January 25, 2021
(updated January 27, 2021)
Published by LeeF
Public health policies, public perception potentially affected as terminology changes.
In a shocking reversal that’s akin to redefining reality, the World Health Organization has changed its definition of herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community.
When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached. Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease.
Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness, but also the temporary acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.
The WHO, however, quietly revised this concept in an Orwellian move that totally removes natural infection from the equation.
Redefining Herd Immunity
In June 2020, WHO’s definition of herd immunity, posted on one of their COVID-19 Q&A pages, was in line with the widely accepted concept that has been the standard for infectious diseases for decades. Here’s what it originally said, courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine:
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
“Today’s top-down, authority-based ‘standard of care’ for early COVID, promulgated in NIH guidelines, is therapeutic nihilism,” she said in her prepared statement.
“This is shocking and unprecedented, but in today’s litigious environment,” she said, doctors who “dare prescribe” a drug proven to effectively treat COVID-19 like hydroxychloroquine could be “fired, removed from insurance panels, investigated, or even delicensed.”
Other witnesses were Ramin Oskoui, the CEO of Foxhall Cardiology in Washington, D.C.; Jean-Jacques Rajter, a pulmonologist at Broward Health Medical Center in Florida; Pierre Kory, associate professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center; Armand Balboni, CEO of Appili Therapeutics Inc.; and Jayanta Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University.
Orient said patients nationwide are calling her organization, the AAPS, in search of a doctor who will treat them.
“One patient told me he had had his wife drive him all the way to Dallas when all the doctors he knew in Tucson refused to prescribe hydroxychloroquine,” she said.
“His severe symptoms were relieved within hours.”
She said doctors report that they can’t get hydroxychloroquine for their nursing home patients. Orient insisted that randomized controlled trials don’t support the quarantines, masks and lockdowns.
“They have not stopped the pandemic and are unsustainable,” she said.
She said vaccines are touted as “a great hope” but have not been shown to prevent contagion.
“What is needed now is effective early treatment for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine and other safe, long-used agents could be immediately available if government stopped blocking access and deterring use.”
See the hearing:
In the first hearing, in November, as WND reported, the panel’s chairman, Johnson, noted hydroxychloroquine was used as a “weapon” in the presidential election after it was promoted by President Trump.
“The doctors who have had the courage to follow the Hippocratic oath and use their off-label prescription rights to treat patients using hydroxychloroquine have been scorned and state medical boards have threatened to withdraw their licenses,” the senator said.
Johnson said he has publicly advocated for “allowing doctors to be doctors, to practice medicine, explore different therapies and share their knowledge within the medical community and with the public.”
Inaction in front of mounting evidence
On Tuesday, Dr. Kory presented evidence that another blocked drug that is inexpensive and widely available, ivermectin, prevents infection and saves lives.
“Although we, like many, are extremely encouraged by the apparent successes in developing effective vaccines, we also are dismayed at the near complete absence of guidance and research on effective early, at-home, or preventative treatment options apart from vaccines, a reality we find unconscionable,” he said in his statement.
Kory said he and his colleagues are “worried that if our call to action is not followed through, confidence in our health care leaders and agencies will be irreparably tarnished.”
“Inaction in front of mounting evidence of safety and effectiveness during a catastrophic pandemic may also compromise widespread vaccination support,” he warned.
“We will look back to the impact that actions versus inaction had on the U.S. and the globe two months from now,” Kory said. “If we do nothing, the present trend will continue. History will judge.”
Kory and his colleagues held a press conference last week in Houston:
“In this crisis, doctors who are actually treating patients, unlike [Jha], are practicing medicine by trying different treatments to attack the virus early and give their patients hop,” Oskoui said. “They should not be ridiculed, vilified, or worse.”
He said the “establishment needs to be shaken up.”
“The normal order of business will not be enough to defeat COVID-19,” he said.
Oskoui said there’s “too much regulation, too much cronyism, too much corruption.”
“This crisis is a wake-up call. We need to set aside the old ways of doing things in Washington, innovate together and get our country back to work,” he said. “We need to investigate why the NIH, academic medicine and the CDC failed us so badly.”
Bhattacharya began by noting that early in the epidemic, the World Health Organization publicized a “very misleading 3.4% case fatality rate that panicked the world.”
The rate has turned out to be closer to one-tenth of 1%, but in any case, “for the typical person infected, the usual outcome spans the range from no symptoms whatsoever, to a mild cold, to the severe viral pneumonia that the media highlights.”
Bhattacharya cited the Great Barrington Declaration he co-sponsored, which has two planks.
“For older people, COVID-19 is a deadly disease that should be met with overwhelming resources aimed at protecting them wherever they are, whether in nursing homes, at their own home, in the workplace, or multi-generational homes,” he said. “They should be prioritized for vaccines, and we should be actively seeking widely available and effective treatments.”
But for “the non-vulnerable, who face far greater harm from the lockdowns than they do from COVID-19 infection risk, the lockdowns should be lifted and – for those who so decide – normal life resumed.”
Bhattacharya said the National Institutes of Health’s “relative lack of interest in the rapid randomized evaluation of non-patented drug evaluation represents a government failure that has likely led to worse COVID-19 outcomes than we would have had otherwise.”
December 1, 2020
(updated December 8, 2020)
Published by LeeF
Pure Australian fruit juices—with no added sugar—will now be classified as less healthy than soft drinks after the Food Regulation Forum, comprising of State and Federal Government ministers, rejected a move to ensure fresh juice has a higher health rating than soft drinks.
In a move that Citrus Australia CEO Nathan Hancock said could cost orange growers $67 million, the majority of states and territories will now give fresh orange juice a Health Star Rating of 2.5 stars. In comparison, Diet Cola would be given 3.5 stars.
“It is a sad day not only for juice growers who already do it tough, and who now have a question mark over the long term viability of their industry as a result of the lost sales that will result from this decision,” Hancock said in a media statement.
Lawyer and public health researcher Alexandra Jones of George Institute for Global Health wrote on her Twitter that the Health Star Rating System is about promoting health whereas “last-minute lobbying to change scores was all about protecting profits”.
Jones said that the World Health Organization limits 100 percent juices due to a large amount of sugar in them.
“We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10 percent of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay,” Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development said.
While the NZ Dietary Guidelines (pdf) also list fruit juice as a “high sugar drink”, growers argue that it contains potassium, vitamin C and folate not found in fizzy drinks.
Hancock said he was gutted for his growers that produce fresh juice for the Australian population, only to be told diet coke is the better option.
“Despite evidence that fresh juice contains nutrients vital to physical and mental well-being, these governments have deferred to the anti-sugar lobby,” Hancock said.
Obesity experts in Canada have long contended that fruit juice should be excluded from diets because of the high sugar and calorie content they contain.
However, New York Times best-selling author and founder of the celery juice movement Anthony William said that fruit is demonised by what he terms “fruit fear” to describe the anxiety connected to lies that fruit is dangerous, harmful and should be avoided.
November 20, 2020
(updated December 28, 2020)
Published by LeeF
A new study on asymptomatic transmission of COVID not only proves it doesn’t happen it proves the panic promoted by the political class was meant to control the populations.
In complete contradiction to the popular narrative used by Democrat politicians and governors across the United States, a new study of 10 million people in Wuhan, China – ground zero for the COVID virus, showed that asymptomatic spread of COVID does not occur, nullifying all reasoning for business closures and lockdowns.
The study, published in the November issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Communications, studied 9,899,828 residents of Wuhan, screening them between May 14, 2020 and June 1, 2020. The results provided clear evidence as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.
The study was compiled by 19 scientists from the Huazhong University of Science & Technology in Wuhan, and highly respected scientific institutions in the UK and Australia.
Out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, results revealed “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Utilizing contact tracing, of those 300, not a single case of COVID-19 were detected in any of them.
“A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19,” the study concluded.
Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for a period of no less than two weeks and the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period,” the study found.
Asymptomatic spread of COVID not a thing. https://t.co/TwF4A43JHi. Have some well considered hugs. Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China | Nature Communications https://t.co/gFgSsKxjPo
Further examination of the study subjects revealed that “virus cultures” in the positive and re-positive asymptomatic cases were all negative, “indicating no ‘viable virus’ in positive cases detected in this study.”
The age range of those found to be asymptomatic was between 10 and 89 years of age. The asymptomatic positive rate was “lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below” and the highest rate was found among people older than 60.
The study also concluded with high confidence that due to a weakening of the virus itself, “newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases.”
In June of 2020, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, stated publicly that she doubted the narrative advanced by the political class on asymptomatic transmission.
Van Kerkhove explained during a press conference that, “from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
In fact, Van Kerkhove couldn’t point to a single case of asymptomatic transmission, noting that numerous reports “were not finding secondary transmission onward.”
The false narrative of asymptomatic transmission has been the justification used by the political and activist classes for lockdowns enacted all across the world.
Even the US Centers for Disease Control has been politicized in its advancing of the asymptomatic transmission false narrative. They falsely advance claims that asymptomatic people “are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of transmissions.”
There is no scientific data to corroborate this position.
A growing number of social scientists have started to advance the idea that the lockdowns – most prevalent in states with Democrat and Progressive governors, and in many cases states critical to the 2020 General Election – were nefariously instituted to facilitate a manipulation of the election process.
by Frank Salvato | Frank is the co-host of the Underground USA podcast and host of the National File podcast RightMinded. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention, and has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and Breitbart. Mr. Salvato appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the author of six books examining internal and external threats facing our country. He can be heard twice weekly on “The Captain’s America: Third Watch” radio program syndicated nationally on the Salem Broadcasting Network and Genesis Communications affiliate stations.
October 12, 2020
(updated February 5, 2021)
Published by LeeF
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE.
CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential election played out, according to a study published by the Public Health Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. The study, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” was authored by Henry Ealy, Michael McEvoy, Daniel Chong, John Nowicki , Monica Sava, Sandeep Gupta, David White, James Jordan , Daniel Simon, and Paul Anderson. (READ THE LANDMARK RESEARCH HERE)
“The groundbreaking peer-reviewed research…asserts that the CDC willfully violated multiple federal laws including the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act at minimum. (Publishing Journal – Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge / Public Health Policy Initiative) Most notably, the CDC illegally enacted new rules for data collection and reporting exclusively for COVID-19 that resulted in a 1,600% inflation of current COVID-19 fatality totals,” the watchdog group All Concerned Citizens declared in a statement provided to NATIONAL FILE, referring to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge study.
“The research demonstrates that the CDC failed to apply for mandatory federal oversight and failed to open a mandatory period for public scientific comment in both instances as is required by federal law before enacting new rules for data collection and reporting. The CDC is required to be in full compliance with all federal laws even during emergency situations. The research asserts that CDC willfully compromised the accuracy and integrity of all COVID-19 case and fatality data from the onset of this crisis in order to fraudulently inflate case and fatality data,” stated All Concerned Citizens.
“On March 24th the CDC published the NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 document instructing medical examiners, coroners and physicians to deemphasize underlying causes of death, also referred to as pre-existing conditions or comorbidities, by recording them in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates as “…the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause of death more often than not.” This was a major rule change for death certificate reporting from the CDC’s 2003 Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, which have instructed death reporting professionals nationwide to report underlying conditions in Part I for the previous 17 years. This single change resulted in a significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines. The research draws attention to this key distinction as it has led to a significant inflation in COVID fatality totals. By the researcher’s estimates, COVID-19 recorded fatalities are inflated nationwide by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks,” stated All Concerned Citizens.