THE GREATEST MEDICINE OF ALL… IS TEACHING PEOPLE HOW NOT TO
NEED IT
The world is in the middle of a pandemic. The Corona virus
has become an enormous health problem that is now impacting the financial
markets and everyday life. I feel it is imperative that people make extra
effort to strengthen their immune system to better enable them to prevent
getting sick, and if you do get sick you are better able to minimize the effects
and damage the virus can cause especially to older people. There are some
simple things you can do to build your immune system and protect yourself.
Studies in China during the Corona pandemic have shown that a natural approach
is the most effective way to combat the Corona virus. Drugs have not been shown
to be effective to shorten or prevent the virus.
The supplements that Nancy and I take during the cold and
flu season, and what you may want to consider during this difficult time are:
·
4,000 to 10,000 mg Vitamin C per day divided
into 1,000 mg doses taken every two hours
·
4,000 to 10,000 mg Vitamin D3 per day
·
22 to 50 mg Zinc Picolinate per day
·
Olive Leaf Extract 750 mg once or twice daily
·
Whole Food Multivitamin
Of course we take other supplements like fish oil, curumin, Cardio-Plus, etc., but the ones above are the most important during cold season. I take a lower dosage of each daily and increase it to the
higher range when I feel like I need it or if I am feeling like I am coming
down with a cold. The sooner you start aggressively taking these supplements
when you feel something coming on, the more effective they are at preventing or
minimizing the effects of an illness. I believe these supplements will be a
great help for most people in the effort to build their immune system and be
healthy. I encourage you to consider doing something similar.
Published by GreenMedInfo LLC
A new study published in the prestigious journal Vaccine, a
peer-reviewed medical journal, published by Elsevier, titled Influenza
vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense
personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season, reveals that influenza
vaccination may increase the risk of infection from other respiratory viruses
-- a phenomenon known as virus interference.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate so-called “test
negative study designs,” which are used to calculate influenza vaccine
effectiveness without consideration for the effects the flu vaccine may have in
changing the risk of infection for other viruses which can cause respiratory
illness, which the authors point out may result in, “potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive
direction.” They elaborate further:
“The virus
interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative
vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of
infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine
effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to
investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among
Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status.
Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with
influenza vaccination were examined.”
The study results fly directly in the face of recent health
recommendations that one should get an influenza vaccine to protect against
Coronavirus-19.
According to the study, “vaccine
derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and
human metapneumovirus.” More specifically,
“Examining
non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human
metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when
compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively) (Table
5).”
That represents a 36% and 51% increased risk of coronavirus
and human metapneumovirus in influenza vaccinated individuals, respectively.
While the study did find there was significant protection
with flu vaccination against most influenza viruses, including also
parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections, previous research
raises red flags. A 2018 study published in PNAS found that receiving a flu
vaccination in the current and previous season may increase aerosol shedding of
flu particles 6.3 times more as compared with having no vaccination in those
two seasons.
Shanghai Government Officially Recommends Vitamin C for
COVID-19
Written By: Orthomolecular News Service
The government of Shanghai, China has announced its official
recommendation that COVID-19 should be treated with high amounts of intravenous
vitamin C. Dosage recommendations vary
with severity of illness, from 50 to 200 milligrams per kilogram body weight
per day to as much as 200 mg/kg/day.
These dosages are approximately 4,000 to 16,000 mg for an
adult, administered by IV. This specific method of administration is important,
says intravenous therapy expert Atsuo Yanagisawa, MD, PhD, because vitamin C's
effect is at least ten times more powerful by IV than if taken orally. Dr.
Yanagisawa is president of the Tokyo-based Japanese College of Intravenous
Therapy. He says, "Intravenous vitamin C is a safe, effective, and
broad-spectrum antiviral."
Richard Z. Cheng, MD, PhD, a Chinese-American specialist
physician, has been working closely with medical and governmental authorities
throughout China. He has been instrumental in facilitating at least three
Chinese clinical IV vitamin C studies now underway. Dr. Cheng is presently in
Shanghai continuing his efforts to encourage still more Chinese hospitals to
implement vitamin C therapy incorporating high oral doses as well as C by IV.
Dr. Cheng and Dr. Yanagisawa both also recommend oral
vitamin C for prevention of COVID-19 infection.
An official statement from Xi'an Jiaotong University Second
Hospital (2) reads:
"On the afternoon
of February 20, 2020, another 4 patients with severe new coronaviral pneumonia
recovered from the C10 West Ward of Tongji Hospital. In the past 8 patients
have been discharged from hospital. . . High-dose vitamin C achieved good
results in clinical applications. We believe that for patients with severe
neonatal pneumonia and critically ill patients, vitamin C treatment should be
initiated as soon as possible after admission. . .Early application of large
doses of vitamin C can have a strong antioxidant effect, reduce inflammatory
responses, and improve endothelial function. Numerous studies have shown that
the dose of vitamin C has a lot to do with the effect of treatment. . . High-dose
vitamin C can not only improve antiviral levels, but more importantly, can
prevent and treat acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress
(ARDS)."
Superbugs Are Gaining Ground, But A Natural Spice Is Found
To Be Effective Against Them
Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D.
You may have seen more cases of the dangerous and
potentially deadly methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—more commonly
known as MRSA—on the news lately. In fact, a healthy, high school wrestler in
Pennsylvania recently contracted it!
Of course, in the past, you only contracted this serious,
antibiotic-resistant superbug in a health care setting—like a hospital or
nursing home. But now, these dangerous bacteria are popping up just about
everywhere. Including schools and homes, where it can linger on surfaces for
months!
Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends
using antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizers to help protect ourselves. But as
I warned almost 20 years ago, these products actually promote the spread of
antibiotic-resistant superbugs!
First, let's back up and talk about the emergence of these
so-called superbugs and the reason why the CDC's so-called "solution"
will eventually cause more harm than good…
Antibacterial agents fuel the fire
You may think you need to constantly use
"antibacterial" soap or hand sanitizer to combat all those nasty
germs circulating around—especially at this time of year.
However, as I just mentioned, these agents actually
contribute to the proliferation of these dangerous, antibiotic-resistant
superbugs! I actually started warning people about this problem over two
decades ago. I even told a New York Times science writer I know, Gina Bari
Kolata, about it back in 2001 during an interview!
And here's how I came to that conclusion…
We already knew—even then—that antibiotic drugs had led to
the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. At the time, I called it
turning "magic bullets" into "friendly fire."
Remember, most antibiotics don't outright kill bacteria.
Instead, they simply prevent the bacteria from multiplying, allowing your
normal immune system to catch up, take over, and clear the infection. But over
time, something unexpected happened: The bacteria naturally adapted and grew
resistant to the antibiotics.
So—I simply made the next logical conclusion. If antibiotics
breed resistance through normal adaptation, then antibacterial agents would
also breed resistance and create some "super"-resistant superbugs.
Of course, when my comments appeared in the paper, the
old-line physicians with whom I worked at the College of Physicians in
Philadelphia chastised me. (Not long after, I finally "washed my
hands" of them and left that post.)
The sad fact is, these superbugs are a natural, inevitable,
and predictable consequence of the old, outdated "germ theory" of
disease.
That theory completely misses the importance of the
gastrointestinal (GI) microbiome, the environment in your gut where healthy
bacteria thrive. It also ignores the importance of "host factors,"
maintaining a healthy immune system and diet. Worse yet, the accepted treatment
for these superbugs—which involves prescribing even harsher
antibiotics—completely disrupts the microbiome and the immune system. Not to
mention, we will eventually run out of antibiotics strong enough to combat them
all!
Truthfully, the CDC helped create this nightmare and has
done very little to stop it. But, thankfully, some researchers do see the
potential to fend off bacteria using natural approaches...
5,000-year-old East Indian spice thwarts MRSA
New research shows that curcumin, which is the active
ingredient in the ancient East Indian spice turmeric, might help counter the
growing threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
For this new in vitro study, researchers treated four
different strains of MRSA in a laboratory with curcumin.
It turns out, the curcumin basically "disarmed"
MRSA in two key ways:
- It caused damage to the MRSA cell walls.
- It permeated the cell walls to damage the contents of the MRSA cells.
Together, these actions were enough to re-sensitize MRSA to
antibiotics. The study's authors concluded that curcumin appears to have a
"remarkable antibacterial effect."
Of course, as you may recall, curcumin has many other health
benefits as well. (Remember, unlike drugs, which are designed to work for only
one purpose, if at all…natural plant extracts typically work for a variety of
conditions.)
In fact, curcumin is commonly used as a potent
anti-inflammatory agent, together with boswellia and ashwagandha, in
high-quality joint supplements. And more recent research shows turmeric can
also protect the brain against dementia.
In my view, curcumin could also play an important role in
combating the superbug disaster. But only if the CDC finally wakes up to take
natural solutions seriously…
In the meantime, I strongly urge you to start supplementing
with curcumin year-round, starting today! I recommend 400 to 450 mg daily. And
to further bolster your immune system, you should also supplement with 10,000
IU of vitamin D daily.
Fake Health News
NOTE: The following
article is why I created the For Real Health blog. You can’t believe or depend
on what is reported in the media if you want to make good decisions about your
health. You have to look beyond the hype and get the real truth. That takes
time and a lot of effort, which most people can’t or won’t do. So I do it for
you. Dr. Micozzi is an M.D.-Ph.D. and he tells it like it really is. This new
study confirms what many have been saying about the spin by the media when it
comes to medical news reports.
BEWARE: Your Doctor May Rely On Inaccurate Reporting
Dr. Micozzi M.D.-Ph.D
I've been critical of "fake news" in mainstream
health reporting for a long time. These news stories often contain
"spin" and reflect biased reporting of scientific findings.
Often—they exaggerate the benefits of prescription drugs and
medical procedures, but downplay the benefits of simple, inexpensive, and
natural approaches.
So, I was pleased to see that a group of scientists recently
tackled this growing problem. In fact, they investigated how this
"spin" skews doctors' and patients' understanding of each topic.
I'll tell you all about that first-of-its-kind study in a
moment. But first, let's back up to talk about how we got to this point…
The problem with secondary sources
When you were in grade school, you may have learned about
the difference between primary and secondary sources used by historians (and
scientists). A primary source includes actual original data and evidence from
the historical era—such as diaries, speeches, and photographs.
Secondary sources, on the other hand, are one or more steps
removed from the original historical event. They include things like textbooks
or news articles that interpret the original evidence.
Well, we can use this same classification system in science…
A primary source is the actual scientific study that gets
published, with complete data and results, in a journal such as The New England
Journal of Medicine (NEJM). A secondary source is a reporter's interpretation
of the actual results of that NEJM study in, say, Time magazine.
Now, there are two problems here.
First, most individuals—including doctors—never read the
primary sources! In fact, according to a 2001 survey by the American Medical
Association, only 9 percent of practicing doctors actually read scientific
articles. Which means they rely on the mainstream reporters to get it
"right."
Which brings me to the second problem…
More and more news stories don't get it right.
Sometimes, the bad reporting stems from pure ignorance, as
reporters aren't always experts on a topic and, therefore, don't understand the
real science. Other times, the reporters are clearly pushing an agenda, so the
article contains "spin."
That's why I always go to the original data sources—the
scientific studies themselves—to get the information that I report to you. And
at the bottom of each of my Daily Dispatches and Insiders' Cures newsletters,
you'll find the original sources listed. So, you can always look them up
yourself—or share them with your doctor. (Chances are, they haven't seen the
original study or data.)
Sometimes, these two problems snowball into an even larger
issue—something called "fake news"—which I see in the mainstream
press. Often, it's an article bashing a dietary supplement. These articles
raise false alarms and steer people away from the safe and effective natural
approaches that really do work to prevent and reverse chronic diseases. But
when I dig into the actual study data, I usually find there's nothing to be
concerned about!
Thankfully, researchers with the University of Minnesota
used science to shed some light on the problem…
Study evaluates "spin" on readers
According to the researchers, this new study was the
first-ever randomized controlled clinical trial (RTC) to examine the effect of
"spin" on doctors and patients.
The researchers defined spin as:
·
The misrepresentation of study results—whether
deliberate or not. (Remember, many so-called "medical writers" don't
understand their topic.)
- An overemphasis of drug benefits, as compared to what the results actually demonstrated.
- An exaggeration of drug safety, as compared to what the results actually demonstrated.
Overall, when selecting the news stories, the researchers
found that 100 percent of the headlines contained spin. And 100 percent of the
articles exhibited "misleading" reporting.
So—they corrected half the articles by removing the spin and
more accurately reporting the study's findings without interpretation. And they
left the other half of the articles alone.
Then, they asked 900 randomly selected doctors and patients
to each read 10 news stories. And here's what they found:
More than 50 percent admitted to relying on news stories to
make decisions about their health.
Nearly 40 percent said they preferred online health news as
their primary source about new treatments.
After reading the pieces, the doctors and patients were
asked about the probability that a specific drug treatment would be beneficial
for patients. And they responded on a 10-point scale from likely to unlikely.
For all types of drug studies, when the article contained
spin, both doctors and patients were consistently almost 50 percent more likely
to believe a treatment would be beneficial and safe.
So, clearly, the "spin" works, which is why the
crony, corporatist, mainstream press keeps doing it.
The dangers of spin
In their report, the authors also referenced a previous
study that found nearly 90 percent of stories about medical studies on Google
Health had at least some type of spin—such as misleading reporting or
interpretation, omitting adverse events, suggesting animal study results apply
to humans, or claiming causation in studies that only reported associations.
A similar, prior study found that mainstream reports on
cancer screenings often exaggerate their benefits and ignore their
dangers—strongly influencing doctors' attitudes and recommendations. The real
data shows that routine, "recommended" screenings for most types of
cancer are useless and often dangerous.
Clearly, as this first-of-its-kind study shows, spin does
make a difference.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for educational
purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and
medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you
have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a
Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment