since these existing medications have completed clinical trials, it would make them quicker to make them more available in this pandemic. I don't think so, as these medications won't have ANY clinical trials for safety or efficacy against this specific virus, and clinical trials will still need to be done. If they are looking for affordable and effective solutions, then why not look at natural substances like vitamin and mineral supplements, which have been proven to be safe and effective against all other viruses including other coronavirus types? But that won't make them any profits though. Details of this alliance can be read here: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg-find-covid-19-treatment-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-3?r=US&IR=T
In 2018, Bill Gates funded a US-based satellite company and together with a Japanese software company were planning to launch a $1bn network of satellites to provide "live and unfiltered" coverage of the earth. Another backer of the project said. "our objective is simple, we want to connect you visually with Earth in real-time". Services on the satellites will be able to track people and transport as it happens, watching weather systems and migrations. The tracking of people is a particularly interesting use of this technology, when you take into account the other factors listed here. Details of this project can be read here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/04/19/bill-gates-backs-1bn-plan-cover-earth-video-surveillance-satellites/?fbclid=IwAR0_-X58VmBURKOEHevga-1cS9eM4vqVfOvzYrZS2K18m5C4wI6Cpzj6RME and here: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/bill-gates-backed-earthnow-will-provide-real-time-video-of-planet.html

Each point above perhaps isn't so suspicious on its own, but taken together as a whole it reeks of conflicts of interest, influence over the UN and WHO and world governments, and wanting to exert his beliefs of reducing the population, mandatory vaccinations with digital proof, and monitoring and tracking of the world's population. The timing of all of the above points is significant, with all taking place since November 2019. Everything is linked for one purpose - to create a pandemic and then benefit in every possible way from it. As the saying goes, "follow the money trail", to find out who really benefits from any situation. The money trail seems to be end up at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at every single step in this pandemic.

This is why I believe something truly stinks about the entire coronavirus situation - it's pretty clear that it is man-made, and extremely suspicious (or convenient?) that the epicentre of the outbreak was in Wuhan, China, which has a BSL-4 biowarfare lab where scientists have been developing coronavirus strains and publishing studies on this work. We could not ever believe the communist Chinese government and their "official" coronavirus statistics on incidences and mortality rates, but now that the virus is spreading around the world, we might see some slightly more realistic statistics. But can we really believe any statistics, as per my previous article on this topic?

It is also very suspicious that the man who has been warning about a viral pandemic for years is the very same person who believes that population control is needed, whose Foundation funds biotechnology research companies (who manipulate dangerous pathogens to make them more virulent), funds pharmaceutical companies, funds a company which is currently already testing a miraculously fast-tracked coronavirus vaccine, funds technology projects for tracking the global population, and who also has a huge influence with the WHO. This is a huge conflict of interest through his Foundation's massive sponsorships at every step of the way in this crisis. His pre-emptive decision to call the outbreak as a pandemic ahead of the WHO decision, was premature and way out of line, but the WHO did announce the pandemic a short time afterwards. Keep en eye on which company or companies are approved for the coronavirus vaccines - will they coincidentally be funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Bill Gates admits that he is a big fan of vaccines, but has also said vaccines can be used to reduce the world's population by 10-15%. Yet he wants to SAVE everyone with a coronavirus vaccine?! Is he doing all of this for altruistic humanitarian purposes? Or is he is a business-man with a dangerous and selfish agenda?

The Gates Foundation appear to have their fingers in every single pie linked to this outbreak, and their involvement in everything here is highly suspicious at best. The Gates Foundation are trying to be the apparent knight in shining armour who will deliver alleged treatments and a miracle vaccine. At the very least, the Gates Foundation has a huge conflict of interest, but the above information also suggests to me that the Foundation is involved a lot more in this entire operation and for their own benefit.

There are too many coincidences here, and too many things having been planned and developed, just at the right time, for the COVID-19 pandemic to be anything other an a planned project.

If you put all of the above facts together, you get a fairly good picture of the intended outcome of this pandemic, and a possible look at a future with mandated vaccines, digital certificates of vaccination status, restricted movements based on vaccination status, constant monitoring and tracking of your movements, limiting informed consent, and more totalitarian measures that I dread to think about.

I'm not buying into the fear that the coronavirus will cause the predicted number of deaths that the Event 201 participants suggested. That was based on assumptions and estimates and computer modelling. I know that the virus can be defeated - that's what your immune system is for! It knows how to deal with any known or unknown infection, hence all the more reason you need to support your immune system to do its job and protect you! As there is currently no vaccine for this infection, there is no other option for you, other then to rely on your immune system! This is how humans as a species have survived for millenia without vaccines! Over 98% of people ARE surviving this infection, because of their immune systems! See my other articles on this topic for more information.

There are many more daily deaths from many other infections such as influenza, tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS, or from modern chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, or simply from hunger in developing countries. Yet the media scare campaigns on this topic is disproportionate, while health departments simply say to "wash your hands" and "stay away from others", your governments tighten up laws to restrict your rights and freedoms, and social media platforms censor the truth even more.

Is Bill Gates the most unqualified, but most powerful and dangerous doctor in the world? Or is he incredibly psychic in being able to predict the pandemic and have all of his investments in place at the right time - being in the weeks before the event occurred?

See my other articles for more information on protecting yourself and your family from this rapidly-spreading infection. Washing your hands isn't going to be enough to prevent this infection. And there's more you need to do to treat it, other than isolation and staying at home.

Stay Healthy!

NB - a downloadable PDF file of this article is available below! Feel free to save and share this as desired.

coronavirus_links_to_bill_gates_exposed.pdf
File Size:	521 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

37 Comments

<<Previous

What is an mRNA vaccine, how does it work, and what are the issues with this new mRNA vaccine technology?

December 04th, 2020

The COVID-19 vaccine won't be mandatory, but illegal coercion will be used to try and make you get it

Why we should not rely on PCR testing for COVID-19

New COVID-19 vaccines may increase the risks of HIV infection

Doctors and scientists rally against COVID restrictions

check your vitamin D levels for coronavirus prevention!

Masks were not recommended in the 2003 SARS coronavirus pandemic, and people were fined for recommending masks!

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is not the cure for coronavirus!

This is not a real pandemic...

The PCR test for COVID-19 cannot prove you have the virus!

the coronavirus is insignificant and shouldn't even be news

Do masks protect you or prevent coronavirus infections?

A brief history of the COVID-19 saga, what might be yet to come, and recommendations to prevent this happening again

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

The most dangerous and unqualified doctor in the world is Bill Gates

COPYRIGHT

Archives

Categories