This article is from Greenmedinfo.com, printed here with their permission. It was written by Larry Malerba, DO, DHt, a classical homeopath, osteopathic physician. For more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here.
Is the FDA acting out of malicious intent or willful ignorance in publishing a new draft guidance on homeopathics which would effectively treat them like pharmaceutical drugs, with similar regulatory requirements?
--> High Quality CBD Our friends at PuraThrive worked with industry experts to create one of the most bioavailable CBD extracts possible. Get yours today before it runs out. Click here to learn more.
FDA’s Regulatory Overreach Reflects Poor Understanding of Homeopathy
When FDA announced a “draft guidance” in December 2017 stating its latest intentions regarding the regulation of homeopathic products, it became clear that the agency had paid little attention to the concerns of the homeopathic community of practitioners, consumers, patients, and manufacturers. It turns out that the FDA’s public hearing held in 2015—during which numerous representatives of homeopathic interests from across the U.S and around the globe gave overwhelmingly positive testimony as to the safety, efficacy, and unique nature of homeopathic medicines—was just a pretense designed to give the appearance that it was taking the public’s concerns into account.
Hiding behind rhetoric emphasizing concerns for the safety of consumers—“FDA is proposing a new, risk-based enforcement approach to homeopathic drug products that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients”—FDA is intending to launch a two-pronged initiative that exaggerates the risks associated with homeopathic products and denies the existing evidence in support of their safety and effectiveness.
Regarding the Safety of Homeopathic Medicines
FDA has chosen to use a very small number of unsubstantiated accounts of adverse events supposedly associated with homeopathic products in order to justify overregulation of the industry as a whole. Failing to acknowledge that the current regulatory framework, Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 (adopted in 1988), is more than sufficient to accomplish its stated goal of protecting the public from potential harm, FDA appears bent on tearing that policy down in favor of either a new and unnecessarily stringent policy or no replacement policy at all.
No policy at all would likely result in confusion about FDA’s expectations of homeopathic manufacturers and could provide opportunity for FDA to exploit the lack of clear regulatory bounds. Ronald Whitmont, MD, President of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH), echoes this sentiment:
“What is clear is that FDA has ignored the homeopathic community’s requests to update this guidance. By withdrawing CPG 400.400 the FDA is removing the only clear guidelines that have served to help the FDA, the homeopathic manufacturers, and the public to understand the policies surrounding the marketing and labeling of homeopathic products.
The AIH is very concerned that the withdrawal of this document will create a situation where anything can be labeled “homeopathic” and muddy the waters around what actually is homeopathic. The AIH is also concerned that withdrawal of the guidance would allow the FDA to act capriciously and to interpret the new guidelines more broadly than they should be.
If the FDA is unhappy with the current CPG 400.400 we advise that they amend it to make it a better, more comprehensive guideline, not one with less clear instructions that could result in abuses from both manufacturers and regulators. Only the public will suffer when this happens.”
I have written previously about FDA’s trumped-up scare tactics regarding homeopathic teething tablets. For decades, homeopathic medicines have been subject to unrelenting criticism from mainstream science and conventional medicine. Critics contend that the quantities of ingredients used are too small to have any physiological effects and, all observed effects must, therefore, be written off as placebo effects. In other words, the predominating belief is that homeopathic doses are too small to be of any health concern.
Astonishingly, we are witnessing a suspicious about-face whereby homeopathic medicines have apparently morphed overnight in the minds of FDA officials from useless placebos to dangerous toxins. Although the scientific community is talking out of both sides of its mouth, it can’t have it both ways. Truth be told, any qualified homeopathic doctor will tell you that neither assertion is the case. While homeopathic medicines are clearly not placebos, they are also nothing like conventional pharmaceuticals.
Homeopathic medicines are in a class completely on their own, which is why when homeopathic physician and New York State Senator, Royal Copeland, MD, sponsored legislation creating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, it was abundantly clear to the U.S. Congress that homeopathic products did not pose a risk and did not warrant the type of scrutiny that the modern-day FDA now claims it deserves.
Although the safety profiles of homeopathic medicines are unparalleled, FDA wants you to believe otherwise. A handful of isolated and unproven cases of seizures supposedly caused by homeopathic Belladonna elicited a “warning against the use” of teething tablets and a thorough review of FDA’s oversight of the entire homeopathic industry.
By contrast, here is a list of 200 drugs admittedly known to be able to produce seizures as possible side effects. I don’t see FDA clamoring to warn people against using these drugs. And I certainly don’t see them undertaking an audit of the entire pharmaceutical industry. When the safety of homeopathic products is compared against the track records of almost all conventional pharmaceuticals, FDA’s egregious double standard becomes unavoidably apparent.
If you understand homeopathy and you’ve seen it work, you know that safety is a virtual non-issue. If a remedy is manufactured according to standards of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), there is no reason for concern and no need for FDA to think it would need greater oversight. Therefore, the only way a homeopathic medicine can cause harm is if it has been manufactured recklessly in a manner that does not follow proper protocol. A properly made homeopathic dilution, by definition, cannot be toxic because the degree of dilution is too great. For FDA to believe otherwise is unscientific and disingenuous.
Another completely specious contention that FDA makes in its draft guidance is that homeopathic treatment “may cause users to delay or discontinue medical treatments that have been found safe and effective.” This is a classic anti-homeopathy activist talking point, one that makes a number of bogus assumptions, and one that is inherently defamatory of the homeopathic medical profession. It implies that homeopathic treatment is inferior, that it does not constitute safe and effective treatment, and that turning to conventional allopathic drug therapy is always the superior, safe, and effective thing to do.
There is no possible justification for such a statement given that one Johns Hopkins study concluded that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., a number that represents more than 250,000 deaths per year. And FDA wants to ratchet up regulation of homeopathy due to a few uncorroborated case of seizures from one homeopathic product? Something smells very fishy, indeed.
The Homeopathic Industry Agrees That Safety Standards Are Needed
Now, it is true that unscrupulous parties have been known to market so-called homeopathic products that don’t follow proper manufacturing guidelines as set out by the HPUS or don’t adhere to “current good manufacturing practices” (cGMP). If and when that happens, FDA already has the regulatory authority to effectively handle such infractions. As such, there is no need to make any changes in regulatory policies regarding homeopathic products. Nevertheless, FDA appears ready to jump the shark, giving the clear but erroneous impression that homeopathic products have suddenly become a safety concern.
The homeopathic industry does not disagree with FDA regarding the need for safety standards. However, it objects to the need for revised standards that place homeopathic products at risk for overzealous and punitive regulatory actions. Current FDA policy as stated in Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 is both adequate and effective. Eric L. Foxman, R.Ph., Secretary of the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists, is rightfully concerned, and has this to say about FDA’s proposed actions:
“In its apparent zeal to address problematic products, the FDA has decided to do away with the existing regulatory framework under which the industry and the agency have worked together for over 25 years. This is poorly considered and ill advised. In fact, without some of the aspects of the existing Compliance Policy Guide, many more problematic homeopathic products could conceivably be brought to market. This could lead to the marketing of more adulterated, misbranded or fraudulent products masquerading as homeopathic. That would be an abdication of FDA’s role as a public heath agency, and would be a giant step backwards for homeopathy and, especially, the American consumer.”
Although the homeopathic manufacturing industry has tried to maintain a good faith relationship with FDA, the agency, in my opinion, has not acted in kind. Historically speaking, the two parties once did have a good working relationship, but this has not been the case for decades.
Regarding the Purported Lack of Evidence in Support of Homeopathy
FDA’s announcement and its new draft guidance statement make repeated references to the “unproven” nature of homeopathic medicines. Emboldened by another agency that also has little knowledge of homeopathic medicines, FDA makes reference to FTC’s claim that, “companies must have competent and reliable scientific evidence for health-related claims, including claims that a product can treat specific conditions.”
Here, in direct violation of the spirit of an act of Congress that created the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the modern FDA appears to be setting the stage for the possibility of removing the special status of homeopathic medicines. This would give them the same status as conventional drugs, potentially subjecting them to the same regulatory approval process.
This would likely bankrupt the industry, since homeopathic drugs would not be able to command the same outlandish prices that conventional pharmaceuticals have used to gouge the public and to pay for the exorbitant costs of the drug approval process. It amounts to a form of organized governmental crime that only the most obscenely wealthy companies can afford.
(I would like to make clear that this is not the opinion of the homeopathic manufacturers. They do not interpret FDA’s intent in the same conspiratorial way as do I and some others. They are of the opinion that FDA is looking to do its job to protect the public, and not out to undermine homeopathy. It is also important to note that while FDA’s actions could impact the manufacture and marketing of certain homeopathic products, it has no jurisdiction over those who practice homeopathic medicine.)
This brings us to the critically important issue of what it is that actually constitutes scientific evidence. First and foremost, I must state with unequivocal certainty that any claim that there is a lack of research evidence to support homeopathy is an absolute falsehood. Those who make such claims are either deliberately lying, are repeating bogus talking points that they have read or heard elsewhere, or do so out of pure ignorance. There are literally thousands of research trials, many of which shine favorably upon homeopathy. To examine the evidence and then deny its existence is to be deliberately obtuse.
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann developed his system of treatment by similars 200 years ago by studying the effects of his diluted medicines on healthy test subjects. FDA acknowledges this methodology, which Hahnemann called “proving.” It is an inherently safe process that involves using highly diluted medicines that are incapable of producing toxic effects. Diluted medicines are made, they are proven on test subjects, and the resulting information is used as a guide to treat people with symptoms that match the symptom patterns of the remedy provings. There is good reason to believe that it was Hahnemann himself who conducted the very first placebo-controlled, blinded research trials.
In addition to provings and modern research trials, homeopathy also has a vast body of clinical literature that dates back 200 years. Included in the literature, which was written almost exclusively by experienced physicians, are thousands upon thousands of clinical case studies. Physicians painstakingly documented the patients they encountered, the symptomatic presentation of their complaints, the remedies administered to them, and the short and long term outcomes of treatment. This process continues to this day, with countless case histories having been published in numerous international homeopathic journals both new and old.
What happens when we try to evaluate homeopathic products according to conventional pharmaceutical research standards? What all homeopathic practitioners understand—and FDA does not—is that successful homeopathic treatment is critically dependent upon context. It is not possible to get reliable results by choosing a target symptom or two to treat in isolation from all other symptoms of the patient. This type of symptomatic focus is the very thing that defines allopathic medicine. In contrast to a conventional cough suppressant drug, for example, there is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy that can be used to treat coughs in general. Each cough is unique and must be treated accordingly.
For example, Drosera is a well-known remedy for coughs of a specific type. It is especially suited to violent coughing paroxysms that can result in vomiting and even nosebleeds. The attacks are more likely to flare up after midnight. Pulsatilla, on the other hand, suits coughs that are much less aggressive. The cough gets worse when lying down, forcing the person to sit up to get relief. The person who needs Pulsatilla also complains of feeling worse in a warm room, needs fresh air to feel better, and experiences a noticeable decrease in thirst. Spongia is a remedy suited for hoarse, dry coughs. There is often tickling in the throat, which can be quieted by drinking warm drinks.
This is just a small sample of potential homeopathic cough remedies and their unique characteristics. While these types of details have little to no bearing on conventional drug therapy choices, they are crucial factors that determine successful homeopathic prescriptions.
Now imagine what would happen if FDA required a study to “prove” the value of Drosera in treating coughs. Of 100 test subjects, how many do you think would fit the criteria to justify a prescription of this particular homeopathic medicine? Very few, indeed. How long would it take to find 100 test subjects that do have symptom patterns that match Drosera? I suspect it would take years even under the best of circumstances.
Furthermore, although Pulsatilla is well-indicated for certain types of coughs, it can also be used it to successfully treat a wide spectrum of health problems, including hot flashes, ear infections, gallbladder attacks, eczema, depression, and many more. Unlike most pharmaceutical drugs, homeopathic medicines do not have single indications. They have many uses. This basic truth adds even further confusion to FDA’s already poor understanding of homeopathic products.
So when FDA demands proof of homeopathic effectiveness according to conventional medical standards, the deck is already stacked against any prospect of success. Conventional drug trials are very poorly suited to understanding the benefits of homeopathic medicines. Each homeopathic medicine has many potential therapeutic indications, and there are many potential homeopathic remedies that can help the various individuals diagnosed with the same illness.
The irony here is that FDA requires a homeopathic label to include a specific indication for its use, and then asks for proof that it can help that condition. FDA is under the false impression that it can treat homeopathic products as if they are no different from allopathic drugs. Furthermore, FDA’s latest draft guidance states the following:
Generally, a drug, including a homeopathic drug, is considered a “new drug” if it is not generally recognized as safe and effective (GRAS/E) by qualified experts for use under the conditions prescribed.
Although this guidance clearly implies that FDA should consult qualified experts when making judgments regarding homeopathic medicines and their uses, there are no such experts on FDA’s staff. Neither does FDA have any ongoing official working relationships with outside experts in spite of requests from the homeopathic community that FDA fulfill this obligation. FDA lives in an allopathic bubble with no conception of the true nature of homeopathic products, how they work, or how they should be regarded. It is clear that FDA just doesn’t get it; it has little understanding of how homeopathy works or how it should be evaluated.
There are only two plausible explanations for FDA’s misguided attitude toward homeopathy. One is that it is acting with malicious intent to undermine the homeopathic industry, and to subvert an act of Congress, in which case it would not be far-fetched to assume that they are being encouraged to do so by Big Pharma, which is the one party that stands the most to gain from this fiasco. Given FDA’s multiple references to the recent growth of the homeopathic market, this is not an unreasonable conclusion.
The other explanation is that FDA is acting out of willful ignorance. They act like they are listening but their minds are closed. Notwithstanding the possibility of good intentions to guard the public safety, FDA’s actions reveal that it has a very poor grasp of homeopathy, and it does not seem interested in learning from true homeopathic experts.
So what is the best way to study the effects of homeopathic medicines? In terms of conventional research methodology, the protocol most suited to studying homeopathy is one that treats each individual according to his or her unique symptom pattern. It would involve treating a particular disease category, such as ear infections for example, with as many different remedies as are needed to treat the various individuals involved in the study. Each case of ear infection would receive the single remedy that best matches its symptomatic expression. It might require 10, 15, 20 or more different remedies in order to properly treat all of of kids in the study. Of course, this does not satisfy FDA’s conception of a properly conducted research trial. Nevertheless, it is the only way to give homeopathy a fair shake.
As far as homeopaths are concerned, the types of evidence best suited to homeopathy are provings and case studies as previously described. Ironically, and perhaps conveniently for disbelievers, this is the type of evidence that modern medicine now derisively calls “anecdotal.” Medical science has devolved to a point where it trusts the statistical trickery of research trials that evaluate only a few limited parameters (such as the ability to suppress a cough) more than it trusts the first-hand experiences of patients and their doctors (case studies).
Modern standards of medical evidence are badly out of kilter. The first step in rectifying the imbalance will be for medicine to acknowledge the truth of the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy and the many lessons that it has to teach about health and healing.
We Must Continue to Stand for Freedom of Medical Choice
Here’s what you can do…
1. One way to help right now is to submit positive comments (not criticisms of FDA) to FDA in support of homeopathy. Tell FDA that its current regulatory guidelines (Compliance Policy Guide 400.400) for homeopathic products are more than adequate and that any further changes place your right to choose in jeopardy. The period for public comment before FDA makes its final decisions about this critically important policy closes on March 20, 2018. (Comment here)
2. The Homeopathic Pharmacists of the United States also urge those who live in certain states (CO, NM, PA, TN, WA, UT) to urge their legislators to tell FDA not to scrap the current guidelines regarding the regulation of homeopathic products. All you have to do is sign your name to the letter. Even better if you add your own personal story of homeopathic success. (Take Action Here)
About the author:
Larry Malerba, DO, DHt is a classical homeopath, osteopathic physician, and educator whose mission is to build bridges between holistic healing, conventional medicine, and spirituality. He is the author of Green Medicine and Metaphysics & Medicine. His new book, Dynamic Medicine: The World According to Homeopathy, offers an insightful introduction to the best kept secret in the holistic health world. Dr. Malerba is board certified in Homeotherapeutics and past president of the Homeopathic Medical Society of the State of New York.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
How A Nasal Obstruction & Tongue Tie Affects Sleep, Learning, Attention and Mood
- The Facts:
When breathing isn’t proper, many things can go wrong. Some nasal obstruction symptoms include mouth breathing, low energy, chewing with the mouth open, teeth grinding, and sleep apnea.
- Reflect On:
Do you or a loved one have a nasal obstruction and/or tongue tie?
Has your child gone down every treatment and therapy route with little success? Could it be that all the doctors and therapists you have previously consulted with missed this? Absolutely, Yes! Both my children had multiple tongue ties and an airway obstruction that contributed to learning difficulty, speech problems, ADHD, sleep disturbances, and mood issues.
Sadly, emotional, social, and physical impairments are all too common. Nearly one in 12 children ages 3–17 have a disorder related to voice, speech, language, feeding, or swallowing. Almost one in 10 children have ADHD. One in six children has a developmental disability. One in two-hundred children has an intellectual disability. Up to 50% of children will experience a sleep problem, which can lead to daytime sleepiness, irritability, behavioral problems, learning difficulties, and poor academic performance.
Airway Obstruction – Poor Nasal Breathing
When breathing isn’t proper, many things can go wrong. Breathing through the nose is essential. It filters the air going into your lungs and regulates the amount of air that comes into the body. Breathing correctly through the nose allows the body to take in the proper amount of oxygen, the body and brain needs. Getting enough oxygen helps to calm the mind and increase our energy level. The nose also houses olfactory bulbs, which are direct extensions of part of the brain called the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is responsible for many functions in our body, including generating neurotransmitters that influence memory and emotion.
Some nasal obstruction symptoms include mouth breathing, low energy, chewing with the mouth open, teeth grinding, and sleep apnea. Other symptoms are a forward head posture, a tongue that rests on the bottom of the mouth, snoring, memory problems, coughing during sleep, daytime fatigue, weight problems, hyperactivity, and trouble concentrating. Sleep Disordered Breathing is one potential root cause of poor growth, development impairments, a lower intellect, poor cognition, affecting school performance, and more.
In the Journal of Sleep, “Studies show that nasal obstruction may dramatically affect breathing in sleep, and consequentially daytime vigilance and behavior.”
There is an interesting phenomenon when the airway is blocked. The body will overcompensate by increasing the adrenaline (fight or flight) in the body to stimulate breathing and open up nasal passages. This increased adrenaline can cause a child to feel very anxious, angry, hyper, and unfocused. In adults, this can lead to hypertension, heart attacks, strokes, fatigue, and more. Many go undiagnosed for years. Doctors may miss a diagnosis because the obstruction is more pronounced during sleep. And, sometimes, we believe our allergies are causing our congestion alone. When, in fact, there is an obstruction affecting our breathing.
What Causes a Nasal Obstruction?
There are many possible causes of nasal airway obstruction. Deformities or irregularities are primarily genetic unless there is an injury to the nose. A trained Ear, Nose, and Throat doctor (ENT) or a Functional Dentist can do a CT scan to determine if there is a problem. Such issues are narrow mouth pallet, a septal deviation, a collapsed nostril, enlarged bone/tissue turbinates, or a sizeable egg-like air sac in the nose. Nasal congestion can also be due to a condition called vasomotor rhinitis (VMR). Without an allergy present, excessive blood flow causes congestion in the nose. The ENT will also look for large adenoids, allergies, and nasal polyps, causing an obstruction. Typically, a person with a blockage has multiple factors at play.
Treatment Options Depending on Causation
- Pallet expansion
- Adenoids and Tonsil removal (typically the first and possibly only thing we did in hopes of correcting sleep disturbances – before the medical community recognized the many other possible causes)
- Aggressive and more invasive nasal surgery (cure rate is not too high)
- Minimally invasive surgical procedure called MIST (minimally invasive sinus technique)
Initially introduced in the 1990s, MIST revolutionized nasal surgery. It takes less than an hour to complete by an experienced surgeon. There are no incisions, scars, or nasal packing. Discomfort is minimal and has a higher success rate than the older methods.
Tongue or Lip Tie
A tongue or lip-tie affects up to 11% of all newborns. According to the 2017 Cochrane review, and it is often overlooked. This condition restricts the range of motion in a baby’s tongue. It presents as a concise and thick band of tissue that tethers the bottom of the tongue’s tip to the roof of the mouth. A tongue-tie or lip-tie may interfere with breastfeeding, speech, eating, swallowing, and the jaw’s oral motor development. Some of the risk factors for developing a tie in utero are often genetic. However, smoking and alcohol use, medication, chemicals, viral infections, methylation issues, and chronic stress may also cause it. A surgical procedure is sometimes required. However, some ties can be resolved with chiropractic manipulation, myofascial release, or exercises alone. An early indication of a tongue or lip tie is the inability to latch on a bottle or breastfeed. A child may appear to latch correctly, and so the condition is not discovered. However, if your child suffers from colic, sleep disturbances, excessive drooling, or spitting up, this may be the cause. Allopathic physicians may insist that the child has an aversion to the breast milk or that you are eating something too gassy. Synthetic formula and Prevacid or other antacid is often prescribed without checking for this condition.
Suppose you or your child is struggling and are exhibiting any signs of an obstruction or tongue tie. In that case, I encourage you to explore it with your ENT or functional dentist before resorting to medication. If you would like more info on how you and your family can overcome anxiety, I am offering a FREE downloadable PDF of an online presentation I recently gave containing these tips and much more. Learn why eating protein is essential and why microbiome diversity is critical. SIGN UP HERE to receive your free download today. And to purchase my award-winning book Healing Without Hurting, click here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
COVID-19 Survival Rates Have Many Scientists/Doctors Questioning Masks & Lockdown
- The Facts:
All restrictions on restaurants and other business in Florida have been lifted, and so have local fines against people who refuse to wear masks after the CDC released new survival rates.
- Reflect On:
Why are opinions and narratives that oppose the WHO being censored, ridiculed, and largely ignored? Why aren't they discussed openly and transparently?
What Happened: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently lifted all restrictions on restaurants and other business in Florida and banned local fines against people who refuse to wear masks. He did so after showing new statistics just released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showing very high survival rates, as you can see from the picture picture above. The CDC has a page on their website titled “Covid-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.” According to them, “Each scenario is based on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 illness, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These values—called parameter values—can be used in models to estimate the possible effects of COVID-19 in U.S. states and localities. That’s where the numbers come from.
Questioning Lockdown & Masks, A Theme From The Very Beginning: The world’s leading scientists in the field and from other fields have been questioning lockdown measures from the very beginning of this pandemic, due to the fact that many of them believe and have believed that we are dealing with a virus similar, and even less severe than viruses that have been circling the globe for decades, infecting hundreds of millions and killings tens of millions of people every single year.
For example, did you know that metapneumovirus has been shown to have worldwide circulation with nearly universal infection by age 5? Did you know that outbreaks of metapneumovirus have been well documented every single year, especially in long term care facilities with mortality rates of up to 50%? () Did you know that human metapneumovirus infection results in a large number of hospitalizations of children every single year? Did you know it has a substantial morbidity rate, again in the elderly, but also among children as well? Did you know nearly 1-2 million children every single year die of these types of respiratory illnesses because they lead to acute respiratory illness? (source)
At the beginning of the pandemic, multiple professors from Stanford criticized the World Health Organization for creating unnecessary fear and hysteria.
They make it quite clear that if the projections being given by the World Health Organization are correct, then “the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified.” But they also make the point that “there’s little evidence to confirm that premise – and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.” It turns out that they were right.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology, recently published an article entitled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.“ In the article, he also argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate.
He stated that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. He was right. Prior to the recent CDC update, he emphasized that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old.
Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus. This is another strong point, why are/were social media outlets censoring information and opinions that did not match that which was given by the WHO? These actions have only raised more eyebrows, as we now have a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker”
patrolling the internet.
Almost all of the science we were hearing, for example like organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) was wrong…This has been a disgraceful situation for science..Reports were released openly, shared by email, and all I got back was abuse. And you got to see that everything I said in that first six weeks was actually true and for political reasons, we as scientists let our views be corrupted. The data had very clear things to say. Nobody said to be “let me check your numbers” they all just said “stop talking like that.” – Levitt
When Dr. Ron Paul shared his opinion a few months ago that “People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic” he was censored and marked as false news, having his social media distribution limited.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, expressing the same sentiment. They came together to investigate the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are justified and not causing more harm than good.
You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.
This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.” To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it. You can read more about the story here.
Another example would be a recent report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
Are masks even effective? Many studies claim yes, but many also claim no.
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.
And there is the issue of exaggerated death counts. For example, Toronto Public Health tweeted in late June that “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19, are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” There are multiple examples from different countries. You can read more about that here.
Vittorio Sgarbi, Italian politician Mayor of Sutri, gave an emotional speech at a hearing on the 24th of April where he emphasized that the number of deaths in Italy due to COVID-19 are completely false and that the people are being lied to. You can watch that and read more about it here.
A chemistry professor at the University of Waterloo has distributed a course outline to students, saying his in-class exams aren’t mandatory “because of the COVID fake emergency.” Ronald B. Brown, Ph.D., from the School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo recently stated that the COVID-19 fatality rate is the “worst miscalculation in the history of humanity.” Brown is currently completing his second doctorate degree, this time in epidemiology at the University of Waterloo. Not long ago, Brown published a paper in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, titled “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.”
Below is a statement Brown recently gave to John C. A. Manley, a journalist who was the first to cover the story:
The subject of this article is disruptive, to say the least, although it is not as obvious from the title. The manuscript cites the smoking-gun, documented evidence showing that the public’s overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic was based on the worst miscalculation in the history of humanity, in my opinion. My manuscript underwent an intensive peer-review process. You are the first media guy who has responded to my invitation.
The examples above aren’t even the tip of the ice-berg, but they are ones I’ve used many times in previous articles. I am posting them above just to hammer home the point.
Why This Is Important: This information is important because it highlights that the measures we are being mandated & forced to take are being done using flawed data to justify it. What also has more people concerned is that the opinions and research of many doctors and scientists around the world, some of them quite renowned, are being banned and censored from social media platforms for simply contradicting the information given to us by the World Health Organization (WHO). Why are people like Julian Assange really in jail? Why are people exposing war crimes and other misdoings within the WHO, as Assange has, punished, and the ones committing the actual crimes are the ones we identify with? Should we not have the right to examine information openly and freely, and determine for ourselves what is and what isn’t? A common theme with regards to this pandemic seems to be using fear and hysteria to make the threat seem much greater than it actually is, and then to propose the solution. Perhaps Edward Snowden was right when he said that governments are using the coronavirus to take away more of our rights and freedoms, and they won’t come back, just as they didn’t come back after 9/11. Is there anybody politically and financially gaining from this pandemic? What’s going on here?
At the end of the day, we have to keep asking ourselves if our designated government and global health authorities actually have our best interests at hand. If not, why do we continue to support it?
There are many examples that show these institutions do not work to make humanity thrive, but instead oppress humanity. When it comes to the World Health Organization (WHO) for example, Wikileaks exposed how much they are influenced by pharmaceutical companies. Vimeo also recently completely banned a documentary that exposed the same thing. That particular documentary featured many scientists, doctors and even officials from within the WHO.
It’s quite clear to many that government doesn’t really put the citizens it claims to represent first, but instead corporations and big money. So why do we constantly listen to their advice? Why do we constantly rely on them for truth and information? Why do we rely on them for guidance? Would we not be better off determining for ourselves what is appropriate, especially in the face of such controversial times when so much is being exposed?
Is it time humanity becomes self-governed? Is it time we steep away from the need for such parental figures like government? It seems like we are currently in the process of doing this, with many of us beginning to awaken. Collectively, we will be creating a new world, that matches a consciousness of self-governance, and the key is to operate from a place of oneness and peace within, which is a journey of awakening to who we truly are, as opposed to what we have been taught to think. We are in a time of a consciousness renaissance.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’
- The Facts:
CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.
“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield
Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…”
Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here. The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Are Masks Effective?
Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.
When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.
Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
They are one of many who have emphasized this point.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.
Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.
How Effective Are Vaccines?
Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.
According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services. VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines..
In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.
According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.
It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.
Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19
Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence...
COVID-19 Survival Rates Have Many Scientists/Doctors Questioning Masks & Lockdown
What Happened: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently lifted all restrictions on restaurants and other business in Florida and banned local fines...