July 31, 2020, I wrote about a Hong Kong whistleblower scientist who claims1 the Chinese government and World Health Organization representatives in Hong Kong covered up the Wuhan outbreak, allowing it to spread unchecked around the world.
In a Fox News interview in July 2020, the whistleblower, Dr. Li-Meng Yan — who worked at the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health, a top coronavirus research lab — said her investigation into the SARS-like outbreak in Wuhan could have helped prevent a global pandemic from developing, had her supervisors shared her findings.
Yan was interviewed by Fox News again September 15, 2020 (above), this time about the report she just published, and Twitter promptly began censoring the interview from its platform.2
Yan claims her supervisor, WHO consultant Leo Poon, asked her to, secretly, investigate reports of a SARS-like illness spreading in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019. The Chinese government had refused overseas experts from getting involved, and Poon wanted her to figure out what was really going on.
Yan turned to a professional colleague who works in the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and had first-hand information about the outbreak. Yan was told there was likely human-to-human transmission occurring, as they had found family clusters of cases.
The WHO, however, did not confirm the human-to-human spread potential for several weeks. On the contrary, an official WHO statement said the virus “does not transmit readily between people.”
January 16, 2020, Yan was again asked to reach out to her contacts in China to see if she could learn more. Her CDC contacts were fearful, but it became clear that patients and front-line doctors were not being properly protected, and that Chinese authorities were trying to keep a lid on the flow of information.
When she updated Poon, he told her to stay silent and not cross the Chinese government, or else they’d both be “disappeared.” The co-director of the University of Hong Kong School of Public Health laboratory, professor Malik Peiris, also stayed quiet. Yan told Fox News she believes WHO colluded with the China Communist Party (CCP) government to prevent information about the virus from coming out.
The Yan Report Is Instantly Censored
Back in July 2020, Yan claimed she had proof that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade, and that once she released it, she would make it accessible to all. September 11, 2020, The Sun quoted statements made by Yan during a British TV interview that same morning, in which she said:3
“The genome sequence is like a human fingerprint. Based on this you can identify these things. I will [use this] evidence to tell people why this has come from the lab in China, why they are the ones who made it. Anyone, even if you have no biology knowledge, will be able to read it, and check and identify and verify it yourself.”
Three days later, September 14, 2020, Yan and her Ph.D. colleagues, Shu Kang, Jie Guan and Shanchang Hu, published the report,4 “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route” on the preprint server Zenodo.
On the morning of September 14, Yan posted a link to the paper on her Twitter account.5 Shortly thereafter, she posted another tweet saying Zenodo was “immediately hacked” once the report was posted. The following day, September 15, Twitter suspended her account.6 According to Yan’s report:7
“The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.
Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient andcan be accomplished in approximately six months.”
Before I get into the content of Yan’s report, it’s worth noting that questions have arisen as to whether she might be “controlled opposition.” Her report also appears very similar to the work8 of Yuri Deigin. In a September 16 Twitter post, Deigin says:9
“While it is flattering to see the Yan report citing our preprint with @Rossana38510044, I have to admit, I expected a whistleblower to present much more convincing (and new) evidence than just a rehash of what was already known months ago. Also, why no mention of the 2012 outbreak?”
Interestingly, a formerly anonymous scientist has now stepped forward as one of the three co-authors of Yan’s paper. The anonymous scientist has detailed scientific evidence showing SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus, and that there appears to be a concerted effort to promote the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, in a blog called Nerd Has Power.10
Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (a nonprofit research group that exposes human rights abuses and the myth of overpopulation11) has previously noted that because Nerd Has Power “published his raw data, I and others have been able to check and verify his work.”12
In a September 14, 2020, Twitter post,13 Nerd Has Power identifies himself as Shu Kang, one of the four authors of the Yan report. “Like my co-authors, I stand by this report 100%,” Kang says.
Yan Report Claims SARS-CoV-2 Was Genetically Engineered
As of this writing, the Zenodo website is back up and Yan’s paper is again available for viewing. Below are a few chosen excerpts.14 (If you like, you can compare it to Yurin’s Medium article.15)
“The receptor-binding motif of SARS-CoV-2 Spike cannot be born from nature and should have been created through genetic engineering.
The Spike proteins decorate the exterior of the coronavirus particles. They play an important role in infection as they mediate the interaction with host cell receptors and thereby help determine the host range and tissue tropism of the virus.
The Spike protein is split into two halves (Figure 3). The front or N-terminal half is named S1, which is fully responsible for binding the host receptor.
In both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, the host cell receptor is hACE2. Within S1, a segment of around 70 amino acids makes direct contacts with hACE2 and is correspondingly named the receptor-binding motif (RBM) (Figure 3C).
In SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the RBM fully determines the interaction with hACE2. The C-terminal half of the Spike protein is named S2. The main function of S2 includes maintaining trimer formation and, upon successive protease cleavages at the S1/S2 junction and a downstream S2’ position, mediating membrane fusion to enable cellular entry of the virus.
Similar to what is observed for other viral proteins, S2 of SARS-CoV-2 shares a high sequence identity (95%) with S2 of ZC45/ZXC21. In stark contrast, between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21, the S1 protein, which dictates which host (human or bat) the virus can infect, is much less conserved with the amino acid sequence identity being only 69%.
Figure 4 shows the sequence alignment of the Spike proteins from six ? coronaviruses. Two are viruses isolated from the current pandemic (Wuhan-Hu-1, 2019-nCoV_USA-AZ1); two are the suspected template viruses (Bat_CoV_ZC45, Bat_CoV_ZXC21); two are SARS coronaviruses (SARS_GZ02, SARS).
The RBM is highlighted in between two orange lines. Clearly, despite the high sequence identity for the overall genomes, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 differs significantly from those of ZC45 and ZXC21.
Intriguingly, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 resembles, on a great deal, the RBM of SARS Spike. Although this is not an exact ‘copy and paste,’ careful examination of the Spike-hACE2 structures reveals that all residues essential for either hACE2 binding or protein folding (orange sticks in Figure 3C and what is highlighted by red short lines in Figure 4) are ‘kept.’
Most of these essential residues are precisely preserved, including those involved in disulfide bond formation (C467, C474) and electrostatic interactions (R444, E452, R453, D454), which are pivotal for the structural integrity of the RBM (Figure 3C and 4).
The few changes within the group of essential residues are almost exclusively hydrophobic ‘substitutions’ … which should not affect either protein folding or the hACE2-interaction. At the same time, majority of the amino acid residues that are non-essential have ‘mutated’ (Figure 4, RBM residues not labeled with short red lines).
Judging from this sequence analysis alone, we were convinced early on that not only would the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein bind hACE2 but also the binding would resemble, precisely, that between the original SARS Spike protein and hACE223. Recent structural work has confirmed our prediction …
The way that SARS-CoV-2 RBM resembles SARS-CoV RBM and the overall sequence conservation pattern between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 are highly unusual. Collectively, this suggests that portions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have not been derived from natural quasi-species viral particle evolution.”
Why Natural Origin Theory Fails
Yan’s paper goes on to explain why the natural evolution origin theory fails to hold water. She points out that were it the result of wholly natural evolution, its RBM would have to have been acquired either through a) an ancient recombination event followed by convergent evolution, or b) a natural and fairly recent recombination event. Yan dismisses the ancient recombination/convergent evolution option, stating, in part:16
“ … the virus would have to adapt extensively in its new host, where the ACE2 protein is highly homologous to hACE2 [human ACE2]. Random mutations across the genome would have to have occurred to eventually shape the RBM to its current form — resembling SARS-CoV RBM in a highly intelligent manner.
However, this convergent evolution process would also result in the accumulation of a large amount of mutations in other parts of the genome, rendering the overall sequence identity relatively low.
The high sequence identity between SARS-CoV-2 and ZC45/ZXC21 on various proteins (94-100% identity) do not support this scenario and, therefore, clearly indicates that SARS-CoV- 2 carrying such an RBM cannot come from a ZC45/ZXC21-like bat coronavirus through this convergent evolutionary route.”
She also dismisses the second, recent recombination event, option stating:17
“In the second scenario, the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would have to have recently recombined and swapped its RBM with another coronavirus that had successfully adapted to bind an animal ACE2 highly homologous to hACE2. The likelihood of such an event depends, in part, on the general requirements of natural recombination:
that the two different viruses share significant sequence similarity;
that they must co-infect and be present in the same cell of the same animal;
that the recombinant virus would not be cleared by the host or make the host extinct;
that the recombinant virus eventually would have to become stable and transmissible within the host species.
In regard to this recent recombination scenario, the animal reservoir could not be bats because the ACE2 proteins in bats are not homologous enough to hACE2 and therefore the adaption would not be able to yield an RBM sequence as seen in SARS-CoV-2. This animal reservoir also could not be humans as the ZC45/ZXC21-like coronavirus would not be able to infect humans.
In addition, there has been no evidence of any SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2-like virus circulating in the human population prior to late 2019. Intriguingly, according to a recent bioinformatics study, SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans since the start of the outbreak.”
Pangolin and Other Animals Are Unlikely Intermediary Hosts
There is a third possibility for natural evolution, Yan notes, that of an intermediary host, but this theory also has a significant flaw. “The ZC45/ZXC21-like virus and a coronavirus containing a SARS-like RBM could have recombined in an intermediate host where the ACE2 protein is homologous to hACE2,” the paper states.
It also added that several laboratories have reported that Sunda pangolins carrying coronaviruses with a near-identical receptor-binding domain to that of SARS-CoV-2 have been smuggled into China from Malaysia. Some have argued that these pangolins were likely intermediary hosts. There are several problems with this theory, however, including the following:
• Even though Sunda pangolins have been sampled between 2009 and 2019, no coronaviruses have ever been found in those samples
• Recent research shows the receptor-binding domain shared by SARS-CoV-2 and the reported pangolin coronaviruses binds 10 times stronger to the human ACE2 receptor than it does to the pangolin ACE2 receptor
• Other research has demonstrated that none of the animal ACE2 proteins examined have more favorable binding potential to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein than the human ACE2 receptor. According to Yan:18
“This study virtually exempted all animals from their suspected roles as an intermediate host, which is consistent with the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was well-adapted for humans from the start of the outbreak.
This is significant because these findings collectively suggest that no intermediate host seems to exist for SARS-CoV-2, which at the very least diminishes the possibility of a recombinant event occurring in an intermediate host”
Restriction Enzyme Digestion — The Smoking Gun?
Yan goes on to review what she believes is the smoking gun proving SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation. In a nutshell, she and her colleagues believe SARS-CoV-2 was created by swapping out the receptor-binding motif or RBM, not the entire spike protein.
The feasibility of such a swap has already been proven by none other than Dr. Zhengli Shi, one of the researchers arguing for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 (as reviewed in this September 10, 2020, article19 on Minerva). According to Yan:
“In 2008, Dr. Zhengli Shi’s group swapped a SARS RBM into the Spike proteins of several SARS-like bat coronaviruses after introducing a restriction site into a codon-optimized spike gene … They then validated the binding of the resulted chimeric Spike proteins with hACE2.
Furthermore, in a recent publication, the RBM of SARS-CoV-2 was swapped into the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARSCoV, resulting in a chimeric RBD fully functional in binding hACE2 … It is noteworthy that the corresponding author of this recent publication, Dr. Fang Li, has been an active collaborator of Dr. Zhengli Shi since 2010 …
The striking finding of EcoRI and BstEII restriction sites at either end of the SARS-CoV-2 RBM, respectively, and the fact that the same RBM region has been swapped both by Dr. Shi and by her long-term collaborator, respectively, using restriction enzyme digestion methods are unlikely a coincidence. Rather, it is the smoking gun proving that the RBM/Spike of SARS-CoV-2 is a product of genetic manipulation.”
Yan’s paper also details evidence suggesting the Chinese scientists tried to cover their tracks to hide the genetic manipulation, and reviews how the furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is further indication that genetic engineering was used.
In summary, Yan and colleagues propose SARS-CoV-2 was made using the ZC45/ZXC21 bat coronavirus as the backbone. The RBM in the spike protein was then manipulated to give the virus the ability to strongly bind to the human ACE2 receptor.
“This is supported by the finding of a unique restriction enzyme digestion site at either end of the RBM. An unusual furin-cleavage site may have been introduced and inserted at the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, which contributes to the increased virulence and pathogenicity of the virus,” Yan writes.
The diagram below illustrates the steps required to create SARS-CoV-2:
Why the Cover-Up?
As reported by Aksel Fridstrom in a September 10, 2020, article20 posted on Minerva, as well as a September 9, 2020, article21 written by Rowan Jacobsen in Boston Magazine, Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, is yet another scientist who questions the zoonotic nature of SARS-CoV-2.
Importantly, Chan discovered that SARS-CoV-2 has not evolved in the manner you’d expect had it jumped from an animal to a human. It sprang into action fully evolved for human transmission. Like Yan and several other scientists, Chan has come to the conclusion that the missing intermediate phase of evolution from animal to human transmissibility must have taken place in a lab.
Chan published her paper,22 “SARS-CoV-2 Is Well Adapted for Humans. What Does This Mean for Re-Emergence?” on the preprint server bioRxiv May 2, 2020. As in most cases, the pushback she and her co-authors received was enormous.
In his article,23 Jacobsen points out that one of the obvious reasons for this response is that “if the public and politicians really knew about the dangerous pathogen research being conducted in many laboratories, they’d be outraged.” Hence, “Denying the possibility of a catastrophic incident like this … could be seen as a form of career preservation.”
Interestingly, The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, which has vowed to “leave no stone unturned” in its investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and the possibility of a lab escape, is being led by none other than Dr. Peter Daszak,24 a scientist who has already concluded the virus is natural.
As the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, Daszak is also steeped in conflicts of interest, seeing how EcoHealth Alliance received grants from the NIH for coronavirus research that was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
What’s more, the NIH is demanding EcoHealth Alliance produce records detailing its work with the Wuhan lab before further funding will be released.25 It seems the purpose for this “fix” is best summarized by a quote from Boston Magazine:26
“Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, put it more bluntly. If it turned out COVID-19 came from a lab, he tweeted, ‘it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.’”
Indeed, safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research would be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative.
According to Chan, there are solutions, however. One would be to conduct this kind of research using “neutered viruses that have had their replicating machinery removed in advance, so that even if they escaped confinement, they would be incapable of making copies of themselves,” Jacobsen writes.27 Another would be to locate high biosafety level laboratories in sparsely populated areas rather than right smack in the middle of large cities.
New Engineered Coronaviruses Are Under Development
Getting to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 actually came from is important, because if it came from a high-security bioweapons lab, then it’s proof positive that something must be done to prevent a repeat. This is even more important now that biosafety labs around the world are looking at modifying live SARS-CoV-2 even further.28
As just one example, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh are looking to insert the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what allows the virus to gain entry into human cells, into Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax,29 an already devastatingly dangerous pathogen.
Researchers are also arguing for infectious SARS-CoV-2 research to be permitted in biosafety level 2 laboratories, which have nowhere near the same level of biosafety procedures in place as BSL 3 and BSL 4 labs do.
If the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is in fact the result of a lab escape, then the responsible way forward is to halt all gain-of-function research until safety protocols are massively upgraded. If we really want to avert another catastrophe, this kind of research should probably be abolished altogether.
As it stands right now, the weaponization of pathogens continues unabated, and is likely to continue unless or until the public becomes sufficiently aroused to demand real change.
In the meantime, it is important to make sure you’re prepared at home. I strongly recommend reviewing my interview with Dr. David Brownstein, in which he explains the benefits of nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s important to have something in your own arsenal to protect yourself against whatever they come up with next. I also added a new video to the page that describes how to do the nebulization therapy.
This needs to be a central player in your emergency medical kit as I fully believe it could be the difference for many, especially the elderly, those who are vitamin D deficient and/or metabolically unfit and insulin resistant. I believe nebulized peroxide is one of the best options available for any respiratory virus, including even more dangerous ones than SARS-CoV-2 that are likely to be introduced in the future.
Once the social, economic and medical implications of COVID-19 had a hold on society, all eyes turned from nearly every other environmental and health-related concern to focus solely on the controversies and debates about how to treat and contain the virus and what to do about a vaccine. These are just some of the economic, political and social challenges people are facing:
• The initial panic resulted in the purchase of $3 billion worth of ventilators, 79,295 of which The Washington Post reports are sitting unused.1
• The question of whether or not to wear a mask has become one of the most hotly contested debates, despite research over the past decade demonstrating cloth masks are ineffective against viruses.2
• Hiding under the guise of “biodefense” and “biomedicine,” a network of virologists, military scientists and biotech entrepreneurs are weaponizing microorganisms and growing an arsenal of Frankenstein pathogens.
But as investigative reporter and bioweapons expert Sam Husseini writes, gain-of-function/biowarfare scientists in labs such as Wuhan, China, and Fort Detrick, Maryland, have been accused of deliberately and recklessly conducting nefarious types of research.3
• As part of Operation Warp Speed, Pfizer struck a $1.95 billion deal to provide the U.S. with 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to give the U.S. public for “free,” with an option for 500 million more.4
• As some people are considering whether they will submit to yet another vaccine, Yale University is conducting trials to determine the type of message that will maximize the number of people who will accept and use the vaccine.5
In other words, they are testing messages that will trigger an emotional response to raise the potential that you will say yes. This is a blatant and highly sophisticated form of salesmanship. The types of messages under investigation include those that address your personal freedom, self-interest, economic benefit and guilt.
The core message throughout this pandemic should have been how to protect your health and reduce the risk of severe disease. But, it hasn’t been. Instead, minor wars are being waged over financial decisions that may have little to do with you.
Sunlight Negatively Correlated With Positive Testing
Human coronaviruses are named for the appearance of spikes on the surface. There are four main subgroups, the first of which was identified in the mid-1960s. To date, the CDC has identified seven types of coronavirus that can infect humans, including MERS, SARS and SARS-CoV-2.6
Without the fanfare that has accompanied the proposed release of remdesivir, an antiviral medication costing $3,120 per dose to treat COVID-19,7 recently published data again revealed the simple and cost-free act of sensible sun exposure for fighting SARS-CoV-2 and four other human coronaviruses.8
The research team began with the knowledge that RNA viruses, such as human coronaviruses, are sensitive to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and that the “incidence and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are considered to be correlated with vitamin D levels.”
Using these two points as a foundation, they sought to analyze the correlation between five types of human coronavirus and how much sunlight was needed for a negative test. Measurements were taken from April 17, 2020, to July 10, 2020, during which time the researchers found there was a significant negative correlation in four viruses with the amount of sunlight and a percent positive test.
The U.S. has four census regions, which the researchers used to categorize the findings. Census region No.1 includes the Northeast states bordered in the south by Pennsylvania. Census region No. 2 includes North Central states bordered on the south by Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri and Kansas.
Census No. 3 includes the Southern states bordered on the west by Texas and on the east by Florida’s Atlantic coast. Census region No. 4 is the West Coast, boarded on the east by Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
Data indicate census regions 1 and 2 had a significant negative correlation with sunlight exposure (meaning sunlight reduced coronavirus infection), while regions 3 and 4 had a minimal positive correlation that was not statistically significant. The difference in these two areas may be explained by the significant heat during those months, driving people indoors to air conditioning.
Vitamin D Deficiency at Pandemic Levels
As more research demonstrates the effectiveness vitamin D has against infectious diseases and COVID-19, it’s important to note that vitamin D deficiency across the world is also at a pandemic level.
Deficiencies have been found in countries in the Southern Hemisphere where it was assumed there was enough exposure to UV radiation to prevent a vitamin D deficiency.9 However, a variety of factors likely influence this difference. For instance, the authors of one literature review found that women from the Middle East were particularly low in vitamin D.10
However, since many people in Middle Eastern countries practice Islam and the women do not go outside unless they are fully covered, the skin’s ability to produce vitamin D with exposure to the sun is inhibited.11
Another study involved the use of an international Vitamin D Standardization Program led by the National Institutes of Health to evaluate 14 population studies.12 The data showed that regardless of age, ethnicity or latitude, 13% of the 55,844 Europeans who were tested had serum vitamin D levels less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L).
When an alternate level of deficiency was used, less than 20ng/mL (50 nmol/L), the prevalence was even higher at 40.4%. Additionally, when the group was subdivided by ethnicity, the data showed people with dark skin had a much higher level of deficiency than white populations, at rates of up to 71 times higher.
Sunscreen Advice Counter to Lifesaving Vitamin D
Remarkably, as the importance of vitamin D becomes more widely recognized, some doctors are continuing to advise against sensible sun exposure, vitamin D supplementation or both. For example, Dr. Pieter Cohen is an internal medicine physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts who has not recognized the importance of vitamin D at this time.
In an interview with Today, Cohen told the reporter he strongly discourages people from even getting a vitamin D test, and went on to say:13
“We don’t recommend vitamin D to our patients and I see no credible evidence that vitamin D has a role in either preventing or treating COVID-19. We might have evidence in the future that evolves and would change our opinion, but that’s the status here.
I would discourage anyone from thinking that any pill is going to resolve this problem. It’s going to be the meticulous social distancing, hand washing [and] wearing a mask that [are] going to be the key.”
As sensible sun exposure and vitamin D supplementation are relatively innocuous with little to no side effects when done appropriately, it seems rather peculiar to recommend people should not even be tested or take a supplement for the potential benefit they may receive.
The advice to use sunscreen while getting “incidental” exposure is also medically incorrect, since sunscreen filters out the ultraviolet rays that stimulate vitamin D production in your skin.
In order for sensible sun exposure to work, your skin must be unprotected, and you should be sure you don’t get sunburned. Stay out until your skin turns the lightest shade of pink and then cover with long sleeves and pants.
Positive Tests and Deaths Declined Over the Summer
Many respiratory illnesses decline over the summer. While it’s still possible to get a cold or flu, it’s less likely during the summer months. Since mid-July, indicators from the CDC show COVID-like illnesses and positive tests have declined in the U.S.14
The CDC also gathers data to tally the number of deaths from COVID-19 and pneumonia while excluding flu. The first death in this category was recorded February 22, 2020.15
The number peaked the week of April 18, 2020, at 7,292 deaths. By end of June the number had dropped significantly to 1,530. However, as a new report from the CDC reveals, 94% of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 happened in people who had other significant health conditions and contributing causes.16
For only 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the single cause on the death certificate. To make this comparison, it’s the difference between an individual dying FROM COVID-19 versus WITH COVID-19, since for many with a positive test they are asymptomatic and therefore do not qualify as a “case” of COVID-19 but, rather, as a positive test.
Some of the top contributing conditions were cardiac arrest, heart or renal failure, vascular or unspecified dementia, and influenza and pneumonia.17 In addition to rising vitamin D levels during the summer months, there are other factors that influence the transmission of infectious diseases and slow the spread. For instance, influenza is affected by both temperature and humidity.18
In one study conducted in New South Wales, Australia, researchers found a similar connection between humidity and COVID-19. A 1% decrease in humidity was predicted to increase the number of cases by 6.11%.19 In a separate study, the addition of a humidifier in the bedroom demonstrated a decrease in the survival of influenza virus, by 17.5% to 31.6%.20
During the cold winter months, people also spend more time indoors, in enclosed spaces with less ventilation. The same can be said during the heat of the summer when people seek relief indoors with air conditioning. During the fall and winter months, school is usually in session, which has been associated with a higher transmission of respiratory viruses.
Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health also notes:21
“It is possible that the condition of the average person’s immune system is systematically worse in winter than summer. One hypothesis has focused on melatonin which has some immune effects and is modulated by the photoperiod, which varies seasonally. Another with more evidence is that vitamin D levels, which depend in part on ultraviolet light exposure (higher in summer) modulate our immune system in a positive way.”
Combine These Strategies With Raising Your Vitamin D Level
Vitamin D optimization is a powerful and beneficial strategy to protect your health. In my free report on vitamin D I’ve developed a resource you can use to share and help educate others. The only way you’ll know your vitamin D level is to test it. GrassrootsHealth has a home test kit that is simple to use and provides you with results at home.22
You’ll find a calculator at GrassrootsHealth.net that uses your current weight, serum level and daily supplement intake to estimate how much vitamin D3 you need to reach your desired vitamin D level.23 Yet, while crucial, it’s not the only thing available to help protect your health.
It’s particularly important to become metabolically flexible to help reduce the severity of a COVID-19 infection. The single most important step to attaining and maintaining metabolic flexibility is to reduce the number of hours during the day in which you eat.
When you do this, you decrease insulin resistance. In my book Fat for Fuel I discuss how to become metabolically flexible, including using intermittent fasting and cyclical nutritional ketosis.
The use of molecular hydrogen is another strategy, as it’s a powerful antioxidant and an anti-inflammatory agent. Using quercetin with zinc can further lower your risk. Quercetin acts as a zinc ionophore24 and has its own antiviral effects.25
One of the best treatments today is the MATH+ Protocol, first developed by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance.26 It’s designed to be used when someone is hospitalized and needs supplemental oxygen. You’ll find further information about each of these strategies in “How to Fix the COVID-19 Crisis in 30 Days.”
In this interview, Dr. Andrew Wakefield discusses the documentary1 “1986: The Act,” which he produced. He also co-wrote and directed Del Bigtree’s film “Vaxxed,” which discloses the conspiracy within the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to withhold information about vaccine harms.
Wakefield is now doing a tour promoting “1986: The Act,” which is the best documentary I’ve ever seen on this topic. It’s also one of two full-feature films included in the ticket price for the National Vaccine Information Center’s international public conference on vaccination,2 which will be held online October 16 through 18, 2020.
If you haven’t signed up for that event yet, I encourage you to do that now. If you want to watch the film now, it’s available online at 1986theact.com. A trailer is provided at the end of this article.
The Wakefield Controversy
Wakefield, as many of you know, has been a controversial character within the vaccine field. He’s been vilified like few others, to the point of losing his medical license — all because he, together with 12 other doctors, published a case paper suggesting there may be a possible association between measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and development of autism in some children. In the interview, Wakefield gives his side of the story:
“I graduated in 1981 from Royal Free Hospital in London. I had trained as a surgeon and went into gastroenterology. My principal interests were inflammatory bowel disease, and I ended up running a large research team, about 19 of us at the Royal Free Hospital in London, which is part of the University of London.
I became interested in the possible viral origins of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and that led me to looking at measles virus. After publishing a paper in The Lancet in 1995, I got a call from a mother who said her child was developing normally, then had his MMR vaccine and regressed into autism very, very quickly after [experiencing] what turned out to be encephalitis.
He also had terrible bowel symptoms, gastrointestinal problems, failure to thrive, pain, bloating, diarrhea, and that was the reason she was getting in touch with me. She was convinced there was a link between the bowel and the brain …
So, we took that very seriously. We investigated her child, and she was absolutely right. We investigated a whole lot of children, and they indeed had an inflammatory bowel disease, and that was fascinating. The medical profession had dismissed it and said no, that’s just part of autism. In fact, it wasn’t.
It was a genuine pathology, but more importantly, when we corrected or ameliorated that pathology with diet or anti-inflammatories, then not only did the gastrointestinal problems improve, but the behavior and the autistic symptoms improved as well …
We did it 180 times and it happened virtually every single time. So, the parents were absolutely right.
We had to therefore take the proposed link between the MMR vaccine and the regression very, very seriously, and that of course was anathema to public health, to the Royal College of Pediatricians, to the CDC, to just about the entire world of medicine, and certainly, of course, to the pharmaceutical industry responsible for making these vaccines …
But that was neither here nor there. We had an obligation to the children and fulfilling that obligation led to an attenuation of my career prospect … We had a job to do and we did the job. After they prevented me from doing the job that I set out to do, I decided to become a filmmaker … I had these extraordinary stories, and I thought now is the time to start telling those stories in film, and that is where I find myself now.”
The Power of Film
Another film made by Wakefield is “Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis?” It’s the tragic story of a child destroyed by the medical system. After being prescribed 28 psychotropic medications and being chained to his bed, the boy was ultimately killed by his mother when she took his life to spare him further pain. The film turned out to be so powerful, after the state prosecutor in Illinois saw the film, he decided to release her from prison.
“That was the first time in American history that a film had ever commuted what was in effect a life sentence,” Wakefield says. “It was extraordinary, and that made me realize that film is something that can convey to a lot of people an extraordinary set of truths that can change their thinking about a certain topic.”
1986: The Act
“1986: The Act,” is a historical description of how the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 came into being, and how it radically changed the vaccine landscape forever. It’s meticulously documented and, like a detective story, takes the viewer through the many twists and turns that brought us to where we are today. As explained by Wakefield, it’s a complex story of legislation, litigation and medical science.
“You’ve got this extraordinary challenge as a filmmaker to deliver that to the public, many of whom know nothing about this, in a way that they will understand. That was a real challenge … because it could’ve put even the most ardent fan to sleep in 10 minutes trying to tell that story,” he says.
The film follows a husband and wife as they’re expecting their first baby, late in life, and takes the viewer on the journey they go through as they begin their investigation of vaccines.
“Initially it’s the same debate that so many families around the kitchen table every night are having in every country of the world right now, and that is: What do we do about vaccination? There’s so much controversy, there’s this for, and that against, and my friend says this, and my sister says that.
Now, we, the audience, are suddenly engaged because this couple are us. They are where we have been. They are asking the questions that we have asked, and suddenly we care. We care because their journey is our journey, their outcome is our outcome. So, we’re sitting forward in our seats, wanting to know more, and it becomes so much more engaging.
There are two elements to the story. One, it’s a story of what happens when you take an industry and products out and away from the constraints of the free market. The free market operates to promote the success of good products and where a product is bad or unsafe, it will sink to the bottom and either the companies improve or they perish.
When you take a product out of that free market, away from those constraints such that there is no incentive for safety, where there is a mandated market and no liability, then you have a catastrophe.
For the industry, you have a perfect business model. All they can do is make a massive profit. They don’t have to do the safety studies properly, they don’t have any liability, and doing safety studies properly is disincentivized.
Why? Because you don’t want to put money into identifying a serious adverse event that might affect your bottom line. So, you’re not going to do those safety studies, and this is a situation we face now in this country.
But it’s worse than that. What the movie shows is how when this Act was passed, the regulatory agencies, the CDC, FDA, NIH did not want it. They didn’t want it because every time a child was compensated it meant vaccines can harm, they can kill, and we don’t want the public to know that. How are we going to prevent that?
So, they conspired with the industry to demolish, to sabotage everything that Congress had put in place to ensure proper regulation, proper safety studies be done, proper ascertainment of severe adverse events, of adverse events in general, and making vaccines safer. There was none of that.
So right now, we find ourselves in this extraordinary situation where in the face of a new pandemic, COVID-19, we have the threat of global vaccine mandates for everybody, without exception, and no safety studies of any merit whatsoever.
In fact, the few safety studies that are being done are already turning up serious neurological adverse events, and absolutely no chance for compensation for anyone damaged by those vaccines in what is now the PREP Act, which is superseded or carried on from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and is even worse — no liability for anyone in that chain of supply of these new untested dangerous Frankenstein vaccines, which are already proving troublesome.”
1976 Swine Flu Pandemic Paved Way for Liability Protection
In the interview, Wakefield reviews how the 1976 swine flu pandemic helped pave the way for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the implementation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).3 In many respects, the 1976 swine flu pandemic is the pandemic most closely resembling that of COVID-19, in that it stirred up tremendous fear, which led to the rushed creation of a vaccine.
Americans were strongly encouraged (but not forced) to get the vaccine. Many died or were seriously injured by that vaccine, resulting in injury awards totaling about $3 billion. The 1976 flu vaccine fiasco was crucial in that it permanently altered the perception of vaccine risks for politicians and drug companies alike. As explained by Wakefield:
“Insurance companies refused to underwrite those vaccines because they’d been rushed to market, and the pharmaceutical industry said to the Ford administration, ‘If you want people to have this vaccine then you have to underwrite liability’ …
The Ford administration was persuaded that the [pandemic] was going to kill millions of Americans if they didn’t rush forward with this vaccine that hadn’t been tested, and the industry demanded liability protection, and this was the first blood in the water …
The vaccine was a catastrophe. Many children were paralyzed. Many died as a consequence of that vaccine, and the industry escaped liability altogether. It cost the taxpayer.
That created several things. In the minds of the industry they realized how powerful a motivator, a marketing tool, fear was. If they could engender fear in politicians, they could get their way in anything they wanted, and we’ve seen that time and again since.
It also was, as I say, the first blood in the water for liability protection. If we can do this for flu vaccine and the government wants children to have all these other vaccines, we can do it for those other vaccines as well, and we can avoid liability.
So, when it came to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, which was the big problem at the time, causing death and brain damage in children, they said, ‘OK, if you want children to have this vaccine, it’s not a big profit incentive for us. We’re going to pull out of the market unless you give us liability protection, because we’ve made it as safe as we can.’
That was the lie that was told the government, and of course, once again, the fear of the resurgence of whooping cough and the possible death of children led the government to be coerced, to be blackmailed by the industry, into signing the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.”
Children’s Lives Sacrificed for Penny Profits
“1986: The Act” discloses — through discovery documents from Mike Hugo, a plaintiff’s lawyer in vaccine court — that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the liability shield it provides to vaccine manufacturers, is based on a grand lie.
The pertussis vaccine had not been made as safe as it could. In fact, the vaccine manufacturer had a patent for a safer vaccine all the way back in 1937, but it was going to cost them a fraction of a dime more to manufacture that vaccine. So, they kept distributing the more dangerous whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Quite literally, children’s lives were sacrificed for what amounts to pennies.
“It’s an extraordinary story, and people need to see it to understand the character of the industries that we are dealing with,” Wakefield says, “because we are now facing the same kind of situation where everybody sensing blood in the water — all of these industries, from AstraZeneca, to GlaxoSmithKline, to Merck, to Pfizer — they’re all launching into this to bid for the COVID vaccine to clean out globally when we don’t need a vaccine at all.
Indeed, it’s turning out to be a disaster. But if we are to understand where we’re going with this, we need to understand where we’ve come from.
We need to understand that this has happened time and again, and it will continue to happen as long as we remain terrified of the notion of a plague delivered to us by the CDC and the industry in a smart, very simplistic marketing move. We’ve got to understand the issues, and the film helps understand the issues.”
The Act Provides Little Protection or Benefit
As explained by Wakefield, in the years since its enactment in 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has been so perverted and corrupted that, today, it provides little to no protection or benefit for those injured by liability-free vaccines.
First of all, the very existence of the compensation program has been suppressed. Few people even know it exists, so when they or a family member is injured, they don’t realize they have the right to seek compensation.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is supposed to inform the public about the program, yet they refuse to fulfill the mandate of Congress and notify people of the existence of this program. “They keep it quiet because they know if they tell people that vaccines can actually do harm, then people would resist vaccination,” Wakefield says.
Adverse Event Reporting System Misses 99% of Adverse Events
Secondly, vaccine safety informing, recording, reporting and research provisions were secured in the Act by parents of vaccine injured children but, after the Act was passed, most of those provisions were either substantially weakened by Congress through amendments to the law or HHS used rule making authority to get the safety provisions.
A centralized Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) was created in Act that mandated doctors and other vaccine provides report vaccine-related hospitalizations, injuries and deaths to the federal government. Sadly, because Congress did not put any sanctions for doctors and other vaccine providers if they failed to report vaccine reactions to VAERS, a shocking less than 1% of all vaccine reactions that happen are ever reported to the government. As noted by Wakefield:
“[The CDC] did a study with Harvard Pilgrim to automate it, to computerize [the VAERS system]. When they did that, they picked up a vast number of adverse reactions, such that more than 1 in 50 were suffering adverse reactions to vaccines … and these were never being recorded.”
When the CDC learned of those results, rather than take action to do the necessary research to find out how many children were being harmed so vaccine reactions could be prevented, they basically ignored the Harvard Pilgrim report and didn’t openly disclose the initial results.
HHS Removed Common Vaccine Injuries From Injury Table
Thirdly, the HHS has also gutted the vaccine injury table, which lists the types of injuries recognized as being “common” vaccine injuries. If an injury is listed on the table, the individual will automatically receive compensation without having to go through the full legal process.
“Well, the CDC hated that,” Wakefield says. “That was automatically acknowledging that vaccines could cause serious injury and death and children would be compensated.
So, when Donna Shalala took over as head of HHS, she gutted that table … and took out the injuries that were common so that they were not automatically compensable; so that the parents would have to prove — to a very high degree of legal certainty — that their children had suffered this injury as a consequence of the vaccine.
How could they do that? How could parents pit their knowledge such as it is, against the might of the drug companies and the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice? They couldn’t do it, and it was almost a predetermination that there was never going to be any compensation.”
Autism Acknowledged, Then Revoked
As noted by Wakefield, the vaccine court made a serious “mistake” when they compensated Hannah Poling for a novel injury. By doing so, they created a precedent, and they had no idea just how common her condition was. When it dawned on them, something had to be done to downplay the real ramifications of the case.
“[Poling] had a mitochondrial disorder or a mitochondrial predisposition to developing a severe serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. They had no idea how many children with autism had the same mitochondrial dysfunction disorder,” Wakefield says.
“The Department of Justice then … in collusion with the special masters who are in charge of vaccine court, deliberately manipulated the legal documents where it states that this is an off-table injury, a precedent, one that might open Pandora’s box for HHS by identifying thousands of children who were automatically entitled to compensation.
They changed the small print so that it then became just ordinary old vaccine brain damage, nothing special, nothing new, not a precedent. That was deliberate. That was the most extraordinary risk on the part of senior lawyers and others in the Department of Justice — to take that risk on behalf of the vaccine program and deny children compensation.
There needs to be accountability. There needs to be prosecution. These people need to be held up as a disgrace to America, to their profession, to their government role in protecting the citizens of this country. It’s absolutely appalling, and it goes on and on.
The film is full of the most heinous acts of fraud, deception, lies at the highest level, and really, the key to this film is that it leads to accountability. This cannot simply be allowed to be brushed under the carpet, and therefore it has to be made as public as possible, and it has to have an influence upon the upcoming election.
It has to influence politicians in the way that they now have to act on behalf of the interest of the children that they represent and not the drug companies who are paying their campaign fees.
That is absolutely essential, and this is my direct message on the road to all Americans: You must vote for … the leaders who will stand up for your children in the face of pressures, financial pressures, political pressures, from pharmaceutical industry lobbyists.”
What Awaits Us With the COVID-19 Vaccine?
In closing, we discuss the potential ramifications of a mass vaccination program for COVID-19. There are already disconcerting signs that these novel, fast-tracked mRNA vaccines are a tragedy in the making, a ‘la the 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign.
AstraZeneca recently halted their global vaccine trials after one of its British participants developed transverse myelitis.
Importantly, transverse myelitis is a recognized compensable table injury for a vaccine, so there’s really no way to deny a potential vaccine link — but they did, by dismissing it with a report that the reaction was “either considered unlikely to be associated with the vaccine or there was insufficient evidence to say for certain that the illnesses were or were not related to the vaccine.”4
Note that the commentary mentions “illnesses” in the plural — as it turns out there was a similar neurological event with one of the company’s clinical trial participants in July. That event was attributed to a pre-existing, but “previously undiagnosed” case of multiple sclerosis. This — in a clinical trial participant that supposedly was carefully screened and judged healthy before being accepted into the trials. As to the case of transverse myelitis, Wakefield noted:
“That should in effect be the death of that vaccine right there, because you can extrapolate from that one case to a global population receiving that vaccine, and see millions of people paralyzed and killed …
I have grave misgivings about these vaccines. We’re looking at short-term complications [in vaccine trials]. You and I know that autoimmune diseases do not start perhaps for months, years after the exposure, but you are primed to develop that autoimmune disease by virtue of vaccine exposure.
We’re going to see an accumulation of adverse events in healthy young people as we move forward. Some people will still rush to get that vaccine because such is the level of their fear engendered by the media and the government. All I can do is wish them luck, but in the harshest of sort of neo-Darwinian terms. I’m afraid that is the way of the world.
Anyway, I’m a great believer in natural immunity. Our immune systems are, at least were, until they were assaulted by vaccines, robust enough to deal with these kind of insults, and there are many other ways of protecting a population that do not involve going anywhere near a vaccine.”
Where to Watch ‘1986: The Act’
Again, “1986: The Act” is complementary if you sign up for the NVIC’s international public conference on vaccination.5 For just $80, you get access to two films and nearly 40 expert speakers. Due to COVID-19 concerns and travel bans, the event will be held entirely online, October 16 through 18, 2020. If you don’t want to wait, you can also access the film on 1986theact.com.
The idea that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can impact your brain function is not new, but a recently launched investigation by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) really highlights the reality of such concerns.
The program,1 “Impact of Electro-Magnetics on Aircrew Neurology,” or ICEMAN, seeks to determine whether EMFs inside the cockpit may be causing pilots to crash. DARPA is currently accepting proposals and have allocated a budget of up to $225,000 for the research.
According to DARPA, the objective of the ICEMAN program is to “Determine if the current air combat cockpit environment impacts cognitive performance and/or physiological sensor performance; quantify the effects; and demonstrate potential mitigation strategies.”2
Is Pilot EMF Exposure Causing Aviation Crashes?
As noted by DARPA,3 fighter pilots operate in a very high-EMF environment these days, and it’s possible those EMFs may be causing pilots to become disoriented and confused, leading to plane crashes.4 Over the past few years, there’s been a rather extraordinary string of military jet and helicopter crashes.
Back in 2018, following a series of three aviation crashes that killed five service members over the course of two days, the director of the Pentagon’s joint staff tried to downplay the trend, rejecting questions suggesting military aviation was in a crisis, stating:5
“We’re are going to look at each one in turn. Each one is tragic. We regret each one. We will look at them carefully. I am certainly not prepared to say that it’s a ‘wave’ of mishaps or some form of ‘crisis.’”
In 2017, 37 service members died in noncombat crashes. By April 2018, there had already been five noncombat aviation crashes that year, killing nine service members. In December 2018, six Marines died during a refueling crash off the coast of Japan.6 The pilot, who died, was accused of losing situational awareness and causing the crash due to atypical maneuvering.
As reported7 by Fox News in April 2018, there were also several additional crashes and emergency landings that year that did not result in fatalities. Several noncombat air crashes also occurred in 20198,9 and 2020.10,11,12,13,14,15 Canada has also reported unusual military aviation crashes.16
The ICEMAN Program
According to DARPA:17
“Current cockpits are flooded with radio frequency (RF) noise from on-board emissions, communication links, and navigation electronics, including strong electromagnetic (EM) fields from audio headsets and helmet tracking technologies.
Pilots often report minor cognitive performance challenges during flight, and from 1993 to 2013, spatial disorientation in U.S. Air Force pilots accounted for 72 Class A mishaps, 101 deaths, and 65 aircraft lost.
It has been hypothesized that the cockpit RF and EM fields may influence cognitive performance including task saturation, misprioritization, complacency and spatial disorientation.
However, EM fields and radio waves in cockpits are not currently monitored, little effort has been made to shield pilots from these fields, and the potential impacts of these fields on cognition have not been assessed.
Recent DARPA-funded research has demonstrated that human brains sense magnetic fields, like those used by animals for navigation, and that this process is ‘jammed’ (i.e., disrupted) by radio waves (RF), impacting brainwaves and behavior.
Furthermore, recent findings were the first to show that even weak RF fields and ‘earth strength’ magnetic fields have measurable, reproducible effects on human brainwaves and unconscious behavior in a controlled environment. Current tactical audio headsets project magnetic fields up to 10 times earth strength, the effects of which can now be measured experimentally in a similar controlled environment.”
The ICEMAN project aims to determine “what effect, if any, the cockpit RF/EM environment may have on physiological sensor function and efficacy” by measuring and manipulating ambient EM and RF fields inside the cockpit to determine their effects on “brain activity, physiology, behavioral responses and physiological sensing systems.” Lastly, the program seeks to determine if and how any negative effects on neurology and sense function might be effectively mitigated.
All of this is a rather extraordinary admission that EMFs have neurological and physiological effects — a claim made by many scientists involved in EMF research that has been roundly dismissed as unsubstantiated and false by the wireless industry and regulators. Yet here is DARPA, admitting research has demonstrated that RF waves impact brainwaves and behavior.
Mechanisms of Harm
Martin Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, has published research18,19,20,21 showing one of the primary mechanisms by which EMFs harm your biology is through the creation of peroxynitrites, which are potent sources of oxidant stress and secondary free radicals.
Low-frequency microwave radiation activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) in the outer membrane of your cells, causing them to open, thus allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions. This activates nitric oxide, which combines with superoxide to form peroxynitrite.22
These potent reactive nitrogen species are associated with an increased level of systemic inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, and are thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases. One of its most significant downsides of peroxynitrite is that it damages your DNA.
While your body has the capacity to repair that damage through a family of enzymes collectively known as poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP), PARP require NAD+ for fuel, and when they run out of NAD+ they stop repairing your DNA, which can lead to premature cell death.
EMFs also damage your health in other ways. For example, the enzyme ATP synthase — which passes currents of protons into the mitochondrial intermembrane space, similar to current passing through a wire — powers the generation energy of the creation of ATP from ADP, using this flow of protons.
Magnetic fields can change the transparency of the flow of protons to the mitochondrial intermembrane space, thereby reducing the current. As a result, you get less ATP, which can have system wide consequences, from promoting chronic disease and infertility to lowering intelligence.
How EMFs Cause Neuropsychiatric Problems
In a 2016 paper,23 Pall describes how EMFs can trigger neuropsychiatric problems specifically. As mentioned, EMFs trigger the opening of VGCCs, thereby causing a chemical cascade resulting in the production of harmful peroxynitrites.
Your brain and nervous system have a particularly high density of VGCCs, which is why these areas are particularly prone to the impacts of EMF. VGCC activation also triggers excessive neurotransmitter and neuroendocrine release.24
Considering the neurological effects demonstrated in many different studies over the course of decades, it seems entirely reasonable to suspect some pilots are being cognitively impaired by EMFs inside the cockpit, some to the point of losing control of their aircraft. As explained in Pall’s paper:25
“Excessive VGCC activity has been shown from genetic polymorphism studies to have roles in producing neuropsychiatric changes in humans. Two U.S. government reports from the 1970s to 1980s provide evidence for many neuropsychiatric effects of non-thermal microwave EMFs, based on occupational exposure studies.
Eighteen more recent epidemiological studies, provide substantial evidence that microwave EMFs from cell/mobile phone base stations, excessive cell/mobile phone usage and from wireless smart meters can each produce similar patterns of neuropsychiatric effects, with several of these studies showing clear dose-response relationships.
Lesser evidence from six additional studies suggests that short wave, radio station, occupational and digital TV antenna exposures may produce similar neuropsychiatric effects.
Among the more commonly reported changes are sleep disturbance/insomnia, headache, depression/depressive symptoms, fatigue/tiredness, dysesthesia, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite/body weight, restlessness/anxiety, nausea, skin burning/tingling/dermographism and EEG changes.
In summary, then, the mechanism of action of microwave EMFs, the role of the VGCCs in the brain, the impact of non-thermal EMFs on the brain, extensive epidemiological studies performed over the past 50 years, and five criteria testing for causality, all collectively show that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects.”
Six Common Types of EMF Stress
Virtually everyone needs to consider EMF remediation these days. At bare minimum, everyone needs a low EMF environment during sleep, in order to prevent accelerated aging and everything that goes with it.
Your body rejuvenates and detoxes during sleep and if your body is bombarded with EMFs all night long, it won’t be able to effectively perform those crucial cleanout and regenerative functions. Sleeping in an EMF-free environment can go a long way toward avoiding electrosensitivity, which by the way tends to come on very rapidly, in many cases seemingly “overnight.”
Common symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity include ringing in the ears, distress when exposed to fluorescent lights, a feeling of burning or prickling in the skin, headache, heart palpitations and inexplicable anxiety, for example. Once you’re electrosensitive, additional and more extensive remediation strategies may become necessary.
While not as saturated as the cockpit of a fighter plane, the average home today is bathing in EMFs from a wide range of electronics and wireless gadgets. Six primary sources of EMF stress that can impact your health are:
Wireless frequencies — Anything from FM radio stations up through about 900 megahertz resonates with your body and your skin conductivity. Aside from the millimeter wave part of 5G, the 600-megahertz band that’s been opened up for T-Mobile’s 5G network may be just as bad or worse, as this bandwidth penetrates deeper and goes farther than any of the 5G networks.
Most cellphone companies have been using 900 to 2000 megahertz, so T-Mobile’s network is a much lower frequency, which allows it to cover a greater area. In addition to your cellphone, other common Wi-Fi sources that are constantly emitting unless you turn off or unplug them include wireless printers, Apple TVs, smart TVs, the Roku and even the Roku remote.
Electric fields from voltage, wiring in the walls, and appliances and devices plugged into your light sockets — Most commercial buildings, condos and hotels are not an issue, as building codes require the electrical wiring to be in a metal conduit, which essentially eliminates the electric fields behind the walls. Few residential homes have that, however, as it’s not part of code in most areas.
If you’re building your home, you can install shielded wiring from the start, although it does cost more. If your wiring is not shielded, the solution would be to turn off the electricity, although that still might not solve the problem. In my own home, there was an electric current running through the floor as well, which remained when I turned off the electricity to my bedroom.
Magnetic fields occurring from wiring errors, motors, power lines and transformers outside the home, as well as metal pipes with current, usually when you are on a municipal water supply.
Dirty electricity (spikes and surges along nearby power lines)
Geopathic stress that comes up from the earth.
Artificial lighting (color spectrum and flicker rates) — The best types of light bulbs are incandescent bulbs with higher wattage, as they have the most natural color spectrum and lowest flicker rates.
I recommend using 100 watt or 150 watt incandescent bulbs whenever possible. Use caution, however, as they create loads of heat, and many fixtures will not accommodate them.
We’ve Been ‘EMF*D’
Over the past decade, I’ve written many articles discussing the evidence of biological harm from nonionizing EMF radiation, which I believe is one of the greatest challenges to public health facing us today. For a refresher, see my previous article, “Reduce EMF Exposure.”
My book “EMF*D” is an attempt to inform you about the hidden harms of EMF and what you need to do to protect yourself and those you love. I also reveal the reasons why you’ve been left in the dark about this serious health threat. In it, I review:
How EMFs are impacting your body and mind
Where you can find them in your daily life
How they can cause disease and speed up aging
How to repair the damage done by EMFs at the cellular level
Practical strategies to protect yourself and your loved ones from EMFs
The tragedy is that 5G isn’t even necessary. As discussed in “War Against 5G Heats Up,” the American public has already paid for the implementation of fiber optic cables across the country, which would be far safer and just as fast as 5G. State utilities stole that money and illegally redirected it toward wireless infrastructure instead.
The number of people who struggle to attain and maintain a healthy weight continues to grow each year. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018 showed that 42.4% of adults in the U.S. were obese.1 The prevalence of severe obesity was 9.2%, and it was higher in women than in men.
The weight loss market also continues to grow, as it expanded by 4.1% in 2018 and is expected to grow 2.6% each year through 2023.2 Yet, the growth in the market is not in prescription drugs, diet soda or weight loss franchises. Instead, meal replacement shakes and bars as well as weight loss surgeries appear to be holding steady and growing.
Dieters are also searching for more “clean” options, free of GMOs and artificial additives. This has forced companies supplying diet dinners and other premade foods to reformulate their offerings. While the focus on weight loss is often on how to look better or meet a certain standard, weight management should be about how to live free of disease.
Carrying excess weight is linked to heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure and certain cancers.3 In addition to these long-term health concerns, it is also associated with an increased risk of certain infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.
Can You Eat Less and Live Longer?
People have been searching for the “fountain of youth” for centuries. Yet, the goal isn’t just to live longer but to live longer while free of disease and illness. Scientists call this your health span — the number of years you live without disease. Researchers have been studying two ways to achieve eating less.
The first is called calorie restriction, in which the number of calories is limited each day without malnourishing or depriving your body of essential nutrients.4 In the second method, fasting, a person eliminates or severely restricts calories during the day, week or month.
Based on the results from a study involving animals, one of the ways calorie restriction has promoted a longer health span is by decreasing the core body temperature.5 Researchers sought to evaluate the effect that a drop in core body temperature has on the ability of calorie restriction to improve one’s health span.
They compared the responses of mice on a calorie-restricted diet that were housed in a temperature-controlled room. In this study, the focus was on temperature as a driving factor. One group of mice was kept in a room with a temperature of 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the other group at 86 degrees F.
The warmer room offered what scientists call thermoneutrality. This is a balance between the temperature of the organism and the environment so that the regulation of internal temperature remains inactive. In each room, half the mice were given as much food as they wanted, and the other half had their diet restricted by half.
Throughout the course of the study, the metabolic activity in the hypothalamus and blood plasma were measured. The data revealed that the mice in the cooler room had greater changes in life-extending factors. There were fewer changes in the group of mice living in the warmer room.
Science Is Seeking a Pharmaceutical ‘Easy Button’
Further examination of the results showed that the metabolic effects were linked to nitric oxide and leucine enkephalin. These were produced in higher amounts in the animals in the cooler room. Leucine enkephalin is an endogenous opioid neurotransmitter6 that scientists believe directly controls core body temperature.7
Bruno Conti, from the department of molecular medicine at Scripps Research, was one scientist from the study. He spoke with a reporter from Inverse about the results and the phenomenon of dropping core temperatures that has been seen in calorie restriction in other animal studies, saying:8
“This is an adaptive mechanism that the organisms evolved to save energy when food is scarce. By validating the pathways identified, we hope that we will pave the road for the development of calorie restriction mimetics that promote health and longevity.
Regardless of the definition, the ultimate goal is to provide the beneficial effects of calorie restriction without having to undergo either reduction of calorie intake or core body temperature.”
As the reporter from Inverse writes, “Years down the line, researchers predict people may be able to derive some of calorie restriction’s positive benefits — without actually reducing what they eat.”9 Yet, as with all pharmaceutical interventions, there will likely be side effects and adverse events that a person will not experience with intermittent fasting.
Evidence Shows Health Benefits in Humans and Animals
For a further look into how calorie restriction affects human health, the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Duke University School of Medicine undertook a clinical trial called Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE).10
The study engaged 218 individuals who were of normal weight or who were moderately overweight. Each person was randomly assigned to one of two groups.11 Participants in the experimental group were asked to eat a calorie-restricted diet for two years consisting of 25% fewer calories than they normally ate before the study. The control group ate their regular diet.
At the end of two years they found that members of the experimental group were able to reduce their calories by 12%. They lost 10% of their body weight and sustained much of that loss. The intervention group also lowered their blood pressure and cholesterol measurements, both of which are risk factors “for age-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.”12
Additionally, those eating a calorie-restricted diet showed no adverse effects in their sleep patterns, sexual function, quality of life or mood. While the data showed some slight decline in bone density, lean body mass and aerobic capacity, they were not more than would generally be expected based on the weight loss the individuals experienced.
In 2012, the National Institute on Aging (NIA)13 published the results of a study whose premise was similar to that of a 2009 study conducted by leaders at the University of Wisconsin.14 Each set of scientists set out to explore the idea that a calorie-restricted diet in rhesus monkeys could affect life span and health span. The results from the two studies were different, so in 2017 the researchers teamed up to resolve the discrepancies by comparing data.15
The group from the University of Wisconsin fed monkeys a calorie-restricted diet with 30% fewer calories than the control group. The monkeys survived an above-average number of years as compared to other rhesus monkeys in captivity.
Although the NIA study did not find a significant effect on aging, both groups found fewer age-related health conditions as compared to the control groups.16 When the data were compared, researchers found significant differences in the types of diet, the timing of feedings and the initial age and genetics of the groups.
Scientific American reports that the researchers described one monkey that was started on the restricted diet at a late middle age of 16 years.17 At the end of the study he was 43 years, which is a record for this species and equal to a person living 130 years.
Calorie Restriction Sets Off Hormesis
The term hormesis refers to a dose-response relationship between a stimulus and a biological effect. There are significant health benefits from hormesis. Siim Land is a socio-cultural anthropologist, entrepreneur and high performance coach who wrote “Metabolic Autophagy: Practice Intermittent Fasting and Resistance Training to Build Muscle and Promote Longevity (Metabolic Autophagy Diet Book 1).”18
In his book Land defines hormesis, which can be summarized as, “what doesn’t kill you is going to make you stronger.” In some cases, public health officials have used this notion to justify the release of low-level toxic exposure claiming it would ultimately be beneficial.19
The concept describes the fundamental need to adapt to various types of stimuli to enhance survival. It also produces effects that are similar to autophagy since it is stimulated by like pathways.
For instance, intermittent fasting or calorie restriction is a stressor that activates hormesis. As Land describes in my interview with him, others are high-intensity exercise and exposure to cold or heat.20
“Those hormetic stressors, they kind of carry over to different areas of stress exposure. Like if I’m able to fast, then I at least notice that I’m also able to endure more cold and endure more heat, or … simply have more endurance … Other ways of activating hormesis is doing saunas and combining that with cold [exposure] like an ice bath or ice plunge …”
Cell biologist Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D., has described how the adaptation to stress also effectively boosts mitochondrial biogenesis. These short bouts of stress activate response pathways that are encoded in your genes.21 As I have discussed in the past, optimizing mitochondrial function is at the heart of optimal health and extremely important in disease prevention.
Your mitochondria are the energy storehouses in most cells. They perform interconnected functions that contribute to stress responses, such as autophagy and apoptosis.22 They form an interconnected network throughout the body that influence physiology and affect communication between the tissues and the cells.
They have emerged as crucial in the development of diseases, including metabolic disorders and neurodegenerative disease. This means you can activate hormesis and mitochondrial biogenesis using intermittent fasting to achieve your goal, essentially helping to lengthen health span.
Make Intermittent Fasting and Cyclical Ketosis Work for You
Intermittent fasting contributes to the realization of several health benefits, including longevity and health span. This is an eating pattern that seeks to mimic some of the habits of our ancestors, who had to survive when food was not available around the clock. Intermittent fasting restores your body to a more natural state. It’s become clear that a continuous supply of calories does not provide your body with the optimal environment for maintaining health.
There are many benefits to intermittent fasting, including a newly discovered function of raising the production of antioxidants and age-related metabolites.23 These metabolites have an antiaging effect on the body and they stimulate metabolism.
There are some points to consider as you change your eating habits, however. For instance, intermittent fasting does not have to be a form of calorie restriction. Instead, you restrict the number of hours you’re eating during the day. It’s also important to remember that any sugar cravings will be temporary and they’ll slowly go away as your body begins to burn fat as its primary fuel.
However, as healthy as intermittent fasting is, you shouldn’t use it if your diet is filled with processed foods. Intermittent fasting is not a panacea against ill-health and excess weight, and as with all health choices, must be made with consideration for your total approach to vitality and well-being.
While most mainstream media pundits and American health authorities remain mum about the influence of nutrition and lifestyle on the risks of COVID-19 and its prognosis, more than a dozen states in Mexico have decided to combat the pandemic by banning the sale of junk food to minors.
Mexico Bans Junk Food to Curtail COVID-19 Death Toll
As reported by NPR, September 14, 2020:1
“First Oaxaca’s state legislature passed a ban on selling or giving out high-calorie packaged foods and sugar-sweetened drinks to minors on Aug. 5. Less than two weeks later, Tabasco state approved a prohibition, too. Now at least a dozen other states are considering similar legislation.
‘I know it can sound a bit drastic but we had to take action now,’ says Magaly López, a lawmaker in Oaxaca’s Congress who spearheaded the ban. More than 70,000 Mexicans have died from COVID-19, the world’s fourth-highest recorded death toll, according to tracking by Johns Hopkins University.
Two-thirds of those who died in Mexico had an underlying medical condition such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular problems, according to Health Department officials. That has led to a new urgency to change diets so that the younger generation doesn’t suffer those ailments.”
Adults are also urged to cut back their consumption of junk food to curtail their risk of COVID-19 and other health issues. This includes the consumption of soda, which assistant health secretary Hugo López-Gatell has referred to as “bottled poison.”2,3
Legislators are still pondering how to enforce the ban, but according to NPR, punishment for sale of junk food to minors could potentially include fines or even jail time.
López-Gatell is reportedly considering making the ban a permanent law in order to protect the health and well-being of Mexican youth moving forward. This would be no easy task, he admits, considering the powerful commercial interests at play. Critics also point out that, in all likelihood, the ban will simply shift business from grocery stores to unregulated street vendors.
Interestingly, when NPR interviewed teenagers around Mexico City and Oaxaca state, they found most “knew about health problems related to junk food” and seemed receptive to the ban. One 16-year-old girl said, “I’d be frustrated at first if I couldn’t buy a Coke, but I’d adapt. And maybe I’d think twice and buy fruit or something healthy instead.”
Nutrition Plays an Important Role in COVID-19 Susceptibility
In one study,4,5 more than 99% of people who died from COVID-19-related complications had underlying medical conditions. Among those fatalities, 76.1% had high blood pressure, 35.5% had diabetes and 33% had heart disease.
Another study6 revealed that among 18- to 49-year-olds hospitalized due to COVID-19, obesity was the most prevalent underlying condition, just ahead of hypertension. Processed foods, junk foods and soft drinks are key culprits in the development of these chronic diseases, and therefore have a key role to play in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.
London-based cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra has been among those warning that poor diet can increase your risk of dying from COVID-19. He told BBC that ultraprocessed foods make up more than half the calories consumed by the British, and if you suffer from obesity, Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure — all of which are linked to poor diet — your risk of mortality from COVID-19 increases tenfold.7
Malhotra also noted8 that eating nutritious foods for even one month could help you lose weight, put Type 2 diabetes into remission and improve your health considerably, thereby improving your chance of survival should you contract COVID-19.
Dr. Robert Lustig, Emeritus Professor of pediatrics in the division of endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, has also been outspoken about the connection between diet and COVID-19 risks, stating:9
“I’ve heard COVID-19 referred to a beast, because it doesn’t distinguish. In point of fact, it doesn’t distinguish who it infects. But it does distinguish who it kills.
Other than the elderly, it’s those who are Black, obese, and/or have pre-existing conditions. What distinguished these three demographics? Ultra-processed food. Because ultra-processed food sets you up for inflammation, which COVID-19 is happy to exploit … Time to rethink your menu.”
Even Mild Obesity Increases Risk for COVID-19 Complications
Importantly, even mild obesity can have significant implications for COVID-19. According to Italian researchers who analyzed10 data from 482 COVID-19 patients, “Obesity is a strong, independent risk factor for respiratory failure, admission to the ICU and death among COVID-19 patients,” and the extent of risk is dependent on your level of obesity. In a press release, lead author Dr. Matteo Rottoli stated:11
“Health care practitioners should be aware that people with any grade of obesity, not just the severely obese, are a population at risk. Extra caution should be used for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with obesity, as they are likely to experience a quick deterioration towards respiratory failure, and to require intensive care admission.”
Specifically, patients with mild obesity had a 2.5 times greater risk of respiratory failure and a five times greater risk of being admitted to an ICU compared to nonobese patients. Those with a BMI of 35 and over were also 12 times more likely to die from COVID-19.12
British Report Links Obesity to COVID-19 Severity and Death
Similarly, a July 2020 report13 by Public Health England described the results of two systematic reviews,14 one of which showed that excess weight worsened COVID-19 severity, and the other that obese patients were more likely to die from the disease compared to nonobese patients. Here too, the risk of hospitalization, intensive care treatment and death all progressively increased along with BMI. Compared to healthy weight patients, patients with a BMI above 25 kg/m2 were:
2.03 times more likely to suffer critical illness
6.98 times more likely to need respiratory support
3.68 times more likely to die
Yet another study15,16 published May 2, 2020, on the preprint server medRxiv found obesity doubles your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19. According to the authors:17
“These findings suggest that modification of lifestyle may help to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and could be a useful adjunct to other interventions, such as social distancing and shielding of high risk.”
Pandemic Has Highlighted Role of Junk Food in Health
In an editorial18 published in the BMJ, three researchers cited the role of the food industry in driving up rates of obesity and ultimately causing more COVID-19 deaths. According to the authors, “It is now clear that the food industry shares the blame not only for the obesity pandemic but also for the severity of COVID-19 disease and its devastating consequences.”
They not only called on the food industry to stop promoting unhealthy food and drinks immediately, but also called on governments to force reformulation of junk foods to better support health.
As noted by Bill Maher in the video above, obesity has always killed us, albeit slowly. “Mixed with COVID, it kills you fast,” he says. So far, Mexico appears to be the only nation that has taken the matter seriously enough to actually implement an all-out ban on junk food for children and teens.
Other noteworthy exceptions include the town of Huntington, New York, where town officials have urged residents to “go on a diet because [with] COVID-19, you’re twice as likely to have a poor outcome if you’re obese.”
The U.K. is also targeting obesity as part of the country’s coronavirus prevention strategy by restricting junk food ads.19 July 23, 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced he intends to ban TV junk food advertising before 9 p.m. and limit in-store promotions. Online ads for unhealthy foods may also be banned.20
Studies Stress Nutrition in Fight Against COVID-19
Two additional studies are worthy of note. The first, published in the May 2020 issue of Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences,21 points out that “Optimal nutrition and dietary nutrient intake impact the immune system, therefore the only sustainable way to survive in current context is to strengthen the immune system,” and that “A proper diet can ensure that the body is in proper state to defeat the virus.”
To optimize your chances of surviving COVID-19 and minimizing its symptoms, the authors provide both dietary guidelines and good food practices to minimize the risk of food contaminants. Included in the dietary guidelines are recommendations to:
Eat four servings of fruit such as guava, apple, banana, strawberry, cantaloupe melon, grapefruit, pineapple, papaya, orange, Longman fruit, blackcurrant and pummelo daily
Eat five servings of fresh vegetables daily and avoid overcooking them to prevent loss of nutrients
Include nuts and coconut in your diet
Include animal foods such as red meat, poultry, fish, eggs and milk
Avoid soda and other sweetened beverages and drink pure water instead
Unfortunately, the guidelines include the recommendation to avoid healthy saturated fats such as butter, coconut oil, cheese, ghee and cream, and to use unsaturated fats only. While some unsaturated fat sources are perfectly healthy, such as avocados, fish and nuts, others really should be avoided.
Industrially processed seed oils are fats to be diligently avoided and this includes oils like soybean oil, canola oil and corn oil. The second study, published in the July 2020 issue of Brain, Behavior and Immunity, notes that:22
“The high rate of consumption of diets high in saturated fats, sugars, and refined carbohydrates (collectively called Western diet, WD) worldwide, contribute to the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes, and could place these populations at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 pathology and mortality.
WD consumption activates the innate immune system and impairs adaptive immunity, leading to chronic inflammation and impaired host defense against viruses.
Furthermore, peripheral inflammation caused by COVID-19 may have long-term consequences in those that recover, leading to chronic medical conditions such as dementia and neurodegenerative disease, likely through neuroinflammatory mechanisms that can be compounded by an unhealthy diet.
Thus, now more than ever, wider access to healthy foods should be a top priority and individuals should be mindful of healthy eating habits to reduce susceptibility to and long-term complications from COVID-19.”
My Dietary Recommendations
It really did not take long before it became apparent that the COVID-19 pandemic was illustrative of a far more widespread pandemic, namely that of insulin resistance.
All of the comorbidities that dramatically increase your COVID-19 risks (including your risk of symptomatic COVID-19 illness, hospitalization and complications resulting in death) are rooted in insulin resistance. Remove the insulin resistance, along with vitamin D deficiency, and very few people — except for very old and frail individuals — would be at significant risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
So, it really is high time to start looking at how we can improve our health in general, and avoid insulin resistance in particular. A healthy population simply isn’t going to be as vulnerable to infectious diseases like COVID-19.
Aside from the general dietary recommendations listed above (with the exception of the recommendation to replace saturated fats with soy, canola and corn oils), I recommend:
• Adopting a cyclical ketogenic diet, which involves radically limiting carbs (replacing them with healthy fats and moderate amounts of protein) until you’re close to or at your ideal weight.
This includes avoiding all ultraprocessed foods and also limiting added sugars to a maximum of 25 grams per day (15 grams a day if you’re insulin resistant or diabetic). This will allow your body to start burning fat rather than carbohydrates as its primary fuel and increase the sensitivity of your insulin receptors.
Once you have regained your ideal body weight, then you can cycle carbs back in a few times a week. One of the best books written on this subject is my classic “Fat for Fuel.”
• Restricting your eating window to six to eight hours each day, making sure to eat your last meal at least three hours before bedtime. This is known as time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting, and is a powerful intervention to reduce insulin resistance and restore metabolic flexibility.
Additionally, get regular exercise each week and increase physical movement throughout your waking hours, with the goal of sitting less than three hours a day. Making sure you’re getting sufficient sleep (typically eight hours for most adults) and tending to your emotional health are also important factors that can influence your weight, general health and immune function.
Over the last decade, there has been a significant increase in vaccine related legislation that impacts every person.
More vaccines have been mandated for children in school and daycare and adults in the workplace, vaccine exemption rights have been restricted or removed, emergency powers have been expanded, vaccine tracking and enforcement and vaccine exemption rate disclosure programs threaten choices and health outcomes, and parental and informed consent rights have been weakened or removed all together.
This has all happened under the backdrop of unprecedented censorship of information questioning the safety, efficacy or necessity of the dozens of vaccines being mandated for use and the hundreds of vaccines in development.
Public shaming, marginalization and the bullying of those who don’t agree with accepting every single dose of every federally recommended and state mandated vaccine has become not only commonplace but socially sanctioned by those promoting “no exceptions” vaccine policies and laws.
In addition, with the declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, plans to roll out a national vaccination program loom on the horizon. If the COVID-19 vaccine becomes state mandated, it has the potential to alter life in America in ways we never thought could be possible.
Citizen involvement in the legislative process to protect the human right to exercise informed consent to vaccination increased to unprecedented levels in 2020. In many cases, it matched and overcame the relentless attack by mandatory vaccination proponents on the ability of individuals to decline vaccination.
Highest Number of Vaccine-Related Bills in NVIC’s History
In this 2020 Annual Report on U.S. State Vaccine Legislation, the non-profit educational charity National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) reports that during the 2020 legislative session, NVIC analyzed, tracked and issued positions on an unrivaled 232 vaccine related bills in 39 states and the District of Columbia through the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
This was the highest number of bills in the history of NVIC’s advocacy program, despite many shortened state legislative sessions due to COVID-19 social distancing restrictions.
Working to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education since 1982, NVIC is the largest and oldest U.S. consumer-led non-profit organization disseminating information about diseases, vaccines and informed consent to vaccination.
NVIC provides well-referenced, accurate information to the public about vaccine science, policy and law but does not make vaccine use recommendations. In 2010, NVIC launched the NVIC Advocacy Portal (NVICAP), a free online vaccine choice advocacy network, for the purpose of securing and defending informed consent protections in vaccine policies and laws.
Over the last decade, the NVIC Advocacy Program has analyzed, tracked and issued positions on well over 1000 vaccine related bills and has worked alongside and shares legislative information with many health freedom groups that support NVIC’s almost four-decade call for the protection of vaccine informed consent rights in America.
The NVIC Advocacy Portal team, including key NVIC Advocacy directors in many states, works with families and enlightened health care professionals to educate legislators and protect vaccine informed consent rights. NVIC issues action alerts and sends them through email, posts them online and shares them through social media and our text alert program.
At the time this report was prepared, vaccine-related bills are still pending in California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Action to support the good vaccine-related bills and oppose bad bills is still needed. Bills referenced in this report are published on the NVIC Advocacy Portal and registered users can obtain a more detailed bill analysis, including current status, NVIC’s position on the bill, and recommended action.
Highlights From 2020
There were significant positive take away points from the outcome of the 2020 legislative session:
13 bills in 10 states [CT, FL, IA, IL, MA, NJ, PA, VT, WA, WI] were filed to eliminate vaccine exemptions. None passed.
Out of 10 bills filed across eight states [CO, FL, MA, NJ, NY, OK, PA, VT] to restrict vaccine exemptions, only one passed. Colorado SB 163 requires a vaccine provider signature or the completion of an online re-education module for religious or conscientious exemptions.
Out of the 123 vaccine-related bills that NVIC opposed, only eight bad bills passed!
The 2020 legislative session featured 99 bills worthy of NVIC’s support, which is more than any legislative session since the launching of NVIC’s Advocacy Portal in 2010. This is up from only 18 good bills NVIC supported in 2016. The ratio of the total bills supported compared to total bills opposed has gotten better and better. Two of these positive bills passed.
Proposed administrative rules to either add vaccine mandates or restrict exemptions in four state that NVIC opposed were withdrawn or amended to take out the offending sections.
There were only three states with more than 10 vaccine related bills filed in the 2020 session. Iowa led states in most positive bills introduced with 16 bills worthy of support and only three that required opposition. New Jersey had four bills worthy of support and 13 deserving opposition. The informed consent rights of New Yorkers were attacked by more bills than any other state with 27 bills needing opposition and only eight that deserved support.
The remaining vaccine-related bills for the 2020 session are broken out and described below by category.
2020 Bill Analysis by Category
The four main areas that NVIC focuses on when tracking proposed bills are:
Vaccine exemptions and informed consent rights
Vaccine tracking and reporting
Vaccines in general
Some bills may be included in multiple categories. For example, a proposed bill attempting to mandate a vaccine may also have a requirement for vaccine tracking so it would be counted in both categories but only counted once in the total bill count.
The NVIC Advocacy team provides referenced, accurate vaccine information and talking points for NVICAP users to background legislators. Some of the position statements NVIC posted on the Advocacy Portal in 2020 were listed as bills to “watch.”
This is done because our analysis indicated that either the bill was well intentioned but contained some problems needing amending before we could support it or the bill contained sections that were highly vulnerable to amendments that could conflict with NVIC’s mission.
The breakout and analysis of bills in these different categories identifies trends across the states and serves as a guide if you want to become active by joining the NVIC Advocacy Portal and educating your state legislators and community in 2021 about why it is so important to protect vaccine informed consent rights.
Vaccine Exemptions and Informed Consent (138 Bills)
In a positive turnaround from previous sessions, out of the 138 vaccine-related bills filed in state legislatures in 2020 having components affecting vaccine exemptions and informed consent rights, NVIC opposed 56 of the proposed bills, but supported 78 and “watched” four. This is the first session where NVIC has supported more exemption and informed consent bills than opposed.
The mainstream media tended to hype the bills attacking exemptions so much that it may come as a surprise that there were more bills to expand exemptions and informed consent rights than there were to eliminate or restrict those rights.
This can be directly credited to positive action taken by forward thinking state legislators, who were given fact-based information about vaccines, exemptions, and diseases by concerned citizens who took the time to make one-on-one personal contact with their elected representatives.
Eliminating or Restricting Vaccine Exemptions
There was a noticeable drop in bills filed in 2020 to either remove or restrict exemptions: 23 in 2020 versus 40 in 2019. There were 13 bills in 10 states (Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin) that were filed to eliminate vaccine exemptions. None passed.
Notable in these defeats was Connecticut HB 5044 attempting to remove the religious exemption, which broke all records for online testimony that gripped the country overnight and lasted over 21 hours into the next morning. This bill did not pass.
Florida SB 64 to remove the religious exemption was filed by Senator Lauren Book in 2019 before the 2020 legislative session even started. This prompted families around the state to fight back by attending local pre-session delegation meetings asking for the bill’s defeat.
Health Freedom Florida hosted a rally featuring presentations by NVIC and Children’s Health Defense the first week of session to educate citizens about the bill. This proactive strategy was effective. SB 64 failed to pass and did not even get a hearing.
New Jersey’s religious exemption removal bills (A969/S902) drew more in person protests than any vaccine bill had done before with many thousands showing up to oppose the exemption removal. Legislators inside the capitol building could hear protesting parents chanting for hours outside. This bill came the closest to passing of all the exemption removal bills. The strong showing by New Jersey families helped provide support to the brave legislators opposing this bill.
Out of 10 bills filed across eight states (Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Vermont) to restrict vaccine exemptions, only one passed. Colorado SB 163 requires a vaccine provider signature or the completion of an online re-education module for religious or conscientious exemptions.
Bills pending to remove or restrict vaccine exemptions that deserve continued strong opposition are still active in Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. These bills need to continue to be opposed.
It is critical that vaccine choice advocates in every state register for and regularly check in to the NVIC Advocacy Portal. The most important thing you can do if you care about this issue is to establish relationships with and educate your legislators now and into next year so you can be ready to counter bills that will restrict or eliminate exemptions and get good bills filed to protect and expand vaccine exemptions.
There is nothing more important that you can do to protect or expand your right to delay or decline vaccines without penalty or harassment than talking to your legislators in person and establishing a positive, respectful relationship with them.
Exemption Disclosure and School Shaming
The trend to publicly disclose vaccine exemptions to shame schools with higher exemption rates has continued in 2020 where nine bills were filed in seven states. This year none of these bills passed.
Promoted by those who seek to ultimately eliminate vaccine exemptions, these public disclosure bills threaten and place pressure on students with vaccine exemptions by requiring schools to publish vaccination and/or vaccine exemption rates online.
These bills are promoted under the false pretense of transparency, but they are really about government-sponsored shaming of schools with students who have vaccine exemptions.
The real goal of school shaming bills is to create centralized repositories of specific community level vaccine usage data that the media and public health employees use to identify and locate those who decline to receive every vaccine recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Media will use these reports in a biased manner to reflect negatively on schools with more exemptions in an attempt to solicit support for further restricting or eliminating vaccine exemptions.1
Setting up schools to be designated “winners” and “losers” in the myopic quest for a 100 percent vaccination rate with all federally recommended vaccines, these types of bills add more layers of pressure and coercion with every single dose of every single vaccine and create an environment that pits parents, children, schools and districts against each other.
Arizona has had a bill filed every year since 2015 to post vaccine exemption rates. Fortunately, they have all failed to pass thanks to proactive citizen advocacy and brave legislators, who have held back these bills from moving forward.
Even though these bills don’t authorize the release of individually identifiable information, the numbers of children utilizing vaccine exemptions are so small that bills like these puts the exposure of children’s identity at risk and sets them up for harassment, discrimination, and bullying. These bills need to continue to be opposed.
Children Vaccinating Themselves?
A very troubling area of proposed legislative changes are bills that allow minor children to be vaccinated without the knowledge or informed consent of their parents. A child is less likely than an adult parent to understand their personal and family medical history, including a history of vaccine reactions, allergies and autoimmune or neurological disorders.
Minor children do not have the same kind of critical thinking skills or emotional maturity required to make a vaccine benefit-risk decision compared to an adult. In addition, if a child receives a vaccination without a parent’s knowledge or informed consent and then experiences a vaccine reaction, a parent might not recognize the potential cause of their child’s sudden decline in health.
This lack of knowledge by parents could be life threatening for the child. None of the 21 bills introduced in eleven states (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia), which attempted to grant minor children the ability to consent to vaccines on their own without parental knowledge or consent, passed.
In 2019, Congress held two vaccine hearings, one on February 27th2 and another on March 5th3 and one focus of the hearing pitting children against their parents.
Veteran vaccine safety and informed consent advocates with nearly four decades of experience, including time spent serving on federal advisory committees, were denied the ability to testify, but a teenager with no experience other than recently opposing his mother on social media4 for not vaccinating him was invited to testify.5
The ill-conceived concept of minor children consenting to vaccination without their parents’ consent appeared in media6 stories more frequently following the congressional hearing and used the teen’s testimony to advocate for this policy change.
Medical trade groups also advanced the concept. Doctors, who are frustrated with having to spend time talking with educated parents during routine “well child” visits to answer questions and concerns about vaccines, have identified minor consent as a way to coerce children into consenting to vaccines on their own.
Adolescents are vulnerable to peer and authority-figure persuasion. An opinion piece was published in The New England Journal of Medicine7 and the American Medical Association passed a resolution8 supporting state laws to allow minors to consent to vaccination.
This coordinated effort resulted in 13 bills introduced in 2019 and a big jump to 21 bills introduced in 2020. Fortunately, legislators listened to parents and rejected all 34 minor consent bills filed in 2019 and 2020. Federal legislative history provides evidence that Congress never intended for a minor child to make decisions to get a vaccine without parental knowledge or consent.
When the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act9 of 1986 was passed, the Act clearly stated that before the administration of certain vaccines,10 a health care provider shall give a copy of the CDC’s vaccine information materials to either the, “the parent or legal representative of any child to whom the provider intends to administer such vaccine …”
The CDC asserts the requirement that the VIS sheet is provided to the parent/legal guardian prior to vaccination of a minor child on their Q&A page on VIS sheets:11 Under the question “Is there a requirement to verify that parents/legal representatives have actually received and reviewed the VIS,” the answer is a clear and undebatable “YES.”
There is no justification for the state to override a parent’s legal right to make an informed benefit and risk decision about vaccination on behalf of their minor children and hand that legal right to doctors and medical workers, who have no liability or accountability for what happens to the child after vaccination.
These types of bills are a violation of parents’ constitutional right to raise their children without undue interference from the state, and each one of these bills that surfaces in state legislatures should be strongly opposed.
Expanding Vaccine Exemptions and Informed Consent
Hard working vaccine and health freedom advocates and open-minded legislators came together in 2020 to advocate for 78 bills in the following 25 states to expand vaccine exemptions and enhance informed consent rights:
This is a big jump from the 58 bills of this kind filed in 2019. In response to expanding vaccination schedules and overzealous forced vaccination polices implemented by day care and schools, legislators filed 20 bills in the following 12 states to expand vaccine exemptions:
Most of the bills filed added religious or conscientious exemptions. While no bills adding vaccine exemptions for children to attend daycare and school were passed, Delaware passed a bill (HB 214) to allow veterinarians to exempt animals from rabies vaccines if the veterinarian concludes the vaccine would endanger the animal’s health.
Gaps in Informed Consent on Legislators’ Radar to Fix
Legislators are increasingly recognizing problems created because parents are not provided enough information about potential vaccine risks and contraindications.
In response, 30 bills were filed in 16 states tackling the issue of improving vaccine informed consent rights. California, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia all had bills filed to require additional information to be provided prior to vaccination.
Nine states had legislators wanting to get better information about the increased prevalence of vaccine reactions. 11 bills were filed to require vaccine reactions to be reported to the legislature directly or through a state agency. Iowa, New Hampshire and Missouri each had a bill introduced to require death certificates to include information about vaccines administered.
Also addressing gaps in informed consent, 9 bills were filed in the 7 states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania that would require parents to be informed of the availability of vaccine exemptions. Often, parents do not know they have the legal right to take a vaccine exemption.
Some schools don’t readily share this information and parents may be incorrectly told there is a “no shots, no school” policy that prevents unvaccinated or partially vaccinated children from enrolling in school. This can result in a child, who may be at high risk for suffering a vaccine reaction, getting vaccinated under false pressure that can lead to the child suffering a serious reaction.
Other bills filed required the disclosure of certain vaccine ingredients and risks, and several bills added steps like requiring specific written permission before any vaccine could be administered. One broad groundbreaking bill in Florida entitled the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act,” would have provided civil remedies for those whose religious or political speech was censored by a social media website.
While none of these bills passed, over 1,000 state legislators were educated about the failures in the informed consent process to vaccination. This education can serve as a deterrent to passing other bad bills that remove or restrict informed consent rights from being introduced in the future.
An encouraging new trend is that more legislators are recognizing the significant problems caused by discrimination against those who choose to delay or decline vaccination and are willing to support legislation to stop this discrimination and bias.
A total of 32 bills tackling different aspects of discrimination head on were filed. The majority of bills filed were trying to protect adult employees from any kind of penalties for refusing vaccines. This category of bills will be extremely important in 2021 as COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out and potential legislation is introduced to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations.
It is critical to protect people from sanctions by employers, insurance companies, medical providers, retail establishments, and interstate travel opportunities for refusing to take a vaccine. It is not too early to talk to legislators about prefiling bills to prevent this type of discrimination ahead of the 2021 legislative session.
Six bills were introduced this session to specifically prohibit insurance companies from penalizing doctors or patients when the patient did not take a recommended vaccine, while one bill in Wyoming prohibited doctors from expelling patients for vaccine refusal, and another Wyoming bill prohibited hospitals from refusing to treat individuals based solely on their vaccination status.
Iowa and Michigan filed bills that would prohibit denying a foster care license based on the vaccination status of the family. Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon also tried to join the ranks of Texas with bills that prohibit either abuse claims or custody restrictions based on vaccine refusal, and Colorado’s efforts were rewarded with the passage and governor’s signature on HB 1297.
This clarified that delaying or declining a vaccine by itself is not child abuse or neglect. This bill enjoyed notable bipartisan support. Colorado demonstrated that it is important not to prejudge legislators based on party affiliation for their support or opposition to a bill and it is important to sincerely educate and treat all legislators respectfully.
Expanding Vaccine Mandates
In 2020, only three of the 42 bills filed to add vaccine mandates passed. Two bills were in New Jersey. Annual flu vaccines are now required for health care facility employees in New Jersey and meningococcal vaccines are now mandated for residential students at four-year colleges in New Jersey.
The third and worst vaccine mandate bill to pass in 2020 was Virginia HB 1090. It gave the Governor-appointed Board of Health the authority to add federally recommended vaccines to the schedule required for school attendance (with the exception of requiring annual influenza vaccinations) without a public hearing or vote by the legislature.
It also expanded the current list of required vaccines to add HPV vaccines for boys to the existing requirement for girls and added rotavirus, hepatitis A, and meningococcal conjugate vaccine requirements in conformance with recommendations of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
This puts Virginia school children at risk of being required to receive a mandated COVID-19 vaccine once it is licensed by the FDA and recommended by ACIP for children. The Health Commissioner of Virginia has already stated that he intends to mandate12 that all Virginians get a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available.
Mississippi had a failed attempt to pass a bill to mandate annual flu vaccines for school employees with no religious exemption, and New York still has two pending bills attempting to mandate flu vaccines for children in school and daycare, A2316 and S2776, that need to be watched and opposed.
Five states — Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia — had bills filed to specifically mandate HPV vaccines for students that have not passed. New Jersey, New York, and Ohio attempted to add other adult vaccine mandates. NVIC opposes all adult mandates as a condition for employment. Vaccines are already available to those who want them.
New York attempted a bill to mandate vaccines for children’s camps with no religious exemptions allowed, but it has not passed.
Restricting Vaccine Mandates
NVIC supported 20 bills in 13 states that would have restricted vaccine mandates. While none of these bills passed, many legislators were educated about the harm vaccine mandates can cause, and this education helped hold back the passage of dozens of bills enacting more forceful mandates.
Eight bills were filed in Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio to protect employees who want to refuse vaccination requirements. These types of bills need to be filed and passed in every state.
Michigan had two bills, HB 5135 and HB 5136, that would have prohibited new vaccine mandates to be issued by agency rule making. Oklahoma passed a bill in the House, but not the Senate, to require legislative approval when new vaccine mandates are added for school by the department of health.
Given the threat posed by unelected and unaccountable state employees having the power to expand vaccine mandates, lawmakers in state legislatures, who have punted the responsibility of setting the vaccine schedule to health agency employees, need to take their legislative authority back so the people these mandates affect have a voice and can participate in the democratic process.
Iowa and Michigan set their sights on prohibiting a requirement that foster care families vaccinate their families. While the Iowa bill died, the Michigan bill is still pending, and support could help tip this good bill over the edge to pass.
Two exciting bills were introduced in Arizona (HB 2050) and South Dakota (HB 1235) to eliminate vaccine mandates, and people should consider talking to their legislators about filing this kind of bill in their own states.
Brave legislators in these states recognized that vaccines are pharmaceutical products that can cause injury or death, and families should be allowed to make voluntary decisions about their use without being coerced and forced by law to vaccinate. These bills were filed as a direct result of people talking to their legislators about the harm that vaccine mandates have caused their families.
Vaccine Tracking and Reporting (37 Bills)
Forced inclusion, forced reporting, and opt-out electronic vaccine tracking registries and enforcement systems continue to threaten the medical privacy of citizens and their legal right to refuse federally recommended vaccines without being subjected to harassment or punishment.
On the positive side, legislators are also becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of reporting and tracking of serious vaccine reactions and are trying to take steps to put this information in front of more government officials.
The 2020 legislative session included 37 bills in the category of vaccine tracking and reporting that NVICAP analyzed, posted and monitored.
Expanding Vaccine Tracking
Eighteen bills tried to expand vaccine tracking in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. Three of these bad bills passed. This is a big improvement from 2019 where nine bills expanding vaccine tracking passed.
Colorado passed SB 163 which, in addition to restricting vaccine exemptions, adds a hefty dose of increased vaccine tracking and electronic surveillance. Health care providers are required to submit all vaccines administered and also all vaccine exemption information to the state operated electronic vaccine tracking system, CIIS.
Now, there is no way for public and private school students and children attending daycare to not be tracked by the health department in Colorado. Indiana passed HB 1210, which expands the current vaccine tracking system in Indiana to include additional personal health information, including newborn screening and blood lead screening.
Nebraska passed LB 1183, which enacted government vaccine tracking through the Population Health Information Act. The bill was initially introduced to deal with prescription drug monitoring, but it was amended to include vaccine tracking in this new state electronic database.
There is no requirement for opt-in informed consent to participate in this registry and the bill provides for any health care entity to access this information. Alabama, New Jersey and West Virginia had four additional bills that would have required vaccine providers to report to the registry, but fortunately they did not pass.
All 50 states now have vaccine tracking systems13 for children and many states have expanded their systems to include adults. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has created a new term for vaccine tracking, surveillance, and enforcement registries so people don’t focus on and become concerned about how they are actually being used.
Threats Posed by Immunization Information Systems
The CDC now calls them Immunization Information Systems (IIS),14 which makes them seem to be more passive and less threatening. In reality, IIS represent one of the largest threats to being free to refuse any vaccination, including upcoming vaccines for COVID-19.
Federal agencies are working with public health trade groups to link the registries all together15 to be able to create and access a complete personalized vaccine profile on every U.S. citizen. The Network for Public Health Law16 recently held two webinars about data sharing to support each “jurisdiction’s role in mass vaccination for COVID-19” using the Immunization (IZ) Gateway.17
The IZ Gateway is sponsored by the CDC Immunization Information Systems Support Branch and led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Chief Technology Officer.
Its purpose is to facilitate the sharing of everyone’s immunization status through multiple private and government entities in real time to create a virtual national immunization registry so that wherever you are, government and health care providers will know your vaccination status.
This presents a huge problem for people who don’t want to have their vaccination status tracked by government or anyone else. Many states have mandatory tracking where consent is unfortunately assumed and there is no way to get out.
This is sometimes initiated with the state sharing birth records to the immunization registry without a parent’s knowledge or consent for the purpose of initiating a registry file on every newborn. Some states automatically put everyone in the system but claim someone can either opt-out, or opt-out of data sharing.
This is problematic for two reasons. First, because of data interoperability, every system that has access to each state registry can pull an individual’s vaccination status, store it, and release it even further before someone may have a chance to opt-out. Even if someone opts-out, the data is already out there and can’t be taken back.
Second, opting-out of data sharing does nothing to protect your vaccination status from the health department who operates the registry itself. It only prevents other entities like insurance companies, health care providers or schools from accessing the information. This does little to reassure people who are concerned the information will be used to force vaccination.
Many people are more concerned about what public health officials will do with this information now and in the future as the vaccine records in most IIS can never be removed. The only way to guarantee your vaccination status won’t get tracked in existing vaccine tracking registries by your state and used to penalize you or enforce vaccination is for your state to legislate explicit opt-in consent for inclusion into the registry and for the release of data out of the registry.
Also, the option for complete personal vaccine data purging from the registry and all other health department files should be enacted for those who want their personal information removed from the registry after it has been included.
Texas and Montana are the only states that require opt-in informed consent.18 If you do not live in either of these states, laws need to be changed to prohibit any collection or sharing of your medical/vaccine records without your expressed written informed consent. With impending controversial COVID-19 mass vaccination programs, limiting personal health information that is collected and shared with IIS is critical.
Strong opposition to mandatory inclusion, assumed consent, and opt-out vaccine tracking systems is needed. Reaching a 100% vaccine compliance rate by all children and adults is the goal of these electronic vaccine tracking systems.
Expanding Vaccine Reaction Reporting and Tracking
On the other side in a positive new trend, there were 14 bills requiring the reporting or recording of vaccine reactions. California, Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington had 11 bills requiring that reports of vaccine reactions be sent to the legislature or the state.
Iowa, New Hampshire and Missouri took on the heart wrenching topic of infant deaths following vaccination and had three bills requiring vaccine information to be recorded on death certificates or to be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
While none of these bills passed, legislators were educated about the lack of public transparency about real vaccine reactions and deaths and these bills were a great first step at trying to change that.
Arizona and Pennsylvania had two bills that attempted to expand emergency powers by the state but they did not pass. In 2021, we can expect many more bills trying to expand emergency powers, as well as curtail abuses of emergency powers, in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. These bills will need to be watched carefully.
Most states lack sufficient vaccine exemptions to protect citizens from forced vaccination in times of declared public health emergencies. Now would be a good time for people to review their state emergency powers laws to look for problems and talk to their legislators about filing bills before the 2021 legislative sessions to expand vaccine exemptions for all state residents during a declared public health emergency.
This is especially important for those who have concerns about potential mandates for COVID-19 or influenza vaccines.
Authorizing More Professions to Administer More Vaccines
One of the most successful areas where we worked with families in the states was in the area of bills that proposed to expand the authority to pharmacists and others to administer vaccines to children.
There were 22 bills filed in 14 states (Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin) to allow pharmacists and other types of medical professions to administer vaccines to young children.
Four of the 22 bills attempted to expand vaccine administrators to other professions outside of pharmacists. Ohio had a bill trying to allow podiatrists to give flu vaccines to anyone 7 years old and up, Oklahoma tried to get paramedics to give vaccines, and Wisconsin tried to give authority to dentists to administer vaccines.
Fortunately, none of these bills passed but it is easy to see how other professions want a piece of the almost $18 billion U.S. vaccine market in 2020,19 and how that could lead to more “gatekeepers” instituting policies that refuse services to the unvaccinated.
In terms of expanding a pharmacist’s ability to give vaccines, both New Hampshire and New York passed controversial futuristic bills allowing pharmacists to vaccinate for COVID-19 once a vaccine becomes available.
Other than the two COVID-19 expansions bills, the only other bill of this type that passed was in Florida, but the offending language allowing pharmacists to vaccinate children was completely removed from the bill thanks to strong opposition.
Unfortunately, the federal government stepped in and overrode the states on the issue of pharmacists being given the authority to vaccinate young children. State legislatures were completely circumvented by an action taken by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar.20
On August 24, 2020, the Federal Register published Mr. Azar’s amendments21 to the declared emergency for COVID-19 issued under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19.
Countermeasures include vaccines for ACIP-recommended vaccines and this amendment now allows pharmacists to administer every ACIP-recommended vaccine to all children 3 years old or older, regardless of what each state law limits. This is a significant abuse of federal power.
Pharmacists Are Not Doctors
States have been deliberately cautious about limiting the types of vaccines and ages of children which pharmacists are allowed to vaccinate. The actions of Mr. Azar, who is a former CEO of the U.S. pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, and a former pharmaceutical lobbyist,22 illustrate the problems created by the revolving door between the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies.
Pharmacists administering vaccines in the corner drug store or grocery store pharmacy to minor children and toddlers trivializes very real vaccine risks and the potential for serious reactions.
Pharmacists are not doctors and 20 hours of required training23 for pharmacists to be able to administer all childhood vaccines cannot substitute for the knowledge and practical experience that doctors and nurses have administering vaccines. Pharmacists are not as knowledgeable about diagnosing the difference between cardiac arrest, anaphylaxis and fainting and most pharmacies don’t have lifesaving defibrillators.
The limited training pharmacists get in vaccines will not be able to cover all the contraindications for the 57 different unique vaccines available24 now in the U.S. or the nearly 260 vaccines in development.25
Ensuring informed consent and accurate screening to consider family and individual medical histories will be challenging in the back of a pharmacy or a grocery store. Certain allergies, fevers, weakened immune systems, seizures, pregnancy, Guillan-Barre Syndrome and other reactions post vaccination are all reasons listed on the CDC’s Vaccine Information Statements indicating a possible reason to not vaccinate.
It is also a stretch to think pharmacists are going to report reactions to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)26 or warn parents about the statute of limitations and instructions for filing a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,27 which has paid out over $4.4 billion28 to vaccine victims.
Rules Carry the Same Effect as Law
Administrative rules, while not law, carry the same effect as law. State legislatures delegate rule-making authority to the state agencies, boards of health, or health commissioners tasked with implementing state law, however, they are not supposed to change or add to what is in statute.
As more concerned citizens have made significant impact in stopping bad vaccine bills, some state health departments have turned to the rule process to add more mandates or restrict vaccine exemptions.
Additionally, there has been a trend in recent years for some state legislators who are influenced by the medical trade lobby to move the task of setting vaccine mandates or setting the criteria for vaccine exemptions completely out of the legislature and into the hands of state employees.
It is a widespread problem that many state agencies abuse their power and write rules that go beyond the scope of the state statute they are implementing. Many state’s administrative procedures acts do not give the average citizen sufficient opportunities to give feedback that will be sincerely considered.
Because state employees are not elected, state residents don’t have any recourse to remove them from their jobs as they are able to do with elected legislators who restrict or eliminate rights.
In the 2020 legislative session, NVIC Advocacy tracked and issued action alerts on proposed administrative rule changes in four states, Oklahoma, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. NVIC Advocacy team members and like-minded groups worked together in these states to stop these four rule changes.
The Oklahoma rule change would have restricted vaccine exemptions by requiring the completion of a mandatory health department educational presentation in order to obtain a religious or personal belief exemption. Strong opposition to this attempted restriction to exemptions helped ensure that the rule was amended to remove this burden on exemptions in Oklahoma.
Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming proposed new vaccine mandates through rule. Local vaccine informed consent and health freedom groups came through in large numbers attending public comment sessions and submitting comments, engaging more families concerned about expanding vaccine schedules and communicating with legislators to ask them to oppose the rule changes as well.
This resulted in all of these proposed rule changes for new vaccine mandates being withdrawn. Proposed rule changes are typically published in state registers. It is important to watch the state health and education agency registers for proposed rules regarding vaccine requirements and exemptions.
Links to these state registers are available on the NVIC law pages. Sometimes contacting your legislators about proposed rules that force more vaccines or restrict vaccine exemptions can be helpful if the legislator contacts the agency and ask them to back off.
Legislators, especially those who sit on powerful appropriation committees setting state budgets, can have more of an influence than the average citizen. NVIC is opposed to unelected unaccountable state employees setting required vaccine schedules.
A good bill to file in states where the legislature has abdicated its power to control what vaccines are mandated on its citizens would be to repeal these laws and return control back to legislators who must face voters at the ballot box.
Comparing Recent Sessions to 2020
232 bills represent the most proposed vaccine-related bills NVIC has recorded in the history of the NVIC Advocacy Portal, surpassing the previous all-time high of 221 bills introduced in 2019. It is important to note that four states (Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas) meet biennially to consider new bills and do not hold a legislative session in even years.
It is remarkable that this record number of vaccine-related bills were proposed with these four states not participating in the 2020 legislative session. The number of states proposing bills in 2020 that affected NVIC’s mission remained similar to last year: 39 and the District of Columbia compared to 40 and the District of Columbia in 2019.
There were fewer bills that NVIC opposed in 2020 compared to last year (123 versus 137). There were more bills filed that NVIC supported in 2020 than in any other session. NVIC supported 99 bills this session, which is 22 more positive bills than the previous record-breaking number of 77 bills NVIC supported in 2019.
Enlightened legislators are not only listening to concerned constituents in greater numbers, many more are continuing or beginning to resist aggressive lobbying efforts by the vaccine industry, medical trade and other groups, whose positions and profits benefit from laws that force children and adults to use every vaccine sold by pharmaceutical companies and recommended by public health officials.
Only eight bad vaccine bills passed out of the 123 that NVIC opposed in the 2020 legislative session, which was 10 less than the 18 bad vaccine bills that passed last year. Individual citizen involvement in the legislative process, through personal communications and education of legislators, continues to make a significant impact year after year on the outcomes of vaccine related bills in state legislatures.
NVIC predicts that the continued attack on vaccine exemptions and bills to expand emergency powers and mandate fast tracked COVID-19 vaccines after they are licensed and recommended by the federal government will drive even more Americans in every state to get more involved in the legislative process at every level in the years to come.
What Can You Do?
NVIC expects that the vaccine industry and their medical trade association partners will step up lobbying efforts to restrict or remove vaccine exemptions in 2021 since so many of their bills failed in 2020.
Please become a registered user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal and check in often to learn about ways to personally educate your legislators when vaccine bills that affect your rights are moving in your state. Please encourage your family and all of your friends to do the same.
Clearly your efforts are making a much more significant difference than the mainstream media and those pushing “no exceptions” forced vaccination policies and laws are willing to admit, and your active participation is vital to protecting informed consent rights and vaccine choices in America. If you see inaccurate information in the media, please take the time to respond by making a constructive comment online.
The same holds true if you are censored online for providing accurate information about vaccination, infectious diseases and health. Contest it and educate those doing the censoring. The information seeds you plant today can make a difference tomorrow and into the future.
Yes, the challenges are great but so are the opportunities to educate and empower legislators and residents of every state to defend vaccine freedom of choice. NVIC is committed to continuing to make that happen and we look forward to working with you through the NVIC Advocacy Portal to help you protect vaccine informed consent rights in your state in 2021 and beyond.
Over the past few months, several investigations have highlighted the apparent influence of vitamin D in COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. Interestingly, recent genetic analysis has produced a novel hypothesis1 that helps explain the unusual disease progression of COVID-19.
The hypothesis,2 published in the journal eLife in July 2020, specifically identifies bradykinin, a blood pressure regulating chemical controlled by your renin-angiotensin system (RAS), as a primary culprit.
As reviewed in greater depth in “Bradykinin Hypothesis Explains COVID-19 Complexities,” the lethality of COVID-19 may be due to the virus’ ability to induce a bradykinin storm. The effects of the virus on your RAS also adds further support to the recommendation to optimize your vitamin D.
In fact, the researchers who came up with the novel bradykinin hypothesis stress the usefulness of vitamin D, as it plays an important role in the RAS system3,4,5,6 and suppresses the biosynthesis of a compound called renin (REN), thereby preventing a deadly bradykinin storm.
Conversely, if you are vitamin D deficient, your renin expression is stimulated, and based on the latest data, that may render you more prone to bradykinin storm. Other studies have also emerged in recent weeks, showing that raising patients’ vitamin D levels has a dramatic and beneficial effect on COVID-19 outcomes.
Vitamin D Massively Reduces ICU Admissions
Among them is a pilot randomized clinical study7,8,9 published online August 29, 2020, which found hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Spain who were given supplemental calcifediol (a vitamin D3 analog also known as 25-hydroxycholecalciferol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D) in addition to standard of care — which included the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin — had significantly lower intensive care unit admissions.
Patients in the vitamin D arm received 532 micrograms of calcifediol on the day of admission (equivalent to 106,400 IUs of vitamin D10) followed by 266 mcg on Days 3 and 7 (equivalent to 53,200 IUs11). After that, they received 266 mcg once a week until discharge, ICU admission or death.
Of those receiving calcifediol, only 2% required ICU admission, compared to 50% of those who did not get calcifediol. None of those given vitamin D supplementation died, and all were discharged without complications.
CDC Warns of Second Wave of COVID-19
In the video above, NBC News interviews Michael Osterholm, virologist and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, about the prospect of a second wave of COVID-19.
According to Osterholm, we likely have another 12 to 14 months of “a really hard road ahead of us.” While Swedish statistics suggest the virus can and is dying off naturally, Osterholm believes cases will again rise as we move into fall and winter. Even if a vaccine does become available, it will take months to vaccinate the population, he notes.
Chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden’s coronavirus response, Anders Tegnell, has stated12 he does not believe Sweden will see a second wave with widespread contagion as the country is seeing a rapid decline in positive tests, indicating herd immunity is being achieved.13
That said, there are still open questions as to how long natural immunity might last.14 Some evidence points to months,15 while other data point to several years.16 Then there are the data suggesting herd immunity for COVID-19 occurs at much lower rates than normal.
As reported17 by Dr. James Hamblin in The Atlantic, infectious disease modeling by Gabriela Gomes, who specializes in nonlinear chaos dynamics, “selective depletion” of individuals susceptible to infection can rapidly reduce viral spread, and in the case of SARS-CoV-2, models suggest the threshold for herd immunity may occur below 20% of the population.
Yet other data18,19,20,21 suggest certain antibodies against other coronaviruses, such as the common cold, appear to provide some protection against SARS-CoV-2 as well, such that a majority of people may already have some level of immunity. So, there’s a variety of “moving parts” that still need to be nailed down before we can come to any firm conclusions about future risks.
Vitamin D Versus Vaccine
While Osterholm22 and other health officials are still focused on getting people onboard with vaccination, both against influenza and COVID-19, no one at the federal level has as of yet addressed the elephant in the room, which is vitamin D deficiency and its impact on these infections.
Importantly, influenza vaccination has been shown23,24 — by the Department of Defense, no less — to increase the risk of subsequent coronavirus infections by 36%. If we are to follow the science, as Osterholm says, then we should not be so quick to overlook such findings.
Then, of course, there’s the issue of whether a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is achievable. I’ve discussed the reasons for why I believe COVID-19 vaccines will fail in several previous articles. Vitamin D optimization, in contrast, is already known to be both safe and effective against not only influenza but also COVID-1925,26,27 and other respiratory infections.28
According to a 2017 systematic review29,30,31 published in The BMJ, vitamin D supplementation protected against acute respiratory tract infection. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 33, meaning 33 people had to take the supplement in order to prevent a single case of infection. Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4.
Meanwhile, a systematic review32 by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found that to prevent one case of influenza-like illness (defined33 by the World Health Organization as an acute respiratory infection), the NNT for inactivated vaccines was 40. To prevent a single case of confirmed influenza, the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) was 71.
Vitamin D Is an Important Modifier of COVID-19 Risk
In a November 1, 2020, commentary34 in the journal Metabolism Clinical and Experimental, JoAnn Manson and Shari Bassuk call for the elimination of vitamin D deficiency to effectively squelch the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that 23.3% of the total U.S. population have insufficient or deficient vitamin D levels, with people of color having disproportionately lower levels than non-Hispanic whites.
They list several types of studies showing vitamin D deficiency is “an important modifiable risk factor for COVID-19,” including:35
• Laboratory studies that demonstrate how vitamin D helps regulate immune function and the RAS, and modulate inflammatory responses to infection.
• Ecologic studies showing populations with lower vitamin D levels or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality,36,37,38 and the fact that people identified as being at greatest risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and death (people of color, the elderly, nursing home residents and those with comorbidities such as obesity, vascular conditions and chronic kidney disease) also have a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.
• Observational studies showing low vitamin D levels are associated with a greater risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and contracting acute respiratory infections.
According to a September 3, 2020, JAMA study,39,40 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were 1.77 times more likely to be deficient in vitamin D than those who tested negative for the virus — a statistically significant difference.
CTV News, which reported the JAMA results, also pointed out that:41 “The connection between vitamin D and other respiratory illnesses is well known.
According to the World Health Organization,42 vitamin D deficiency has been linked to pneumonia, tuberculosis and bronchiolitis,” and that “research43 out of New Orleans found 100% of its sickest COVID-19 patients were deficient in vitamin D.”
• Randomized clinical trials showing vitamin D inhibits respiratory tract infections, especially in those with lower vitamin D levels at baseline.
Vitamin D Protects Your Lungs
A 2020 GrassrootsHealth study published in the journal Nutrients44 describes how vitamin D can reduce the risk of both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infection by lowering the viral replication rate and reducing the pro-inflammatory cytokines that damage the lungs, leading to pneumonia.
Vitamin D also helps increase concentrations of anti-inflammatory cytokines that may help protect your lungs. The researchers recommended those at risk for COVID-19 take:
“10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 for a few weeks to rapidly raise 25(OH)D concentrations, followed by 5000 IU/d. The goal should be to raise 25(OH)D concentrations above 40-60 ng/mL (100-150 nmol/L).”
Vitamin D and COVID-19 Comorbidities
Vitamin D may also help protect against COVID-19 by beneficially impacting many of the comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. In an August 2020 paper45 published in the NSF Journal, the authors review the “fatal relationship” between vitamin D deficiency in combination with comorbidities in COVID-19 patients, noting that:
” … low vitamin D status is common in Europe with the exception of the Scandinavian countries. The calculated COVID-19 mortality rate from 12 European countries shows a significant inverse correlation with the mean 25(OH)D plasma concentration.
This raises the question whether insufficient vitamin D supply has an influence on the course of COVID-19 disease? An analysis of the distribution of COVID-19 infections showed a correlation between geographical location (30–50° N+), mean temperature between 5–11?°C and low humidity.
In a retrospective cohort study (1,382 hospitalized patients) 326 died … The mortality of COVID-19 (cases/ million population) shows a clear dependence on latitude. Below latitude 35, mortality decreases markedly. Indeed, there are exceptions … however, the management of the pandemic may increase infection risk …
Older age and comorbidities are linked to an insufficient vitamin D supply. Over 60?years of age, a reduction in the synthesis of vitamin D in the skin becomes apparent, which further increases getting older …
Based on a meta-analysis including 30 studies with 53,000 COVID-19 patients, co-morbidities are risk factors for disease severity … Comorbidities and old age show a relationship with Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosteron-System (RAS), vitamin D status and COVID-19 infection.”
How Vitamin D Helps Modulate SARS-CoV-2 Infection
This brings us back to where I started. While this NSF Journal study does not make reference to bradykinin storm being part of the disease progression and lethality of COVID-19, it does review how vitamin D impacts your RAS (which regulates bradykinin), and how your RAS in turn plays a role in the progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection:46
“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes the virus spike protein to come into contact with ACE2 on the cell surface and thus to be transported into the cell. This endocytosis causes upregulation of a metallopeptidase (ADAM17), which releases ACE2 from the membrane, resulting in a loss of the counter regulatory activity to RAS.
As a result, proinflammatory cytokines are released extensively into the circulation. This leads to a series of vascular changes, especially in the case of preexisting lesions, which can promote further progression of cardiovascular pathologies.
SARS-CoV-2 not only reduces the ACE2 expression, but also leads to further limitation of the ACE2/Ang 1–7/Mas axis via ADAM17 activation, which in turn promotes the absorption of the virus. This results in an increase in Ang II, which further upregulates ADAM 17.
Thus a vicious circle is established turning into a constantly self-generating and progressive process. This process may contribute not only to lung damage (Acute respiratory distress syndrome – ARDS), but also to heart injury and vessels damage, observed in COVID-19 patients …
Several studies have shown increased plasma renin activity, higher Ang II concentrations and higher RAS activity as a consequence of low vitamin D status. The same applies to the decreasing Renin activity with increasing vitamin D levels. There is an inverse relationship between circulating 25(OH)D and renin, which is explained by the fact that vitamin D is a negative regulator of renin expression …”
The NSF Journal paper goes on to review the connections found between the RAS, vitamin D levels and a list of comorbidities shown to worsen COVID-19 outcomes, including high blood pressure, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, Type 2 diabetes and ARDS. It also reviews how vitamin D levels, RAS function and cytokine storms are interconnected. The authors state, in conclusion:47
“There is ample evidence that various non-communicable diseases (hypertension, diabetes, CVD, metabolic syndrome) are associated with low vitamin D plasma levels. These comorbidities, together with the often concomitant vitamin D deficiency, increase the risk of severe COVID-19 events.
Much more attention should be paid to the importance of vitamin D status for the development and course of the disease. Particularly in the methods used to control the pandemic (lockdown), the skin’s natural vitamin D synthesis is reduced when people have few opportunities to be exposed to the sun.
The short half-lives of the vitamin therefore make an increasing vitamin D deficiency more likely. Specific dietary advice, moderate supplementation or fortified foods can help prevent this deficiency. In the event of hospitalization, the status should be urgently reviewed and, if possible, improved.”
To summarize what the NSF and eLife journals tell us, when your vitamin D is low, your risk of COVID-19 complications and death increases because your renin expression is stimulated.
High renin increases both cytokines and bradykinin, placing you at risk for increased inflammation and oxidative stress resulting in both cytokine storm (as discussed in the NSF paper48) and bradykinin storm (as discussed in the eLife paper49).
Considering cytokine and/or bradykinin storms are key factors in COVID-19 mortality, it seems reasonable to conclude that anything that can help modulate and prevent these devastating storms would be of significant value. As of right now, the one thing we know can do that is vitamin D.
In addition to that, vitamin D lowers viral replication,50 boosts your overall immune function by modulating both innate and adaptive immune responses, reduces respiratory distress,51 improves overall lung function and helps produce surfactants in your lungs that aid in fluid clearance.52
Vitamin D also lowers your risk of comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis, including obesity,53 Type 2 diabetes,54 high blood pressure55 and heart disease.56 In my view, there’s every reason to believe vitamin D optimization will help lower your risk of COVID-19 complications and death, and no reason to dismiss this strategy.
Optimize Your Vitamin D Level Now
My #StopCOVIDCold campaign seeks to raise awareness about the importance of vitamin D optimization to prevent a resurgence of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.
As temperatures and humidity levels drop — two factors that influence the viability of the virus in air and on surfaces — it’s quite likely we’ll see a reemergence. But a surge in positive tests, by itself, should not be cause for panic.
Remember, a vast majority of so-called “cases,” meaning positive tests, remain asymptomatic. I believe raising vitamin D levels among the general public can go a long way toward increasing the number of people who have no symptoms or only mild illness.
Now is the time to check your vitamin D level and start taking action to raise it if you’re below 40 ng/mL. An easy and cost-effective way of measuring your vitamin D level is to order GrassrootsHealth’s vitamin D testing kit and learn more about vitamin D and its impact on your health.
From the beginning, researchers and scientists have been scrambling to find answers to a multitude of questions that affect patients with SARS-CoV-2. Scientists want to know how the virus infects human cells, how it is spread and what might be done to effectively treat a population that does not respond consistently.
In other words, there are some people who are either asymptomatic or have a mild illness and others who develop significant disease and die from the virus. Experts are asking what causes one person’s immune system to go out of control and not others’?
Interferon Plays a Critical Role Controlling Cytokines
The body uses type 1 interferon in response to many viral infections.1 As scientists have gotten a clearer understanding of how the virus affects the human immune system early in the disease, they have begun to theorize that interferons may be able to counter the process and prevent the development of severe illness.2
Interferons are a family of proteins produced by the immune system. Human-type interferons have also been commercially produced using recombinant DNA for treatment against viral infections, some cancers and multiple sclerosis.3 The objective is to change the immune system’s response to bacteria, cancer and viruses.
Natural interferon regulates the action of genetic material that secretes cellular proteins affecting growth.4,5 The theory is that building a stronger immune system will result in directing a strong defense against the virus and alleviating the cytokine storm.
In the 1990s interferon was used to treat hepatitis C. However, the cure rate was 30% or less and the side effects were significant, including psychiatric issues, liver problems and depression that sometimes led to suicide.6 Other side effects included fever, muscle aches, headaches and other flu-like symptoms.7
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), calls interferon “the best soldiers, as it were, of the innate immune system.”8
Several trials are currently underway to evaluate the effectiveness of interferon in patients with COVID-19. These trials are the result of studies demonstrating that individuals with the worst cases of coronavirus have the weakest interferon response.
People With Severe Disease Have Impaired Interferon Response
One team conducted an immune analysis on 50 patients who presented in various stages of the disease. They found that those with severe and critical illness had an impaired interferon type 1 response.9 Another group from New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital reported similar results in the journal Cell after studying the virus in infected cells in the lab, humans and ferrets.10 Their data showed low levels of interferon types 1 and 3 were associated with higher levels of chemokines.
One team used immune cells from the blood of individuals who had severe disease. Using mass cytometry, they assessed the immune response in patients with confirmed disease.11
As reported in the Washington Post, when the immune cells were challenged with bacteria and viruses the normal reaction of producing defense of molecules, including interferons, did not occur.12
British company Synairgen published In a July 2020 press release, British company Synairgen suggested results from a randomized clinical trial using inhaled interferons could be used to reduce the potential risk of developing severe disease.13 While these results are promising, it’s important to note that the trial was limited and the results have not yet been peer-reviewed or published.
One month later, the NIAID announced they were sponsoring a clinical trial to test interferon in hospitalized patients.14 Scientists are currently recruiting for the trial and hope to evaluate data from 1,000 patients across 100 hospitals worldwide.
The patients in the study will be getting remdesivir, the antiviral approved by the FDA in spring 2020. Fauci commented on the combination:
“What you’re likely going to see, as more antivirals come along and then the monoclonal antibodies come along, will be a propensity to treating as early as you possibly can to prevent people from getting into the hospital.”
New Trial Couples Interferon With Remdesivir
Researchers are seeking answers as to whether interferon will give added value to the antiviral agent remdesivir. However, not all scientists think there may be positive results. Marta Gaglia is a microbiologist at Tufts University. She spoke with a reporter from The Washington Post, saying, “In principle, you could think, why don’t we just give it to everybody who has a viral infection ever. But in reality, it has proven less effective than we would like.”15
The results from remdesivir studies have not been positive, either. For instance, in one study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the endpoint measurements were changed throughout the study.16 At the conclusion the single primary outcome measure was the number of days to recovery.17 All other criteria were moved to secondary outcome measurements.
A second study published in The Lancet concluded the drug was “not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits.”18 As the head of NIAID, Fauci has a vested interest in the development of the antiviral drug remdesivir. As it was, when he declared the results of the NEJM study to be “highly significant,”19 it suggests he should have also declared a conflict of interest in the use of the drug in the U.S.
When he was asked about the results of the study, which was stopped because of serious adverse events related to the drug, Fauci disregarded the evidence as “not adequate.”20
Despite scientists’ concerns over the veracity of the studies, the U.S. FDA issued an emergency use authorization for it May 1, 2020, which opened the door for compassionate use of the questionable drug.21
Retroviruses May Play a Role in COVID-19 Illness
One reason interferon may have a more positive result in the treatment of COVID-19 than they had with SARS or MERS is the potential that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not completely responsible for the severe disease that affects a small percentage of the population.
The genetic code for a retrovirus is in ribonucleic acid (RNA), rather than in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The virus uses an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, to transform the single strand of RNA into a double strand of DNA.22 The enzyme is in the host cell where the virus replicates and then spreads throughout the body. As Mikovits describes, the key to health is to keep these viruses silent.23
She believes her data show that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not the cause of COVID-19 but rather the catalyst to its expression, as it activates a dormant XMRV retrovirus found in some people. XMRV stands for “xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus.” Xenotrophic refers to viruses that only replicate in cells other than those of the host species.
So, XMRVs are viruses that infect human cells yet are not human viruses.24 In my interview with her, Mikovits describes how many of the current vaccines may be contaminated with this retrovirus.
As some vaccine viruses are grown in contaminated animal cell cultures, the retroviruses are then transferred to the genetic material of the vaccine virus. This may well explain the varying effect the virus has, creating severe disease in some and asymptomatic or mild illness in others.
Consider These Options to Reduce the Severity of Disease
In addition to hand-washing and maintaining overall health, there are further strategies to consider. These are approaches you can use to help reduce the risk you’ll get sick or reduce the severity of the illness if you do get sick, without depending on prescribed medications.
As I’ve written before, optimizing your vitamin D level is probably the easiest, least expensive and most beneficial strategy you can use to minimize your risk of COVID-19 and other infections. Unfortunately, there’s a pandemic of vitamin D deficiency across all age groups.25,26,27
The report I wrote on vitamin D and the prevention of COVID-19 is a resource to help you understand the importance of optimizing it for healthy immune function. Evidence continues to be published demonstrating that vitamin D levels are an independent indicator of the risk for infection and hospitalization.28
There are many health experts who are getting significantly positive results using hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin.29 However, you have access to a similar combination at home using quercetin and zinc. Quercetin is a natural antihistamine and anti-inflammatory30 that also functions as a zinc ionophore.31
In other words, it helps zinc to enter the cells and stem the tide of viral replication. This works not only in lung tissue but also in endothelial cells, which affect symptoms outside the pulmonary system.32
Zinc deficiencies are commonly found in older adults and in those who are obese, have diabetes or atherosclerosis.33 Likely not by coincidence, these are some of the same populations who have a higher risk of severe disease.34
I first wrote about using nebulized hydrogen peroxide in April 2020 and since then have received some impressive testimonials of its effectiveness from friends and acquaintances who got severely ill and used it. Brownstein was an early adopter of both vitamin D optimization and nebulized peroxide.
He’s been using nebulized peroxide in the clinical setting for 25 years and with each revision of his protocol, his patients have appeared to fare better than those before them. For a couple of months, Brownstein posted some video interviews with his patients in which they told their story.
However, he removed them after receiving a warning letter from the Federal Trade Commission in which they stated that since there was no established prevention, treatment or cure for COVID-19, any mention thereof is in violation of FTC law.