With the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, major pharmaceutical companies have been working tirelessly to create a vaccine in record time. With the media narrative being that a vaccine is our only hope for life returning to normal, it seems most people are pinning their hopes on a vaccine. Regardless of where you stand on the vaccine issue (pro vs anti), the reality is that vaccines do pose risk. While the obvious task is to develop a shot that immunizes against a disease the bigger challenge is to ensure that such a shot doesn’t injure people.
Researchers from Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca released information from their phase 1/2 trial that shows their vaccine may produce immunity without causing “serious harm”.
While the people in the study may not have suffered “serious harm” from the coronavirus vaccine experiments, the side effects they did suffer were substantial and indicative of a vaccine that could cause massive injury and death on a larger scale.
If journalists don’t start asking tougher questions, this will become the perfect setup for anti-vaccine messaging: Here’s what they forgot to tell you about the risks …
In one “advanced, phase III trial,” people were given acetaminophen every 6 hours for 24 hours after receiving the vaccine to help curb side effects.
Within a group of people that did not receive acetaminophen, one-third of people reported moderate or severe chills, headache, fatigue, feverishness, or general malaise. Around 25% of people experienced moderate or severe muscle aches. Nearly 10% of people had a fever higher than 100 degrees.
In another trial, by the time both doses of the vaccine were administered, every person had signs of headaches, chills or fatigue, with 80% of people reporting symptoms bad enough to keep them from normal everyday activities.
The people who participate in these vaccine trials have to be healthy adults between the ages of 18-55, and not have allergies made worse by acetaminophen. It is likely that someone with unknown and/or underlying health problems could have a much more adverse reaction to a coronavirus vaccine.
Appeals Court Maintains Groundskeepers Win Against Monsanto
California Appeals Court rejected Monsanto’s effort to overturn a trial victory by California school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who developed cancer after continual use of Monsanto’s product Round-Up. Glyphosate, among other ingredients in Round-Up, is known to cause non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
Johnson is entitled to $10.25 million in compensatory damages and another $10.25 million in punitive damages. The appeals court stated that Johnson was entitled to punitive damages because Monsanto acted with “willful and conscious disregard of others safety” Johnson’s lawyers presented the courts with internal emails and other records clearly showing Monsanto scientists discussing ghostwriting scientific papers to support the safety of Monsanto’s products as well as plans to discredit critics.
Documents also showed plans to suppress the government’s evaluation of the toxicity of glyphosate. Monsanto anticipated that the International Agency for Research on Cancer would classify glyphosate as a probable or possible human carcinogen.
Tens’s of thousands of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against Monsanto, with 2 trials taking place after Johnson’s, both resulting in verdicts against Monsanto. Bayer, which finalized purchased of Monsanto in 2018, stands behind the safety of Round-up.
The appeal court’s decision to reduce the compensatory and punitive damages is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the jury’s verdict and damage awards are inconsistent with the evidence at trial and the law. Monsanto will consider its legal options, including filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of California.
Bayer to Settle Glyphosate Lawsuits for 10 Billion Dollars
Bayer has announced that they will settle approximately 75% of the approximately 125,000 lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to Roundup exposure. The German pharmaceutical giant has been plagued with litigation regarding the world’s most used herbicide since it purchased Monsanto in 2018. Bayer issued a press release on Wednesday with the details of this move.
The company will make a payment of $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve the current Roundup™ litigation, including an allowance expected to cover unresolved claims, and $1.25 billion to support a separate class agreement to address potential future litigation.”
Only three cases against Roundup have gone to trial. Each trial ended in a substantial decision for the plaintiffs, with monetary awards of $289 million, $80 million, and $2 billion. The newly announced settlements are subject to approval by Judge Vince Chhabria, who has previously upheld jury verdicts against the company and was also responsible for reducing $80 million in damages to $25 million. These previous jury verdicts are not part of the settlement agreement, and Bayer has indicated they will continue to appeal those cases.
It’s Unlikely The Mass Protests will Cause another Outbreak in Coronavirus Cases
With the recent mass protests around the country and world, many are concerned about another surge in coronavirus cases. Some are concerned about the lack of social distancing, and asymptomatic carriers who might protest without symptoms. Many protesting are still wearing masks and trying to maintain their distance, however, experts however say a surge in cases is unlikely.
“For those expecting an explosion of cases from protests, I doubt that,” wrote Howard Forman, professor of radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, in a recent tweet. “Outdoor events are seemingly low risk.”
Outdoor events are low-risk with fresh air constantly circulating in the outdoors, and the wind blowing. The virus is not as much of a risk outdoors as it is indoors. Howard Forman also pointed out that the biggest risk at these protests is being arrested. Public health experts have continued to warn people about the risks associated with massive gatherings.
In an article by futurism, they sum it up pretty well,
There are a countless number of questions that remain about the risks involved in gathering in large groups during a global pandemic. But one thing is clear: demonizing protesters for making their voices heard about systemic violence that has endangered Black lives for centuries is the wrong way to go.
Sweden’s Approach To Coronavirus – Did It Work? What Should We Have Done?
As usual, it’s complicated.
Sweden did not impose strict limits on citizens’ rights. People went to work and ate at restaurants and faced very few restrictions. Children in lower grades attended school but highschools and universities utilized distance learning.
Businesses stayed open. Those who could work from home were advised to do so but no laws were passed and no orders were given telling people to stay home. The government did ask it’s citizens to refrain from non-essential travel and asked people to practice social distancing, hand washing, and considerable measures were taken to protect people over the age of 70.
This “herd immunity” approach is in stark contrast to its neighbors like Finland, which banned gatherings of 10 or more, declared a state of emergency, and closed all schools, restaurants, cafes, and bars. India imposed a lockdown for 1.3 billion people, and Germany banned crowds of two or more people. The herd immunity concept is where so many people contract the virus that the people develop natural resistance without the need for a vaccine.
Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said Sweden’s approach is based on science, saying, “We are trying to slow the spread enough so that we can deal with the patients coming in.”
Mr. Tegnell says this approach relies on people’s self-restraint and sense of responsibility.
That’s the way we work in Sweden. Our whole system for communicable disease control is based on voluntary action. The immunization system is completely voluntary and there is 98 percent coverage.
You give them the option to do what is best in their lives. That works very well, according to our experience.
There’s a substantial difference between Sweden’s government and other governments. The country enjoys very high levels of trust in its government. Their Constitution is very clearly and specifically designed not to curb individual freedoms. Citizens have confidence in their government and in its public institutions. It’s also important to note that Sweden’s population density is less dense than many other countries and it is a very homogeneous society.
Has Sweden’s Approach Worked?
Sweden reports fewer deaths than Italy. But Italy has a much older population, more people smoke, and people live more clustered together in close-knit, multigenerational households.
Nearly 4,500 Swedes are said to have died from coronavirus, putting the country in eighth place for the highest deaths per capita. Sweden says around half of the deaths were elderly people living in care facilities.
Swedish officials thought Stockholm, the capital, could be approaching “herd immunity,” but recent antibody testing in Stockholm found that only 7.3% of those tested had SARS-COV-2 antibodies. Anders Tegnell called the figure “a bit lower than we’d thought.”
An antibody test cannot tell if you are actively infected. It takes a few weeks from when one is infected to build up enough antibodies for the test to register positive. It’s also important to note that there are issues with inaccuracy of antibody testing that could cause lower or higher results than what is accurate. In addition, we don’t even know how long coronavirus antibodies last in our bodies ! Some speculate only two to three months. Sweden’s real numbers could be a little higher or a little lower, we don’t know. Regardless, 7% is much lower than they hoped.
The media is capitalizing on Anders Tegnell’s most recent comments, with news outlets reporting in a way to indicate that even Sweden admits its approach was all wrong. The epidemiologist said that in hindsight Sweden should have done more.
If we were to run into the same disease, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done.
Yes, I think we could have done better than what we did in Sweden, clearly.
Anders Tegnell is clearly not saying that Sweden should have enacted draconian measures like that of many of its neighboring countries.
It’s also important to know that Sweden’s death rate is lower than the U.K., France, and Spain while the USA, Netherlands, and Ireland aren’t far behind.
Also, comparing any European country to the U.S.A is difficult. New York and New Jersey both have a death rate higher than any other country. The United States has pockets of incredibly dense urban living contrasted by vast areas of much lower population densities along with everything in between. Some states implemented strict guidelines, some states ordered people to shelter in place under threat of law, and some states did next to nothing.
And Sweden’s economy expanded while almost every other country’s economy has seen a drastic contraction.
The Netherlands took a similar approach. They show similar results. Brazil’s president Jair Messias Bolsonaro has largely been dismissive of coronavirus fears even going so far as to call it a “media hoax“. Now Brazil is looking at the second most coronavirus cases, second only to the U.S., with total deaths putting them in 4th place behind USA, UK, and Italy, but deaths per capita has Brazil in 20th place, below many countries that took the virus much more seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f91Q5FuoKs
What We Should Have Done
They say hindsight is 20/20 but we’re not at a place yet where hindsight is clear. We don’t know who the biggest losers will be until the dust settles, and with the economic impact yet to be fully realized, it’s impossible to even guess. We all know that death rates rise when economies collapse, but death rates also rise when economies grow. A stable economy preserves lives. A U-shaped, V-shaped, or lagging L-shaped economy will cause a lot of deaths.
We also have no idea how hard a virus is going to damage society until it hits a population, and the same virus can cause very different results in differing populations. It’s easy to say, “Look, see, we all overreacted!” when it’s all said and done, but it’s very difficult to know what would have been the results if we ignored the threat.
It’s also hard to know the truth when hospitals rely on government subsidies for using ventilators, testing is poorly done, the CDC mixes up test results, and processed food and big-pharma companies run the media (with a vested interest in keeping us unhealthy). The reality is that access to clean water, good plumbing, and a healthy diet does radically more to prevent and eradicate disease than any vaccine or lockdown or anything else we’ve ever tried.
Of course, we at Organic Lifestyle Magazine would like to see a radically different approach to pandemics that isn’t talked about at all in the media. But science is just starting to catch on.
The state of your gut bacteria is the best indication of your health that we know of, and a healthy gut microbiome equates to a stronger immune system. A recent study showed that people with prior gastrointestinal issues realize poorer outcomes. That’s not because Covid-19 hits the gut, it’s because a healthy gut microbiome supplies the entire body with beneficial bacteria. And when a person has a large enough and diverse amount of healthy bacteria in their body it’s difficult for pathogens to get a foothold (or a corona-hold in this case).
It’s not as simple as taking a probiotic, though that’s better than nothing. To heal the gut one needs to eat right in order to supply the gut with the right prebiotics to populate the gut with a diverse population.
If catching coronavirus (or the flu, or ebola, or any pathogen) concerns you, get your gut well. For more on this check out How To Heal Your Gut.
If we ruled the world (or a country) we’d ask our population to drink cranberry lemonade with stevia, eat lots of salads, take an antifungal fatty acid like SF722, and don’t smoke or use other drugs. The information from the aforementioned gut article would be mandatory learning for everyone in school. And we would see that people who choose to ignore their health are the ones who would be dying – but then again, that’s what we see now. While the media likes to cherry-pick the unusual case of a supposedly perfectly healthy child or athletic adult coming down with coronavirus and dying, it’s extremely unusual, and we cannot find a single case of a person dying from Covid-19 who actually was truly healthy. This is also true for the flu. We logically suspect it’s also true for any pathogenic illness because that’s just how nature works!
Cook County Board of Commissioners Votes ‘Yes’ To Share Addresses of COVID-19 Patients
The Cook County Board of Commissioners has voted yes to a resolution to share the addresses of positive COVID-19 patients with suburban first responders. The board claims they voted to pass this motion in an effort to protect first responders against the virus, but this raises serious concerns about the privacy of citizens.
Chicago Mayor, Lori Lightfoot
Today, to my great astonishment and disappointment, nine members of the Cook County Board of Commissioners voted to capitulate to ignorance and bigotry by voting to force the disclosure of the addresses of every patient who has tested positive for COVID-19.
Mayor Lightfoot later went on to say that the sharing of addresses would never become law in Chicago. Cook County is not the first municipality to discuss the sharing of COVID-19 patients’ addresses. Recent events in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic go to show how little our personal freedoms matter to those in power, and just how little people care when they’re scared.
Mediterranean Diet is More Effective When You’ve Got Money
Italian scientists studying the Mediterranean diet have found evidence that the quality of your food matters when it comes to health benefits. Researchers from Mediterranean Neurological Institute (I.R.C.C.S. Neuromed) released their findings in 2017 after studying more than 18,000 men and women since 2005. The Molisani study saw that wealthier participants experienced a greater reduction of cardiovascular risks.
Given a comparable adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the most advantaged groups were more likely to report a larger number of indices of high quality diet as opposed to people with low socioeconomic status…For example, within those reporting an optimal adherence to the Mediterranean diet (as measured by a score comprising fruits and nuts, vegetables, legumes, cereals, fish, fats, meat, dairy products and alcohol intake) people with high income or higher educational level consumed products richer in antioxidants and polyphenols, and had a greater diversity in fruit and vegetables choice. We have also found a socioeconomic gradient in the consumption of whole-grain products and in the preferred cooking methods. These substantial differences in consuming products belonging to Mediterranean diet lead us to think that quality of foods may be as important for health as quantity and frequency of intake”
Here is yet another insidious way lower-income people are disadvantaged.
The Mediterranean diet is characterized by a large quantity of olive oil, unrefined grains, legumes, and diverse fruits and vegetables. It includes moderate amounts of fish, dairy, and wine. In addition, not all items are created equal – cheaper versions of things (like canned vegetables as opposed to fresh) do not contain the same nutritional makeup as fresher, more expensive options. Lower-income people are less likely to be able to afford the quality and diversity of products needed to reap the benefits of the Mediterranean diet.
