9.20.22: The STARS are DARK! ELECTRIC shock! Castle L@ck perfection! ENEMY in PANIC MODE! Surrender! PRAY!
The average person who finds out they have cancer is faced with a frightening number of decisions. Those of us who have been there, understand that standing at the precipice of a cliff is not only scary, it’s mind-numbing.
But don’t let the fear paralyze you. The first thing to do is to take a deep breath. Understand you’re likely in a state of shock. Recognize that while you’ll not want to put off treatment indefinitely, you do have time to learn about your options. Cancer is something that often takes years to develop, and it’s not likely to kill you next week.
I recently interviewed Dr. Michael Karlfeldt, ND, PhD, a brilliant naturopath who has successfully treated thousands of patients and guided them through the process of healing. He uses the analogy of a firefighter who is dealing with a burning building.
A naturopath like Dr. Karlfeldt will look for the fires first. What is causing the building to burn, i.e., what is driving the cancer? There are often many answers to this question. Are you exposed to a parasite, pathogen, or other toxin? Are certain foods you’re eating negatively impacting your immune system? What are the causes of the inflammatory markers and what are the numbers they show?
In other words, what is the root cause of your disease? Cancer didn’t just happen in a vacuum, there’s always an underlying cause.
What tests does a naturopath perform? It depends on the individual. Do you live in an old house with present mold? What kind of diet do you have? What other health issues do you have? What is your emotional state? Tests might include:
Much like firefighters, a naturopath will assist you in using the body’s natural ability to CLEAR the cause. Then he’ll bring in the construction crew to rebuild the body with basics like nutrition, vitamins, and supplements.
He’ll also utilize some of the most cutting-edge treatments available today. Some of the treatments Dr. Karlfeldt recommends include:
Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) – a treatment that uses the power of light to destroy cancer cells. It involves using light-sensitive medicine and a light source to destroy abnormal cells and utilizes a photosensitizer that can be injected into or around the therapy location to pull light to itself as a stronger concentration. By matching the frequency of a laser with the photosensitizer so that it triggers oxidation within the cancer cells, it kills them in a very targeted manner.
Oxygen Therapies – these types of therapies are designed to create an oxygen-rich environment within the tumors. Research like a study by the University Georgia shows that “low oxygen levels in cells may be a primary cause of uncontrollable tumor growth in some cancers.” Oxygen therapies are highly effective when combined with other therapies. For example, a lot of time chemotherapy is not effective because it isn’t combined with oxygen therapy.
High-dose vitamin C IV, mistletoe IV, and other therapies can also be highly effective in treating cancer. Learn more about Dr. Karlfeldt’s recommended therapies, including the innovative platelet derived nanoparticle delivery system of substances, in the video interview below.
It has been proven that people who feel in control of their own health experience better outcomes than those who don’t. Being in charge of your own journey is not only your right, but it is to your advantage. When you’re dealing with something as important as cancer, a can-do attitude is paramount. Choosing a health coach or a team of professionals you trust is critical to your success in many ways. Working with someone you trust and are comfortable with helps to reduce your stress, a very important factor in fighting any disease. Just having someone in your corner can confirm the success you’re making and put to rest any doubts you have.
Exposing the Corruption
During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtually no one was spared from the Great Vaccine Scare – hysteria about any and all vaccine criticism. Investigative journalist Paul Thacker details how most anyone who dares to critique vaccines is quickly silenced.
The topic of vaccines has always been controversial, but it reached a fever pitch during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it became sacrilegious to speak out against them, or even question their safety and efficacy.
In 2021, investigative journalist Paul Thacker became a target of what he calls “the Great Vaccine Scare — hysteria about any and all vaccine criticism,”1 after he wrote an article published in The BMJ, titled, “COVID-19: Researcher Blows the Whistle on Data Integrity Issues in Pfizer’s Vaccine Trial.”2
The article, it should be noted, was thorough, accurate and “based on dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails.”3
It was so well done that it earned Thacker a nomination as a finalist for the Steve Connor Award for Investigative Science Journalism, presented by the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW). An ABSW judge described the article as, “A very good story on a sensitive issue that was reported responsibly, it very clearly spells out why the story mattered.”4
Thacker’s investigation details a series of problems with laboratory management and quality control checks by Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia Research Group, which was testing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
Regional director Brook Jackson, formerly employed by Ventavia, said she witnessed falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained vaccinators and lack of proper follow-up on adverse events that were reported. After notifying Ventavia about her concerns repeatedly, she made a complaint to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — and was fired the same day.5 Other former Ventavia employees spoke of similar issues. According to Thacker’s report:6
“One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a “helter skelter” work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial … She added that during her time at Ventavia the company expected a federal audit but that this never came.
After Jackson left the company problems persisted at Ventavia, this employee said. In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported covid-like symptoms, to test for infection.
Laboratory confirmed symptomatic covid-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted. (An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic covid-19.) ‘I don’t think it was good clean data,’ the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. ‘It’s a crazy mess.’”
Soon after Thacker’s investigative piece was published in BMJ, it was “fact checked” by a group called Lead Stories, which referred to the investigation as a “hoax alert” in the related URL. Along with “correcting” statements that Thacker did not make, Lead Stories disparaged the investigation for “missing context,” but as investigative reporter Matt Taibbi explained, “‘Missing context’ has become a term to disparage reporting that is true but inconvenient.”7
Lead Stories took further issue with The BMJ investigation because it was shared by people such as Dr. Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy, who themselves have been targeted by fake fact checkers. Taibbi added:8
“The real issue with Thacker’s piece is that it went viral and was retweeted by the wrong people. As Lead Stories noted with marked disapproval, some of those sharers included the likes of Dr. Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy. To them, this clearly showed that the article was bad somehow, but the problem was, there was nothing to say the story was untrue.”
Thacker also called the “fact check” against his BMJ investigation “insane,” telling Taibbi, “Here’s what they do. They’re not fact checking facts. What they’re doing is checking narratives. They can’t say that your facts are wrong, so it’s like, ‘Aha, there’s no context.’ Or, ‘It’s misleading.’ But that’s not a fact check. You just don’t like the story.”9 Meanwhile, writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, Thacker explained:10
“After The BMJ published my investigation, we ran into a political buzzsaw from Facebook, which labeled the article “misinformation” even though they could find no factual errors. Facebook’s awkward political response spurred editors at The BMJ to send Mark Zuckerberg an open letter11 complaining about his “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible” fact check.”
Anyone who dares to question or criticize vaccinations is at risk of being harassed in today’s climate. Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a consultant cardiologist and chairman of public health collaboration in the U.K., is among those targeted for sharing science relating to COVID-19 shot side effects. Malhotra has earned some notoriety for speaking about the underlying factors that make certain people more vulnerable to COVID-19 — namely lifestyle-related diseases driven by poor diet.12
This aspect of prevention via a long-term healthy lifestyle, which could save lives in future pandemics, is another tenet that’s ignored by the dominant narrative. However, in June 2022, Malhotra was invited to speak at a “side event during a meeting of the British Medical Association.”13
“Just so we’re all clear — because people seem to freak out,” Thacker wrote, “Malhotra was NOT giving a talk FOR the British Medical Association (BMA). It was a talk for some international physicians, who happened to have their meeting during a BMA event.”14 The talk was based on the importance of evidence-based medicine and included information about historical corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.
The talk was not about vaccine side effects, per se, but Malhotra did mention a preprint article that found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest.15 The excess risk of these adverse events exceeded the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization compared to the placebo group.
Malhotra received praise for his talk, and the next day was presented with a Champion of Preventive Medicine award by the chair of the BMA, who had also attended Malhotra’s talk. Soon after, the harassment started. According to Thacker:16
“Just so that we’re all clear — because people seem to freak out — Malhotra was NOT given a British Medical Association award. The person who gave it to him, just happens to also be Chair of the BMA.
Malhotra later tweeted a photo of himself receiving the award … and that’s when panic set in and hysteria began — good night, and good luck — like something out of a movie. Running around with their hair on fire, several prominent physicians began texting Malhotra to take down his tweet, which he then did.”
BMA then issued a statement about the kerfuffle, to ensure all were aware that Malhotra’s award was not a BMA award, and his views were not endorsed by the BMA.17
“If you’re reading this and scratching your head wondering how a tweet could rip a hole in the vaccine universe, thank yourself for not falling under the spell of vaccine magic where minor denunciations must be warded off with counter enchantments and press release potions,” Thacker wrote. “‘There’s a lot of money and many careers behind these vaccines,’ Malhotra told me.”18
Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson was also a victim of vaccine hysteria: His Twitter account was suspended when he posted this scientifically accurate information:19
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it — at best — as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
Berenson filed a lawsuit against Twitter for labeling the tweet as misleading and canceling his account. The case has since been resolved, with Twitter acknowledging that the tweets should not have led to a suspension. When his account was reinstated, Berenson tweeted the exact same message, which this time escaped Twitter’s “misinformation” flag.
Dr. Meryl Nass was similarly censored by Twitter after she tweeted the findings of a preprint study by Israeli scientists, which looked into the immunogenicity and efficacy of a fourth COVID-19 mRNA shot.20 It showed that while antibody titers were high, efficacy was low — “strong evidence,” she tweeted, “that titers are useless at predicting efficacy.” In a show of the hypocrisy of vaccine hysterics, Thacker explained:21
“Nass told me she does not understand how she desecrated vaccine magic. ‘I guess you have to ask Twitter that,’ she emailed me. However, her sacrilege seems to involve repeating the study’s conclusions that antibody titers do not correlate with vaccine protection.
Oddly enough, former CDC Director Tom Frieden made this exact same point22 last September to The BMJ, ‘We don’t know that antibody level is what determines protection.’”
In another disturbing example of the narrative taking priority over science, Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review (OVRR) and OVRR deputy director Dr. Philip Krause both left their positions near the end of 2021, citing frustration that the CDC is involved in decisions that should be left up to the FDA, and that the White House announced booster shots were coming before the FDA had finished its reviews of the booster shots.23,24
Both Gruber and Krause were authors of an article published in The Lancet, which stated, “the currently available evidence does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination in populations that have received an effective primary vaccination regimen.”25
Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff, a member of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, was also punished by the CDC — which removed him from its advisory committee on vaccines — when he stated a COVID-19 clinical trial should not have been paused. Twitter then censored him when he tweeted that people with prior natural COVID-19 infection and children do not need COVID-19 shots.26
Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, has also been vilified for speaking out against vaccines, and he has proof, in the form of a timeline of changes made to his Wikipedia page, which went from describing him as a “good guy,” including his 2003 humanitarian award, to painting him as a “menace to society.” “Because I’m a threat, it’s important to discredit me,” he wrote.27,28
When an exposé by The New York Times revealed in February 2022 that the CDC hasn’t published most of the data it’s been collecting during the pandemic,29 the CDC stated it was due to fear that the information might be misinterpreted.30
“Let’s be clear,” Kirsch wrote. “The only way the vaccine data could be interpreted as ineffective by us ‘misinformation spreaders’ is if the data shows the vaccines don’t work … The truth is the data didn’t support their narrative so they hid it. Do you think they would hide the data if it showed the vaccines worked? Of course not! … CDC admits it withheld data from the public because they didn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy.”31
In these unprecedented times, it’s clear that government agencies and the media are intent on sharing only the official narrative — not the truth about COVID-19 shots.
“Of course, none of the science writers working at mainstream outlets — New York Times Science Desk, Nature Magazine, Scientific American, Science Magazine and UnDark Magazine — have done an Edward R. Murrow and spoken out in alarm and dismay about this state of fear and paranoia,” Thacker noted. “Oh no! Most science writers are too busy doing their scicomm — helping and supporting the government to promote their position on vaccine policies.”32
Originally published August 02, 2022 on Mercola.com
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
The original source of the contemporary threat to the global order was the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed on Thursday. Peskov was pushing back on assertions made by NATO’s secretary-general that Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine was to blame for a major shake-up.
“The real threat to the world order and the situation in the world and … in Europe comes from the coup that took place in Ukraine in 2014, which was carefully orchestrated by, among others, NATO countries, despite the guarantees that the foreign ministers of a number of countries had provided. Hence the threat and danger to the world order,” he stressed.
According to Peskov, tensions in Europe have been stoked by aggressive NATO policies and encroachment toward Russia’s borders.
“This situation has been maturing for several decades and in many ways it was fueled by the aggressive policies NATO pursued towards our country as they brought their infrastructure closer to Russia. This created additional threats for us,” Peskov noted, explaining that, faced with such reality, Moscow had no choice but to take action.
On Thursday, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the Ukraine conflict is the “most dangerous situation in Europe since World War Two,” and the West must do its best to stop Russia from winning. With that, he vowed to continue to support Kiev with arms and other types of aid.
Moscow has repeatedly warned the West against sending weapons to Kiev, saying it only prolongs the conflict, increases the number of casualties, and will result in long-term consequences.
Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”
In February 2022, the Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states and demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.
It appears the US funded Biolabs in Ukraine exposed by RT, Russian State sponsored media. According to Russian MIL, the Biolabs are connected to NUCLEAR weapons! The Biden administration BANNED RT news at the beginning of the war.
Historian Yuval Harari takes us on a journey through technological development and challenges leaders to develop a substantive vision of what it means for society, politics, religion and ideology. It appears their goal is to hack Human Beings in order to further control and enslave humanity.
“Of the various forms of ESP or psi, as we call it, precognition has always most intrigued me because it’s the most magical,” Bem told Cornell Chronicle in December 2010. “It most violates our notion of how the physical world works. The phenomena of modern quantum physics are just as mind-boggling, but they are so technical that most non-physicists don’t know about them.”
Bem, who studied physics before becoming a university professor of psychology, may have some psychic researchers pleased with his study, but it has confounded other, more dubious researchers, who are troubled by Bem’s methods — despite these being mainstream and widely accepted in the scientific community.
He became interested in studying precognition when he was asked to find flaws in one psychic researcher’s successful experiment but couldn’t.
“The research and this article are specifically targeted to my fellow social psychologists,” Bem said. “I designed the experiments to be persuasive, simple, and transparent enough to encourage them to try replicating these experiments for themselves.”
Cleverly, he devised a method which was to take “well-known phenomenon in psychology and reverse their time course.”
Typically, scientists would present stimuli first, then measure the response. But for his experiment, Bem did the opposite, taking readings before the stimulus was applied. He hooked the participants up to a piece of equipment similar to a lie detector to measure their emotional response. Each, sitting before a computer screen, was shown randomly selected images; most of which were normal but some were of erotic or extremely negative imagery, such as the aftermath of a bloody murder scene.
“Your physiology jumps when you see one of those pictures after watching a series of landscapes or neutral pictures,” Bem said. “But the remarkable finding is that your physiology jumps before the provocative picture actually appears on the screen — even before the computer decides which picture to show you. What it shows is that your physiology can anticipate an upcoming event even though your conscious self might not.”
The participants in the nine experiments, it was shown, were able to predict future events. In another experiment, subjects were presented a list of words on a monitor and then asked to retype them from memory after. The computer then randomly selected some of those words; the participants were asked to retype the ones they remembered in a practice run. The results revealed a marked correspondence with the words generated by the computer, indicating some form of perception of future events.
Only one of the nine experiments failed to validate Bem’s hypothesis that psychic phenomena do exist. He said the odds these results being merely the product of chance was 1 in 74 billion.
The psychology professor, who came to Cornell in 1978 and retired in 2007, said he rarely works on a single topic for eight years, as he did this time, “but this one was a biggie and seemed like an appropriate thing to end my career with. The journal in which it will appear is the same journal that published my very first article 50 years ago,” he added.
He undertook studying the supernormal because current research strongly supports that it’s real. “I went in optimistic that I would be able to find it with these experiments,” he said. “After I started getting positive results, my undergraduate research team seemed puzzled by my enthusiasm and said, ‘But didn’t you tell us you thought these would work?’
“I said yes, but when I actually see them work, that’s very different.”
US funded Biolabs in Ukraine are being exposed by Russian State sponsored media, RT.
Ronald Bernard was directly working with the highest people of the financial elite, who effectively rule the world. He was very good at moving their massive money flows, in such a way that nobody could discover their criminal practices. At a certain point they invited him to join their Holy Mass in the Churches of Satan. Bernard found it amusing to see the naked women, and enjoy the drugs and alcohol. The next step however shook him: he was invited to participate in the sacrificing of children. He discovered that most people who operate at the highest financial levels of our world are all part of a religion called Luciferianism, where children are sacrificed.
Klaus Schwab said no one will be safe unless everyone is vaccinated
“Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, the plaintiffs in the suit, also served subpoenas to Meta, Facebook’s parent company; YouTube; Twitter; Instagram; and LinkedIn.
The subpoena compels the platforms to provide documents before Aug. 17, including all communications with Jankowicz and other federal officials.”
Former German MSM Journalist Udo Ulfkotte explaining how all western corporate journalists are bought and propped up by the CIA and the lies he was told to peddle on their behalf.
Cancer Detection is the Biggest Fraud
Good information from Doctors about the Vaccine
Klaus Schwab’s message:”This engagement of the young generation never has been more important than now, where we have to face the consequences of the pandemic of COVID-19 for creating a more resilient, a more sustainable and a more inclusive world; Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.”
While the study’s findings are limited by the nature of the selection process, in which unvaccinated people opted in to participate, the new study suggests that those who declined the vaccine may not be the burden to the health care system many have claimed them to be. The study is now available as a preprint (which means it hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed). It was uploaded to ResearchGate earlier this month.
The findings hold significant importance to policymakers. According to Our World in Data, 60 percent of the world is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The 40 percent who aren’t vaccinated against the virus have been frequently blamed for the duration and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as vaccination rates reached up to 90 percent in many jurisdictions.
With government agencies, news media, and social media algorithms ignoring or misrepresenting the contending science around COVID-19, the unvaccinated have faced often intense pressure to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
“What the survey aimed to do is gather insights about health outcomes, choices, and discrimination experienced by the marginalized subpopulation of people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures who have elected to exercise their right of refusal of COVID-19 injections,” the study authors said.
In many places in the United States, those who declined the COVID-19 vaccines have been discriminated against, stigmatized, and marginalized from society. Nurses and health care workers were fired, Air Force cadets were denied commissions, and family members found themselves ostracized within some of their most intimate and important relationships.
The vilification of the unvaccinated has come with the censorship of both science and personal experience. Many doctors, nurses, scientists, and other health care professionals who speak out about the safety and necessity of these vaccines have been threatened with the loss of their medical licenses, deleted from social media, canceled from events with their peers, and fired from their jobs.
The study is based on data collected from the Control Group Cooperative (CGC), which was founded in July 2021 by a citizens group in the UK to represent and connect people who elected to not get the COVID-19 vaccines.
The goal of the CGC has been to analyze the long-term health outcomes and experiences of these individuals through self-reported surveys. According to their website, there are currently more than 300,000 unvaccinated participants from more than 175 countries participating in their long-term study.
The study was conducted by Robert Verkerk, founder of the Alliance for Natural Health International, an affiliate of the CGC. A team of international scientists contributed to the research. The study analyzes the data from the CGC survey from the first five months of its operation—from September 2021 through February.
The cohort analyzed by Verkerk consisted of 18,497 individuals out of the 297,618 people who had joined the CGC by the end of February.
A plurality of participants were from the continent of Europe (40 percent), followed by Oceania (27 percent), and North America (25 percent). Three percent of participants were from South America and Asia, while less than 1 percent were from Africa. Ages ranged anywhere from 1 to more than 90 years old, with most participants being middle-aged.
Individuals participating in the study declined COVID-19 vaccination for various reasons. These included past vaccine injuries, preference for more natural remedies, lack of trust in pharmaceutical companies and government entities, and concerns about the validity of vaccine study results.
One-third of the individuals in the study self-reported that they received vaccinations as children. That figure may be low, as others may not have reported—or even remembered—their previous vaccinations.
While some had never been vaccinated, the cohort was mainly concerned about the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines, not all vaccines in general.
Between 20 and 50 percent of respondents, depending on where they lived, reported being personal targets of hate and discrimination. Many felt victimized for their vaccination status, especially those living in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and South America.
They reported that they faced discrimination in the workplace, from friends or family members, and from their respective state authorities, because of their “unvaccinated” status.
The prejudice experienced within the workplace by respondents resulted in heavy economic burdens for many. For example, 29 percent of respondents from Australia and New Zealand reported losing their jobs during the five months that the survey was administered.
These survey results dovetail with what unvaccinated individuals have been facing globally. Those who don’t succumb to peer pressure, advertising, or incentivizing are then threatened with an ultimatum: Get the vaccine or get fired.
That’s what happened to Destiny Carpenter, a former nurse at Colorado Canyons Hospital. Carpenter is among one of the hundreds of U.S. nurses who have been fired for refusing to get the vaccine, as Fox News reported in September 2021.
Carpenter was nominated for the Daisy Award for extraordinary nursing three times during her tenure at the hospital. This award is granted to the most deserving nurse for exuding compassionate care to their patients.
In February, FiercePharma reported that more than 15,500 health care workers in the United States had been fired or suspended or had chosen to resign from their hospital jobs over their decision to remain unvaccinated.
About 40 percent of respondents, regardless of age, reported that they experienced mild or moderate mental health issues during the duration of the survey, while approximately 20 percent reported experiencing severe mental health issues.
In an analysis of the mental health issues experienced by the cohort, the scientists noted that the mental health burden “may be associated more to the human response to the pandemic, rather than psychological, fear-based reactions to any threat posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself.”
In other words, the respondents’ mental health problems appeared to mainly be a result of being stigmatized and marginalized from society.
While the study gives insight into the experience of the unvaccinated, it always raises questions about assertions that this group is an undue burden on the health care system.
“Only 74 respondents out of the 5,196 (1.4 percent) who reported suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection also reported that they were hospitalized following infection. Therefore, outpatient or inpatient hospitalization was reported in just 0.4 percent of the full survey cohort. Of these, 15 were outpatient only, another 15 were hospitalized for less than 3 days, 26 were hospitalized between 3 and 7 days, 11 for between 7 and 14 days and only 10 for more than 14 days,” the study reads.
While the study is potentially prone to bias because of the selection pool for the survey, an infection-hospitalization ratio of 0.4 percent would certainly challenge many assertions about the burden of the unvaccinated.
A study published in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice in May 2021 found an overall infection-hospitalization ratio of 2.1 percent that varied more by age than by race or sex.
“Infection-hospitalization ratio estimates ranged from 0.4 percent for those younger than 40 years to 9.2 percent for those older than 60 years.”
The study also found that hospitalization rates based on case counts overestimated the IHR by a factor of 10, “but this overestimation differed by demographic groups, especially age.”
Most of the CGC respondents who reported that they had caught COVID-19 had only mild symptoms and were sick for less than a week. Fatigue and coughing were the most common symptoms recorded.
Beyond the fact that they were unvaccinated, another unique trait of the CGC cohort may also be their propensity to try various therapeutics to treat their COVID-19 infections.
Participants reported that they didn’t need a vaccine to lessen their symptoms: Most infections were mild to begin with, and many respondents said they turned to natural remedies when they did get sick.
A study published in June 2021 in the journal Inflammopharmacology by an international team of researchers from India, Italy, and the United States, shows that using natural remedies is a scientifically sound choice.
This study explored the immune-boosting properties of vitamins and minerals in combating COVID-19 infections. The scientists found that if administered at higher-than-recommended daily doses, many vitamins had the potential to reduce viral load and risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.
The decision to combat COVID-19 with non-pharmacological immune-enhancing interventions may also help explain why the hospitalization rates of the unvaccinated in the study were so low.
A portion of the participants reported that they also took ivermectin, an anti-parasitical that has been both promoted and hotly criticized as a treatment for COVID-19, as The Epoch Times has reported.
While ivermectin remains controversial, a meta-analysis published in June 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics states: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
On June 18, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that it was authorizing the emergency use of Moderna and Pfizer vaccines for babies 6 months and older. About 20 million U.S. children are in this age bracket.
The announcement has raised concerns that side effects from the vaccine aren’t being weighed against potential benefits.
As of June 12, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicated that there have been 1,301,354 adverse events and 28,859 deaths from COVID-19 vaccines. A recent analysis of VAERS reports done by two journalists in Israel revealed that there were 58 serious adverse effects in babies prior to the rollout of the vaccine authorization for those aged 6 months and older. The reports failed to indicate if these infants and toddlers were involved in the Pfizer clinical trial or why they received vaccination.
Verkerk is deeply concerned about the CDC vaccine authorization for children younger than 5. He holds master’s and doctorate degrees from Imperial College London and is co-author of more than 60 peer-reviewed journal articles in the areas of health, agriculture, and environment. He’s also the co-chair of the World Council of Health’s Health & Humanity Committee. He told The Epoch Times via email that many parents want this vaccine for their children because, like every parent, they want what’s best for their child.
“However, they’ve been misled as to the known science on both the benefits and the risks,” he wrote. “There could be disastrous long-term consequences for some children if they are exposed to the spike protein via the vaccine before they are exposed to circulating coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, which would otherwise result in broader-based, more robust, naturally-acquired immunity.”
For Verkerk, it’s about choice. We shouldn’t vilify those who rely on natural immunity or refuse the vaccines for religious, medical, or ethical reasons, he said.
“We have seen a dramatic erosion of the principles of medical ethics,” he wrote.
We need to respect autonomy (the right of competent adults to make individualized and informed decisions about their own medical care) and adhere to the principle of first doing no harm, as well as to the principles of beneficence and justice, according to Verkerk.
Video provides update on Ukraine and the US involvement
Almost half of Americans feel like strangers in their own country, a new opinion poll has revealed. It also claims that the majority of people consider their government as a corrupt institution working against them, with more than a quarter saying it may be necessary to take up arms.
The picture of public discontent was revealed by a poll published on Tuesday by the Institute of Politics of the University of Chicago. Two pollsters, one from each major party, surveyed 1,000 registered voters to study divisions in the country.
The results showed a high level of dissatisfaction across political and ideological lines in the US. In total 49% said they increasingly felt like strangers in their homeland, with the mood more prevalent among Republicans, Independents and conservatives. But even Democrats feel the alienation, with 40% agreeing with the sentiment to some degree.
When asked if they considered the government “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me,” 56% of respondents said they did. Democrats were the only group where the share of people who disagreed with the statement was slightly larger than those who agreed, by a two percentage point margin.
The statement that “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government” was supported by 28% of Americans, including 38% of conservatives, 36% of Republicans, 35% of Independents, and 37% of those who have guns in their homes. Even among self-described soft Democrats, 19% said armed resistance may be necessary.
While supporters of the major parties distrust their government, they don’t like each other much either, the poll suggested. A resounding 73% of Republicans agreed that Democrats were “bullies” trying to impose their views on others, and 70% said Democrats are “generally untruthful.” When Democrats were asked the same two questions about Republicans, 74% and 69% of them agreed respectively.
The divisions however are not yet at a point where people would prefer some form of segregation along political lines, the poll indicated. Americans are overwhelmingly fine with having people from the opposite camp marrying into their families, teaching their kids at school or babysitting for them.
Half of the respondents said the root of the problems with political disagreement in the US is that the other side was “misinformed,” 35% acknowledged that there were just honest differences of opinion.
48% of those polled said news reporters, editors and newscasters were “trying to get their own viewpoint across,” rather than “presenting the facts with as little bias as possible,” a view that was supported by 37%.
Cable news and commenters on social media were perceived as being far more politicized than local news, which 74% trust to report events in good faith. The attitude towards national newspapers like the New York Times was divided across political lines. Just 24% of Republicans perceive them as honest actors, compared to 70% of Democrats.
by STEFANIA COX
* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List.”
Follow EpochTV on social media:
The Truth Is Spreading,[DS] Prepares To Shutdown The Truth,Be Careful What You Wish For