Day: October 6, 2022

• High-resistance inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST) rivals medication and lifestyle changes for lowering blood pressure

• People doing the high-resistance breathing exercise for six weeks had an average reduction of 9 mmHg in systolic blood pressure; the daily training consists of 30 breaths a day

• The breathing exercise takes just five to 10 minutes a day, with benefits noticeable within two weeks

• It involves the use of an inhaler-like device, which provides resistance as you take a breath, causing your respiratory muscles to get a workout

• Other breathing techniques lower blood pressure by increasing the bioavailability of nitric oxide and evoking your body’s built-in relaxation response

A simple breathing exercise that strengthens respiratory muscles could be beneficial for the 47% of U.S. adults who have high blood pressure.1 The exercise, known as high-resistance inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST), worked so well that it rivaled medication and lifestyle changes for lowering blood pressure.2

High blood pressure is a significant burden to public health, as it’s a major risk factor for coronary, cerebrovascular and peripheral vascular diseases, along with heart attack and stroke.3 More than 1.28 billion people worldwide4 suffer from the condition, with most offered medications as the first line of treatment.

High blood pressure drugs carry “burdensome” side effects that often cause people to stop taking them, researchers noted in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.5 Further, about 46% of adults with high blood pressure don’t know that they have it, putting them at increased risk of related heart, brain and kidney diseases.6

Breathing exercises could again provide an answer, as it takes just minutes a day to glean the benefits. Even for those without high blood pressure — or who don’t know they’re at risk — spending five minutes on focused breath training offers myriad benefits with virtually no downside.

For the study, researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Arizona split 128 adults aged 18 to 82 years into two groups. One group did high-resistance IMST training consisting of 30 breaths a day for six weeks.

The other group did a low-resistance sham breathing exercise for the same period.7 Conventionally, IMST is used for recovery in people who have been on a ventilator, as well as to support breathing in those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other breathing disorders.8

While no changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) occurred in the placebo group, those doing the high-resistance breathing exercise had an average reduction of 9 mmHg in systolic blood pressure.9

According to study author Daniel Craighead, the reduction is similar to what may be achieved with medication and potentially more effective than weight loss or reducing sodium in your diet. He told Insider, “People can expect fairly rapid results. We would expect that if you went longer, blood pressure would go down even more.” He recommended the technique for those with high blood pressure and those hoping to prevent it:10

“What’s really exciting about this is that it’s helpful for a wide range of adults. People with blood pressure at an unhealthy level could stand to benefit from adding this to their routine now. But someone could start in their thirties and stick to it for years to help delay or prevent hypertension.”

The breathing exercise takes just five to 10 minutes a day, with benefits noticeable within two weeks. It involves the use of an inhaler-like device, which provides resistance as you take a breath, causing your respiratory muscles to get a workout. While the trial used a $500 device, less expensive models are commercially available right now.11

According to the study, “These compiled findings from multiple independent trials provide the strongest evidence to date that high-resistance IMST evokes clinically significant reductions in SBP and DBP.”12

Also noteworthy, the participants did the breathing exercises for six weeks, then took a six-week break. When their blood pressure was tested after the break, it was nearly as low as it was immediately after the exercise session ended. The researchers are now looking into whether a “maintenance dose” of the breathing exercise could help extend the blood pressure reductions even longer.13

One way that IMST appears to be beneficial is by toning and strengthening the muscles used in breathing. Past research also found that high-resistance IMST lowered blood pressure and improved endothelial function in middle-age and older adults with above-normal blood pressure. The breathing technique increased the bioavailability of nitric oxide, helping widen arteries, and reduced oxidative stress.14

Stress is another factor in high blood pressure and relieving it may offer some relief. This is another mechanism by which controlled breathing may help blood pressure. The way you breathe — whether fast or slow, shallow or deep — is intricately tied to your body as a whole, sending messages that affect your mood, your stress levels and even your immune system.

In early 2017, researchers discovered breathing may directly affect your brain activity, including your state of arousal and higher-order brain function.15 As such, controlled breathing exercises may modify stress coping behaviors and initiate appropriate balance in cardiac autonomic tone, which is a term that describes your heart’s ability to respond to and recover from stressors.16

Also intriguing is a 2016 study published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which found yogic breathing reduces levels of proinflammatory biomarkers in saliva.17 Controlled breathing triggers your relaxation response, activating your parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn may slow down your heart rate and digestion while helping you feel calm.

By evoking your body’s built-in relaxation response you can change the expression of your genes for the better, including in areas related to energy metabolism, mitochondrial function, insulin secretion, the inflammatory response and stress-related pathways.18

Slow breathing also reduces blood pressure and enhances baroreflex sensitivity, a mechanism to control blood pressure via heart rate, in people with high blood pressure.19 The finding was so strong that researchers suggested slow breathing “appear[s] potentially beneficial in the management of hypertension.”20

It’s possible to incorporate a variety of beneficial breathing techniques into your day to propel yourself toward optimal health — healthy blood pressure levels included. One of the most basic breathing techniques is to make sure you’re always breathing through your nose. Mouth breathing tends to promote hyperventilation, which decreases tissue oxygenation.

Mouth breathing also results in diminished levels of CO2 in your body and a decreased ability to filter toxic pollutants from the air. Mouth breathing can also elevate your heart rate and blood pressure, sometimes resulting in fatigue and dizziness.21

The Buteyko Breathing Method is one way to reverse health problems associated with improper breathing, the most common of which include over-breathing and mouth breathing. When you stop mouth breathing and learn to bring your breathing volume toward normal, you have better oxygenation of your tissues and organs. The Buteyko Breathing Method allows you to retain and gently accumulate CO2, which calms breathing and reduces anxiety:

1. Take a small breath into your nose, followed by a small breath out

2. Hold your nose for five seconds in order to hold your breath, and then release your nose to resume breathing

3. Breathe normally for 10 seconds

4. Repeat the sequence

Box breathing is another form of breath control that triggers the parasympathetic nervous system to help manage stress. This technique, also called square breathing or four-square breathing, is used by Navy SEALS to help reduce stress in high-pressure situations.

It involves nose breathing to slow over-breathing and raise CO2 levels to balance oxygenation. To begin practicing box breathing, get in a quiet place where you can concentrate and maintain good posture. Work up to using the technique for five-minute increments:22

• Step 1 — Begin by exhaling the air out of your lungs to a slow count of four. Some recommend exhaling through your mouth, others through your nose.

• Step 2 — Hold your breath for a slow count of four.

• Step 3 — Inhale slowly to a slow count of four through your nose, keeping your back straight and breathing through your abdomen so your shoulders do not rise.

• Step 4 — Hold your breath for a slow count of four and return to step 1.

You can also experiment with other forms of controlled breathing to see if it makes a difference for you. Here are several examples of yogic breathing compiled by the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine:23

• Nadishodhana/Nadishuddhi (Alternate nostril breathing) — With your right thumb, close the right nostril and inhale through left nostril. Closing the left nostril, exhale through right, following which inhalation should be done through right nostril. Closing the right nostril, breath out through left nostril. This is one round. The procedure is repeated for desired number of rounds.

• Suryanuloma Viloma (Right uninostril breathing) — Closing the left nostril, both inhalation and exhalation should be done through right nostril, without altering the normal pace of breathing.

• Chandranuloma Viloma (Left uninostril breathing) — Procedure similar to Suryanuloma Viloma, breathing is done through left nostril alone, by closing the right nostril.

• Suryabhedana (Right nostril initiated breathing) — Closing the left nostril, inhalation should be done through right nostril. At the end of inhalation, close the right nostril and exhale through the left nostril. This is one round. The procedure is repeated for desired number of rounds.

• Ujjayi (Psychic breath) — Inhalation and exhalation are done through the nose at normal pace, with partial contraction of glottis, which produce light snoring sound. One should be aware of the passage of breath through the throat during the practice.

• Bhramari (Female honeybee humming breath) — After a full inhalation, closing the ears using the index fingers, one should exhale making a soft humming sound similar to that of a female honeybee.

Breathing techniques are important but they shouldn’t be considered a panacea. Optimizing your blood pressure requires a comprehensive approach for best results. For instance, imbalanced gut microbes, known as gut dysbiosis, play a role in high blood pressure.24 A strong link between sleep quality and a type of high blood pressure known as resistant hypertension, which does not respond to typical drug-based treatments, has also been found.25

Getting a good night’s sleep, eating right, exercising, addressing stress and avoiding environmental toxins like air pollution are all important for healthy blood pressure. Eating a diet rich in magnesium could also reduce the risk of high blood pressure,26 as can herbs and spices.

In a controlled feeding study of people with known risk factors for heart disease, eating 6.5 grams of 24 herbs and spices — such as basil, thyme, cinnamon and turmeric27 — each day lowered systolic and diastolic blood pressure.28 Study author Penny Kris-Etherton said in a news release:29

“I think it’s really significant that participants consumed an average American diet throughout the study and we still found these results. We didn’t decrease sodium, we didn’t increase fruits and vegetables, we just added herbs and spices. It begs the next question that if we did alter the diet … how much better would the results be?”

As we’ve seen time and again, whether you’re interested in lowering your blood pressure or simply keeping it in a healthy range, small daily habits — like engaging in breathing exercises and eating herbs and spices — add up to big changes for your health.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Pfizer and Moderna are both seeking emergency use authorization for their bivalent COVID boosters for children. Moderna is seeking authorization for children ages 6 through 17, while Pfizer’s shot is for children aged 5 through 11

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expects the bivalent boosters will be available for children aged 5 to 11 by mid-October 2022

• In the U.S., both bivalent boosters will contain mRNA against the original Wuhan strain and Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5. (In the U.K., Moderna’s booster targets the Wuhan strain and BA.1, an earlier Omicron strain no longer in circulation)

• The effectiveness of Pfizer’s booster is based on antibody levels in eight mice, which cannot tell you anything about the level of protection you might receive. Moderna’s booster is also based on antibody levels in mice, although the exact number is unknown

• When it comes to safety, there’s not even mouse data. The safety is assumed based on the original shots, even though the safety data on those is shocking beyond belief. As of September 16, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had logged 55,733 reports of injuries and deaths in children under the age of 18

Even as more damning data are coming to light, Pfizer and Moderna are both seeking emergency use authorization (EUA) for their bivalent COVID boosters for children. Moderna is seeking authorization for children ages 6 through 17, while Pfizer’s shot is for children aged 5 through 11.1

According to Reuters,2 “the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention … expects COVID-19 vaccine boosters targeting circulating variants of the virus to be available for children aged 5-11 years by mid-October.”

Moderna’s new bivalent COVID booster, mRNA-1273.222, sold under the brand name “Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron,” was authorized for adults over the age of 18 at the end of August 2022.3

In the U.S., the adult dose contains 25 micrograms of mRNA against the original Wuhan strain and 25 mcg of mRNA targeting Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5.4 In the U.K., Moderna’s bivalent booster (mRNA-1273.2145) contains mRNA against the original Wuhan strain and BA.1,6 an earlier Omicron strain that is no longer in circulation.7 8

Pfizer’s bivalent booster also contain mRNA against the Wuhan strain, BA.4 and BA.5. The two bivalent boosters are only be available to those who have already received the primary two-dose series and/or a monovalent booster at least two months ago.9

It’s probably safe to assume the same rule will apply to children. As of late September 2022,10 38% of American children aged 5 to 11 had received one initial dose and 31% have received two doses.11 In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, 67% have had one dose and 57% two doses. Those with two doses are likely the only ones who will be eligible for the bivalent booster, if authorized.

For decades, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had additional safeguards in place for children who participate in medical research.12 With the advent of COVID shots, all of that has been tossed out the window, as children are now being used as medical guinea pigs without any safeguards whatsoever.

It’s really important to realize that these bivalent boosters have been reformulated with new, untested mRNA, yet they’ve only been tested on mice. Despite that, the FDA is now considering giving them to young children.

The effectiveness of Pfizer’s booster is based on antibody levels in eight mice,13 which cannot tell you anything about the level of protection you might receive. Moderna’s booster is also based on antibody levels in mice, although the exact number is unknown.

“Safety is assumed based on the original shots, even though the safety data on those is shocking beyond belief. As of September 16, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had logged 55,733 reports of injuries and deaths in children under the age of 18.”

When it comes to safety, there’s not even mouse data. The safety is assumed based on the original shots, even though the safety data on those is shocking beyond belief. In the short-term, the original COVID shots have between them resulted in 1,417,671 adverse event reports (logged with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System or VAERS as of September 16, 202214).

That includes 177,973 hospitalizations, 58,024 permanent disabilities, 34,107 life threatening events and 31,071 deaths. For children under the age of 18 alone, there are 55,733 reports of injuries and deaths.

If that’s not cause for alarm, I don’t know what is. It’s certainly not “strong evidence” for safety! What’s more, due to widespread underreporting, you have to multiply those already staggering numbers by underreporting factor of 41 (or more) to get an idea of the true impact.

And, if you still believe the pediatric trials were exhaustive, understand that the monovalent Pfizer booster authorized for children aged 5 to 11, back in May 2022, was based on the antibody levels of just 67 children.15 This is so far outside the norm of what’s historically been required for a drug trial, it’s just ridiculous.

While VAERS data paint a clear picture of what’s at stake for parents who opt to inject their children with this genetically engineered bioweapon, we now also have other data showing just how bad of an idea that is.

A recent study16 17 in the journal Vaccine — coauthored by some of the most trusted medical scientists in the world, including Peter Doshi, an associate professor of pharmaceutical services research and a senior editor at The BMJ — looked at data from the FDA, Health Canada and the Pfizer and Moderna trials to assess the risks of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots.

They concluded the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from the mRNA shots was 1 in 800, which massively exceeds the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization found in randomized controlled trials.

The risk COVID infection poses to children is even more infinitesimal — especially Omicron infection, which presents as a mild cold in most people — making a 1 in 800 risk of a serious side effect unacceptable beyond description.

Statistics show the rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is 0.0008%.18 In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you cannot lower it any further. Additionally, as reported by Clark County Today,19 “Pfizer trial data20 [show] the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID-19.”

Other data are also reviewed in a recent paper21 22 by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who initially recommended the shots but has since changed his mind about their safety. For example, Israeli data show post-jab myocarditis is occurring at a rate of 1 in 6,000. Data from male children and teens in Hong Kong found myocarditis at a rate of 1 in 2,700.

As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation in the video above, myocarditis — one of the recognized effects of the COVID jab — “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”

Norwegian data show the rate of serious adverse events post-jab is 1 in 1,000 after two doses of Pfizer, and the British Yellow Card system shows 1 in 120 people who have received at least one mRNA injection suffer an adverse event “that is beyond mild.” These are simply extraordinary risk ratios, and there’s no telling what the long-term effects might be, say 10 or 20 years from now.

According to CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, “rigorous scientific review” has proven the COVID shots to be safe and effective in infants and young children.23 However, as detailed by diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig24 (video above), Pfizer twisted its clinical data for young children to achieve a desired result.

Craig points out that of the 4,526 children, aged 6 months to 4 years, who participated in Pfizer’s trial, 3,000 didn’t make it to the end of the trial. Why did two-thirds of the children drop out? Oftentimes, this happens when side effects are too severe for the participant to continue. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and “on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void,” Craig says. Moreover:

• Six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, what this actually shows is that the likelihood the shot is causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it’s preventing it.

• The only child who required hospitalization for COVID was also in the “vaccinated” group.

• In the three weeks following the first dose, 34 of the children in the vaccinated group and 13 of the unvaccinated children were diagnosed with COVID. That means the children’s risk of developing symptoms of COVID within the first three weeks of the first dose actually increased by 30%! These data were ignored.

  Between doses two and three, there was an eight-week gap, and the vaccinated arm again experienced higher rates of COVID. This too was ignored. After the third dose, incidence of COVID was again raised in the vaccine group, and this was ignored as well.

  In the end, they only counted three cases of COVID in the vaccine arm and seven cases in the placebo group. They literally ignored 97% of all the COVID cases that occurred during the trial to conclude that the shots were “effective” in preventing COVID.

• While they claim the triple-dose regimen reduced COVID, 12 of the children actually caught COVID twice in the two-month follow-up, and 11 of them were vaccinated.

• The confidence interval for Pfizer’s jab is -370% at the lower end of the 95%, which suggests children who get the jab are nearly four times more likely of getting sick with COVID than their unvaccinated peers.25

Ever since the COVID shots were first authorized for young children,26 the question of why has been raised. Certainly, it’s not because children are in grave danger of dying from COVID.

The most likely explanation for the FDA’s and CDC’s irrational behavior is that they’re helping the drug makers to get the mRNA shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule, as that is the fastest and easiest route to get permanent liability shielding.

Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults. You can learn more about this indemnification process in “The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids.”

So, the end goal is likely to get permanent immunity against liability for injury and death from the COVID shots in all age groups, and to get there, they first need the EUA to cover all children. And, since the FDA is now authorizing reformulated mRNA shots without additional testing, using the flu vaccine model, it seems they want to make sure they have annually updated boosters included in the EUA for children as well.

Meanwhile, the U.K. recently rescinded the COVID jab for children under the age of 12, unless they’re in a high-risk medical category. As reported by The Guardian September 6, 2022:27

“The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said children who had not turned 5 by the end of last month would not be offered a vaccination, in line with advice published by the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in February 2022. UKHSA said the offer of COVID jabs to healthy 5- to 11-year-olds was always meant to be temporary.”

Similarly, as of September 1, 2022, Denmark no longer offers the COVID jab to children between the ages of 5 and 17, citing the low risk posed by COVID infection.28 Children with only one dose will not be required to get a second, and no boosters will be offered to this age group.

Sweden opted not to recommend the shot for children between 5 and 11 from the start, as the Swedish Health Agency felt the benefits did not outweigh the risks,29 so boosters for kids are unlikely to be an issue there either.

In the U.S., Florida has gone on record rejecting all COVID shots for children under 5.30 Parents who want to get their toddlers jabbed have the freedom to do so, but it’s not recommended by the state.

If you’re still unsure whether the COVID shot is the “right” choice for your child, please read through Dr. Byram Bridle’s “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents,”31 published by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. It goes through how the shots work, what the known side effects are, results from the clinical trial, the effects of the spike protein and much more.

Side effects from the new bivalent boosters are assumed to be about the same as for the original shots,32 but there’s no guarantee of that. They could be milder, or they could be worse.

In my view, the chances of them being worse is higher, for the simple reason that they’re delivering more than one type of mRNA. Will the BA.4/BA.5 mRNA have different effects? Will they cause cross-reactions? Who knows? There’s no data. At bare minimum, if the adverse effects of the original shots are an indication, there’s every reason to suspect the bivalent boosters will be just as dangerous.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.