PH: 0417 632 464
Ross Walter Nutritionist & Naturopath
  • About
  • Contact
  • Treatments
  • Seminars
  • Programs
  • Articles
  • Resources
  • Members
  • Partners
  • Mentoring
  • Reviews
  • Media
  • Pathology
  • Bookings

COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers manipulate their clinical trial data to give false effectiveness % to get approval for use

1/6/2021

2 Comments

 
Picture
Picture

Picture
The 3 major COVID vaccine manufacturers in 2020 proudly and publicly self-flagellated over their alleged efficiencies of their vaccines at 94-95%. The media and medical industries and pro-sciencism fanatics went wild with the hopeful news that humanity would be saved from a deadly virus (that 99% of the population never got, and 99.9% of those who actually did get it survived anyway!). Hooray!

But never mind the skipped and fast-tracked clinical trials that would normally have taken 7-10 years to produce a vaccine (but questionable on the "safe and effective" descriptions).

How did the manufacturers come up with their approx 95% effectiveness rate? Briefly, they excluded unhealthy people - the very people that are being targeted for the vaccine - and also excluded pregnant women and children too. They gave half a group of healthy people the vaccine and half got a placebo. In the very short study period, the vaccinated group got a small number of infections, but the placebo group got a lot of infections. The ratio of placebo group infections to vaccinated group infections was about 95% : 5%. While this might seem statistically to be quite definitive and successful, the studies deliberately did not actually determine the "effectiveness" of the vaccine (Tenny & Hoffman, 2021):

- in producing antibodies - that wasn't checked for when it should have been
- in preventing a COVID infection - not tested for
- in reducing severity of symptoms - not checked
- in reducing visits to hospitals - not checked
- in preventing complications from the infection - not checked
- in or even reducing the death rate (or causing no deaths) - not checked.

How on earth then can the vaccines be 95% successful?! Simple, they aren't.
There is a concept in the statistics of clinical trials called Relative Risk - being the ratio of the risks for an event in the exposure group compared to those in the control or placebo group (Tenny & Hoffman, 2021). This is the sneaky technique that the vaccine manufacturers used in their trials to come up with 95% : 5% and therefore 95% "effective". But it's not...

However, the Relative Risk does not provide information about the true Absolute Risk of the event occurring. The Absolute Risk is the ACTUAL risk of the event happening, or success or effectiveness rate, and considers the whole population.

The attached pictures show a visual example of the difference between the Relative Risk vs the Absolute Risk for the Pfizer vaccine trial results.

A study published in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal (Olliaro, Torreele & Vaillant, 2021) investigated the statistics used by the major vaccine manufacturers in their trials, and instead of their sneaky Relative Risk or effectiveness %, they calculated their ACTUAL Absolute Risk percentage of each the vaccines. The true effectiveness of them are:

AstraZeneca - 1.3%  (previously reported as 95% effective!)
Pfizer - 0.84%  (previously reported as 95% effective!)
Moderna - 1.2%  (previously reported as 94% effective!)
J&J - 1.2%  (previously reported as 67% effective!)
Gamalaya (Russian Sputnik vaccine) - 0.93%  (previously reported as 90% effective!)

Another technique used in the statistical analysis of vaccine clinical trials is the concept of the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV), being the number of people needed to be vaccinated to prevent ONE incidence of COVID-19 in this case. The NNV for these vaccines are:

AstraZeneca - 78
Pfizer - 117
Moderna - 76
J&J - 84
Gamalaya - 80.

That's a LOT of people who need to be vaccinated to prevent just one case of COVID-19.

It is important in your decision to decide getting the vaccine as to whether the effectiveness of a particular vaccine is worth the risk of the side effects. If you are not being told the true or correct effectiveness or even the actual risks, then it makes it an unrealistic and incomplete decision. In any case, YOU are an individual with your own personal risks, based on your health history, age, existing conditions, and other factors. It is impossible to work out your personal risk ratio. But you need the best information to help you decide (which is called "informed consent") - but you are not being given this information by the authorities or from your doctor.

What you have been told are lies and statistics, being one and the same thing. Statistics and science, sadly, can be manipulated by clever people to trick and confuse other people, such as in this situation. The authors of the Lancet study mentioned above, showed that the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is not as straightforward as it seems.
​
Be informed. Stay healthy!
 

References:
Olliaro, P., Torreele, E., & Vaillant, M. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room. The Lancet, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0
Tenny, S. & Hoffman, M.R. (2021). Relative Risk. Retrieved 31st May 2021 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430824/
2 Comments

Facebook to no longer censor posts suggesting that the coronavirus was man-made

1/6/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
I reported very early in 2020 of a pre-published scientific study that proposed that the SARS-2 coronavirus was likely NOT of a natural origin and more likely was man-made. The authors of the study looked at the genetic sequence of the coronavirus and found that it was mostly comprised of genes from the earlier SARS virus, but also had several other sequences from the HIV virus not found in other coronaviruses. Those HIV sequences couldn't have just appeared or mutated from other coronaviruses. The authors of this study were hounded and ridiculed, and were forced to retract their study under pressure. Facebook then started their censorship of posts on this topic (such as mine) with their unscientific "fact-checking" processes, or deleting such posts.

Within a few months, another 6 published studies also investigated the coronavirus genetics and reported that the virus was not and could not have originated naturally - that it was indeed man-made. I published articles on these too, with more censorship from FB to hide this information.

In early February 2021, nearly 12 months after the first study appeared questioning the natural origins of the coronavirus, Facebook reaffirmed their policy of fact-checking and removing "false claims" related to the coronavirus including that it was "man-made or manufactured".

But in a new policy update on 26th May 2021, Facebook's Vice President of Integrity (a little ironic department  in FB!) published an announcement that they will no longer remove posts that suggest that the coronavirus was man-made! (Facebook, 2021)

To all the denialists out there, including my own colleagues, who abused me and said I was spreading fear and conspiracy theories - I TOLD YOU SO...

Facebook said "In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps".

If this critical piece of news is now seen as "not fake news" or "an accepted truth", what else in this saga that has been suppressed, censored or hidden actually true also? Or another thought, if the coronavirus WAS man-made, then WHY and for what purpose? I guess we will be finding out more truths soon!

I wonder what other topics they will reverse their "fact-checking" on? Let's hope they return to being a social media platform again, not a government- and corporate-sponsored propaganda and censorship platform. The same goes to mainstream media and news outlets - stop censoring doctors, medical experts and scientists, just because they publish information that goes against the government narrative.

Fact-check this FB!
​
And stay healthy!

 
References:
Facebook. (2021). An Update on Our Work to Keep People Informed and Limit Misinformation About COVID-19. Retrieved 29th May 2021 from https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/
0 Comments

New UK strain of coronavirus is not as contagious as we are being told

8/2/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
The recent and allegedly new UK strain of the coronavirus, which caused the lockdown of Brisbane for 3 days when just ONE case was found, is said to be 70% more contagious than before. Except that this was based on a lie... or at least, very poor research.

A colleague of mine located the study which "found" that the new UK strain was allegedly more contagious is not even a published study, and has not even been peer-reviewed (verified and approved) by other scientists. It's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Scientific studies are not all they seem to be in the media. There are many different types of scientific studies of differing quality of evidence. Many studies are very poorly designed, make terrible assumptions or conclusions which don't match their data, or they can be completely made up or fraudulent. It happens. To make things worse, many research studies (or the scientists performing the study) are funded by the very company that sets to profit from a positive outcome, and they design the study for that particular outcome. And then the media often takes an exaggerated and sensationalist story of the study outcomes, because reporters don't know how to read the study in full or how to critically analyse it. And many people still believe what they are told in the media. This is why one week coffee is bad for you, or chocolate, or red meat, or red wine... and the next week comes out with another study showing the opposite! We've all seen this again and again!

You cannot believe the media. You need to read the real source - the study itself. Or get unbiased and independent experts to analyse the studies for you. It seems that Queensland Health and other governments and media have jumped all over the media story that the new UK strain of coronavirus being much more contagious is worthy of scaring everyone, not reading the real study, and then informing clueless politicians take this poor advice and make poorer decisions, based on a lie. Qld Health officials responsible for the recent lockdown should be sacked.

The unpublished study (Davies et al., 2020) which points to the UK strain being so dangerous found:

1. That the new strain was ESTIMATED (yes, their words) to be about 56% more transmissible (NOT 70%!), based on a MATHEMETICAL MODEL, not from real statistics
2. They were unable to find evidence that the new strain results in greater or lesser severity of disease
3. Even if the tiered restrictions in the UK were maintained, these will not bring down the rate of transmission, unless schools and universities are closed
4. The new UK strain has increased incidences despite all the lockdown measures in place (or in other words, the lockdown measures are NOT working)
5. The UK strain has multiple mutations compared to the original strain
6. The study looked at vaccine effectiveness in their modelling, and recommended more vaccinations to attempt to slow the incidence rate. But as I already wrote about recently, the 95% effectiveness of the 2 available COVID vaccines is also a lie, so this modelling cannot be believed
7. Increased transmission of the virus will increase the percentage of herd immunity. The authors then recommend increasing the vaccine coverage to increase herd immunity, but that's a faulty concept, as her immunity ONLY occurs in natural infections not from vaccinations which may only give a temporary immunity before wearing off and you are no longer immune...

Whether a virus is contagious is one thing, but whether it is deadly is another. A mathematical model used in this study cannot factor in all the variables to come up with an accurate outcome that matches reality. They admit that their results are just "estimates", yet they make major recommendations regarding closing down more services, and vaccinating more people (with unproven and experimental vaccines). The recent lockdown in Brisbane, or the tightening restrictions in the UK or other countries isn't working, and isn't justified - a different approach is needed.

Break the incidence and infection cycle - look after your immune system, so that even if you encounter any strain or mutation of this (or any other) virus, your immune system will know what to do to fight it and get rid of it. If you want more information on how to do this, see me!

Stay healthy!

References:
Davies, N.G., Barnard, R.C., Jarvis, C.I., Kucharski, A.J., Munday, J., Pearson, C.A.B., Russell, T.W., Tully, D.C., Abbott, S., Gimma, A., Waites, W., Wong, K.K.M., van Zandvoort, K., Eggo, R.M., Funk, S., Jit, M., Atkins, K.E., & W.J. Edmunds. (2020). Estimated transmissibility and severity of novel SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England. medRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2020.12.24.20248822
0 Comments

December 04th, 2020

4/12/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
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

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

4/12/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
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

 
Picture
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

    COPYRIGHT

    All articles here are Copyright (c) to Ross Walter Nutritionist & Naturopath (2015-2022). You are welcome to share these articles in your personal or business marketing, in full and referencing this website.
    If you wish to have specific health articles written for your business, please ask via email to [email protected]  

    Archives

    March 2025
    September 2024
    May 2023
    April 2023
    February 2023
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015

    Categories

    All
    5:2 Diet
    Acidity
    Acne
    Acrylamide
    ADHD
    ADHD Medications
    ADHD Treatments
    Aged Care Home
    AIDS
    Alcohol
    Alkaline Food
    Allergies
    Aluminium
    Alzheimer's
    Anaemia
    Antibacterial
    Antibiotics
    Anti Inflammatories
    Anti-inflammatories
    Anxiety
    Aromatherapy
    Arsenic
    Artificial Sweeteners
    Atherosclerosis
    Autism
    Autoimmune Conditions
    Baby Powder
    Baking Soda
    Banned By Facebook
    Bipolar Disorder
    Blending
    Blood Clots
    Blood Glucose
    Blood Sugar
    Body Autonomy
    Bone Density
    Bowel Movement
    Bowels
    BPA Free Plastic
    BPA-free Plastic
    BPA Plastic
    BPS Plastic
    Burns
    Cacao
    Calcium
    Calories
    Cancer
    Cancer Education
    Cancer In Children
    Cancer Prevention
    Cancer Treatments
    Cannabis
    Carb Adapted
    Carbohydrates
    Carcinogens
    Causes
    Celebrity
    Censorship
    Cervical Cancer
    Chemicals
    Children's Health
    Chocolate
    Cholesterol
    Chronic Disease
    Chronic Fatigue
    Chronic Inflammation
    CICO
    Climate Change
    Clinical Trials
    Codeine
    Coeliac Disease
    Coffee
    Cold And Flu Prevention
    Common Cold
    Constipation
    Contraception
    Cooking
    Cookware
    Coronavirus
    Coronavirus Lockdowns
    Coronavirus Research
    Coronavirus Statistics
    Coronavirus Testing
    Coronavirus Tracking
    Coronavirus Vaccines
    Corporate Sponsorship
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    COVID 19 Testing
    COVID-19 Testing
    COVID 19 Vaccine
    COVID-19 Vaccine
    COVID 19 Vax Issues
    COVID-19 Vax Issues
    Cravings
    DAA
    Dairy
    Dental Health
    Depression
    Detox
    Diabetes
    Dieting
    Dietitian
    Dietitians
    Digestive System
    Documentary Review
    Drug Regulators
    EAT Lancet Diet
    EAT-Lancet Diet
    EBV
    Eczema
    Eggs
    E Health
    E-health
    Elderly
    Endocrine Disruptors
    Endometriosis
    Endorsements
    Energy
    Enlarged Prostate
    Environmental Health
    Environmental Toxins
    Epstein-Barr Virus
    Essential Nutrients
    Essential Oils
    Evidence Based
    Exercise
    Farming
    Fast Food
    Fasting
    Fat Adapted
    Fatigue
    Fats
    Female Health
    Female Hormones
    Fermentation
    Fermented Foods
    Fertility
    Fibre
    Fibroids
    Fibromyalgia
    Film Review
    Fish Oil
    Fitness
    Flu
    Fluoride
    Flu Vaccine
    Folate
    Folic Acid
    Food Additives
    Food Allergies
    Food Containters
    Food Guidelines
    Food Industry
    Food Ingredients
    Food Intake
    Food Intolerances
    Food Labelling
    Food Labels
    Food Production
    Food Pyramid
    Food Sensitivities
    Food Star Rating
    Fracking
    Fructose
    Gardasil Vaccine
    Genetically Modified Foods
    Genetic Modification
    Genetics
    Genocide
    Germ Theory
    Glandular Fever
    Global Warming
    Glucose
    Gluten
    Gluten Free Food
    Gluten-free Food
    Glyphosate
    GMO
    Goals
    Government
    Grains
    Gut Bacteria
    Gut-brain Connection
    Gut Health
    Hand Washing
    Health Funds
    Health Information
    Health Insurance
    Health Myths
    Health Policy
    Health Star Ratings
    Health Statistics
    Healthy Fats
    Heartburn
    Heart Disease
    Heart Health
    Heavy Metals
    Herd Immunity
    High Blood Pressure
    HIV
    Hormonal Issues
    Hormone Disrupting
    Hormones
    HPV
    HPV Vaccine
    Hydroxychloroquine HCQ
    Hygiene
    Hypoxia
    IBS
    Immune Suppressives
    Immune System
    Indigestion
    Infections
    Infertility
    Inflammation
    Influenza
    Informed Consent
    Insomnia
    Insulin
    Iron Deficiency
    Irritable Bowel
    Juicing
    Ketogenic Diet
    LCHF
    Leaky Gut
    Liver
    Low Carb Diet
    Low Fat Diets
    Low GI
    Lung Disease
    Macronutrients
    Man Flu
    Manuka Honey
    Margarine
    Marketing
    Masks
    Meal Replacements
    Measles
    Meat
    Medical Corruption
    Medical Privacy
    Medical Records
    Medical Science
    Medical Testing
    Medications
    Medicinal Cannabis
    Melanoma
    Melatonin
    Men's Health
    Mental Health
    Mental Illness
    Microbiome
    Microwave Meals
    Microwaves
    Miscarriage
    MMR Vaccine
    Moderation
    Modern Diets
    Modern Medicine
    Monkeypox
    Motivation
    MRNA Vaccines
    MTHFR
    My Health Record
    Natural Therapies
    Naturopathy
    Nerve Damage
    Neuropathy
    New Years Resolutions
    NSAIDs
    Nursing Home
    Nutrient Deficiencies
    Nutrients
    Nutrient Toxicity
    Nutrigenomics
    Nutrition
    Nutritional Medicine
    Nutrition Guidelines
    Nutritionist
    Nutrition Research
    Obesity
    Oestrogen
    Oil
    Omega-3
    One World Diet
    Osteoporosis
    Oxidative Damage
    Pain
    Painkillers
    Paleo
    Pandemic
    Pap Smears
    Pathology Testing
    PCOS
    PCR Testing
    Personalised Consultations
    Pet Foods
    Pets
    Pharmaceuticals
    PH Of Food
    Plant Based Diets
    Plant-based Diets
    Plastic
    Plastic Bottles
    PMDD
    PMS
    Polyunsaturated Fats
    Poo
    Population Growth
    POTS
    PPI
    Preconception
    Pregnancy
    Primal
    Privacy
    Probiotics
    Processed Foods
    Psoriasis
    Pyrrole Disorder
    Red Meat
    Red Wine
    Reflux
    Research
    Respiratory Infections
    Resveratrol
    Reviews
    Rice
    Root Cause Analysis
    Root Causes
    Roundup
    Salt
    SARS
    Saturated Fat
    Schizophrenia
    Scientific Evidence
    Scientific Research
    SIBO
    Skin
    Skin Cancer
    Skin Conditions
    Sleep
    Smallpox
    Sore Throat
    Soy
    Soy Products
    Spike Protein
    Sports
    Sports Nutrition
    Spring
    Statistics
    Stevia
    Stomach Function
    Stress
    Sugar
    Sunburn
    Sunglasses
    Sunlight
    Sun Safe
    Sunscreens
    Talcum Powder
    TGA
    The Medical Model
    Thyroid
    Tonsillitis
    Tooth Decay
    Toxicity
    Toxins And Chemicals
    Treat The Causes
    Treat The Whole Body
    Type 1 Diabetes
    Type 2 Diabetes
    Ulcers
    Vaccination
    Vaccine Adverse Events
    Vaccine Passports
    Vaccine Research
    Vaccines
    Vaccine Safety
    Vaccine Testing
    Vegan
    Vegetables
    Viral Infections
    Virus
    Vitamin C
    Vitamin D
    Water
    Water Fluoridation
    Weight Gain
    Weight Loss
    Wheat
    Whole Grains
    Winter
    Winter Health
    Womens Health
    Would Healing
    Xenoestrogens
    Xeno-oestrogens
    Zinc

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly