Bad Medicine and COVID19

Kim Mack Rosenberg and Laraine Abbey-Katzev Contributors

What is “Bad medicine”? It is both the use of medical interventions that cause more harm than good as well as the failure to use truly helpful interventions. Bad medicine is also the failure to personalize approaches to health that match an individual patient’s needs. With the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 crisis that has put our nation – and much of the world – on an unending lockdown, medicine has run amuck.

Why, more than six months into this situation, is Anthony Fauci just now mentioning the value of Vitamins C and D, both of which are highly protective for contracting viruses? Why wasn’t he loudly and regularly encouraging every American to protect and boost their immune systems with these widely available inexpensive (hello sunshine and Vitamin D!) vitamins from the very beginning?

Here we review some examples of Bad Medicine in relation to COVID19, including Misuse and overuse of ventilators for COVID-19 patients, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials, the failure to use effective (and often inexpensive) therapies, and what may be the biggest “bad medicine” debacle out there – the flu vaccine.

  1. Over-Use of Ventilators for COVID-19 Patients was Bad Medicine

Early reports of large percentages of patients dying when placed on ventilators were deeply concerning. Doctors since have learned that not all COVID-19 patients need ventilation, that they were ventilating too many patients and too soon. Where was the precautionary principle among the panic?;

  • SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Trials are Bad Medicine

Many pages could be devoted to issues in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials. Vaccine development is indeed proceeding at warp speed but we need to ask, at what cost? We now have serious neurological injury –including at least one case and possibly two cases transverse myelitis – in the Oxford/Astra Zeneca trials: and other significant injuries in the early Moderna trials: We must demand greater transparency on all injuries to fully understand vaccine risks The most compelling questions are the long and short term potential harms signaled from the clinical trials:

  • What impact will messenger RNA (mRNA), used in several vaccine candidates, have on vaccinated people? Even very “pro” mRNA vaccine professionals recognize that there are risks associated with mRNA vaccines – none of which has yet made it to commercial production – including, in particular, the risk of autoimmune diseases ( – despite no evidence the public will be screened for autoimmune risks before mass vaccination.  
  • What about the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the manufacture of several candidate vaccines: These consequences of the injection of cells containing both male and female human DNA in various vaccines are not known.
  • What about use of polyethylene glycol (PEG), a synthetic chemical to which over 70% of people are sensitive –a significant number sensitive to the point of risking anaphylaxis? Moderna has added this dangerous chemical to its vaccine and went so far as to warn its shareholders that use of PEG was risky to the bottom-line but does not tell clinical trial participants of the risk to them and does not test participants for PEG sensitivity. Not only does PEG carry safety risks, but it may also reduce vaccine efficacy!
  • What about risk of antibody dependent enhancement (or “pathogenic priming”), which creates a possibility that a vaccinated person later exposed to the disease develops far worse symptoms or even dies from a hyper-immune reaction? This risk was seen in animal trials for SARS vaccines years ago and in the recent scandal with Dengvaxia, a dengue fever vaccine, in the Philippines.
  • A silver lining?
  • The distrust surrounding the pharmaceutical industry and government has resulted in Pharma taking the unprecedented step of releasing several trial protocols but we must look at that carefully to determine if these trials were set up for “success” even if the vaccines are not actually safe or effective:
  • Ignoring or Disparaging Good Medicine is Bad Medicine

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-USA) details in their article titled “COVID 411” many specific nutrients that are among the most noteworthy preventives for boosting our immune systems before we get sick. In particular, a number of therapies and medicines, particularly when combined with zinc, are promising:

Additionally, there are many other natural therapies and oxidative therapies (using ozone or hydrogen peroxide, for example) that doctors such as David Brownstein, MD, are using with great success:; The MATH+ protocol from the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance for severely ill patients is also an good resource:;

  • Influenza and Flu Vaccines Shenanigans are Bad Medicine

Del Bigtree really nailed the coffin on flu vaccines on the September 24,2020 episode of The High Wire, entitled “Twindemic 2020?” Watch this episode for the most up to date information – the flu issue is addressed beginning around minute 48.

The influenza vaccine’s risk/benefit ratio is high – vaccinating can cause very serious conditions, including neurological harm, autoimmune disease, and death. We also know that getting a flu shot increases your risk of developing more serious non-flu respiratory infections (including some coronavirus infections).   How do we justify the continued push for universal flu shots when the harm outweighs the good?

Yet, the pharmaceutical industry, with their allies in public health and at CDC, present flu as a major cause of death in the U.S., and push flu shots as if they have saved many lives. This information may help put things in perspective:

  • Flu shots have caused more bad reactions than all other vaccines combined according to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. “Seven out of ten petitions filed between 2016 and 2017 to the NVICP were related to damages following influenza vaccine to adults or children…”
  • Flu shots only prevent actual influenza A or B infections, and their effectiveness varies from 10-60% and in most years recently are under 50% effective and often under 30% effective.;
  • The CDC reported that in the 2018-19 flu season: “Among adults hospitalized for the flu, the vaccine’s effectiveness against the H3N2 strain was reported at -43 percent.” This indicates that those who got their flu shot were more likely to be hospitalized for flu than those who did not get the vaccine!
  • A 2009 study by the American Thoracic Society found “…children who had received the flu vaccine [trivalent inactivated flu vaccine—TIV] had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization [all emphasis mine] in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not…” This makes the emphasis for asthmatics to take flu shots particularly alarming.
  • Over 80% of influenza-like illness – what people generally call “the flu” – are NOT type A or B influenza. They are viral or bacterial flu-like illnesses which are not covered by influenza vaccines.
  • According to the American Lung Association, flu-caused deaths, as recorded on death certificates over a 13-year period, range between a mere 257-1812 deaths per year in the entire U.S.! (p.5).
  • CDC lumps the pneumonia deaths together with flu deaths, but most pneumonia deaths are unrelated to influenza and therefore could not be prevented or lessened by a flu shot – even if they worked!
  • Universal flu shots violate science and common sense given their high risk to benefit ratio and fact that “Only about 3 percent of pneumonia and influenza deaths occurred in those under age 45.” (p.6).

CALL TO ACTION: Contact FDA and vaccine manufacturers and demand transparency in all aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials. Call your governor and state and federal legislators and challenge them on flu vaccine mandates. Educate your health care provider about options for early therapeutic interventions of COVID19.

The True Costs of Toxic Food

Zen Honeycutt – Contributor

September 22, 2020

We all just want convenience and for our families to be happy. So we often buy that easy, cheap, tasty fast food, frozen meal or go to a restaurant serving the Standard American Diet (S.A.D) foods…French fries, burgers, pizza, fried chicken with macaroni and cheese. Because it feels good. It feels good to see our kids be happy eating food they like and if it was convenient for us to give it to them, it feels like a double win.

Until there are signs of one or more of our family members losing. I saw signs of this when my eldest son suddenly got very still, his lips turned white-ish, blood drained from his face and he had trouble breathing after eating onion rings at Red Robin. And again, later when my middle son broke out in a full body rash when he ate Trader Joe’s popcorn (I suspect the olive oil was not 100% olive oil but a canola mixture instead) at his friend’s house. And when my youngest son’s face swelled up and his eyes became leaky with tears and red when we were in a restaurant with peanuts on the floor for 20 minutes. Our children should not be having life threatening reactions to food.

These incidents, along with autism symptoms, asthmatic reactions, and an ER visit due to food reactions, were all around seven years ago or more. They have not happened since because we know to eat organic, restore the gut microbiome regularly with sauerkraut, pre and probiotics, and detox regularly. But many people do not know how, do not take the time to take on these practices, or simply do not have the resources to buy organic and supplement. Millions are struggling now just to get food on the table. Our government support is primarily cheap, processed, non-organic, and therefore toxic, food.

The majority of the food Americans eat and are given in times of need, according to over 7800 food sample tests conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and many other organizations on American and Canadian foods, have glyphosate residues on them. Food such as wheat, grains, beans, peas, corn, soy, and eggs can have particularly high residue levels. Glyphosate is the number one most widely used herbicide in the world, found in Monsanto/Bayer’s Roundup, Ranger Pro, and 750 other brands. The problem with glyphosate is that it does not wash, dry, or cook off. We eat the residues. Glyphosate has been shown to destroy gut bacteria, which we need for a healthy immune system and balanced hormones. When our immune system and hormonal system are imbalanced we get chronic illnesses such as allergies, autism, asthma, insomnia, depression, diabetes, obesity, mental illness, infertility and even cancer. Obesity increases the risk of COVID deaths by 48%. The population with the least amount of resources continually gets exposed to the most toxins, gets sicker, increasingly overweight, more in debt to doctors, and perpetuates a cycle of debt and disempowerment.

Our government will argue that they simply can’t afford to provide organic food. Your family members probably argue they can’t afford organic even when they are making full salary. Organic food appears to be more expensive….but is it?

Let’s look at the true costs of toxic food.*

Weakening the immune system has an enormous costs to our society. During COVID our society, which eats the least healthy food in the world, has been greatly impacted by the virus and decisions of the government due to the virus. It is projected that our government will spend over 8 trillion dollars to remedy the COVID situation. Just to put that in perspective, we spend an average of 3.24 trillion per year on health care. With an increase of over 5% last year on health care costs, that was more than twice as high as our gross domestic product growth of 2.1% – a mark of a degenerative society far from sustainable. An average family spends $10,000 per year just on copays with insurance. Numerous mothers of children with autism symptoms (that have been shown to be caused by glyphosate in maternal exposure studies to young male rats), spend $15-60,000 per year per child for their autism therapies, schooling, child care, equipment, special diets, doctors visits, and medications.

Not only are mothers spending an enormous amount of money just for their children to be alive, the amount of time and energy it takes them to research and provide that care is all consuming. The cost to the family, the marriage, the other children, and to the mother’s well-being is indescribable. 80% of American marriages with a special needs child fall apart. The cost to our families and future of our country from losing the potential contribution of even one child, their inventions, skills, and unique self-expression, is also incalculable. We have a society where a huge portion of parents are barely surviving because of the impact of toxins on their family. This was not the American dream.

One need only to visit a social media group for parents caring for special needs children to see they often turn to alcohol to numb the loneliness and exhaustion. Many overwhelmed parents who eat cheap, fast, and tasty fast food on a regular basis and consistently drink alcohol, develop colitis, IBS, or other gut issues which can be quite painful. Their doctors give them opioids for the pain, contributing to the growing opioid addictions and deaths. Experts in healthcare have shared with me personally that they predict 250,000 deaths this year alone from opioid deaths. Yet, many of our doctors are not looking for the source of the pain, to prevent it. Instead they mask it with addictive painkillers and drive our society further into despair and destruction.

It does not have to be this way.

These health afflictions and skyrocketing costs are in fact, mostly preventable. According to Dr. Stanton Hom, Clinic Director of Future Generations Clinic of Chiropractic in San Diego, “The most compelling research was actually medical anthropological research from Drs. Boyd Eaton, Loren Cordain, and Melvin Konner, that shows there was NO evidence of chronic illness in our hunter gatherer ancestors – not even acne. And that our genome has not changed  in 10-40,000 years. This would lead one to believe that 100% of chronic illness is from the environmental exposures. My teachings and clinical outcomes have shown me that ALL diseases with the exception of purely genetic conditions like Down syndrome are epigenetically changeable/healable.”

This means preventable as well…by changing the environmental exposures to toxins, primarily food, we could prevent these enormous health care costs and impact on our society.  My family’s health care costs after switching to organic and addressing the gut biome? Almost zero.

The fact is that a full meal – a bowl of organic rice and beans with salsa costs less and is FAR more nutritious than a can of Coke and a small bag of Doritos. Organic chicken costs less per pound than Kit Kats, so when people say they cannot afford organic and yet purchase candy…it might be time to take another look at what is in the shopping cart, and switch some items out. A family of 5 can save $917 a year just on cutting up organic Russet potatoes (avoid Simplot GMO potatoes!) and baking French fries at home (with organic olive oil) 2 times per week. Organic beans, lentils, rice, potatoes, organic frozen vegetables, and fruit can all be purchased in bulk at Costco, Walmart and online now. An entire family of four can eat a healthy, organic, home-cooked meal for less than $10!

If Costco can provide organic food, so can our government. If we are truly committed to putting America first, we should support American organic farmers, grow more organic food locally (not importing it and risking lower contamination standards), make organic more widely available in schools, and provide it to those in need during times of their greatest struggle. Continuing to expose our population to toxins in food increases our immune system damage, risk of COVID deaths, health care costs, and debt in our society and risks the future of our country.

Health must come first. And that means toxin-free food.

*Please note toxins can also be found in vaccines, laundry detergents, stain proof coating on rugs, furniture, and fire-retardant coated pajamas. We focused on food in this article.

Zen Honeycutt is the Founding Executive Director of Moms Across America, a 501c3 non profit whose mission is to educate and empower mothers and others with actions and solutions to create healthy communities.

She is also the author of the book,

UNSTOPPABLE: Transforming Sickness and Struggle into Triumph, Empowerment, and a Celebration of Community, available via any local Indie bookseller or large online booksellers.

CENSORED: Is CDC Borrowing Pneumonia Deaths “From Flu”​ for “From COVID-19?

CENSORED: Is CDC Borrowing Pneumonia Deaths “From Flu”​ for “From COVID-19?

9/11/2020 This article originally appeared on the “Professional” social network website “LinkedIn” on April 3, 2020, where I had >16,000 professionals following my account. LinkedIn has, as of 9/10/2020, suspended my account in spite of my professional affiliations, service and career. The demons of censorship are eroding Academia, likely beyond immediate repair. Please share this censored article widely , republish on your own blog, and undo the damage done by people who believe they can censor reality.

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, Pittsburgh, PA

Numerous media outlets have attempted to draw comparisons between COVID-19 death rates and influenza virus death rates.

Historically, CDC reported influenza case and death rates separately from pneumonia. After 2014, however, they inexplicably began combining influenza and pneumonia rates and reportin them as “influenza disease deaths”. Let me show you.

From CDC website, we see easily accessible case numbers for influenza were reported for 2014. In 2015 and 2016, however, influenza cases were combined with pneumonia cases.

In 2014, CDC reported 55,227 deaths from influenza or pneumonia, of which only 8.1% (4605) were attributed to influenza. The rest were attributed to pneumonia from any cause, including other respiratory viruses.

In 2015 and 2016, you can see no break-down is given between influenza and pneumonia, which 57,062 deaths from “influenza/pneumonia” in 2015, and 51,537 deaths from “influenza/pneumonia”.

Using the ratio of 11 to 1, or 8.1% from 2014 and applying those rates to 2015 and 2016, we see only 4,708 and 4,297 deaths from influenza in 2015 and 2016. There have been so far 6099 deaths (4/2/2020) attributed to COVID-19 in the US. CDC must stop combining deaths from “Verified Influenza or Pneumonia”, creating a category “Pneumonia, Unidentified Cause” and also separate out deaths from “Verified Coronavirus” and “Pneumonia, Unidentified Cause” so true apples-to-apples causes can be tracked weekly.

Looking at other material from CDC, we see them using the term “Influenza” for cases and deaths varying over the years from when referencing a combined heterogeneous group “Influenza/Pneumonia”; the number of combined deaths varied from year to year: 37,000 in 2010-2011, 32,000 in 2011-2012, 43,000 in 2012-2013, 38,000 in 2013-2014 season, 51,000 in 2014-2015, 23,000 in 2015-2016, 38,000 in 2016-2017, and estimated for 2017-2017, 61,000. From Influenza (not Influenza/Pneumonia). These numbers look much less serious if an 8.1% rate is applied

By not parsing out other causes of pneumonia, CDC has, for years, misled the public and the media with the term “Influenza Disease”, causing everyone to believe “Influenza Disease” is influenza and not Influenza + Pneumonia from other causes.

As a result, they have scared hundreds of millions of people into receiving an influenza vaccine over 4500 deaths per year:

The data on COVID-19 is shining a bright light on CDC’s flawed testing, flawed bookkeeping, and their dangerous game with the American psyche.

“Underlying Conditions”

Numerous media reports attribute deaths from COVID-19 to “Underlying Conditions”, with one report claiming that 88% of deaths involving COVID-19 deaths were not caused by COVID-19, and another claiming that 99% of COVID-19 deaths are not caused by the virus.

The age- and clinical-condition associated increased risk, however, paints a different picture. Diabetics have a case fatality risk of over 6%, and while most deaths are in the elderly, 1/3 of deaths fall into the 20-30 year-old range. Based on egalitarian, non-agist principles, knowing that most of the deaths are in the elderly is no assurance at all without control of the exponential increase in deaths.

It’s important to understand that causal logic dictates that the phrase “died with COVID-19” as different from “died from COVID-19” is not a legitimate distinction capable of being made on classes of individuals per category, because we do not know which of those cases would have recovered from their underlying condition. Any case with double pneumonia with COVID-19 clinical diagnoses, or with a positive RT-PCR test might be considered death from COVID-19; cases with CT scan (live or autopsy) showing glassy opacities characteristic of lung damage observed in known cases of COVID-19 are certainly deaths from COVID-19 because were it not for the virus, asphyxiation and lack of oxygen, the individual may have survived to die another day.

The subtraction of cases of high-death risk with COVID-19 infection cases from COVID-19 cases would make COVID-19 appear to be less of a threat via mortality than other conditions, such as influenza – but remember that only 8.1% of “Flu+Pneumonia” cases were bona fide flu cases. A valid question remains: what percentage of Influenza cases also had underlying conditions? It is reasonable to presume that approximately the same percentage as in COVID-19 cases. Thus, Influenza is still likely to far less deadly than COVID-19 on an annual basis. It is difficult to assess how much more likely, but we can acknowledge that if the typical influenza numbers of deaths in the US per year – let’s say 4500 per year – have, in 2020, already been surpassed by COVID-19 cases – before both are adjusted, appropriately or not, by the percentage of cases that allegedly “died with” vs. “died from” (a) COVID-19 and/or (b) influenza.

Indirect Effects of Social Distancing

There are concerns that social distancing may cause, in the long-run, more deaths than would be prevented. Here is an all-cause mortality chart (seeking the source, sorry) from CDC’s Wonder . It would appear that social distancing is reducing all-cause mortality this year, compared to other years. The concerns over net loss of life should include the lives being saved due to fewer car and industrial accidents – as well as fewer deaths due to influenza infections and other illnesses from transmissible viruses.

(UPDATE 4/6/2020: I found the authors, contacted them, and requested their preferred reference. This was their reply: “We have retracted our preliminary report since we received the following note from our network at CDC-NCHS regarding total deaths on CDC FluView “‘The data are most incomplete in the first two weeks after the week of death but it can take up to 8 weeks for all of the deaths to be reported.’

As per the meaning of percent complete: “Percent completeness in FluView is calculated based on the average number of deaths per week using data from the past 3 years and doesn’t take seasonality into account.

In summary, it would only be in the release of June first week will we be able to say something conclusively about total weekly deaths by the end of March. We will share our updated figures sometime around then and In the meantime, we would prefer if you can refrain using the figures. We’d be happy to talk to you once the report has been updated around the same time.”

This means we will have data on the effects of social distancing on all causes of death. A whole-society simulation should be conducted with all of the known causes of death are included that might be attributed – both the deaths prevented and the deaths caused. Job losses can add up to 45,000 suicides per year in the US (Mens’ Health). We don’t know how long joblessness will last – if people got behind the IPAK Back to Work program w/private, in home antibody testing so they would know their COVID-19 immunity status, we could end the isolation in 5-7 days for most people.

So for now, the life-for-life tradeoff is something of a wash.

CDC Cooks the Books on Influenza

Under regulatory practices in the US, a condition acquires “epidemic” status if it is responsible for 7% of deaths. This allows “Flu” to be designated as an epidemic.

Of the 1.2M specimens of respiratory illness tested in the US between Sept 29, 2019 and the present, only 242,330 tested positive for Influenza virus (20.1%) (CDC). Thus, only between 8.1% and 20.1% of “Flu” cases reported as “Influenza/Pneumonia” are in fact Influenza. The correct estimate is likely far closer to the former than the latter. Here is a revised history of Influenza in the United States:

One thing is for certain – CDC is not reporting Influenza in a manner truly useful for comparisons between Influenza and COVID-19. In all likelihood, “Influenza” does not qualify as an epidemic when it is reported separately from “Influenza + Pneumonia”. Does CDC combine “Influenza + Pneumonia”, to force “epidemic status” to favor their push for the influenza vaccine? Will CDC now have a COVID-19 statistic that separates pneumonia from COVID-19 (the disease caused by SARS-2-CoV) or are they/will they lump in pneumonia from other causes to sustain an appearance of an epidemic? The Trump administration has admitted that their task force is missing over 50% of the test results from COVID-19 PCR testing. We have no studies showing accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of CDC’s PCR test. How will CDC even know which numbers to cook?

In this context, people should realize that influenza vaccination can be associated with increased risk of infection with other, non-influenza respiratory viruses. For example, Cowling et al. compared the risk of non-influenza respiratory viral infection in two groups: individuals receiving thimerosal-free influenza vaccines and those receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines, and found higher risk (overall) of non-influenza viral infections in individuals who receive thimerosal-containg influenza vaccines. In the US, 80% of flu vaccines include thimerosal for multi-dose vial cost-savings. They also found no immunity induced to influenza via thimerosal-containing vaccines compared to inert placebo.

Influenza vaccine also appears to increase coronavirus and metapneumovirus infection (See Wolff et al., 2020):

“Examining noninfluenza 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).”

There is insufficient information on risk factors of death associated with COVID-19. Were those who have died recently vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines, which can be expected to impair their immune response? Thimerosal, after all, inhibits the protein ERAP 1 (See: Screening Identifies Thimerosal as a Selective Inhibitor of Endoplasmic Reticulum Aminopeptidase 1 (ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters; Stammogiannos et al., 2016).

The reasons why the US is in lock-down are (1) the CDC wanted their own test and (2) the CDC refused a validated PCR test available in mid-January and insufficient testing. These decisions have prevented contact tracing.

Did CDC hopefimmun to be able to just use symptomatic Coronavirus statistics and combine COVID-19 cases with other conditions, or vice versa, as they have done with “Influenza/Pneumonia”? What about pathogen specificity of the testing? Are we lumping COVID-19 in w/other coronaviruses? CDC must publish accuracy studies, and soon, like those that were published on the German test CDC refused to adopt on January 16, 2020 when they decided to make – and ship – their own flawed test.

Clearly the full costs of CDC’s fast-and-loose bookkeeping on our public health is coming to light. We cannot assess relative risk of death from influenza and COVID-19 because CDC has been cooking the books on Influenza for years. Both the press and those in the scientific professions alike – including those who have drawn comparisons between “Influenza” and COVID-19 are really making comparisons between “Influenza or Pneumonia” AND COVID-19.

I’ll close the article with a reminder that we need to be like South Korea on testing – accurate, fast testing. They used Biomedomic’s COVID-19 antigen test, one that is suitable for private, in-home testing – results in 15 minutes – so American citizens can know if they have been exposed, and with reasonable guidelines on self-isolation, they can return to work in weeks, not months.

FDA won’t allow asymptomatic testing for COVID-19, preferring instead to allow perfectly healthy – and immune Americans to sit at home while the economy rots into the earth. That’s insane. How will people who are immune due to prior exposure get back to work? How will people who have been in lock-down but who have no symptoms know they can go back to work? This lock-down won’t last. We need to be like Korea. Get behind IPAK’s Back-To-Work program so Americans who have been exposed can take control of their lives again.

CDC is not the solution. CDC is the problem. The centralization of risk is a terrible strategy for public health – and for biodefense. It’s time to end the CDC’s stranglehold on logic, reason, and the American public’s future and allow all of the scientific infrastructure and talent and wisdom in Academia and in creative, ethical corporations to usher in a new era of bona fide, objective science. It’s time to end American-style Fascist control over US regulatory policy. It’s time to put the Pharma Bulls out to pasture. It’s time for a return to basic science, science for the sake of knowing. It’s time for a new day.

Who Is Fact-Checking the “Fact-Checkers”? Oh Wait, That’s My Job

Who Is Fact-Checking the “Fact-Checkers”? Oh Wait, That’s My Job

Crusing social media can be like being a storm chasing racing down the road after a tornado. You never know when you’re going hit some bull.

I’m tired of these self-anointed “Fact-Checkers” who believe they, among all of humanity, hold the key to special knowledge. I read their so-called “Fact Check” articles, and it’s really too easy to blow holes in their reasoning.

So I grabbed one, at random, from this guy, and found that I could debunk his debunking of people posting that Wolff had found an increase in coronavirus infection following the flu shot. So I gave his article a rating:


It took me about 30 seconds to find the flaws in his reasoning. I’ll share one: you cannot “Fact Check” based on opinion, so “Misinterprets scientific studies” only means “varies from my opinion”. That’s a shallow slice, but I’m just warming up…

This so-called “Fact-Checked” cites an article that analyzes the same data. The study he cites is Sworonski et al. (2020). The first flaw in their study was to consider people who had been vaccinated <2 weeks before symptoms as “unvaccinated”. This is capricious and arbitrary. Why? Because they are vaccinated. Their second flaw was obtuse inclusion criteria; they arbitrarily report that “Fever was not required for adults aged 65 years and older after 2010–2011.” Why? What about before then? This leads to a heterogenous population, adding variation unaccounted for in the sample groups. If I had reviewed the study I would have insisted on at least an internally consistent set of inclusion criteria!

So why did this so-called “Fact Checker” not criticize the study that he cited for these obvious flaws?

Oh wait, I’m not done.

There is a further flaw, this one fatal, and very well known, in the Sworonski et al., study: Healthy User Bias. According to HUB, people who are not vaccinating may be less healthy than those who do not vaccinate because they cannot tolerate vaccines as well… so they may also be more prone to more showing symptoms leading to a respiratory viral infection diagnosis, utterly confusing causality.

But wait, there’s more…

The largest the problem with observational studies? Most of the time, boils down to how one chooses to design the study and analyze the data.

Skowronski et al. has the gall to criticize Wolff for including test-positive patients in the control group.

“Wolff retained influenza test-positive specimens in NIRV test-negative control groups, thereby violating the core prerequisite for valid TND analysis.”

Here’s their reasoning:

“In assessing Wolff’s paper we identified a major methodological problem to account for his unexpected findings… In combined NIRV analysis, relative to pan-negative controls, Wolff adjusted for age and excluded specimens that tested influenza positive. In that analysis, shown in his Table 3, the OR approached unity, indicating no vaccine effect as expected. Conversely, in univariate (unadjusted) analysis of individual NIRV outcomes (eg, coronaviruses), Wolff retained influenza test-positive specimens in NIRV test-negative control groups, thereby violating the core prerequisite for valid TND analysis. In the context of effective influenza vaccine, influenza cases would have a lower likelihood of vaccination; as such, their inclusion would systematically reduce the proportion vaccinated in the control group and thereby inflate ORs comparing vaccine exposure between NIRV cases and controls. (emphasis mine). We illustrate the impact of this bias in Supplementary Material 3, where we have reanalyzed Wolff’s data as well as our own, comparing influenza vaccine effect against NIRV when influenza test-positive specimens are properly excluded (as per TND prerequisite) or improperly included (as per Wolff [4]) within the control group. In both datasets and for all NIRVs, ORs for influenza vaccination are biased higher when influenza cases are erroneously included in the control group.

Wait. Just. A. Freaking. Minute.

Test-negative design of the efficacy of influenza includes the knowledge of the whether a person is infected with influenza, or not, so as to get at an idealized estimate of the efficacy of the influenza vaccine, NOT to drive other analyses such as whether a person who (unknowingly, asymptomatically) has the flu virus, gets vaccinated anyway, and then as consequence a weakened or confused immune system, gets another respiratory viral infection. That’s safety. Oops.

Sowolski et al. are therefore 100% wrong to criticize an re-interpret Wolff.

I want to say I’m done here, and mic drop, but not… just… yet.

Test-Negative Study Designs Are Irrelevant for Clinical Reality

In fact, the vaccinologists have really made a seriously bad decision to use Test-Negative study design to estimate flu vaccine efficacy althogther. Why?


Translational failure is when a study is conducted that is supposed to inform on a given clinical question for a specific clinical population, but via its study design, is render irrelevant due to the problem of non-representativeness of the sample groups for the clinical populations of interest.

The only population for which a test-negative study design, or any clinical study design is relevant is the study design that matches the actual clinical practice.

Thus, when we find a population where people are tested for the flu virus first, and are THEN vaccinated (or not), the test-negative study designs of flu vaccine efficacy MIGHT then be more relevant to reality.

Test negative study designs are uniquely irrelevant to reality regarding flu vaccine efficacy because they may enrich the study for those people who are likely to have a positive response to the flu vaccine, or for those people who are less likely to experience viral interference due to being vaccinated while infected with a dissimilar influenza type. TNDs have nothing to do with real estimates of influenza vaccine efficacy in the real world.

So, next time Facebook or other social media outlets cite an alleged “Fact-Checker” as showing that this study or the other does not show what the authors of the study themselves concluded (as in the case of Wolff), you just run right over that bull, take it as a badge of honor (if it’s your post) and share this blog article in the comment of your post. You can find it at #FactCheckingGetsReal anytime you need it.

Maybe if we always share this back, Facebook censors will learn a thing or two about clinical trial study design before they accept the baloney being served by the self-annointed keepers of the #Truth.

Time to being tagged by a Fact Checker in 10, 9, 8, 7…

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA


CDC’s Policies on Masking Actually Increase COVID19 Risk. Why Do You Still Trust Them?

CDC has a history of getting it wrong with personal protective equipment right when we need them to get it right. Remember Ebola? CDC published the wrong PPE protocol on their website, leading to infection of two nurses from Texas.

Now, AMERICA IS WAKING UP to the fact that they either were lied to, or are being lied to about masks-for-all. Which is it? Perhaps both.

CDC’s initial position on whether the public should wear masks was a resounding “No”. In March, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams explains why the CDC and WHO do not recommend the general public wear masks and how doing so could increase your virus risk. (see video from Fox News here).

Marketwatch covered this reporting that “people shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent the spread of the infectious illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. surgeon general

US Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted these words in February –

The mercurial Dr. Anthony Fauci, who seems to have changed his position on every detail about COVID19, including the utility of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (which even he says may not be the answer), said that said that masks only made people feel better but were pretty much pointless.

Fast forward to now, and Fauci says changed his tune:

From Town Hall: “We were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply,” Fauci told The Street.

But – and this is a huge BUT – the public health community (and the medical community) do not wear cloth masks. They wear surgical masks, or, in some cases, N95 masks – for 15-20 minutes at a time. From something like COVID19, they wear LAYERS of masks and faceshield.

CDC recommends cloth masks, not surgical masks, not N95. Cloth masks. Actually, Cloth “face coverings“.

Fauci, CDC, and HHS in general have offered nothing but a whirlwind of vague, imprecise and unclear positions. It makes one wonder…

What is very clear (#ScienceSays) that cloth masks do not prevent transmission of viruses. In fact, they may increase transmission. The new excuse? They are supposed to prevent droplet transmission. Fine. But what about the narrative that Coronavirus is airborne? Here, hundreds of scientists say that coronavirus is airborne (Reuters).

It’s almost as if Fauci does not really care what the reality is, or that he is content to allow social strife, mutual distrust to foment among the public until he and Moderna fly in with the vaccine and save the world.

The Risks of Mask-Wearing

  1. Cloth masks can increase, not decrease, the risk of infection (including from the Coronavirus). 
  • In this study, researchers found that people have 3x the risk of developing a respiratory illness if they wear a mask.  In the first randomized clinical trial on the effects of cloth masks, scientists reported that “the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection”
  • As the temperatures increase, overheating while wearing a mask is a real risk.  See this article.

The Fauci Question: What Else Are We Be Lied To About?

CDC represents a report from data from South Korea as supporting that children should not return to school, or worse: they should return to school and be forced to wear masks. In yesterday’s episode of Unbreaking Science, I predicted that no school room will filled with kids wearing masks all day.


In part because the CDC report actually shows that children aged 0 to 10 years old account for <1% of of all new cases of COVID19 – and kids aged 11 to 20 years old ALSO account for <1% of all new cases of COVID19. We’re even told that children will not likely be candidates for COVID19 vaccination because they have near zero risk of serious illness, death and do not transmit the virus.

Why are we burdening our children w/disrupted education – our entire next generation – when they are clearly not high-risk tranmitters, and they do not get sick?

There is no reason to expect mass masking to have any real effect. In a memo, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, reported that even in the best case, with medical masks which prevent 40 percent of infections, 200,000 people would have to wear them to prevent just one new infection per week.  They concluded that the likely negative impacts outweighed any benefits “in the current epidemiological situation“. 

This does not add up. None of it.

It’s beginning to look that the agenda is to hold parents hostage w/their kids being forced to either stay at home and home school/distance learning, or send their kids to school to wear masks all day.

Until Fauci gets his damned vaccine.

America, ask yourself.

Is CDC having us all wearing masks – cloth masks – to increase transmission so Fauci can get his damned vaccine?

Some of the links and facts in this article come from a collaborative effort known as Millions Against Mandates ( Please consider joining.

BONUS – As usual, Del Bigtree and the Highwire Team was ahead of the curve weeks ago. Watch Del interview Denis Rancourt:

COVID19: Three Bits of Science That CDC, Fauci and FDA Forgot, and One They Would Like to Forget

COVID19: Three Bits of Science That CDC, Fauci and FDA Forgot, and One They Would Like to Forget

ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.

Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.

When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.

Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.

(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide a thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.

Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):

“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week
later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.

And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):

The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.

So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:

Why then are we reading headlines such as


The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not prove to be”enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.

2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.

A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.

And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.

In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that

There is a good reason why a huge number of scientists are calling upon Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for retraction of a bullshit study that claimed to show that masks are critical for reducing community transmission. There is actually a ton of science that shows that they do not.

“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.

Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.

Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.

Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”

From Ref #2


Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”

C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577

Even Medpage today published an article that concluded that some politicians are pushing masks for fear mongers, not toward evidence-based medical purposes.

(See Medpage Today: Mask Hysteria: Are We Going Too Far? — Kevin Campbell believes media and politicians use masking as a way to fear monger )

3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement

This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have head of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.

Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus. “Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups. Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”

Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.”

Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets “Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”

Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.”

Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate “…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”

There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget . They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.

We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.

A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore

Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.

If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?

Brownstein, D, R Ng, R Rowen, J-D Drummond, T Eason, H Brownstein and J Brownstein. 2020. A Novel Approach to Treating COVID-19 Using Nutritional and Oxidative Therapies. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 2:4-22.

portrait of handsome young man on grey background

One Brief, Brilliant Moment

One Brief, Brilliant Moment

Unless you are dictator of the world, communication does not create reality. It either matches reality, or it does not.

Since we have no universal dictator who can change reality at a whim, we’re stuck with reality.

No person’s individual perception is reality, yet your own personal experience with reality is literally synthesized in your brain.

Our collective perception does not determine reality. It, too, either matches it, or it does not.

What you believe does not determine reality. It reflects its possibilities.
Science does not determine reality. It discovers it.

Laws do to determine reality. They restrict it.

Reality existed for an unfathomably long time before humanity evolved on this planet, and it will exist for a even longer time after we are gone.

Every paradigm, belief system, dogma, doctrine, and credo will, one day, seem flawed and imperfect. I am not left. I am not right. I am a realist. I attempt to render understanding the approximates the truth.

The limits of our personal and collective knowledge are real. Real for now. Then they expand. New limits are found.

Across the animal kingdom, biology dictates much of what we find as the “nature” of organisms and species.

Until humanity comes to terms with the fact that our biology places limits on our understanding, and that we erect constructs to replace unlimited knowledge as coping mechanisms, we will always believe that we we currently believe is the truth.

It’s scary in the universe of un-knowing, but it’s also thrilling to imagine what we could learn if we let go of our constructs, and allow reality to wash over us for one brief, brilliant moment.

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA


Studies Show Effective Treatment – So Why Are Nursing Home Patients Being Left To Die with COVID-19 Untreated?

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD


“Our loved ones need not die so Fauci and Gates can have his moment in the sun with a vaccine next year.”

THE STUDIES OUT OF CHINA were clear: hydroxychloroquine improved health outcomes of patients with COVID-19. French study? The same.

In the hands of US scientists? Maybe, but they are not studying it on the full population like the Chinese scientists did, they moved the goalpost (changed the health outcome during the trial), and they used smaller (less powerful) studies.

Remdesivir? Gilead announced early promising results, and so what does NIAID do? They shut down that trial.

How about plasma convalescent therapy, where survivors donate their antibodies for other people to recover more quickly, have lower rates of serious and critical illness, lower hospitalization rates, and lower deaths? Did you know FDA recommends it for people who cannot have access to it in a clinical trial?

You won’t hear about other efficacy studies from China, and you won’t hear about the efficacy studies of hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

You won’t hear about the multicenter guidance consensus statement published recommending use of antivirals in serious pediatric cases of COVID-19.

And of course you won’t hear about the <2% hospitalization rate achieved by the preeminent Dr. David Btownstein with his high-dose vitamin regimen either, since FTC shut down his website in which he published direct interviews of patients under his care. No deaths, and the FTC shut it down.

So, we’re launching a case series study of his treatment regimen that will lead to a study submitted to a clinical journal for peer review. [Go to now to support – see How to Donate).

In smaller, less powered US government-related studies, hydroxychloroquine seems to lose its efficacy, and the US touts the results as more definitive than the larger, more powered studies that previously did report efficacy.

Now why would the US medico-government shut down studies and reports of treatment options that reduce the rate of serious and critical illness and death? Could it be that they want a sufficiently high mortality rate to warrant continued lock-down as a justification for their vaccine?

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it. The US medico-government is willing to allow people nursing homes to die with zero – ZERO intervention – not even a glass of orange juice for the Vitamin C – no compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine + Zpak, no attempts at remdesivir, no attempts at plasma convalescent therapy, no universal open-label retrospective study like are applied to vaccines all the time, well, they are simply allowing nursing home staff members to join them in an outright passive, but nonetheless willfull, massacre.

Most of the practicing and licensed physicians I know would never sit by idly and watch a patient deteriorate and do nothing, and follow up with ventilator that blows out their patients’ lung tissues after the virus has weaked the alveoli to the periphery. They would join me the condemnation of the ongoing willful massacre of our elderly in nursing homes around the country.

Wake up, America. Here is the list of studies and web resources the medico-fascists hell bent on a COVID-19 vaccine don’t want you to know about.

On March 28, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization allowing healthcare providers to make available chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate to “patients for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible,” adding “FDA encourages the conduct and participation in randomized controlled clinical trials that may produce evidence concerning the effectiveness of these products in treating COVID-19.”

So where are the treatments for the elderly?

My advice to people? Keep mom and dad, grandma and grandpa the hell away from nursing homes. If they are already there, get a lawyer and demand they be tested, and if negative for active infection, get them out. If they are already infected, send the lawyer this article and have them issue a letter of a threat of a lawsuit for wrongful death and malpractice for the attending physician.

And start clamoring for criminal negligence against the Board of Directors of the nursing home. Our loved ones need not die so Fauci and Gates can have his moment in the sun with a vaccine next year.

Do you have other studies that support the use of these or other treatments to add? Drop them in the comments, with a link.


Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

[1] Thibodeax, K et al. 2020. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in preventing mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective case series. J Wound Care 2020 May 1;29(Sup5a):S4-S8. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.Sup5a.S4.

Highlight: “All the patients recovered without the need for mechanical ventilation. Following HBOT, oxygen saturation increased, tachypnoea resolved and inflammatory markers fell.”


[2] Gilead Announces Results From Phase 3 Trial of Investigational Antiviral Remdesivir in Patients With Severe COVID-19 — Study Demonstrates Similar Efficacy with 5- and 10-Day Dosing Durations of Remdesivir —

Highlight: “The study demonstrated that patients receiving a 10-day treatment course of remdesivir achieved similar improvement in clinical status compared with those taking a 5-day treatment course (Odds Ratio: 0.75 [95% CI 0.51 – 1.12] on Day 14). No new safety signals were identified with remdesivir across either treatment group.”

Patients: Severe manifestations of COVID-19 disease. Inclusion criteria was pneumonia and reduced oxygen levels that did not require mechanical ventilation at the time of study. Overall mortality rate 7%.

[3] NIH Clinical Trial Shows Remdesivir Accelerates Recovery from Advanced COVID-19 | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Highlight: “Hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19 and lung involvement who received remdesivir recovered faster than similar patients who received placebo.”

[4] Inside the NIH’s controversial decision to stop its big remdesivir study

[5] Compassionate Use Example, Colorado, USA (Remdesivir)
Firstenberg, 2020. Successful COVID-19 rescue therapy by extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for respiratory failure: a case report Patient Saf Surg 2020 May 8 14:20

Combined Treatment Effective

Triple-drug combo of anti-malaria pill hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and ZINC improved coronavirus patients’ chances of being discharged and cut death risk by almost 50%, study finds

Highlight: “Results showed that patients receiving the triple-drug combination had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of recovering enough to be discharged.”

Highlight: “…an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice (was) significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744)”

Study link:

Hydroxychloroquine Phosphate

[6] Gautret et al., linical and microbiological effect of a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 COVID-19 patients with at least a six-day follow up: A pilot observational study.Travel Med Infect Disease 2020 Mar-Apr 24: 101663: doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101663. Epub 2020 Apr 11.

Highlight: “All patients improved clinically except one 86 year-old patient who died, and one 74 year-old patient still in intensive care. A rapid fall of nasopharyngeal viral load was noted, with 83% negative at Day7, and 93% at Day8. Virus cultures from patient respiratory samples were negative in 97.5% of patients at Day5. Consequently patients were able to be rapidly discharged from IDU with a mean length of stay of five days.”

[7] Chen et al., 2020. Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial MedRxiv

[8] Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.. Intl J Antimicrobial Agents Online March 20, 2020, 105949

Plasma Convalascent Therapy

[9] Joyner et al., 2020. Early Safety Indicators of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 5,000 Patients MedRxiv Preprint

[10] US FDA, May 1, 2020. Recommendations for Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

Consensus Statements

[11] Chiotos et al., 2020. Multicenter initial guidance on use of antivirals for children with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2020 Apr 22 : piaa045. Published online 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa045 PMCID: PMC7188128

Highlight: “Supportive care may be appropriate for children who are severely ill with coronavirus disease 2019. Use of potentially active antivirals should be considered, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available”

Boosting Immunity, Interferon

[12] Shen, K. 2020. Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in children: experts’ consensus statement. World J. Pediatric Feb 7 doi: 10.1007/s12519-020-00343-7.

Clinical Trials Reporting

[13] Where’s the data? In a pandemic, now is no time to sit on Covid-19 trial results

IPAK CEO Challenges Keele University to Uphold Academic Freedom

IPAK CEO Challenges Keele University to Uphold Academic Freedom


Pro Vice Chancellor and Professor David Amigoni

University of Keele

Dear Professor David Amigoni,

It is with great displeasure that I find that I must address this letter to you regarding the University of Keele’s blatant disregard and disdain for academic freedom. I am referencing your decision to decline a $15,000 donation by Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in support of the research program of Dr. Chris Exley, a fully tenured professor on the faculty at the University of Keele.

Are you aware that the contradictions in you text and verbiage in your declination letter is stunning example of what George Orwell called “Doublespeak”? First, let’s review how Orwell defined “Doublespeak”:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible … Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness … the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms…”

Now, let’s look at your communication to Mr. Kennedy in which you refused the $15,000 donation:

“Whilst the University is keen to support all its academics and wholly embraces freedom in the area of research, there are certain undeniably controversial research fields of which the University is tolerant: but for which accepting any large donations from prominent public figures or foundations could place the institution in an ethical and reputational predicament. To do so could generate potentially negative media coverage and may also jeopardise the strong relationships it holds with its existing major funders and partners.” (emphasis mine)

The University cannot “wholly embrace freedom in the area of research” and simultaneously be “tolerant” of certain research fields.

Further, by revealing that your decision was based on your expected loss of donation from “existing major funders and partners”, you have revealed that the University of Keele has a policy of biasing “allowed science” due to a serious conflict of interest, and thus it is abundantly clear that you have created a breach of ethics by your refusal of the donation.

It is neither Dr. Exley’s responsibility nor fault that the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are “undeniably controversial“. Controversy exists as part of the dynamic ecosystem of any thriving scientific line of inquiry. Where would we be on the heliocentric model of the University were it not for controversy? Where would we be without controversy on evolution by natural descent with modification, co-authored by Sir Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace? Or on Plate Tectonics Theory by Alfred Wegener? Perhaps we should have never seen the development of quantum physics by causing Einstein’s inquiries into to go unfunded out of fear of a little scuffle with those who supported Newtonian physics as a sufficient model for understanding how the universe itself works? Do you yet see what you have done?

Dr. Exley consistent and cautious approach to the question of aluminum toxicity is worthy of consideration as a model for how to safely navigate the torrents of political malestrom while nevertheless persisting in the face of unbeatable odds of bias. As you should well know of Dr. Exley’s contributions, especially in the role of aluminum in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases – have been fundamental, careful and thorough in their demonstrations that, counter to prior assumptions, aluminum enters the brain; that aluminum is increased in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease, autism, and Parkinson’s disease.

Dr. Exley is far from alone in his inquiry. My research, quite independent of Dr. Exley’s, has found that official positions and policies on the safety of aluminum in vaccines is based on stratified unfounded and baseless assumptions, including the use of measurements of toxicity of aluminum from dietary forms in adult mice to assess the safety of injected forms of aluminum in infant humans. The requisite studies of injected doses of aluminum into mice to test hypotheses of autoimmunity, a role in developmental disorders and neurodegenerative disorders have never been conducted. This lack of information, however, only plays the role of sustained ignorance, which plays into the agenda of those aligned with the “other funding sources” your University might stand to lose should the University truly abide by Dr. Exley’s well-earned academic freedom. You should decline any source of funding that comes with such obvious marrionette strings attached.

Dr. Amigoni, what are we as a society to do when an industry that profits to the tune of over US$27 Billion from vaccines does so at the requirement of sustained ignorance and at the cost of the generation of knowledge of causal factors of chronic illness which, by my estimation, drive hundreds of millions into autoimmunity, hundreds of millions into neurodevelopmental disorders, billions into neurodegenerative disease and untold numbers of ordinary people into an early grave? Does not your refusal of the funds presume a specific outcome of future research? Your refusal therefore includes a tacit accusation of bias in Dr. Exley’s research conduct. You must therefore reconsider. Considering that aluminum is not a necessary component of vaccines, but is, instead, merely an additive that allows the use of less antigen – and the continuation of contracts to certain Pharmaceutical companies for specific vaccines with aluminum-based formulations – the question arises: is the continued use of aluminum in vaccines merely to the benefit of the few, at the great cost and loss of the many? University of Keele’s reputation should suffer as bastion of sustained and enforced ignorance and as one that has abject disdain for Science.

My own research shows that the US CDC’s pediatric vaccine schedule causes infants to suffer chronic whole-body toxicity due to aluminum injections 70% of their days during their first seven months of life, and one out of four days up to the age of 24 months. We achieved this by calculating the world’s first and to date only Pediatric Dose Limit for aluminum in vaccines. Yes, you read that correctly – a small, independent, publicly funded Institute is the only source of a Pediatric Dose Limit for aluminum injections. Not the US FDA, not the UK’s NHS. Why is that?

Science is for asking questions in a manner that allows us to come to know about the world and the Universe around us in an unbiased manner. Universities such as yours are supposed to be centers of academic freedom – free from political influences, free from influences from large monied entities whose income streams are 100% dependent on sustained ignorance.

I urge you to read the realities of the state of knowledge of aluminum toxicity in the reference materials I have provided below – some peer reviewed, some not – so that you might be better positioned to measure the impact of risk of your University’s loss of funding from sources that would, by your own admission, coerce you into adopting a non-scientific position on aluminum toxicity- against the risk of impact of aluminum in vaccines to public health. In keeping with long-standing traditions in Science, please be advised that none of us, not you, Dr. Exley, Mr. Kennedy, or anyone has a crytsal ball by which we can know the full translational impact of objective, unbiased research on aluminum. A ban on aluminum adjuvants? Perhaps. Use of existing tests for aluminum allergy prior to vaccination? Perhaps. Better understanding of our immune system and the development of safer vaccines? I hope so. Who are we to place limits on the boundary of knowledge? To do so requires massive hubris and a disdain for actual knowledge and new discoveries.

After you read the listed materials, please consider an invitation to be my guest the video Podcast, “Unbreaking Science” so you might describe Dr. Exley’s research program to a knowledge-hungry international audience eager to end the pandemic of autoimmunity, neurodevelopmental disorders, and neurodegenrative disorders caused, in part, by the toxic effects of aluminum on human tissues, organs and human beings. My invitiation is conditional on you reviewing the listed resources below in detail in preparation for an in-depth discussion on the issues these studies and reviews have raised.

I am free and independent of donor influence – and by my invitation, I am throwing University of Keele a lifeline. I am certain that together, you and I could help Chris raise significant funds to continue and expand his research program.


James Lyons-Weiler, PhD


The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge


McFarland, G, E La Joie, P Thomas and J Lyons-Weiler. 2020. Acute Exposure and Chronic Retention of Aluminum in Three Vaccine Schedules and Effects of Genetic and Environmental Variation. J Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 58:126444.

Lyons-Weiler, J and R. Ricketson. 2018. Reconsideration of the Immunotherapeutic Pediatric Safe Dose Levels of Aluminum. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 48:67-73.

A. Mirza, A. King, C. Troakes, C. Exley, Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease, J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 40 (2017) 30–36.

D. Malakoff, Public health. Aluminum is put on trial as a vaccine booster, Science 288 (2000) 1323–1334.

J.G. Dórea, Exposure to mercury and aluminum in early life: developmental vulnerability as a modifying factor in neurologic and immunologic effects, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12 (2015) 1295–1313,

R.A. Yokel. Aluminum in food – The nature and contribution of food additives. In: Yehia El-Samragy (ed.), Food Additive, Intech (2012) pp 203–228, ISBN 978-953-51-0067-6.

M.D. Mold, A. Umar, A. King, C. Exley, Aluminium in brain tissue in autism, J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 46 (2018) 76–82.

L. Tomljenovic, C.A. Shaw, Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations, Lupus 21 (2012) 223–230.

L. Tomljenovic, C.A. Shaw, Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism, J. Inorg. Biochem. 105 (2011) 1449–1489.

Dórea JG, Marques RC. 2010. Infants’ exposure to aluminum from vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 20(7):598-601. doi: 10.1038/jes.2009.64.

Fanni, D et al. 2014. Aluminum exposure and toxicity in neonates: A practical guide to halt aluminum overload in the prenatal and perinatal periods. World Journal of Pediatrics 10:101-7.

Flarend RE et al. 1997. In vivo absorption of aluminium-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26Al. 15(12-13):1314-8. [clearance rate 4.6%/28 days]

M.S. Petrik, M.C. Wong, R.C. Tabata, R.F. Garry, C.A. Shaw
Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War Illness induces motor neuron death in mice Neuromolecular Med., 9 (no.1) (2007), pp. 83-100

G. Crépeaux, R.K. Gherardi, F.J. Authier
Asia, Chronic fatigue syndrome, and selective low dose neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvants J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract., 6 (no.2) (2018), p. 707, 10.1016/j.Jaip.2017.10.039

R.K. Gherardi, G. Crépeaux, F.J. Authier
Myalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome following immunization : macrophagic myofasciitis and animal studies support linkage to aluminum adjuvant persistency and diffusion in the immune system
Autoimmun. Rev., 18 (no.7) (2019), pp. 691-705.

J.D. Masson, G. Crépeaux, F.J. Authier, C. Exley, R.K. Gherardi
Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants. J. Inorg. Biochem., 181 (04) (2018), pp. 87-95.

G. Crépeaux, H. Eidi, M.O. David, Y. Baba-Amer, E. Tzavara, B. Giros, F.J. Authier, et al. Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: selective low dose neurotoxicity. Toxicology, 375 (2017), pp. 48-57.

R. Kandimalla, J. Vallamkondu, E.B. Corgiat, K.D. Gill
Understanding aspects of aluminum exposure in alzheimer’s disease development. Brain Pathol., 26 (no.2) (2016), pp. 139-154.

S. Davenward, P. Bentham, J. Wright, P. Crome, D. Job, A. Polwart, C. ExleySilicon-rich mineral water as a non-invasive test of the’ Aluminum hypothesis’ in alzheimer’s diseaseJ. Alzheimers Dis., 33 (no.2) (2013), pp. 423-430.

K.P. Sharma, N. Upreti, S. Sharma. Protective effect of Spirulina and tamarind fruit pulp diet supplement in fish (Gambusia affinis baird & girard exposed to sublethal concentration of fluoride, aluminum and aluminum fluoride Indian J. Exp. Biol., 50 (no.12) (2012), pp. 897-903.

G. Bjorklund, V. Stejskal, M.A. Urbina, M. Dadar, S. Chirumbolo, J. MutterMetals and parkinson’s disease: mechanisms and biochemical processes. Curr. Med. Chem., 25 (no.19) (2018), pp. 2198-2214.

M. Yasui, T. Kihira, K. Ota, M. Mukoyama, L. Adachi
Aluminum deposition in the central nervous system tissues of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Rinsho Shinkeigaku, 31 (10) (1991), pp. 1095-1098.

A.A. Kinawy. Synergistic oxidative impact of aluminum chloride and sodium fluoride exposure during early stages of brain development in the rat Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 26 (no.11) (2019), pp. 10951-10960.

P.N. Alexandrov, A.I. Pogue, W.J. Lukiw Synergism in aluminum and mercury neurotoxicityIntegr. Food Nutr. Metab., 5 (no.3) (2018).

G.L. Klein
Aluminum toxicity to bone: a multisystem effect?
Osteoporos. Sarcopenia, 5 (no.1) (2019), pp. 2-5.

R. Yokel, S.R. Rhineheimer, P. Sharma, et al.
Entry, half-life, and desferrioxamine-accelerated clearance of brain aluminum after a single 26Al exposure
Science, 64 (1) (2001), pp. 77-82.

S.K.S. Sheth, Y. Li, C.A. Shaw
Is exposure to aluminium adjuvants associated with social impairments in mice? A pilot study J. Inorg. Biochem., 181 (2018), pp. 96-103.

D.R. Fanni, R. Ambu, C. Gerosa, S. Nemolato, N. Iacovidou, P. Van Eyken, V. Fanos, M. Zaffanello, G. Faa Aluminum exposure and toxicity in neonates: a practical guide to halt aluminum overload in the prenatal and perinatal periods. World J. Pediatr., 10 (no.2) (2014), pp. 101-107.

G. Morris, B.K. Puri, R.E. Frye. The putative role of environmental aluminium in the development of chronic neuropathology in adults and children. How strong is the evidence and what could Be the mechanisms involved?Metab. Brain Dis., 32 (no.5) (2017), pp. 1335-1355.

A. Strunecka, R.L. Blaylock, J. Patocka, O. Strunecky. Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum. Surg. Neurol. Int., 9 (2018), p. 74.

R.K. Gherardi, G. Crépeaux, F.J. Authier, L. Lujan.
Animal studies are mandatory to investigate the poorly understood fate and effects of aluminum adjuvants administered to billions of humans and animals worldwide
Autoimmun. Rev., 17 (no.7) (2018), pp. 735-737.

A. Parker
Testing new hypotheses of neurological and immunological outcomes with aluminum-containing vaccines is warranted
J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol., 51 (2019), pp. 28-30.

Igbokwe IO, Igwenagu E, Igbokwe NA. 2019. Aluminium toxicosis: a review of toxic actions and effects. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2019 Oct;12(2):45-70. doi: 10.2478/intox-2019-0007.

Röllin HB, Channa K, Olutola B, Nogueira C, Odland JØ. In Utero Exposure to Aluminium and Other Neurotoxic Elements in Urban Coastal South African Women at Delivery: An Emerging Concern. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 6;17(5). pii: E1724. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051724.

CDC Public Health Data Fudging 1: COVID-19 Rates Explained

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD



On 5/2/2020, CDC published the number of deaths from COVID as under 34,000. Surprised? You should be. By all accounts, the US has reported over 67,000 deaths – depending on who you read, confirmed deaths (e.g., The Weekly).

The point being, of course that when the public – and public health officials see “Number of Deaths” – they believe they are seeing confirmed deaths.

Johns Hopkins reports – without caveat = that the “Number of Deaths” in the US are currently over 67,000:

These are the statistics we have all been following.

Now here are the recently publicized statistics from CDC:

The first thing that pops out to me is the number of flu deaths is about double that of past seasons – if you follow my protocol for undoing CDC’s inflation protocol that adds pneumonia to flu deaths so influenza qualifies as an epidemic. Remember we are at the end of the flu season. With the few months’ reporting, the number of flu cases being this high is shocking because it is double that from past years for the entire season.

The second thing that sticks out to me is that a huge proportion of people – in fact most – w/COVID-19 at death must not involve pneumonia.

Of a total of 37,308 people who died with COVID-19, the table reports only 16,564 deaths “with Pneumonia + COVID19”

That’s only 44% of people who died with COVID-19 also had a diagnosis of pneumonia.

The third thing that sticks out of course is the difference between 37K and 67K deaths that we have all been tracking. This massive discrepancy between CDC’s 37K and the everywhere-else-reported 67K is due to the use of that set of statistics being based on confirmed COVID-19 cases and “suspected” COVID-19 cases. I’ve seen explanations attributing the discrepancy in the lower number – 37K – as being due to a “lag” in confirmation – in fact the 33K CDC source says precisely that. But that is no explanation for the difference. Why, and how, for example, does an estimate of 67K even exist? And how can other CDC sources such the

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases. Cases in the US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020

and places like Johns Hopkins, whom we can presume gets their data from CDC, have results two weeks ahead of… the CDC? Why are we being misled in our perception of risk by inflated death rates – at all?

A probable case or death is defined by CDC by fulfillment of one of the following: “Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.”

That’s of little assurance given that policies have been founded on the 67K estimate – not the 33K confirmed cases. CDC’s paradigm – some would call it their M.O. – is to overestimate death rates from infectious disease – explicitly, as if that’s appropriate or even useful for a reason-based response.

We have been waiting to see how CDC would reconcile their shady practices on “Influenza” death reporting – outed in Scientific American as “wild overestimates” following my report of the discrepancy on LinkedIn given the impact of COVID-19 on influenza death rates – since the default for “flu-like symptoms” has become “suspected COVID-19” instead of “suspected influenza”.

When it comes to flu deaths reporting and COVID-19 ‘suspected’ cases taking an unfair share away from the annual faux “Influenza” aka “Influenza Disease” aka “Pneumonia & Influenza”, something had to – and still has to – give, if “Influenza” – however CDC will define it in June – is to qualify as an “epidemic”. Their efforts at correcting their oversight appears to have led to as many as four times more influenza cases than they need. Oops.

Data fudgery, statistical shamwizardy, some shift was expected – I predicted it a month ago, but expected a gradual drip leaning toward bias in the updates in June – because, put plainly, CDC does not track influenza cases with integrity. To learn exactly what I mean by that, and why you need to know how to think about rates, read on…

CDC Uses Scientism, but That Pits Belief in Sciency Things vs. Science

So much discussion these days online involve taking a “position on” or “believing” in something, and this is actually not very helpful when one is trying to understand an outbreak. While the public has every reason, the right and the responsibility to remain vigilently skeptical of anything coming from the CDC, it’s important that we are able to discuss and focus on numbers and rates without giving up in frustration and saying “I don’t know what to believe”. Situations change in outbreaks and pandemics, thus the actual values change (they are dynamic) from day to day and week to week in response to complex variables that impact growth. It’s best to think about values we discuss like the Stock Market.

While that makes these issues are complex, with a careful read of this article, and a follow-up viewing of the companion Unbreaking Science episode (link forthcoming), you’ll be able to quickly understand what you are looking at and be able to communicate your ideas and thoughts quickly and efficiently.

What Determines How Bad An Outbreak Will Be?

[Warning: Deep Dive into the Geek Arena Here, But You Will Learn]

During an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of a deadly disease from virus, people want to know the answer the following question: “How bad will this be?” This is determined in part by characteristics of the virus (transmissibility and virulence, see my article on these two), and the characteristics of the host species. This means it is largely determined by our ability to respond to the virus. The characteristics of the virus and how we respond to it determines the following outcome measures, all of which can change depending on how we respond:

(1) R0 (R-Naught). This is the number of people a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 (or any pathogen) may be expected to infect. People often think that R0 is a fixed characteristic of a virus. It is not. It is best to think of R0 as an outcome of all of the characteristics of a virus and a populations’ respond to the virus up to a given point in time, but it’s even better in my view to consider R0 on a daily basis during an outbreak.

I have a measure of an effective R0 that is easy to calculate Effective R0 (EffR0) for COVID-19, as the ratio of the number of COVID-19 cases today to the number of cases five days ago (given a 4-5 day asymptomatic period preceding diagnosis). This can be done for any town, county, state, country, or for the entire world.

Here is chart of EffR0 for the US from Day 1 of the first recognized case until 5/3/2020:

US Effective R0 as of 5/3/2020

Note we are not yet below 1.0. See how responsive this number is to changes in our behavior? The peak value represents the day POTUS declared COVID-19 a national emergency, and the variation following represents bringing testing online following CDC’s Testing Fiasco. The value of EffR0 peaked at about 5.8, when POTUS declared it to be a national emergency.

These are not number of cases; the total (cumulative) number of cases in the US looks quite different:

One thing is clear – the virus is not in full retreat by any means – but at least the curve is no longer nonlinear. It’s worth pointing out that R0 > 1 means a constant increase in the number of cases – and therefore the number of deaths. Weeks ago, before the lock-down, the issue was an ongoing increase in the increase of the number of infections. The extent that this is due to social distancing or seasonality remains to be seen – it will take time to know the true and full nature of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

For a long-view comparison of R0s among pathogens, one can compare overall R0 values of different pathogens over a season or a year (over a fixed time period). It is important to state specifically the time period a given value of R0 is referencing, because it can change from year to year or season to season. It can change due to a mutation, seasonality, or due to a policy change.

(2) Attack Rate

The Attack Rate is the proportion of people who become ill from a disease in a population that was initially free of the disease. Obviously, to be able to answer the question “How Bad Will This Be?”, we have to try to understand how many people can be expected to become infected in total over the course of an epidemic, and over what period of time. If only certain individuals are susceptible to infection, due to behavior or lifestyle choices, the general immediate concern over risk of infection and therefore risk of serious illness or death will be lower. However, if all of the risk is in certain demographics, such as a diseases that only effects newborns, the general concern may be heightened.

Like R0, the Attack Tate is determined by characteristics of a virus and of the host. Initially the attack rate may appear to be high, before a population responds. If the population response is effective, or if they are forewarned, the attack rate can be decreased.

In epidemiology, there are two closely related measures that have significant differences: Incidence and Prevalence.

Prevalence tells us how widespread a disease is in a population. Prevalence is the ratio of the total number of patients diagnosed at a given time to the total population. (#Infected persons at one time / Size of Population at that time)

Incidence refers to new cases of the disease in the population in a given time period (such as a year). Incidence is the ratio of total new cases in a population divided by total population size (#Of New Cases During a Period of Time / Median Size of the Population Over that Time Period).

We know the prevalence and the incidence of influenza (or we think we do, see below). While we can know on any given day the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (estimated, of course), we cannot yet know the incidence for COVID-19 in a manner comparable to influenza annual case rates yet precisely because COVID-19 is new.

For a given timeframe, the total numbers of people diagnosed depends on whether the pathogen has had time – and opportunity – to spread to throughout the population under whatever protocol of public health intervention has been in play. All estimates related to the infection rate (attack rate, incidence, prevalence) of COVID-19 must therefore be interpreted as reflecting the lock-down, social distancing, etc. Since our past annual rates of influenza are from non-lock-down years, we cannot compare COVID-19 population mortality rates and numbers to Influenza in any meaningful way.

(3) Case Fatality Rate (CFR)

The Case Fatality Rate is a measure of the proportion of infected individuals who have died from a disease. It is calculated as

#Deaths Due to Illness From A Pathogen / Number of People Infected

Importantly, CFRs are NOT rate measures, as classically defined, because CFRs do not include a temporal component (time between infection and death due to the pathogen). Imagine a virus that is 100% deadly, but infects people under the age of 5 but only kills them after the age of 60; other causes of mortality such as automobile accidents will reduce the apparent risk of death due to the virus. Case Fatality Rates are, however, considered measures of risk for a specified time period.

People sometimes use the term “Case Fatality Ratio” interchangeable with “Case Fatality Rate“, but this should be avoided but Case Fatality Ratios are actually a measure that compares the Case Fatality Rate between two diseases.

Comparing CFR during an outbreak, epidemic or pandemic for one pathogen to an established, all-season CFR is hazardous. Why?

The problem is that CFR cannot be known in a day-to-day in a manner that is quite as meaningful for understanding the full relative risk of mortality of a disease as we might think. The use of CFR to compare different pathogens has to wait until the end of a outbreak/epidemic/pandemic, or the end of a season. This is true due to the same reason we cannot compare R0 under those conditions – we cannot know the full attack rate until enough time has transpired for the full attack rate to be measured – and in the attempts to compare to other epidemics – until the full effects of a society’s response have materialize.

One could measure “# of deaths per day” and thereby make an attempt to understand a death rate, but since the full Attack Rate is not known the actual full death rate still would not be known until the end of an outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.

And this point is super-relevant for people who want to be able to compare death rates from COVID-19 to influenza: it cannot and should not be done for a few important reasons:

a. We don’t yet know the final Attack Rate of COVID-19

b. We don’t know the long-term (say, annual) CFR of COVID-19

c. There is a vaccine program against influenza, so such a comparison is apples-to-oranges “COVID-19 w/no vaccine vs. Influenza w/a vaccine”.

d. We have more experience treating influenza than COVID-19. The high incidence of mortality from ventilators, for example, in COVID-19 is currently high; those deaths will become unlikely as we change our use of ventilators as standard of care.

It should be understood that the CFR reflects a “risk of dying” IF one is infected. Thus, the CFR is not relevant for the entire population at all unless the Attack Rate is 100%.

(4) Population Mortality Risk

The Population Mortality Risk, or Population Death Rate from a pathogen is ratio of number of deaths from illness from the infection by that pathogen to the total number of people in the population over a specified period of time. The PMR will typically be far lower than the Case Fatality Ratio unless the Attack Rate is 100%.


To understand population-wide risk, we have to compare, if we can, the effect of real-life efforts at containment, mitigation, and suppression, ot a null “do nothing model”. Each of any number of plausible scenarios have their own outcome variables, and this goes to a key point of modeling. All models, by definition, are incorrect. They are not reproductions of reality – they are not even attempted reproductions of reality. Therefore even the most granular and correctly arranged model will be incorrect to some degree in detail. In an oubreak, early models will almost always be more incorrect than later models, as more information becomes available. But later models will also have more parameters, as the host species (us), use our innate characteristics (intelligence, behavior, technology, communication, treatments) to change our susceptibility to infection, serious illness and mortality.

Any reasonable response will include factors that influence overall health (nutrition, supplements), access to fresh air and sunshine, understanding who is at most risk, mitigating specific risk, and, most importantly, personal responsibility. Individual actions such as informed self-isolation based on their COVID-19 status from private testing is a variable not yet explored. Instead, testing is considered to be the responsibility of the medical community. In clinical testing, however, the laboratory reports the results of the test to the physician who ordered the test, and to the CDC.

The patient is the last ot know the results, and for meaningful utility leading to rapid change in individual behavior, the patient (or just a person) should be the first to know.

So What Does All of This Mean?

What this means is that CDC has, at the present time, at least 30K deaths it can attribute according to “complex algorithsm” either to COVID-19 or the Infleunza, or both, whatever fits their agenda in June. What people really care about, though is risk to themselves… general population mortality risk due to COVID-19.

If I were to take my best current shot at estimating a population mortality rate, I could do it in one of two ways: using data available before the US societal response, or data available after. Any analysis using total present “today” data on cumulative numbers of cases, or numbers of deaths, in the US would be based on hybrid – not well-defined – set of response parameters. Before the societal lock-down, our response was minimal and impotent. After the lock-down, it’s still very messy because different states have developed different legal paradigms and overarching philosophies on how to respond, and the effectiveness of each paradigm is unknown.

The fact remains: CDC has been combining probable and confirmed cases of COVID-19, and all of our public health policies, and the public’s reactions to those policies, have been a result of using inflated death numbers. Knowledge that the denominator – the total number of cases – is much, much higher than the number of clinical cases means the PMR is VASTLY inflated if one looks only at the Case Fatality Rate. If the real rate of COVID-19 deaths are polluted with deaths from influenza, RSV and other non-COVID-19 pneumonia cases, it impacts population-rate estimates in the moment that makes it impossible to define a rational public health response that everyone can support.

Just as CDC inflated Influenza counts, they are inflating COVID-19 counts. Still, let’s take a look at the overall US “non-lagged” data from Day 80 of the outbreak in the US. The rate of increase in the number of cases and deaths is now constant – approximately linear – so let’s cut to the chase and go right to the number of expected deaths after 365 days if nothing changes.

The number I come up with is 617,902 deaths, giving us a population-wide mortality risk of 0.00185. That’s 185 deaths per 100,000 individuals (population mortality rate).

That’s with Probable Case data – and, very importantly – with the lock-down in place.

Now, with no lock-down, in three months’ time, a power law model tells that we would have 3.3 million deaths; ten days following that, we’d have 8.2 million deaths.

All based on wildly biased estimates published by CDC.

The unbiased data – wherever it is – will now have to be analyzed to produce a lower-bound estimates of these two conditions, but let’s assume for now they will be approximately 1/2 of the size of the biased estimates.

So, lower bound annual population mortality risk, 90 deaths per 100,000, or about 10 in 1,000,000. But no economy.

Neither estimate is realistic. We need to dial into reality.

Of couse the input data from that period of time reflect the effects of CDC’s testing fiasco, reflect no new testing infrastructure, no real general knowledge of the value of self-isolation and sanitation of public spaces, and no widespread use of antivirals to keep viral titres down during infection to prevent serious illness, death and transmission. Yesterday, for the first time, I saw our local grocery chain employees wiping down common surfaces, something I’ve been calling for since early February. These individual factors will matter.

But this is not as simple as “lock-down” vs. “no lock-down”. The two modeled scenarios actually represent extremes on a continuum. A new factor that could be and I think should be added is private, in-home testing. Hundreds of millions of Americans could be tested with a 15-min antibody test in the privacy of their home.

This would be far more effective and less costly than widespread testing w/contact tracing. Further, those who seek medical care would receive a follow-up clinical test – and their data would be available to CDC (standard reporting of age, zip code, gender and COVID-19 status). In-home private testing is the solution to so many problems. It’s rapid, efficient and will prove very effective if the public can be taught how to interpret the test results and be provided simple guidance. (See the IPAKBack2Work Plan). No reporting. No contact tracing. Your employer does not know. Individuals testing and then deciding to do the right thing – including whether they can yet rejoin society. Simple. And this could be done on a regular basis, until allopathy catches up to highly effective curative protocols that do exist.

Our plan preserves HIPAA protections and relies on personal responsibility.

The bulk of the two projections above are, unfortunately, 100% dependent on the CDC’s data reported to WHO. It’s a shame we have to rely on thoroughly corrupted institutions for our data for such an important public health event. WHO by the way, has the US at >67,000 deaths whereas their domestic confirmed data reflects a mere 37,000. Did WHO not get the memo? CDC will gyrate a few times before the settle on one cooked estimate, until June we are told.

Right now, it seems that CDC has a new tactic – to boldly estimate Influenza deaths at two to ten times the rate of past years no longer by combining pneumonia + influenza, but instead perhaps just borrowing from COVID-19 deaths. Perhaps testing is up because of COVID. We’ll see.


It’s tempting to make comparisons of COVID-19 rates to influenza, but they are fraught with the hazard of being misleading – for methodological reasons and for GIGO (garbage-in-garbage-out) reasons. Elsewhere I have outlined how that comparison is made impossible anyway because CDC has been cooking the books on “Influenza” since 2015 by combining “Pneumonia” deaths with laboratory-confirmed “Influenza” (sometimes referenced by CDC to as “Influenza”, “Influenza Disease” or “P&I” (“Pneumonia & Influenza”), meaning CDC has been misleading the public into perceiving that influenza virus infection is six to ten times more than it truly is (See “Is CDC Borrowing Pneumonia Deaths “From Flu” for “From COVID-19?” April 3, 2020). Some of the pneumonia cases intermixed with Influenza into “Influenza Disease” annually are caused by coronaviruses.

In the 2020 “confirmed cases” report on COVID deaths, CDC notes that for THAT report, “Pneumonia death counts exclude pneumonia deaths involving influenza

So there is absolutely no justification for the prior years’ combination of Influenza + Pneumonia deaths.

Looking back at data from 2014, only 8.1% of influenza disease deaths were bona fide influenza. When Influenza alone is considered, there are typically less than 5,000 deaths from influenza virus pear year. Of course there is a range of error around that estimate. However, at the most likely rate, nearer to 5,000, influenza causes less than 7.3% of deaths from all causes, and this leads to the stunning reality that influenza should no long be considered an epidemic in the US.

Without integrity and accuracy in assessing rates and risk of serious illness and death due to pathogens, we cannot have evidence-based public health policies founded on science. With practices such as those adopted by CDC, we merely have public health policies founded on dogma, which will always have to eventually be reconciled with reality. COVID-19 has challenged the status quo misleading accounting practices used by the CDC, which, absolutely, must now change.

That’s part of why I am calling for a radically new public health system – one in which the CDC culture is absent, and integrity and accuracy reigns – one with no connection to profit oppotunities. I am calling for a Public Health Integrity Network of 18 performance sites, located within private and public research institutions, each node of which acts completely independent of each other on the same public health problems simultaneously. All results from these activities are sent to an independent body that compiles the range of information presented and best solutions are brought into the public eye. We need pure academic research without perverse financial entanglements and incentives. This network process will replace the CDC. CDC should not be involved in public health matters. Period.

Things will look different when we finally have public health integrity with transparency, accountability and independence from profit motive providing core tenets of professionalism in public health research, and the public will know their privacy and right to autonomy are respected. Which means, of course, no immunity cards, no mandatory testing, and, with respect, no mandatory vaccines.

COVID-19 Testing – An Urgent Open Letter to Governors of The United States

No one wants to be the bad guy who strips the dignity of rugged American individualism away from American citizens via mandated and reported testing for COVID-19. In fact, under current laws, we don’t know if we can even do that. President Trump, however, has indicated that it is up to each governor to decide how each state will start a trip back to a new normal. No one knows how to do this rationally, and with compassion, but it’s your job.

I offer you this bit of humble advice. Just as citizens of your State or Commonwealth can test themselves in the privacy of their own homes for HIV infection, for pregnancy, and for paternity, and their kids for drug use, those same citizens can and should have the ability to test themselves privately in their homes for COVID-19. Let me explain why this counterintuitive idea not only makes sense- but that it is the only rational piece of the puzzle on the table.

First, not everyone needs clinical testing. The idea of constant clinical testing, with every major medical facilty overrun by people – even at remote drive-though testing facilities – is not only ludicrous – it is unnecessary, wasteful and risky to bring people together who might spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Medical staff burn through personal protective gear more quickly when people who do not need to be tested show up to be tested.

Second, those who privately test in the safety of their homes who test positive will likely seek medical care – and there, they will be tested– just as a woman who have a positive result of a pregnancy test in her home who seeks clinical care for her pregnancy will receive clinical confirmation of the in-home test, hundreds of millions of negative test results do not tie up clinical facilities

Third, American citizens should be treated as adults. Some of the tests on the market for clinical use – such as Vibrant America’s 7-biomarker test – are extremely accurate and reliable, and are being re-made into tests for in-home use. In-home use, however, is not enough. American citizens should not have to report their results unless they seek clinical care. Why? Because more people will test more frequently if they do not have to report.

Finally, imagine a future in which workplaces offer two 2-week sick periods per year for every full-time employee. That’s a new normal because employees do not – and should not – be required to report their health status to anyone, including their employers. If someone becomes infected with SARS-CoV-2, they should be able to test themselves with a quick finger prick – and get the results in 15 minutes. They can – and will – then decide what the optimal choice for their next two weeks’ activity based on their status. Individuals who are IgM positive should choose to self-isolate. Individuals who are IgG positive should not hesitate to rejoin society – and they might want to volunteer for blood donations for convalescent plasma therapy.

Public health officials are calling for more testing, but they mean clinical testing to assess the situation. Real-time IgG and IgM status can inform individuals on their next rational steps – in as little as ten or fifteen minutes.

If we want to get America back to work, and re-open the economy, citizens should have the right to real-time information on their status – information they can use. Mass consumption will drive the price of such test down to as low as $10 per test.

I have outlined some guidances for those steps that States can consider adopting and encouraging their citizens to follow. Please find them here, at the IPAK webpage

This program is a rights-preserving alternative to mandatory testing and reporting. Many people will resent mandatory testing with reporting and the loss of individuality and sense of autonomy – and for what? There is no need to infringe on the health privacy rights, and in-home private testing is the fastest way to get the largest number of people tested in the shortest period of time. Factories will be needed to construct the hundreds of millions of test kits needed.

A 100% VOLUNTARY reporting program can be established to which people report their results anonymously, online. While incentives are fine (coupons for more tests, for example), there must be no penalty for non-reporting.

Let’s work together with the lines of the laws that exist to protect our individual freedoms and liberties and do something that makes sense.

Because nothing else we’ve heard is based on science, logic or reason. The FDA EUAs of these tests only allow clinical testing. That may or may not change. But the Chief Executive of the US, President Trump, who oversees the HHS and the FDA, has given the nod to states to do as they please. Please include private testing as a welcome tool in our arsenal against COVID-19.

And please let me know if I may be service to you as a group in this endeavor.


James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

CEO, Director & President

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.

The BIGGEST Next Battle on COVID-19 That You Don’t Know Your Position On Yet

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD


BY ANY ESTIMATION, I have been reliably and consistently 30 to 45 days ahead of the curve on issues related to COVID-19. That’s the benefit of having done indepedent reseach leading to a book on Ebola. I called for social distancing before anyone knew why I was proposing that we not place our hands above our shoulders in public, stop shaking hands, and stop attending large gatherings. I nailed it in my revised hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was likely a laboratory escape, but not man-made. I’ve recast “Immune Enhancement” more properly as “Pathogenic Priming” – a term all will get used to hearing when Phase I trials become Phase II trials and people start getting infected w/SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination and start dying at even higher rates due to disease enhancement caused by Pathogenic Priming from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination – something the vaccine developers SHOULD have tested for in animal studies, but skipped.

Call it a crystal ball, call it the product of insight of thirty-five years of non-stop learning in all areas of Science that I find merit my attention…

Today, 4/19/2020, I’m publishing that a major battle is brewing that neither side is yet aware of. It’s probably the most controversial aspect of COVID-19 public health policy, personal choice and the urge to “return to normalcy”. People who pick one side will see clearly why they are on one side; people who choose the other side will either be (a) bent on securing a massive revenue stream for allopathy and continuation of the centralization of faux authority on public health at CDC, or (b) so deeply conditioned and already convinced that even while they call for their personal, human, and constitional rights to be secured and defending, that they have already given up to their oppressors as all-mighty, all-powerful, and they will fight against their own best interest thinking they are defending their freedoms.

I’m talking about Private vs. Mandatory testing.


Oh, you may think you have an opinion about this already. If you are against private COVID-19 testing, and you’re new to the topic, trust me, you won’t agree with yourself in a week. It will be a weird week for you. Your mind wil feel closed, under attack. It will hurt, a little. That’s cognitive disequilibrium, and it is state of mind in which you are about to learn something.

For me, it’s been a weird two weeks, since I first brought up Private, Non-Compulsory In-Home Antibody Testing in the #IPAKBacktoWork Plan. Why interesting? Because everywhere I discuss it, I get kicked in the ass. For wanting the choice for all. It is me? Is this thing one? CHOICE. FOR ALL. BETTER YET – PRIVATE CHOICE. Not Bill Gate’s option. The IPAK option.

Evidently, post-COVID, major portions of freedom-loving America have already conceded, in their subconcious, the right of the government to test them for COVID-19, at any time, and to report those results to CDC. This portion – who in other settings spend 18 hours a day fighting an increasingly unwinnable fight to preserve the right to determine what we inject into our bodies – are evidently so deeply conditioned on the fallacy that “Testing Means Reporting” that they cannot read the word “Private” without reading “Mandatory”.

I have set up interviews to educate people on Private vs. Compulsory testing. That helped a little.

I’ve spent hours and hours answering questions online with hundreds of people. To little effect.

I’ve written articles explaining in great detail the differences between Private and Clinical testing.

And here I am, again, 12 something AM in the morning, writing another article, fighting the urge to explain yet again.

I won’t win that fight. I’ll give in. Let me try not to, because I’ve already explained it so many other times, so many other articles.

So let me try to unprogram you.

Read this sentence:

“Private (Non-Compulsory) Immunity vs. Mandatory Clinical, Reported Vaccination”

Now read it again, out loud:

“Private (Non-Compulsory) Immunity vs. Mandatory Clinical, Reported Vaccination”

And, take breath, and close your eyes and think of that sentence, and what it means to you for 10 seconds.

Now read this one:

“Private (Non-Compulsory) Testing vs. Mandatory Clinical, Reported Testing”

I hope that help you liberate yourself.

You of course can, and should choose which side of the Private vs. Bill Gates testing you are on. Those who want “NO TESTING!” are covered by the #IPAKBack2Work plan because no one will know if you are testing, or not testing. You’re good. It’s included. For real.

To all, good luck when the battle comes. Because those who want to perputuate massive profits in allopathy and centralized authority in the CDC are hell-bent and already working to

(1) Force you to test in your home and report.

(2) Force you to carry some proof of immunity.

(3) Restrict your rights to participate in society w/out presenting such proof of immunity (Vaccine Cards, Quantum Dot Tatoos, RFID Nose Rings, whatever).

(4) Transfer all of their new authority – which you gave them because you did not win the decisive battle that will win the war – to all other vaccine.

(5) Outlaw vaccine skepticsm speech. Goodbye CHD. Goodbye ICAN. Goodbye IPAK. Hello, Australian Rules Police State.


To those still skeptical if it’s even POSSIBLE to know your own COVID-19 status w/out reporting: That’s Clinical Testing, not Private Testing.

Ever take your own temperature? In the privacy of your own home? Did you report it? Were you compelled to report it? Did you take your temperature “voluntarily”? Or did you just take your temperature.

Non-Compulsory is Not “Voluntary” Voluntary implies participation in a program.

The #IPAKBacktoWork Program defends your personal liberties and rights to #KnowYourStatus without ever having to report it – to anyone.

Do you think Big Pharma and Big Medicine and CDC want you to have that level of autonomy? That level of freedom?

Do you want to know your status? Can you go to CVS or RiteAid and buy a COVID-19 in-home antibody test assay, like you can an EPT?


That’s an option that you cannot exercise.

Because FDA won’t allow it.

I have ZERO financial stake in the game of COVID-19 testing.

No Quid Pro Quo. NADA.

If you do nothing, mandatory testing and all the rest will surely come.

Because FDA does allow that.

Simple. #IPAKBacktoWork.

For those wondering “will we even succeed it we try”?

The answer, of course, is you. Will you do your civic duty to participate in your own self-goverance, or will your fear prevent you from claiming that which is already yours?

It’s 100% up to you. I ask you to do all you can do every day. If you have already done so, thank you. Please share with others. Again and again.

SPECIAL REPORT: Measure Shows Social Distancing is Working in the United States

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Today is 4/2/2020 and I have excellent news. In an earlier article, I described and explained how IPAK is using an estimate of Effective R0 – the basic reproductive ratio – to track progress in shutting down the spread of COVID 19. The measure is a simple ratio of the number of cases on Day X / the number of cases on Day X-5. Why X-5? It’s the asymptomatic period so the general form of Effective R0 is X/(X-A) where A is the asymptomatic period.

The goal is to push EffR0 below 1.0 – and keep it there.

Today, for the fourth day in a row, we see EffR0 for COVID-19 <1. This is best news in some time. If we keep it up, we may have zero new cases within the next week.

We still need to push for

-Prophylactic use of antivirals, supplements, naturotherapeutics to reduce viremia (viral load) in the infected.

-Massive effort to change FDA policy to allow private, in-home testing with antibody tests so Americans can know their immunity status.

For more details, check out the IPAK Back to Work Plan at the IPAK Website

You can support IPAK, a NFP Corporation in Pennsylvania, via a small monthly donation at this website. Your donation is not yet tax-deductible, but we are working on that.

Unbreaking Science ENDING THE PANDEMIC EPISODE 1: CDC’s Deadly Testing Fiasco: Fascism, Profiteering, Both?

This is a companian article to augment the first of six Unbreaking Science episodes dedicated to insuring that those who are responsible for the failures of a rapid and effective response to the COVID-19 outbreak are held responsible. The article and the episode are complimentary – that is they overlap in content, but each has some unique information not found in the other. I recommend the video first, followed by a read of the article.

By the end of this first article and episode, the public will understand that

A. WHO Offered the US a Perfectly Good, Validated Test

B. CDC Refused, Wanting “Their Own”

E This is Not the First Time CDC Wanted to Corner the Testing Market

F. HHS Whistleblower Chris Meekin Says CDC Lied to President Trump About the CDC’s Testing Abilities

D. Due to Capacity Alone, CDC is Incapable of Mounting an Effective Response to Outbreaks (Obvious National Security Issue)

G. Delay in Accurate Testing Could Help CDC – But It May Have Cost Us Everything

WHEN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION offered the CDC a test – made by Germany – that had already been tested, one has to wonder who held the conversation within CDC leading to the disastrous conclusion that CDC should make “their own” test. One also has to wonder what factors went into play and which were considered. Most importantly, one has to wonder how much more time the US and its medical infrastructure would have had if patients were not released from the Princess Cruise ship and unknown numbers of other places if they had not tested negative due to CDC’s faulty test. Whoever made those fateful decisions made them according to the status quo of the CDC – they prefer that which leads to massive amounts of positive revenue, regardless of the effect of that decision on safety.

The prevention paradigm at CDC displaced the rest of allopathy completely in the 1980s. David Lewis recalls this switch from controlling disease via contact tracing and use of treatments that prevent new infection (prevent tranmission) to the vaccination model – in which the vaccines were represented as preventing “new cases” via the prevention of symptoms following transmission. Most people think that vaccines prevent infection. They only do so if they reduce viremia – the growth of viruses – or bacterial growth – in someone who already has an infection. Vaccines can pass as “effective” if they suppress symptoms but fail to prevent infection.

Drugs that treat virus infections prevent the next infection by reducing viremia to the those where new infections are prevented. “Effective” when evaluating drugs is determined by testing for the presence of the virus – an assessment of the person who has been treated. “Effective” for a vaccine is defined as the presence of antibodies – and thus the assumption is that the next person will also be vaccinated, so if transmission still occurs, as is known in mumps, rubella, pertussis and most likely measles – the next person will not develop symptoms, even though the virus or bacterium might reach them from another vaccinated individual.

World Health Organization Offered CDC An Accurate Test: CDC Refused

Germany is not suffering from a raging infection outbreak because they have been conducting accurate testing since the onset of their first infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) offered the US CDC the test from Germany – and yet CDC made the deadly decision to develop their own test.

The German test was ready and available on January 17th 2020 – including published details of the protocol.

For those who know how, it is trivially easy to design primer probe sets that are both sensitive enough to amplify tiny amounts of nucleotide material in biological samples. It is also also trivially simple to make sure the primers selected are specific for the target sequences, and will not amplify off-target sequences, such as other viruses and human sequences.

The test had also already been validated for specificity to SARS-2-CoV – using human samples – meaning it would not accidentally give false positives for other respiratory viruses – and also meaning that it would not give a false positive from human genes in the human samples.

The CDC’s penchant for having “their own test” has been their MO in my experience for some time. During the 2014 Ebola Outbreak, as Director of the Ebola Rapid Assay Development Conortium (ERADC), I called CDC to inquire if they would test a protoype of a novel test technology that would wick saliva into a glass bottle – and the wick would change color in the presence of Ebola virus particles.

Sadly, I was turned down cold. Upon asking why, the reply was “We have our own.” (All of this is chronicled in detail in “Ebola:An Evolving Story”. I then had to suffer witness to lies from CDC on the genetics of the strain circulating in three countries in west Africa – lies from CDC’s then director Thomas Frieden, who testified to Congress that there were no mutations in “this virus” (meaning Ebola isolated from patients in Africa). In fact there were at least 396 mutations (difference) between Ebola 2014 and Ebola from Zaire in 2005. I also had suffer witness to lies from Dr. Stuart Nichol who, when I asked about Frieden’s stunningly incorrect claim. told a rather large group of scientists on a secret (Obama-era) White House phone call that my question was unfounded because Ebola 2015 was “99.9999%” identical to the Zaire 1995 Ebola strain. That lie is also chronicled in “Ebola: An Evolving Story”. The mutations – all 396 of them – amount to a significant difference between Ebola 2014 and Ebola 2005.

Why would he refuse? Surely, he knew about the published variants. Why would they lie? Because they had a PCR test they wanted to bring to market for airport screening. “Their” test, I was told by Nichols – who was the individual who refused to test our prototype – was designed to be used on blood drawn from patients. I pointed out to him how unsafe drawing blood in an airport during an Ebola outbreak might be.

This time, with SARS-CoV-2, there was no need for a new test. The Germans had one. CDC cost us precious time by insisting that they develop “their own”.

How many clinical tests does CDC hold patents on? (UBS Info request)

The value of accurate tests at the beginning of an outbreak cannot be underestimated. It aids in identifying cases- then clusters. After the “boom”, however, the utility of testing is severely diminished to triage for quarantine, and when that becomes pointless, triage for interventions – access to increasingly rare medical care, including access to hospital beds.

The data from China tell us that about 80% of cases are mild – meaning 20% are serious. 14% of patients will have serious ilness, and 6% will require intensive care. In the US, we have about 920,000 hospital beds check, of which we have only 740,000 community beds, and around 68,000 intensive care beds (American Hospital Association). A Johns Hopkins report has projected that we could need as many at least 1,000,000 general hospital beds, perhaps as many as 9.6 million if the outbreak is severe – and at least 200,000 intensive care beds, as many as 2.9 million if the outbreak is severe. They projected that the US may need at least 740,000 ventilators.

With the caveat that projections are dependent on what we do now, we clearly also don’t have enough ventilators. As SARS-CoV-2 infections spread across the US, predictions of a severe shortfall of ventilators for intensive care units throughout the country have caught every state off guard. According to the Johns Hopkins University, U.S. hospitals have a total of 160,000 ventilators — 62,000 full-featured ventilators, and 98,000 more basic ones that can be used in an emergency. The national stockpile is estimated to be an additional 20,000. Projections of the number of needed ventilators range up to 740,000. At $5,000 per ventilator, the estimated cost of 740,000 ventilators is $3.7 Billion.

PCR test kits like CDC’s use “primer probe sets” – segment of nucleotide sequences that match the pathogen’s sequence in carefully selected regions that make the probes specific to the pathogen. They are used in a reaction to make millions of copies of one or more target sequences.

I analyzed CDC’s primer probe sets to see if I could help identify the problem – or problems with their test. On 2/27/2020, I sent CDC the details of my analysis. Of the twelve pairs of primer probe sets, 1/4 of them had matches to human protein-coding genes. This means they could fail to amplify the viral target sequences. I also sent this information to the FDA. The problem is that reagents could be used up amplifying human genes – causing FALSE NEGATIVES.

My review took an afternoon. The FDA gave the CDC an Emergency Use Authorization to start distributing the test. The problem was that someone told the world that ONLY the CDC’s test would be considered valid- and that any competing tests would also have to receive an EUA. On Feb 29, FDA relented and allowed local labs to develop their own tests.

CDC had let it out that they wanted their test to also test for SARS and MERS – a far more complex test than the WHO test from Germany. This reveals a move to get a corner on the market and beat out competitors and making the test unnecessarily complex. Those considerations do not amount to much until we remember that if CDC has used Germany’s more accurate and readily available test, we would have stretched the time to the beginning of the curve – allowing all parts of society to figure out how to help bring an end to the pandemic. Instead, we are in the exponential part of the curve with cases rising steeply – an experience that was utterly unnecessary.

The CDC wanted to re-invent the wheel. We will see in this series that there is a common theme – US scientists pretending that we “need to better understand this virus” before we know how to react. In what could otherwise be a shining moment, US public health infastructure and the US medical enterprise is providing example after example of being unable – or unwilling – to perform lateral learning. We know everything we need to know to understand how we should react from China – now verified by the experience by Italy – and by comparison the outstanding successes in Singapore and Hong Kong, and to a lesser degree South Korea, who have experienced linear increases in the number of cases due to extensive testing and quarantine of people who have been in contact with those who test positive.

Anthony Fauci Admits Testing is “Not Working”

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID told a Congressional Committee: “Let’s admit it: the test is not working”.

Fauci told CBS News on Face the Nation: “What we can say is that now that we have the private sector involved, we’re going to see an entirely different scene than we’ve seen the weeks previously, for sure.”

The US turning to the private sector sends a major signal: no trust in the CDC regarding testing accuracy and capacity.

On 3/17/2020, he told Hugh Hewitt that, in his opinion, it’s no one’s fault – it just “happened”. Just happened? That’s what a kid says when he knocks over and breaks the cookie jar trying to steal a cookie.

Here’s the exchange from the Hugh Hewitt interview:

•HH: Now my last technical question has to do with the CDC and the testing breakdown. Was that because of regulatory capture? Was that because the CDC always prefers its own work? Was that simply because we were not, we’ve never, I think what the President was saying yesterday is while we’ve confronted Ebola and H1N1, we’ve never confronted as fast a moving virus as this one before that is so elusive to diagnose. What happened on the testing development?

•AF: You know, it was a complicated series of multiple things that conflated that just, you know, went the wrong way. One of them was a technical glitch that slowed things down in the beginning. Nobody’s fault. There wasn’t any bad guys there. It just happened. And then when we realized, when the CDC realized, and the FDA said both the system itself as it was set up, which serves certain circumstances very well, was not well-suited to the kind of broad testing that we needed the private sector to get involved in. The regulatory constraints, which under certain circumstances are helpful and protective of the American people were not suited to the emergence of this particular outbreak. So there was a confluence of a bunch of things. I believe now that the CDC and the FDA and the Department, that we’ve got it right now, because we’re handing much of it over to the private sector to heavy hitter companies that do this for a living. And I think what you’re going to be seeing looking forward is a major, major improvement in the availability of testing.

• HH: Was the glitch or anything about the production of the test President Trump’s fault? Or actually, let me put it more broadly, would every president have run into the same problem?

•AF: Oh, absolutely. This has nothing to do with anybody’s fault, certainly not the President’s fault.

In testimony to a Congressional Committee, Fauci told the US that the system was never designed to handle something like this – to which one Congressional representative replied “Well, that’s disturbing”.

On 3/19/2020, Fauci told Mark Zuckerberg in a rare interview on Facebook that the CDC had failed. He also said we should involve the private sector – the ones who can mass-produce the tests for clinical use. Showing an unbelievable lack of remorse or regret, Fauci told Zuckerberg that it (involving the private sector) was a “good lesson to learn for ‘next time'”

Some time a go, I called for locally developed testing ahead of this fiasco. It is my considered opinion that CDC should not be involved “next time” – or at least those involved in the initial consideration of the offer from WHO for an accurate test should not be involved the “next time”.

The fact that the large medical facilities are making their own tests means the CDC’s test will be largely if not completely irrelevant THIS TIME – and if they are allowed to enforce their “all testing is to be validated by CDC”, well, we’re just a nation of dupes. The medical community has now developed nearly zero faith in CDC’s clinical testing abilities, and this is a reputation that is truly well-earned.

CDC’s deadly mistake is directly responsible for the death and permnent lung damage to come across the US. It is also a major factor in the economic downturn in which the stock market lost 20% of its value – a whollop that make be one of many to come.

Rosen Interview of HHS Whistleblower Chris Meekin

CDC not only completely botched the testing, which is absolutely essential in anyone’s opinion for resource allocation, contact tracing, and dispensing medicines: CDC also lied to the President.

From an interview with James Rosen (Sinclair Investigative Reporting):

“[A] former senior federal health official nominated to his post by President Trump, alleges that the delays in testing occurred because leaders at the Centers for Disease Control “lied” to the president, and to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, about the center’s ability to produce the kits.”

From my conversations with members of the task force, both inside and outside the administration,” Meekins told Sinclair in an exclusive interview, “The U.S. government, from Secretary Azar to the president relied on the Centers for Disease Control to produce a test; they failed….CDC said they would handle it….What we have found out is that these leaders at the CDC lied to both the HHS secretary and, by extension, the president. And as a result the nation got weeks behind.”

The CDC originally attributed the failed test to specimen labeling.

[CDC Telebriefing: CDC Update on Novel Coronavirus, 2/12/2020]

Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Thank you for joining us.   Today, I would like to provide a few updates on important developments over the last few days. First, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the American who died in China over the weekend. As far as we know, this is the first American to die from this new coronavirus.  Though more than a thousand people in China have died. My sympathy and my thanks go to the people of China, for those who have lost loved ones and those who are on the front lines battling this virus. In China, they are taking aggressive measures just as we are in the United States. Since we briefed you last, there has been one new confirmed novel coronavirus infection detected in the United States. The new confirmed infection is an individual who returned from Wuhan and was quarantined at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.  This individual was on one of the last Department of State flights out of Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak in China.  Given the spread of the virus in Wuhan, it is not surprising to see a positive case among people who recently returned from there.  That is in fact the reason they are being quarantined.  Currently the person has mild illness but is hospitalized.  This brings the total number of confirmed positives in the United States to 13.  I want to clarify some of the reports that have been circulating about this case.  Last Thursday when one of the planes from Wuhan landed at Miramar, a few people were sick and transported to local hospitals for further evaluation.  These people were placed in isolation and samples were taken for testing.  When running laboratory diagnostics for any disease, anywhere in the world, the ability to match the individual to the specimen is key, and is part of the normal procedures put in place to ensure that that matching is done correctly.  But in this situation with this patient, it didn’t work correctly, and the patient was misidentified initially as negative.  The issue was identified within 24 hours.  The CDC tested the sample, the positive result was conveyed quickly to the local public health and CDC teams.  The mishap was unfortunate, but we have corrected this from happening again in the future by adding additional quality control.  And it’s really important to emphasize that during this time appropriate infection control precautions were taken around everyone, including around this patient who, again, is doing well.  Now I’d also like to update you on our diagnostic test kits.  As you know, this is a dynamic, rapidly evolving situation, and our response continues to be based on the latest science.  We continue to be flexible to meet the public health challenges that the virus presents, and clearly a success is the CDC rapid development of a diagnostic and rapid deployments to the states, which was clearly important to try to bring the testing closer to patients to avoid delays that have been inherent in sending samples to CDC.  When the state receives these test kits, their procedure is to do quality control themselves in their own laboratories.  Again, that is part of the normal procedures, but in doing it, some of the states identified some inconclusive laboratory results.  We are working closely with them to correct the issues and as we’ve said all along, speed is important, but equally or more important in this situation is making sure that the laboratory results are correct.  During a response like this, we know things may not always go as smoothly as we would like.  We have multiple levels of quality control to detect issues just like this one.  We’re looking into all of these issues to understand what went wrong, and to prevent these same things from happening in the future.  Before I take questions, I want to give you a couple more updates.  Since the airport screening began in mid-January, CDC and its partners have screened more than 30,000 passengers from China.  With the temporary restrictions on travel, we are seeing fewer and fewer travelers from China, especially from Hubei province.  Passengers are being funneled through 11 airports, most of these people are coming from parts of mainland China outside of Hubei, show no symptoms and have not been assessed as high risk.  Those who passed the screening continue on to their final destination where they self-monitor their health for 14 days in cooperation with their state and local health departments.  We’re asking these people to limit their activities and stay home during that 14-day period.  Our goal is to be as least restrictive as possible while ensuring the safety and health of all Americans.  Since starting our travel restrictions and funneling through airports, we have not detected any cases among returning travelers from China.  Most of the U.S. cases were found before the travel restrictions were put in place among travelers who returned from Wuhan and later sought medical care for their illnesses.  These cases were picked up by astute clinicians and reported to CDC.  We are continually reassessing our recommendations around quarantine and self-monitoring and will continue to work with state and local public health departments to refine and improve this process. Most of the diseases in China, however, we can and should be prepared for this new virus to gain a foothold in the U.S.  The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.  Or other countries and this will trigger a change in our response strategy.  This will require the effort of all levels of Government, the public health system and our communities as we face these challenges together.  We are focusing now on preparing in other areas, including development of guidance for our health care practitioners, and planning for increased demand on our health care system.  One important aspect of this is taking steps to make sure there are enough supplies and appropriate guidance to prevent the spread of the disease, especially among health care personnel caring for patients.  

Only later did CDC attribute failure of the test to a flaw in “one of its components”. We still don’t know what component, or the nature of the flaw, or, for that matter, that it is correct. As of today, 3/23/2020, the CDC website reports that it is still testing its kit.

The forward-looking statements by Messonier on the importance of CDC in fighting outbreaks is overblown and not substantiated by evidence of their performance. The CDC’s webpage on the SARS outbreak boasts that they were essential during the outbreak and provided extensive testing. They did the same in the H1N1 outbreak. They insisted that they be the only source of a test for Ebola- and tried also to corner the market on testing for Lyme disease.

Due to CDC’s self-centeredness and its gross incompetence, the US lags far – FAR behind other countries in testing.

There is even a test that can be conducted on-site for a COVID-19 diagnosis in 15 minutes by Biomedomics; it is thoroughly described in the Unbreaking Science companion video. HHS should issue a list of available tests, with their relative capabilities and get out of the diagnostics business altogether. (Not a Paid Endorsement)

In spite of how trivially easy it is to create an accurate PCR test, it appears that CDC has forgotten how to do so. There can be no other plausible explanation. Or can there? Is there another reason? Would an errant test benefit CDC? Did someone put another flaw into the test intentionally? What possible reason – or reasons- could exist that CDC would want SARS-CoV-2 to take a foothold in the US?

All of the discussion on the flaws in CDC’s test – which dominates the coverage by the press – eclipses the real flaw: that CDC had, in it hands, the information on primers and protocols for a test that was validated. The culture of CDC primacy – making itself appear more relevant than it really is – and placing itself at the center of society for all issues on Public Health – have already cost us far too much. These delays were utterly unnecessary and preventable. Those at the CDC who decided, for the rest of us, that the validated test from Germany was useless should be held accountable and forced to resign. There simply is no excuse for – and now clearly no need for centralization of public health “authority”. CDC does not know everything; it does not represent cutting edge understanding of key public health information. They have put the US population’s health at risk, at great cost (Read: IPAK Statement on CDC Diagnostics). The CDC does not even produce reliable and useful information on influenza infection and death rates – an infection we have been diagnosing and tracking for over 100 years – by overestimating death by two orders of magnitude to to convince the public to accept the basically useless influenza vaccines.

Which brings us to another topic worth exploring in the near future: What possible reasons could lead allopathy to so suddenly become anti-antiviral? During the H1N1 outbreak, CDC repositioned 25% of the nation’s antivirals to fight the virus.

CDC is a regulatory agency, part of HHS, which is part of the Executive Branch of the US Government. The US Government should not – but does – have technology that it licenses (see technology available from CDC here) – including many in diagnostics for pathogens. That arrangement places it in competition with the private sector – and agency scientists should not be allowed use US taxpayer’s funds to develop “their own” test. CDC, and HHS, in fact, should not own anything: regardless, they do obviously own and license diagnostic kits, competing (unfairly) wih the private sector.

So what reason could there be for CDC to intentionally fail at testing? Fail at swift adoption of antivirals and therapeutics that are working for other nations? Who benefits from an unchecked outbreak? There is one reason that causes many I know to reevaluate the entire CDC testing fiasco: the COVID-19 vaccine – and, more importantly, its mandate. We’ll review that issue in a future episode of Unbreaking Science.

Sources and Links

EXCLUSIVE: Former HHS official claims CDC leaders “lied” to Trump over coronavirus testing



Medication Junction

read this

Biomedomics’ Test

Another View on Influenza vs. COVID-19 Death Rates

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 3/22/2020

IN MY LAST ARTICLE, I compared the number of symptomatic cases of influenza in the first 49 days of the 2019/2020 season to the number of symptomatic and estimated cases of COVID-19. While the number of current cases of COVID-19 – those presenting clinically and diagnosed based on symptoms – may be similar, the increase in estimated number of mild cases – including subclinical asymptomatic cases vastly outstrips what people have been referring to as “the number of flu cases”.

Readers have correctly pointed out that I’m comparing apples and oranges – because the number of flu cases is also not fully known. Many people w/influenza ALSO do not go to the doctor, and thus would be “mild” or asymptomatic.

My response is “100% correct” and that proves my point. Individuals comparing “flu cases” to COVID-19 to flu don’t know the asymptomatic rate for influenza. It is very difficult to estimate a case fatality rate during an outbreak – and it may vary from country to country depending on, obviously, the medical facilities’ ability to save lives during the critical phase of a disease, which for COVID-19 involves, I believe, an autoimmune attack leading to unresolvable pneumonia (symptomatic) but massive tissue damage to the lungs (lung immunopathology).

So let’s get into that. There’s a lot at stake in understanding the rate of spread of COVID-19 compared to influenza – as well as the case fatality rate.

The WHO publishes data on influenza cases in the US

I can literally hear the vaccine risk aware person pulling their hair out. “There are NOT 22,000 deaths from influenza every year!” Extremely valid point, we’ll get back to that in a minute. It’s key.

Here death rate confirmed cases” is

#deaths in symptomatic cases / total symptomatic cases x 100

Here “death rate per est. cases” is

#deaths in estimated cases / total estimated cases x 100

WHO provided total estimated cases for influenza

IPAK provided total estimated cases for COVID using the correction factor

#symptomatic cases / (1-0.86)

Why 1-0.86?

Because China provided an estimate of the number of undetected cases.

The ratio of estimated CFR – COVID CFR / Influenza is 2.9

Apples to apples.

Yes, we can debate the accuracy of 0.86, whether it applies to the US.

In fact, we can debate every number in the table.

WHO’s numbers of influenza cases and deaths come from the CDC.

The fact that they actually represent “flu-syndrome” cases is failure of public health administration – a failure of EPIC… no, COSMIC proportions.

No one can estimate a solid death rate between COVID-19 and Influenza.

So now, when it really does matter, we are – all of us- left with impressions of data, not data; death rate estimates that flip-flop.

Head spinning?

Mine, too.

I’d suggest we focus on the rates – in symptomatic cases – of hospitalization and the rates of critical cases.

And I’d sugges that we stay focused on the abuse of data for politics – including COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Focus on ending lock-downs. Focus on preserving constitutional rights. That means ending the pandemic. Plain and simple. Therapeutics, therapeutics, therapeutics. Yes, there are risks. Years ago, when I was traveling from Ohio State University to Ecuador, I was given the choice of taking chloroquine phosphate. The CHOICE. The risk? Mild permanent hearing loss. I accepted the risk, and did not get malaria. I’m fine.

This study – using the world’ fastest supercomputer – identified 77 small molecular compounds that are most likely to show efficacy against COVID-19. They include quercetin. Luteolin. Vitamin C. And other FDA-approved drugs.

There are two lists, available at the link to the study. I am sharing the two lists here to expedite access to those seeking them. Here’s the full download link as well.

List FDA-approved compounds and herbal medicine which target the S-protein.

List of FDA-approved compounds and herbal medicine which the ACE-2 docking receptors.

Accurately Comparing COVID-19 to Influenza

AS THE US AWAKENS FROM the period of time in this disaster when those who hold power have done what they can do to identify their most profitable position – including the CDC, who want “their own” test – and politicians, who waste precious, irreplaceable time slamming each other for what they believe might be political gain over COVID-19 – the US has emerged to the point where we realize we are a frog in the pot, and it is filling at an exponential rate with boiling water.

Still, there have been a number of comparisons of COVID-19 to influenza, and I wanted to publish an analysis of rates comparing the rate of spread of COVID-19 in the US to the rate of spread of influenza. “Can’t do that” people think, because we don’t know the number of undetected cases.

Actually, we kind of do, and we therefore can provide reasonable estimates for the comparison.

A study published this week estimated the percentage of undetected cases in China over the course of their outbreak at 86%.

The data for the influenza outbreak includes Influenza A and B, and are from this site. They reflect the first 49 days from the onset of the outbreak. Testing for influenza is extensive, but not thorough, and many cases of flu of course do not make it to a clinic. So the comparison is “COVID-19 spread corrected for not testing” to “Influenza spread with testing”. It is, I think the best we can do right now.

The corrected count for COVID-19 is Cases by Day X / (1-0.86). I plot both the uncorrected COVID-19 and the corrected.

This is just the first 49 days, but we can see where this is going. When testing comes, there will be a second major shock. To ease the shock, here is the full curve to date for the estimated total number of cases. From this analysis, we can estimate the number of cases in the US on 3/21/2020 to be between 120,000 and 140,000. The last five days may be an overestimate because local testing (testing using kits developed locally) started in medical facilities about five days ago.

I’ve also published a measure that tells of us how we are doing in controlling this beast. My measure of Effective R0 will adjust every five days to whatever the net influences on reporting of the number of cases – and while testing will also cause it to seem to increase until testing rates level out, it does not require testing because testing mathematically cancels out if the rate of testing between Day X and Day X-5 is roughly similar.

Here is the updated EffectiveR0. We know local testing began about five days ago, as the medical community’s faith in the CDC’s test wanes to zero.

We need to continue working on getting R0 below 1 and keep it there. That means continued or increasing social distancing. The more we do sooner, the sooner we can get back to normalcy. I hope the message that therapeutics are absolutely essential kicks into practice. People are debating which types of therapeutics, ok, fine. My position is that people should be given the option to select any therapeutic that has a rational basis for helping to reduce, but does not increase the spread, and does not sensitize people to SARS-CoV-20 or 21 in the future.

Of course as in any medicine, informed consent is a must, and patients must be afforded a list of possible and likely known side effects – and a list of certain outcomes for which we don’t yet have data. Those who can participate in social distancing, keep it up. Those who must not socially distance due to their essential roles should be given choices of CPT, antivirals, or both.

A new era of medicine may be born from the ashes of the COVID-19 outbreak in which we can unleash the full power of advanced technologies, computer modeling, including quantum computing to identify therapeutics for patients to be able to be treated safely with effective means of shutting down viral replication. Or we just might discover some simple remedies in use by some doctors across the US to treat viral illnesses.

There will be no vaccine for this virus due to Pathogenic Priming (aka ‘Immune Enhancement’) (see: Moderna and US NIAID Poised to Endanger the World Population?). Citizens deserve to know they may be at worse outcome from an infection of potentially deadly coronaviruses following exposure to a spike protein-based vaccines.

We need a therapy/outcomes tracking database so we have large amounts of data by which we can assess effective interventions.


Li et al., Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science March 2020.

Estimating Effective R0: COVID-19 Data Resources Should Report This For All Countries

Estimating Effective R0: COVID-19 Data Resources Should Report This For All Countries

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 3/18/2020

WE KNOW that at any given time during the growth phase of COVID-19 pandemic the number of cases reported represent perhaps only as many as 20% of cases present. We also know that the number of cases we see today are the product of exposure from infected individuals 4-5 days prior.

Therefore, if we use the ratio of the number of cases on a given day, Nx, to the number of cases five days prior (N_(x-5)), we can track the effects of interactions.

Notably, this rough estimator will only be relevant during the growth phase; during retraction, the Effective R0 will become <1 but that could be misleading as it would imply that infected people are preventing infection.

That neat trick is possible via plasma convalescent therapy, but that’s a different but equally important point.

For the outbreak in in the US, the increase since Day 1 looks like this

Now here is the rough Effective R0 estimator for the US over the same time period.

The very simple estimator of the Effective R0 shows that the rate of increase has fluctuated greatly. During times when no testing was being conducted, no new cases were being reported, and thus R0 might also be overestimated later on. Still, it seems useful as an approach to evaluate ongoing interventions such as social distancing and therapeutics.

How to Interpret Effective R0

Effective R0 can be used to get an idea – a very rough idea – on the dynamics of the rate of increase during the growth phase of an epidemic. The goal is to push Effective R0 below 1, and keep it there.

How NOT to Interpret Effective R0

Effective R0 is not R0. It is a product of the outcome of infection, testing, reporting and interventions and other factors.

Don’t Be Complacent. When the R0 start to decline, it is time to continue effective interventions and to add new ones that will push it down even further. Like pulling someone out of the water, you’re not in the clear until they are on dry land. Dry land is Effective R0 = 0/0 — no new cases for a sustained period of time.

Now, let’s push for therapeutics – plasma convalescent therapy and antivirals – because it does not appear that we will defeat SARS-CoV-2 worldwide by Social Distancing alone.

SARS-CoV-2 Origins: IPAK Research Exonerates Dr. Shi

It has been alleged that the genetic modifications of a specific SARS-like virus by Dr. Shi makes her complicit for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

I have mentioned at least two dozen times that my in-depth analysis of SARS-CoV-2 sequences and all available Beta-Coronavirus sequences shows no evidence of genetic manipulation of SARS-CoV-2.

Here I share a side-by-side comparison of the Spike protein motif signature of the spike protein from the very viral sequence Dr. Shi was involved in developing so the public can see the evidence I see.

The analysis involves a comparison of protein motifs found in the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to the sequence Dr. Shi had worked on. Importantly, this is not a full showing of all analyses of this kind to date: that analysis is under peer review and I will report that while some sequences published by WIV and by the Military lab in Nanjiang DO have the characteristic motif pattern, those sequences are natural sequences from bats. The spike protein from the Pangolin also has the characteristic signature motif pattern. NO CHIMERIC VIRUS OR LABORATORY-MODIFIED VIRUS THAT I HAVE ANALYZED TO DATE HAS THE SAR-COV-2 CHARACTERISTIC PROTEIN MOTIF SIGNATURE.

So let’s begin.

A. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein motif signature

Data: NCBI”s Protein Database Entry [surface glycoprotein [Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2]

This pattern is unusual – it has a short N-terminal domain spike protein, and is missing a She3 and KxDL motif. It also has a GP41-like motif. The matches are not strong, but evolution – and protein function – works on and because of protein shape, not merely sequence.

B. Dr. Shi’s recombinant SARS-like coronavirus spike protein motif signature

Data: NCBI’s Protein Database Entry spike protein [Bat SARS-like coronavirus RsSHC014]

This protein motif pattern is identical to nearly all other SARS coronaviruses including other chimeria viruses derived from SARS. They do not have a truncated N-Terminal Domain motif, and they have the She3 and KxDLmotifs, and has no Gp40 motif.

These results are reproducible using the Motif Search function here.

I realize that to the public, nearly 100% of this is gibberish. However, these differences (and other, more in-depth phylogenetic analyses under review) exonerates RsSHC014 as being involved in the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

In my analysis I also discovered that one sequence published by a Chinese laboratory in 2005 DID have the characteristic motif – and it was from a bat sequence from Hong Kong.

I strongly recommend that all B-CoV spike protein motif patterns be studied so we know if any studies of treatments exist that might be relevant for clinical investigations.

Note, hoever, that this result does not rule out accidental laboratory release of a natural virus under study.

I sincerely hope this helps people move on to more pressing matters, such as the lack of animal safety studies in the ongoing COVID-19 clinical trials. You can read more about that here (How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will End), and watch a full interview on why that’s a very serious problem indeed.

To support IPAK and Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s cutting edge research, visit

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will End

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Will End

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD – 3/15/2020

How this pandemic will end depends on how soon the medical community realizes that therapeutics are 100% essential this time.

NOW THAT SOCIAL DISTANCING is occurring in the US and other countries, and some countries are under general quarantine, what next? How long will social distancing and quarantine be in effect?

The promise of a vaccine against Coronavirus is too far off to play a role in ending the deadly and economy- smashing effects of our response to COVID-19. The move to start human trials of SAR-CoV-2 vaccines without proper animal safety studies has prompted outcries (See Moderna and US NIAID Poised to Endanger the World Population?) given the reality that SARS-CoV studies had unacceptable safety issues of pathogenic priming : animals vaccinated using Spike protein based vaccines against SARS and MERS – close cousin of SARS-CoV-2 – had worse outcomes when challenged with the virus that the vaccine was supposed to protect them against. Even the most vocal vaccine proponents such as Paul Offit and Peter Hotez now say skipping the animal studies could result in unacceptable risks. I should point out that this week, they have joined the ranks of people using freedom of speech to “spread” vaccine skepticism.

Given the catastrophic outcomes in animal safety testing for the SARS coronavirus vaccine, we must understand that the current vaccine trials will likely fail. We must realize also that social distancing alone will be insufficient to bring a reasonably quick end to the need for social distancing and quarantine.

Here are some simulation result of the outcome of using either just social distancing to manage the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or combining social distancing with therapeutics:

Clearly therapeutics will be necessary to play a role in bringing about an end to this pandemic. Resources on this are listed at the end of this article.

Here I list feasible steps that are absolutely essential for the countries to end the pandemic as quickly as possible.

1. Testing. Develop local testing capacity. Avoid CDC’s flawed test until they produce data showing high sensitivity and specificity of their primer probe sets. Testing will be relevant towards effective resource use, but people should not wait until they have symptoms to take steps to reduce the severity of virus-related illnesses.

The utility of accurate testing should be a lesson for all respiratory virus-related illnesses and perhaps we will see a massive paradigm shift towards accurate testing and reporting of which respiratory virus individuals actually have and perhaps medicine will now abandon so-called “flu syndrome”.

2. Plasma convalescent therapy. Each test-positive patient who has recovered should be asked to donate a liter of blood from which antibodies can be harvested. The resulting product should be screened for other viruses and then administered to those on the front lines first – nurses, MDs, medical staff – EMTS, the military, all essential personel in the “infrastructure” industries and in the food industries. See this reference in The Lancet for details.

3. Therapeutics (Prophylatic Treatments). Mass production and distribution of other therapeutics including antivirals that have shown to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 for prophylactic use in families and workplaces who have a members or co-workers who test positive for COVID-19. Herbal remedies that also show efficacy should not be discouraged – anything that might help but will not hurt should be used. A registry of treatment experiences and outcomes should be created to help identify the most efficacious treatment options.

4. True Immune Enhancement. Increase the use of supplements that enhance and strengthen the immune system. These include vitamins such as vitamin D vitamin A and large doses of vitamin C. Encourage the uptake of micronutrients including zinc and selenium which have specifically been shown to inhibit the entry of SARS and SARS-CoV-2 into human cells. An extract of licorice root appears to have some effect. (The phrase “immune enhancement” is being misused to refer to a dangerous outcome due to exposure to the virus following vaccination, which should be referred to as “Pathogenic Priming”.

5. Wellness. Increase life affirming and healthy lifestyle choices including exercise, exposure to sunlight, daily air exchange of the home and healthy avocational activities. People should be encouraged to take the time for early spring cleaning, take up a new exercise regime such as thai chi, to learn a new language or to learn a new musical instrument.

Use this time to exercise to reduce metabolic syndrome and diabetes is essential to reduce your risk of mortality. Diabetics have a 6% fatality risk. People with cardiovascular illness including hypertension have a 10% case fatality risk. Talk to your doctor about moving from ACE inhibitor blood pressure management to other options. Also talk to your doctor about adding exercise to your lifestyle to help control your diabetes.

I applaud the move taken by the banking and and finance industries to help stabilize hardships visited upon families by loss of work including interest forgiveness on loans, tolerance of delayed, late or skipped payments. Mental wellness is essential for making optimal life choices.

It is time for a re-discovery the best part of ourselves. Engage in charitable acts to aid the elderly and those at most risk of serious illness.

Resources on Therapeutics“ANY AND ALL THAT WILL HELP, NOT EITHER/OR”

Plasma Convalescent Therapy

The Lancet – Convalescent plasma as a potential therapy for COVID-19


Treatments under study include nutriceuticals and supplements; ” and antiviral drugs such as Disulfiram and Chloroquine Phosphate.

Potential Inhibitor of COVID-19 Main Protease from Several Medicinal Plant Compounds by Molecular Docking Study.

See: “Disulfiram can inhibit MERS and SARS coronavirus papain-like proteases via different modes“.

See “Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro“.

See “Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia“.

The race to find a coronavirus treatment: One strategy might be just weeks away, scientists say

Chloroquine Confirmed Effective as Coronavirus Cure

Vitamins and Minerals

See: How doctors say you can boost your immune system to protect against flu, coronavirus

Herbals and Supplements

Selenium and other micronutrient deficiency is considered to play a role in severity of a coronavirus infection (See: “Micronutrient Selenium Deficiency Influences Evolution of Some Viral Infectious Diseases“). Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, has been found to have few toxic effects and to be clinically effective against SARS-associated coronavirus. (See: See “Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, and replication of SARS-associated coronavirus“)

Supplements that might have a positive effect include N- acetyl cysteine, selenium, spirulina and high dose glucosamine (See “Nutraceuticals have potential for boosting the type 1 interferon response to RNA viruses including influenza and coronavirus

Colloidal Silver Nebulizer

See for info on colloidal silver nebulizer.

VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism? ICAN Scores Legal Proof that CDC has Zero Evidence that HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV Vaccines Do Not Contribute to Autism

Step 1. FOIA CDC asking for studies showing that VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism, per their website.
Step 2. CDC refers ICAN to

Step 3. ICAN goes to court!

Step 4. Judge compels release of study lists

The result? CDC Has Zero Provide Evidence that HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV Do Not Contribute to Autism. NOT. ONE. STUDY.


Complaint Against the Centers for Disease Control – Vaccines and Autism

MAR 05, 2020, 17:38 ET

“The CDC claims on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” Despite this claim, studies have found between 40% and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child’s autism, typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life. Vaccines given during the first six months of life, according to the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, include three doses each of DTaP, HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, for a total of fifteen doses during these six months. In summer 2019, ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC requesting “All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism.” ICAN also submitted this same request for HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, as well as requesting the CDC provide studies to support the cumulative exposure to these vaccines during the first six months of life do not cause autism.”

Watch Del lay it out on this week’s The Highwire:

Of course, we knew this already because I had read the entire literature a while back… and concluded that CDC must be using Magic to conclude the VaccineS Do Not Cause Autism.