Nutrition to Treat and Prevent COVID-19

From http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v17n03.shtml

Nutrition to Treat and Prevent COVID-19

by Doctor Y, Andrew W. Saul, and Robert G. Smith

(OMNS Jan 17, 2021) Speaking out on nutritional therapy for COVID-19 is risky for medical doctors. Yet another physician is being threatened by his state licensing board for writing what you are about to read. We are not calling him/her “Doctor Y” on a whim, but rather by necessity.

“It is widely thought that no effective ways currently exist to stop the SARS-COV-2 virus except social distancing, wearing masks, and vaccines. These methods are believed to be effective, but many people have resisted distancing and masks, and the vaccines have had inequitable delivery around the world. Evidently new mutated strains of the virus are transmitted faster, and it is not certain how much protection will be available from the existing or newly developed vaccines.

“Information about effective prevention methods has been censored. The problem is that a huge body of knowledge exists about the immune system’s nutritional needs that is relevant to the cause of severe pneumonia and death from COVID-19. But this body of knowledge is evidently not widely appreciated by the medical profession, the public, and government officials.

“It has been clearly shown over decades that several essential nutrients, including vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, zinc, and selenium, have anti-viral properties. [1-5] It is also known that a majority of hospitalized COVID-19 individuals have deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients. [6] Further, it is known that severe pneumonia as in COVID-19 depletes many of the body’s essential nutrients. This often generates acute nutritional deficiencies that make COVID-19 more lethal. [7,8] And it has been shown in recent medical trials that simply administering vitamin C and vitamin D in huge but appropriate doses can effectively treat COVID-19 and prevent severe pneumonia and death. [8-18]

“Adequate nutrition has been shown in a variety of epidemiological studies to effectively prevent viral infection, including COVID-19. Just bringing the body’s vitamin D up to an adequate level with inexpensive and safe supplements of vitamin D can reduce the risk of infection. [13-18] But this information about nutritional prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has not been widely appreciated by the medical profession. Apparently the problem has been that clinical trials of nutritional protocols, known to be effective in small cohorts of patients, have not been funded to be performed in large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Consequently, large clinical trials of the nutritional protocols in preventing COVID-19 have not been published to establish “proof” that adequate doses of nutrients, including vitamins C and D, magnesium, zinc, and selenium are effective. Nevertheless, the nutritional protocol is inexpensive, very safe, and widely available around the world.

Vitamin C, 1000 mg (or more) 3 times daily
Vitamin D, 5,000 IU/day
Magnesium 400 mg/d (in malate, citrate, chelate, or chloride form)
Zinc, 20 mg/d
Selenium 100 mcg/d

“Although it might seem unlikely to many people that inexpensive vitamins could help to prevent a pandemic, they can. [13] Vitamin D is not merely a vitamin; it is an essential hormone used widely in the body and is required for the immune system to function. [14-19] While vitamin C at the RDA dose level can prevent scurvy, it is required at higher levels for the immune system to function optimally, especially under duress of illness. [7-12] Vitamin C is quickly depleted during an acute viral infection. [7,8]

“To understand why the knowledge about nutritional approaches to prevention and treatment of viral infection has not been widely appreciated, one needs to understand some background about medical trials. A large RCT performed on cohorts comprising many thousands of people is very expensive, and can only be performed by a large corporation that stands to profit from the results, or by a government agency that is publicly funded. But such a large RCT to test a nutritional protocol is unlikely, given that the nutrients it tests are ordinary vitamins and minerals that cannot be patented, and given that government agencies generally work with the pharmaceutical industry to develop new drugs that will help the private sector flourish. Thus, without a clear conclusion from a RCT that a nutritional approach is effective, it is often stated that “no proof exists” about the nutritional approach.

“While a lack of “proof” would be a justifiable reason to not recommend the widespread use of a drug protocol, a nutritional protocol differs in several ways from a typical drug protocol. First, the trial must be designed to test appropriate doses. Inadequate doses have little effect. Dosage recommendations in this article are larger than the “recommended dietary allowance” (RDA) because vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, selenium and zinc have been utilized for many years and are known to be safe at these doses (and even higher ones).

“A nutritional trial must also determine the existing levels of the essential nutrients to be administered for each individual upon entry into the trial. The problem is, everyone has some of each nutrient in their body, for the nutrients are essential and we cannot live without them. Someone who is deficient, or becomes deficient during the course of an infection, may have a large effect from taking a vitamin or mineral supplement, but someone else who does not have a deficiency will likely not show much benefit. And different individuals likely will have different deficiencies. All of these effects can easily confound a RCT that tests a nutritional protocol, which is why the benefit of nutritional protocols for the pandemic has not been precisely “proven.”

“Thus, even though it is known that the nutritional protocol is effective for preventing a wide variety of viral infections, and has been shown in small clinical trials to be effective in treating COVID-19 to prevent serious pneumonia and death, there is currently a “lack of evidence” about its efficacy in preventing infection in large populations. This would be an acceptable justification for avoiding use of a drug, but the nutritional protocol is inexpensive, safe, and widely available to the public. [11-15] The problem is apparently that the medical establishment and government agencies have been so focused upon drug or vaccine treatments that they have dismissed the life-saving knowledge about nutrition for empowering the immune system and preventing and treating the COVID-19 infection. [13,23] The burden of proof that is necessary for approval of a prescription drug protocol (read “dangerous enough to require a prescription”) is very different than the burden of proof necessary for widespread utilization of a safe nutritional protocol. We need to consume more of the essential nutrients in our food. [20-23] Larger supplemental doses in the nutritional protocol are safe. [1-23] Thus, claiming “no proof” is not a reason to dismiss adequately high and safe doses of vitamins and minerals.”

This concludes Dr. Y’s report. You may find that if you try to share this on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube that it – and perhaps you – will be blocked. When the mainstream media ignores the concerns of licensed physicians, and the social media actively censors them, we have a problem. [24-26]

Healthy Starters and Appetizers for All Occasions

(Ocean Robbins) The appetizer is making a comeback! For a long time, appetizers were mainly for fancy, multi-course sit-down dinners — and as finger foods at cocktail parties. For most of us, they weren’t part of our everyday life. But just as many of us are consuming media in smaller and smaller chunks — and getting our news in “soundbites” — many people are taking a liking to the sampling of lighter and more convenient food fare. And while decreased attention spans might not be anything to celebrate, the move toward lighter and more varied meals can be good for our enjoyment of life and our health — if we make those appetizers healthy.

The post Healthy Starters and Appetizers for All Occasions appeared on Stillness in the Storm.

What is Miso? Introducing a Longevity Food of the Blue Zones

(Ocean Robbins) It’s a comfort food that’s good for you… A salty food that may improve heart health… A peaceful culinary offering to the West from the son of an impoverished warrior… If these sound too good to be true, allow me to introduce you to the delicious, versatile, and wonderful Japanese condiment called miso.

The post What is Miso? Introducing a Longevity Food of the Blue Zones appeared on Stillness in the Storm.

Virtual Congressional Briefing: Natural Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020

Time: 1:00 PM – 1:30 PM EDT

Did you know that U.S. law prevents the free flow of scientifically supported information about treating and preventing COVID-19 with natural medicine?

Join Dr. Brownstein and the Alliance for Natural Health USA for a Congressional briefing to learn about natural health protocols for COVID-19 and how our current healthcare system blocks access to this critical information.

Register for the briefing

About David Brownstein, M.D.

Dr. Brownstein has practiced holistic medicine for 12 years and is well respected by prominent health organizations across the United States and Australia. Dr. Brownstein specializes in the use of vitamins, minerals, herbs and natural hormones, and also utilizes applied kinesiology, acupuncture and nutritional therapies in his practice. He is a member of the American College for the Advancement in Medicine, is active in numerous holistic organizations, and has lectured internationally about his success with using natural therapies. Dr. Brownstein is the author of several books including The Miracle of Natural Hormones, Overcoming Arthritis, Overcoming Thyroid Disorders, and Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It.

About The Alliance for Natural Health USA

The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) is part of an international organization dedicated to promoting sustainable health and freedom of choice in healthcare through good science and good law. They protect the right of natural-health practitioners to practice and the right of consumers to choose the healthcare options they prefer.

Since 1992, they have worked to shift the medical paradigm from an exclusive focus on surgery, drugs, and other conventional techniques to an integrative approach incorporating functional foods, dietary supplements, and lifestyle changes. They believe this is the way to improve health and extend lives while reducing the costs of healthcare back to a sustainable level.

For more information, visit the Alliance for Natural Health USA website.

COVID: Going to the root of the poisonous tree

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Before I jump in, I want to point to a film that hacks away the leaves, the branches, the trunk and the roots of the poisonous tree of vaccination all at once: VAXXED II, directed by Brian Burrowes. I urge you to watch it. “Urge” is too light a word. What is coming down the pipeline at us, in terms of attempts at vaccine mandates…this film will only strengthen your resolve, even if you’re quite sure you don’t need strengthening. The film contains many interviews with parents of vaccine-devastated children, and the children are there, too. The children who have died are there as well. Nobody has ever made a film like this.

We DO need to drill down to the roots of the poisonous tree.

Some people make this calculation: “I don’t want my view of COVID to appear too radical. That would drive the audience away. So I’ll cut myself off at a certain point and try to give the audience pieces of the puzzle they can digest…”

For example, they would assert: “I’m not against vaccines. I just want to make them safer.”

They would say: “We have to agree there is a new virus spreading around the world. If we don’t, people will reject everything we say. So let’s focus on whether the virus is as dangerous as health officials claim it is.”

They would say: “We have to accept official case numbers as a starting point, even if untold numbers of people are being diagnosed with COVID by a casual glance at their symptoms, and even if the tests are inaccurate…”

Bit by bit, and piece by piece, people would be accepting the official COVID story, until there is very little to argue about.

Let’s take the issue of safer vaccines. How are they going to be made safer? Manufacturers are going to throw in the towel and just eliminate the toxic adjuvants? They’ll eliminate the injected germs which are the very basis of the exercise? They’ll make vaccines in outer space, where, hopefully, contamination with random viruses would be avoided? The synthetic genes they insert in the body will magically refrain from creating many horrendous ripple-effects?

Deeper still, why do immune systems need a “rehearsal for the real thing”—which is the foundational hypothesis underlying vaccination. Nature isn’t sufficient? We must fight off every conceivable germ with a shot in the arm?

Why not try to improve the strength of immune systems through non-medical means? Nutrition, for instance, was the key reason for the historical decline of traditional diseases. Along with improved sanitation.

“No, let’s not go there. Too many people will reject us if we reject vaccines.”

I beg to differ. We are in a long-term war against the medical cartel. It’s not going away. Think ten thousand years into the future. That’s a reasonable estimate of the length of the battle.

“Look, I know there are serious questions about the original discovery of the COVID virus. Maybe the researchers didn’t use the proper procedures. But let’s not awaken that sleeping giant. Too many people won’t be able to fathom what we’re talking about. It’s too far out. Then they’ll reject everything else we’re saying.”

Yes? And? So? Sooner or later we’re going to have to bring up the subject. Because this isn’t the only time “discovery” was faked. And it won’t be the last. So let’s jump in now. Don’t stint. Don’t hold back. Go to the root.

I think of my good friend and colleague, Robert Scott Bell. Go to his site, robertscottbell.com. Listen to his radio show. He’s been on the front lines of health for more than 20 years. Every day. He dives deep. He never lets people forget that the terrain vs. the germ is still one of the most important debates in human history. Are germs the basic problem, or is the overall condition of the body and its ability to remain vibrant and resilient the paramount factor?

That argument has been largely forgotten, even in the natural health community. Why? Because over time, too many people have said, “Oh, we can’t bring THAT up. It’s too radical for the masses.”

So now those “natural people” are wearing masks and fear the virus.

—Thus proving you can accept every “natural” slogan coming down the pipeline and still buy counterfeit science.

The issue isn’t the content of slogans. It’s the acceptance of any gross shortcuts that seek to avoid the need to do something called THINKING.

“Oh. But we must have slogans. People are too dim to figure out matters on their own.”

Good luck with that notion. Do you really believe you can win a long-term war, AT THE ROOT, by engaging in a contest of slogans? That’s like saying the failure to teach basic literacy in schools stems from older computers. We need better computers in classrooms. Idiot’s delight, brought to you by Bill Gates.

A ten-thousand-year war. Don’t shrink away from it.

Here’s an historical example of root vs. compromise. It’s called pellagra.

Among the symptoms: Large scaly sores. Huge areas of red inflamed skin. Diarrhea. Weakness. Loss of appetite. Abdominal pain.

In the early 20th century, several million people in the American South suffered from it. Public health officials asserted the cause was a germ.

The question was, which germ? A prestigious government commission was appointed to find the answer.

At the time, there were people who suspected a germ wasn’t the cause, but they kept their mouths shut, in part because they thought they couldn’t sell the idea. It was too radical. Better to argue about whether quarantines would work. Better to argue about whether case clusters were a fertile area for research. Better to argue about whether the germ might be carried in corn, across farms. Better to argue about unique weather conditions in the South, where the disease was concentrated. Argue about anything other than the existence of a germ as the causative agent.

Flash forward THIRTY YEARS. After fighting their own war, a few researchers correctly convinced the medical world that pellagra was the result of a niacin deficiency.

There was no germ. It didn’t exist. It was a pompous assumption, championed by arrogant scientists, who wanted to own the territory of disease research.

What if the few dissenting investigators, who endured three decades of utter rejection by the establishment, had decided, “Well, we can’t claim there’s no germ involved at all. That would be too much. We can’t go that far. We can’t go to the root. Let’s debate about the weather, the case clusters, the corn fields—issues where we can make a stand, where we can have an effect…”


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Study: Consuming This Kind of Drink is Shortening Your Life

There are many “secrets” to leading a long and healthy life (though they aren’t really secrets). One of them – which I’m sure you’ve heard time and time again – is to limit sugar intake (especially added sugars). One of the best ways to do that is to cut down on sugary, health-hazardous beverages.

According to numerous pieces of research, any sugar-sweetened drink can cut years off of your life, including sports drinks, fruit drinks, and energy drinks. Just because there is a picture of fruit on the label doesn’t mean it’s safe for consumption.

And, as you will see, just because you see the word “diet” on the label, you shouldn’t assume that means “healthier.”

Read: Avoid These Drinks to Help Prevent Brain Shrinkage, Dementia, and Strokes

Findings of a Recent Study

To look for a potential link between sugary drink consumption and early death, researchers analyzed information from more than 80,000 women and 37,000 men in the health profession and followed the participants for about 30 years. Each participant was asked to complete a survey about their diet every 4 years, and they answered questions about their lifestyle and overall health every 2 years.

The more sugary drinks a participant consumed, the greater their risk of death was during the study period.

  • Those who consumed 2-6 sugary drinks per week were 6% more likely to die during the study period, compared to those who drank less than 1 sugary drink per month.
  • People who drank 1-2 sugary beverages per day were 14% more likely to die during the study period, compared to those who drank less than 1 sugar-sweetened drink per month.

The findings remained unchanged after researchers accounted for other risk factors for early death and disease, including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity levels, and consumption of fruit and vegetables, and red meat.

In a statement, lead study author Vasanti Malik, a research scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Department of Nutrition, said:

“Our results provide further support to limit intake of SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) and to replace them with other beverages, preferably water, to improve overall health and longevity.”

Strong Link to Heart Disease

In the study, sugary beverage consumption was particularly strongly linked with an increased risk of death from heart disease. Participants who drank 2 or more sugary drinks per day had a 31% higher risk of early death from heart disease, compared to those who imbibed infrequently.

Dr. Walter Willett, study co-author and a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the same institution, said:

“These findings are consistent with the known adverse effects of high sugar intake on metabolic risk factors; and the strong evidence that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages increased the risk of Type 2 diabetes, itself a major risk factor for early death.”

Read: Soda Consumption Tied to Increased Coronary Heart Disease Risk

Another Main Cause: Cancer

The second main cause of early death in the study was cancer, primarily of the colon and breast. [2]

Another important takeaway from the study was the finding that diet drinks may not necessarily be safer alternatives to sugar-sweetened beverages. Women who consumed 4 or more servings of artificially-sweetened drinks per day had an increased risk of early death. [1]

Compared with women who drank sugary beverages less than once a month, women who had more than 2 servings a day had a 63% increased risk of early death. Men who did the same had a 29% increased risk. [2]

That doesn’t necessarily mean that diet drinks directly caused early death in those people; it may be that people with known heart disease risks switched to diet drinks because of their existing health conditions.

Read: Poor Diet Caused Nearly Half of All Deaths in the U.S. in 2012

The team said that more research is needed to better examine the link between high diet beverage consumption and heart disease. Another important thing to note is that the study revolved around surveys and self-reporting – which is a method notoriously-known for its inaccuracies.[1]

The study is published in the journal Circulation.

Sources:

[1] Live Science

[2] CNN