Some thoughts to balance the media news about the Covid-19 pandemic

First Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Next Vaccination-Resistant Viruses?

We all know that bacteria have increasingly become resistant to antibiotics and that now there are powerfully resistant strains that do not respond to the current range of man-made antibiotics available. There is a race now to develop new antibiotics to try to beat these microorganisms that can mutate readily with the right environments.

What was once a life-saving medical intervention is losing its effectiveness largely because of excessive use both for humans, and in particular for animals that account for 90% of antibiotic use. This is a problem we have brought on ourselves, and the solution will need reduction and more restricted use of new antibiotics in the future and a massive antibiotic reduction in industrialized farming of animals in disease generating environments. 

This, in itself, is a serious global problem but not as great as that posed by international wholesale vaccination that will generate more and more resistant strains that may quickly overcome any attempt to keep pace with new man-made vaccines. This potential problem is far greater than the current antibiotic resistance one, for the simple reason that it is relatively easy to knock-out a new bacterium that is a far more complex and susceptible organism than a virus that can mutate rapidly and easily as we are already witnessing.

Further reading: First antibiotic resistant, next vaccination resistant viruses

Natural Immunity

Everyone is well informed about Covid-19 that has brought much of the world to a unique social and economic grinding halt.

This was not because of the virus, but because of our response to it.

For thousands of years, mankind had been able to survive millions of viral threats because we have evolved a most remarkable and incomprehensibly complex immune system over that same period.

We are now told that we all need regular repeated vaccinations of the entire world to protect us from mutant variants of the virus along with social distancing, regular hand sanitation, and wearing of masks.

There can be no return to normal living if this is the rational assessment of the global situation.

Dr. Bruce Lipton has published a video HERE that explains how we are all protected by our immune systems. Perhaps we should all do whatever we can to strengthen this protection and only use vaccinations when absolutely necessary and not indiscriminately for everyone. We will never be able to replace our inherited immune systems with any amount of vaccines, gene therapies, or drugs. That would be a sign of either gross ignorance or scientific arrogance.

Both problems are related to the fact that we need to be cautious when trying to replicate, replace, or sub-ordinate our natural defence mechanisms, we need judicious, intelligent evaluation of each clinical situation and not rely on quick fixes that may have long-term serious ramifications. 

We need more humility when we interfere in complex systems that have evolved over millennia. 

Where are the medical leaders who are not driven by the immediate demands of governments and commercial powers? We need them to speak up and add cautionary advice on these matters. 

Further reading: The human immune system – What happens during a covid infection

Confusion of Gene Therapy with Vaccination

The mRNA “vaccines” created by Moderna and Pfizer are gene therapies. They meet all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine. This matters, as you cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk of developing. The mRNA contains genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA “vaccines” deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies.

The only one benefiting from an mRNA “vaccine” is the vaccinated individual, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein. Since you’re the only one who will reap a benefit, it makes no sense to demand you accept the risks of the therapy “for the greater good” of your community. 

Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, marketing them as such is a deceptive practice that violates the law that governs advertising of medical practices.

SARS-CoV-2 has not even been proven to be the cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot be said to be preventive against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.

Further reading: Covid-19 vaccines are gene therapy

Herd Immunity Threshold Vastly Overestimated

Modellers were incorrect when they predicted that 70% to 80% would get infected before herd immunity would naturally allow the spread of infection to taper off.

In reality, the herd immunity threshold has turned out to be far lower, which removes the justification for social distancing and lock-downs. More than a dozen scientists now claim the herd immunity threshold is likely below 50%, perhaps even as low as 10%. Data from Stockholm County, Sweden, show a herd immunity threshold of 17%. In an essay, Brown University professor Dr. Andrew Bostom noted:

“Lead investigator Dr. Gomes, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues concluded: ‘naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune.’

Separate HIT [herd immunity threshold] calculations of 9%, 10-20%, 17^% and 43% — each substantially below the dogmatically asserted value of ~70% — have been reported by investigators from Tel-Aviv University, Oxford University, University College of London, and Stockholm University, respectively.”

How could they get this so wrong? Herd immunity is calculated using the reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person. R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who’s infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise. It’s far from an exact science, however, as a person’s susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age, and contacts within a community. The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19’s herd immunity threshold were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community.

That doesn’t happen in real life though. According to professor Karl Friston, a statistician, “effective susceptible population,” meaning those not already immune to COVID-19 and therefore at risk of infection, was never 100%. At most, it was 50% and most likely only around 20%.

Despite the mounting of such data and the clear knowledge that lockdowns were causing unimaginable harm to mental health, physical health, education, and local economies, lockdowns were repeatedly implemented in various parts of the world.

The initial modelling report from the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team actually admitted it did “not consider the ethical or economic implications” of the pandemic measures proposed, noting only that “The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound.” Today, we have a much better grasp on just how profound the social and economic effects have in fact been, and they’re devastating.

Further reading: Misinformation from public health officials about lockdowns

Linguistics Under Attack

Over the last few months, there has been a rewriting of a few terms in healthcare and medicine to fit the current situation with COVID-19. The changes are subtle but together are very significant if we are ever to return to life anything as it was pre-2020.

Herd Immunity  

Ever since I can recall, the concept of “herd immunity” referred to the naturally developing immunity to disease over time as everyone as is exposed to the disease and develop their individual resistance to the disease. This has now been re-defined as occurring when everyone has been vaccinated against the disease, not the natural process of the past but a medically driven mass vaccination independent of the normally developing individual immune response.

Vaccine

The second re-definition that I discovered was the inherent meaning of the word “vaccine”. All past medical definitions I have checked define a vaccine as “a medical injection or other means of the introduction of a substance that protects the patient from contracting a disease and prevents the individual from transmitting the same disease.”

However, the three major new “vaccines” based on mRNA, do not claim to protect against infection but primarily reduce the severity of the infection, and also do not ensure the reduced transmission of the disease. It is also worth noting that past vaccines have been diligently tested over many years before being deemed safe, whereas the mRNA jabs are still novel, experimental medicines that have been given a safety clearance after only months of testing. This, despite previous similar jabs based on mRNA design, having been stopped because of serious adverse reactions, and only with the chemotherapeutic treatment of cancer patients did they continue to be used.

There may be another reason why these new jabs have been given the highest recognition as vaccines, in order to encourage the rapid development and use of them. Currently, in the USA and in the UK, the responsibility for the safety of all vaccines has been taken over by the Governments, the manufacturers are no longer responsible for ensuring the safety of their products if they are called vaccines, but are still fully liable for all other drugs they produce. My concern is that this protection could lead to lower safety standards and less testing for adverse reactions or effectiveness.

Case

Now comes the third re-defined word I have met, “case”.  Traditionally and in practice, a case of any disease meant the observation and evaluation of a person who had shown symptoms and signs of the disease. A simple logical definition most would agree with, but in recent months we have been regularly informed of the number of new cases of COVID-19 as simply a person testing positive to one of the current testing procedures. This, despite the fact that it is accepted that there are many false positives. If this were a minor error it would not be significant but there may be as many as 80% false positives.

On the basis of these questionable tests, the public is given an impression of an epidemic greater than the true situation and on this “evidence” we are subjected to continuing lockdown and increased anxiety of the disease.

Health

I am now waiting to see that the word “health” is going to be re-defined as “an absence of disease”. I have often asked audiences what they understand “health” is, and all have agreed it is far more than an absence of diseases. This is a fundamental problem for modern medicine. Its dominant focus on treating diseases and lack of concern for promoting healthy living has led us to the sick state we find ourselves suffering from in the so-called developed nations. If we accept this concept that health is simply an absence of disease then we are set for an eternity of ever-increasing medical treatment, more routine drugs for every man, woman, and child. Forget healthy living, this will be worse than any 1984 scenario.

Further reading: 1984 has arrived in 2021 with new speak redefining our language

Finally, just to be clear, I am not an anti-vaxer, but prefer to see medicine used with discrimination and good judgment, not routinely without consideration of potential adverse effects. 

I am in favour of the Hippocratic oath “ I promise to do no harm” which has been severely diluted to permit the use of medical procedures that, in balance, do more good than harm on a community basis but may not apply so well for individuals!

Health for everyone is not some dreamer’s utopia. It is the norm that nature tends towards, it may be best defined as the consequence of a growing wholeness at all levels. In fact, the very word is derived from old English Hale, which means Whole. 

Our individual health is reflected in the health of the family, the community, mankind, and the entire planet. 

We cannot take up arms against the whole of nature and hope to beat her. We are not that wise or powerful. 

We must start a new way of living that embraces nature and that does not destroy the fauna, flora, land, seas, and air in the name of human progress. 

We must learn to be less arrogant, more humble, and rejoice in how much we have learned so far, but how infinitely greater is our ignorance of life and the universe.

All the above subjects are covered in more detail on my website:

http://www.totalhealthmatters.co.uk/health-news

Michael Lingard – BSc. DO. WPNut.Cert