The treatments developed in response to Covid were both necessary and bold. For many, these therapeutic mitigators (a far more accurate description than vaccine) were and are life saving, a part of humanity traversing its first modern global pandemic. This article isn’t about the medicines themselves, rather about how governments and health authorities chose to define them. It is about mandates, enforced legally, sneakily, or otherwise on the general population and how, in the aftermath of these mandates, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of patients, suffering from listed and unlisted side effects, are left with no where to turn. No recourse.

It is about regulatory authorities’ ethical and moral responsibility to these patients, many of whom do not possess the financial means to seek help for their conditions, and about who, ultimately, should bear the weight of the huge costs associated with compensation. It is a complex question, one that may well end up in our higher courts across the globe, as those who bear the onus, will attempt to shirk their responsibilities. Before I assign blame, for reasons I will be more than clear about, let’s first examine how we arrived here.

A time for firsts

The last two years has witnessed a lot of firsts, as the pandemic swept across the globe, crippling economies and upending our societies as it highlighted the fragile human ecosystem. We had built based on the flawed assumption that we were untouchable. SARS-CoV2 proved otherwise.

Two years and six months into the pandemic, the virus still confounds, mutating into, what fortunately appears to be, less and less virulent strains. More contagious, yes, but less deadly. A new “influenza” to add to the existing strains, but it’s a dangerous comparison to draw as Covid is proving far more debilitating in terms of it’s long term impacts on our bodies. How, where and why the virus stays on with some of us, is only now beginning to emerge. Long term after effects require, well, a long term, and it may take years to fully understand just how the SARS-CoV2 virus has affected us.

I started by saying we’ve lived through a lot of firsts since the pandemic made headlines in late December of 2019. Among those firsts was the development of multiple “vaccines” to address the virus. In reality these treatments, developed in record time, by Pfizer, Moderna, J&J have been mischaracterized as vaccines. They aren’t vaccines, not even if you stretch the definition of a vaccine.

What each of these companies had in fact developed where different versions of what proved, in many instances, to be a life saving treatment for individuals who developed severe Covid in response to contracting the virus. Particularly those individuals who lived with identified comorbidities. The new treatments reduced the risk of death for at-risk individuals and the aged by up to 90%. That’s a massive saving of life. Of equal import was the breathing space these treatments afforded our healthcare services around the globe.

Then, swiftly on its heels, came another first. Murmurings of enforcing these treatments on all members of the public. There was outrage or angst from almost every sector of society, so rather than issuing blanket mandates, governments turned to other means to enforce Covid vaccination. In strategies that medical historians will revisit, individuals had their freedom of movement, right to access and their employment held hostage in exchange for compliance. Natural immunity was ignored, an individuals state of health was ignored.

Everyone, governments decided, would be “vaccinated” with the new treatments and most members of the public complied, either from a sense of civil obedience or to ensure they could simply continue to function in society, earn a living, attend college, enter shopping malls or board public transport. The health benefit was evident – avoiding hospitalization or death. But, what was not evident were the potential side effects, many of which were still being explored.

In an ideal world, these new treatments would have simply achieved their desired goal, and either persisted in our bodies as part of our viral record, or disappeared along with the defeated virus. In reality, these treatments had, and still have, side effects, some of which are fatal. The argument that listed side effects impact a very small segment of the population has been rendered all but moot by scale. Inject billions and that small percentage grows into a much larger problem, millions in fact, as we show below. These affected patients face very real health challenges in the short term, and we can only pray that long term side effects that are yet to manifest are not significant in nature.

Getting a drug or vaccine approved for release to the public can take years and years of safety and efficacy testing and clinical trials. The reasoning is simple. Long term side effects take years to manifest, so in the interests of public safety, we wait out this period to ensure we aren’t endangering the public. It’s terribly frustrating; however, scientifically important.

Covid, or rather Governments responding to the virus globally, unilaterally decided to toss the historic scientific rule book. Emergency Use Authorization was granted off the back of shortened clinical trials and in less than a year Covid was under attack, from not one, but multiple treatments relying in some instances on novel delivery techniques that had, up till that point, been restricted to end of life patients. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Never before had we attempted to vaccinate entire populations and the scale and enormity of the task that lay ahead was enough to overwhelm even the most efficient of healthcare services. Perhaps, with hindsight, some politicians might argue they were oversold on the efficacy or safety of these new treatments, many not fully understanding that these vaccines were in point of fact not vaccines, but desperately needed treatments to reduce mortality. By late 2020, it was all really pretty irrelevant. Lockdowns, financial pressures, healthcare pressures and outcries from every corner of society for a return to normalcy threatened to unseat any regime that didn’t act, and act swiftly.

The “vaccines” were the obvious panacea.

Now, 18 months later, most of the planet has been vaccinated, with some patients having received multiple doses and boosters, often from differing companies (something I’ll address below). Most recent WHO estimates put current global treatments at around an eyewatering 11,655,356,423 vaccine doses that have been administered. To understand how this extrapolates in real terms to people who’ve experienced side effects, lets take figures quoted by Pfizer themselves. In their initial trials, 0.6% of candidates aged 18 and older experienced a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.

In fairness, companies have a hard time distinguishing which serious adverse events (SAE’s) are as a result of the medication being administered and which are just normal run of the mill events that would have impacted someone anyway. Control groups indicate just how often this happens. In the same trial Pfizer reported 0.5% SAE’s in their control group (placebo administered).

To quote their clinical trial, “The proportions of participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group”. Let’s half that figure and be conservative. Extrapolate it to the number of vaccinated individuals above, assuming that adverse events are as common among the other brands of vaccine. It works out at around 35 million people, who have potentially experienced one serious side effect or another. It’s a staggering figure.

In Europe alone, where Pfizer has administered 611 million doses, this would account for 1.8 million individuals (0.35%) who’ve experienced a potential serious adverse event. Scale is everything.

Accountability, Pharma and Government

In terms of the vaccines, limited accountability exists for the pharmaceutical industry. In almost all instances, access to the treatments meant governments shouldering lengthy legal waivers that have effectively render pharmaceutical companies immune to any fallout (read side effects) experienced by patients. You can understand the desire of the companies to protect themselves, given the scale of treatments. One look at that figure above from the WHO and you can imagine the scale of liability had things gone wrong.

It may also explain why the industry was eager to have these new treatments sold under the “vaccine” label as the vaccine industry boasts rigorous legal precedent to virtually indemnify manufacturers against any legal action.

Sadly, for a small sector of the global population that received the vaccines, things have gone wrong. In some instances fatal blood clots have claimed lives, heart conditions have affected healthy teenagers, some patients have suffered perhaps irreversible hair loss, the listed side effects are numerous and vary from vaccine to vaccine, further complicating the issue of who is to blame. The use above of the term “small” is again only relevant when measured against the global population. Tens of millions of people tend to become statistically insignificant when you’re dealing with billions.

The approved use of multiple vaccine brands in a single patient has further muddied the water. If you’ve had vaccines administered from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, whose to say which vaccine caused you to experience side effects. The more delayed the onset of symptoms, the more difficult it becomes to impart blame to a single manufacturer. Proving these treatments are to blame for a new wave of disease or a particular condition becomes even more complex if you lack a control group (unvaccinated) for comparison, something that will prove more and more challenging as vaccination rates rise globally.

What is not open to debate however, is that almost all patients suffering from conditions directly ascribed to the administration of a Covid vaccine, face an uphill battle on almost every front.

Healthcare and its providers are reticent to lay the blame for conditions at the door of treatments that were heralded as life saving. Eroding the public’s confidence in the Covid vaccines can be a death knell for any medical practitioner. We are still reliant on the Covid vaccines, a dependency that will continue no doubt for the foreseeable future, and the fact that follow up shots (boosters) are not being utilized, even in at risk populations, is worrying. Creating fear in the public’s mind is frowned on, both within and outside of the industry. The publicly acceptable narrative (which seeks to minimize the risk of adverse events) must be preserved at all costs.

Ignorance within healthcare as to the potential side effects of the vaccines and how these manifest in patients is also still an issue. More needs to be done to educate doctors, enabling them to accurately diagnose Covid vaccine related conditions. It’s an unenviable task, given that the medical sector is not in possession of any long term data from the original trials. We’re learning on the fly here, far from ideal in clinical terms and definitely not helpful for patients.

The VAERS system, active within the US for reporting adverse events, is possibly the most flawed system created by the NIH. Instead of limiting the systems input to trained medical professionals, anyone can access it, casting more than a little plausible doubt on the data’s integrity. The tool is in desperate need of an overhaul to legitimize the data it provides. Healthcare providers now have access to new codes through ICD 11 to identify Covid vaccine side effects, so by extension, repurposing VAERS doesn’t seem like a huge reach.

For some individuals, they are fortunate enough to have health cover. Many patients don’t and they are the ones who stand to lose the most. Currently, they have absolutely no options on the table other than to live with or die with, depending on the severity, the vaccine related conditions that have afflicted them. Consider the following for a moment.

Your government legally forced, cajoled, bullied or shamed you into accepting the vaccine. If you don’t agree with this statement I suggest you consult government workers, policemen, firefighters and frontline staff whose jobs were threatened by one simple statement. Vaccinate, or resign. I suggest you speak to people whose access to their workplace, schools and other public spaces was revoked, pending the production of a vaccine certificate. Bullying tactics from governments to afraid to resort to legitimate and open legal enforcement in the event things went wrong.

Governments engaged in these tactics knowing full well they had insulated the manufacturers against any claims arising from harm. They did this, knowing full well that the trials for the treatments they were mandating were far from conclusive or complete. I was recently vaccinated in the Philippines after already having contracted Covid. Part of the process involved signing a waiver that indemnified the government against all claims stemming from the administration of the vaccine. Ironic, considering the government’s insistence on vaccination with a product they were ensuring the public was absolutely safe.

Almost all governments globally were and are in the same boat and how they choose to respond now to a growing problem may well determine their futures.

Doing right by Joe Public

So to recap, countries are now faced with countless “vaccine victims”. People who have reacted negatively to, or in the worst instances, died from the administration of the Covid vaccines. Many of these individuals were coerced into taking the treatment. Given the choice, some may have declined, but policies advocated and initiated by governments globally left them with no choice. Vaccinate or be excluded from society. For this segment of the population, their current condition leaves a particularly bitter aftertaste.

Of course many did what they considered to be their civic duty and happily volunteered themselves at clinics across the globe to be vaccinated. No mention was made of naturally acquired immunity, no distinctions were drawn between the at-risk and healthy segment of the population. Everyone was encouraged to get vaccinated with a treatment that did not reduce the risk of transmission or infection, it simply reduced the risk of death. And obviously, here too, patients encountered side effects.

An ethical government, seeking to repair and restore credibility in both its healthcare systems and scientific community would at this point hold up its hands and extend an olive branch. At the very least, blanket coverage to those individuals whose health may have been compromised by the vaccines. Failure to act now will have long lasting implications for almost all of society and without much thought, I can suggest a few consequences right off the cuff.

• Hugely expensive and protracted legal battles will ensue, with class actions filed on behalf of the affected. In the US for instance, legally mandating any form of EUA drug is in direct contradiction to existing FDA and Federal guidelines. The issue is also highly politicized and will at some stage be weaponized for political gain.
• The cost to healthcare systems will in many ways emulate the burdens placed on them by the pandemic. Vaccination continues unabated across the globe and it is not unrealistic to expect patients encountering adverse reactions to exceed 50 million or more in number. This is another pandemic, one of our own creation.
• The cost to the labor markets in terms of manhours lost couldn’t come at a worse time, considering the fragility of economies across the globe. 12 months down the road, we may find ourselves in a position where funds to assist this group are simply not available, as talk or recessions and stock market implosions permeate the media.

The perfect storm

Coupled to an emergent and growing “long Covid” group, vaccine victims present a self created challenge to the medical industry and our societies. We have an ethical obligation to ensure these patients receive access to care. Any other course of action will leave the industry and the power bases that wield it, looking yet more callous and disassociated from their patients and electorate.

More importantly, as we spread across the planet in ever increasing numbers, living in closer and closer proximity to each other and our food sources, the next pandemic could be just around the corner. Add global warming to the mix and the associated melting permafrost threatens us with a new source of pathogens, frozen in the soil for thousands and thousands of years. Pathogens that could potentially prove far more damaging than Covid.

Trust and a blind belief in governments, scientists and healthcare systems has been eroded, some would suggest irreparably. Our failure to address current issues within healthcare that affect millions will not escape the watchful eye of the public. Round 2 in our challenge against global pathogens may turn out to be the decisive round if we do not get our act together now.

And please, let’s stop calling these important treatments vaccines. They are, in the words of a colleague, therapeutic mitigators, . Reducing hospitalization or death is an incredible feat of medicine. We honor this scientific achievement by calling them what they are – breakthrough treatments that mitigate a clear and present viral danger. I’ll leave you with an extract from the Vaccine Alliance to consider, directly from GAVI itself. Bold added for emphasis.

Vaccines differ from other medical drugs in two important ways. The first is that they are designed to prevent disease, rather than treat it. They do this by priming a person’s immune system to recognise a specific disease-causing bacteria, virus or other pathogen. This “memory” can last years, or in some cases for life, which is why vaccination can be so effective, stopping people from getting sick rather than waiting until disease occurs.

Gavi Website, gavi.org

A far cry from the method of action of current Covid “vaccines” which are designed to mitigate symptoms that develop as a result of a serious Covid infection. Life saving yes, a vaccine? Absolutely not.

The post Up to 35 Million People May Already Have Had Adverse Vaccine Reactions appeared first on Medika Life.

All the usual suspects

To identify the root causes, and there are many, we need to examine the engines that power the industry, the healthcare behemoths. The corporate giants that have clawed their way to dominance, many amassing levels of wealth and influence on that journey that place them beyond the reach of even governments. They have become a law unto themselves, and they are without a doubt, what ails healthcare at its heart.

The extent of the wealth acquired by these corporations, their reach, and their influence has been brought home by the pandemic. What has become even more apparent is that the harmonious balance required for an effective relationship between the patient (the customer) and the company (in whatever form) has all but vanished. That relationship, so key to both the health of the industry and the patient, relies on two key elements to function — trust and ethics.

Both of which are absent in modern healthcare in 2022. The blame for the erosion of these elements can be laid squarely at the door of the behemoths. Patients are, for the most part, now viewed by industry as cash cows, rounded up for fattening and subsequent slow exsanguination over the course of their lives. Any loud complaints from the herd and the ranchers simply move the ranch house further from the pens. 

It’s a terrible picture to paint, isn’t it, and one many healthcare experts would deride as being a ridiculous representation of the industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In an article by NPR which hit the headlines in the last week, a baby powder produced by one of these companies contained carcinogenic asbestos, which, had unfortunately found its way into their powder during the production process. Sadly, by the time the product has been removed from shelves, consumers had been diagnosed with cancers. A class-action was brought against the company by the affected customers, seeking some form of redress or compensation. Faced with a choice of paying settlements, the company elected to pursue a legal loophole.

In a shuffle, known in legal circles as the Texas Two-Step, they registered a new company in Texas, shifted all onus for the product claims to the new division, and then filed for its bankruptcy, effectively killing off the hopes of any potential payments to their affected customers and ending the class action. As appalling as this is, it is an acceptable legal loophole which many companies use, in itself an indictment of the American legal system. The existence of the loophole, however, does not excuse the ethics of the companies prepared to engage it.

Profits are protected at any expense, with trust and ethics forgotten, and therein lies the problem. These companies aren’t selling us cars or cellphones. They are, in many instances selling us products that can cure our ills, extend our lives or potentially kill us, and in medicine, where that product ends up on that scale can often be a fine line.

So trust matters, hugely so. Breach it and you better have a damn good reason, supported by an ethical and transparent response to any harm you’ve caused. The fact that lawyers make a living off class actions aimed at these companies speaks volumes to the behemoth’s disregard for the customer and their wellbeing. Engage in legal shenanigans to avoid that responsibility and then offer me your Covid vaccine with the assurance it’s safe. 

The Power of the People 

If we then assume that much of what ails healthcare can be resolved by addressing and regulating the business practices of these corporate giants, that leads us to the title of this piece. Can these companies be “saved” or are they too far gone, despotic dictators obsessed with their own self-inflated worth who’ve lost the ear of their people? I tend to believe the latter.

The public is rediscovering their voice in terms of their health, determining outcomes, and engaging in the processes that surround their treatment. I use the term public and patient interchangeably, as any member of the public is, was, or will be a patient at some stage in their lives. We all require healthcare, no matter our status, race, or sex.

This patient-centric movement sweeping through healthcare is long overdue and has been birthed as a direct response to much of what I have described above. Taking that as a given, logic dictates that a popular movement that arises in response to a dictatorship will not endeavor to change the minds and hearts of its despotic rulers. Complete regime change is called for, and almost always results. You cannot fix something that is fundamentally broken and no longer fit for purpose. The behemoths have served their purpose and must be retired. For the sake of the patient and healthcare globally, we need to start afresh.

If we look to oust the current regime, how do we then harness this new force sweeping through the industry? How best do we use the momentum of the patient voice to engage lasting solutions?

At the risk of buying into trending catch phrases, decentralization of the industry is key. Redistributing the power amassed by the few among the many. Smaller, more focused companies that address specific needs, specialists in their chosen fields, offering tailored solutions to the real issues affecting the development and delivery of equitable and accessible health care. In short, a new model of care and delivery, built from the ground up with patients actively engaged as masons. And yes, ethical businesses that place their customers’ interests first and foremost can be profitable.

It isn’t simply the patients that stand to benefit from this change. Make no mistake, the egregious travesties visited on healthcare by these large corporations extend beyond the patient and has ensnared providers, who are in many ways, products and prisoners of the environment they are forced to function within. Patients looking around their lifeboat will find themselves surrounded by white coats.

I’d like to end this with a few probing questions, directed to the industry in its entirety. What happens when the next pandemic strikes, an event that is inescapable? How, at that point do we convince the global population that any potential treatment we’ve developed is in fact fit for purpose? How, when we currently engage in deceitful and dishonorable practices and place the acquisition of wealth before the interests of the very population we’re sworn to protect, do we reclaim our credibility? How do we rebuild and regain trust?

Now is the time to build afresh from the ground up, as many promising new start-ups are doing. We have the technology, the intellectual capital, and the desire. Time will show if we possess the will.

The post Are Healthcare’s Behemoths Destroying Healthcare? appeared first on Medika Life.

We know the levels of devotion Bush elicits, as his supporters continuously spam us with hate and righteous indignation.

Examining Zach Bush’s Health Cult

I wrote an article back in January of this year on Dr. Zack Bush, in which I categorized him as a quack, a new age one, but a quack nonetheless, based on many of his views. We won’t be listing links in this article unless they are to claims or statements we make. Bush receives enough promotion without having to rely on us.

The danger for all doctors, and even Dr. Bush is aware of this, is that no matter how much good you do, and I am certain he manages in his own way to achieve some good, jeopardizing the life of any patient, even one, with advice that negatively impacts the patient’s health and choice of care, is considered a cardinal medical sin.

To the extent that any good you may have in fact managed to achieve, can simply be set aside in an instant, negated by the damage, however co-incidental, of your misplaced advice. Such, I believe is the fate suffered by Zach Bush and all that is still open to debate is whether his preaching is based on misplaced belief or intentional deception.

In fairness to his very vocal and at times, insanely belligerent supporters, we decided to re-examine my earlier assessment of the good doctor. I’m saddened to say the indictment stands, and if anything, is now more pronounced.

The main problem posed by Zach Bush

A lot of what Bush proclaims is in fact true and I can easily find myself in agreement with some of his statements. I’ve even highlighted a few of these below to try and produce a more balanced overview of the man. There is however an incredibly important distinction that needs to be drawn early into this article, and if as a supporter of the man and his views, you’re not willing to concede the following, then this article most certainly won’t appeal to you.

If however, you remain open to logical and reasonable debate, let’s press ahead.

So to that distinction. Uttering truths some of the time, halfbaked or otherwise, does not mean I must or should interpret everything else you utter to be the gospel truth. Where health and wellness are concerned, especially our own health, we need to remain critical of everything we’re told. This statement doesn’t merely apply to the utterances of Zach Bush, it’s applicable across every sphere of healthcare, modern or alternate. 

Health is not a religion of blind faith, it is a scientific study of the processes and diseases that affect our physiology, an effort to understand these processes, and where possible, to master them.

The problem, as I see it with Zach Bush, is that he manipulates the truths he professes to earn the undying and unquestioning loyalty of his followers. It’s an unhealthy position for any person to enjoy, irrespective of their chosen profession. It is the same failed logic that fuels the blind pursuit of religion and it most certainly has no place in healthcare.

It’s also a position Bush does nothing to discourage and it exposes the people who buy into his new-age vision of healthcare to complete and utter exploitation. 

Let’s examine a few of the controversial statements he’s made of late.

Zach Bush on the mitochondria

Bush believes that the root of all chronic diseases can be traced to the malfunctioning of the mitochondria in our cells. In a roundabout way, there is some scientific validation to this statement, as emerging science, documented in various journals, confirms the active involvement of mitochondria in many, but not all diseases. Note the use of the word INVOLVEMENT.

It is a very simple matter to quote this science to your millions of followers. Making the jump or inference, however, from “associated with” to “responsible for all” is where the wheels come off.

There is zero scientific evidence to back this claim. Absolutely not one shred and I challenge anyone reading this to produce it, including Bush if he happens across this piece. It’s a childish logic flaw, which Bush has exploited to legitimize his theories. You may as well call out the nostrils as being responsible for all disease. Every human has them and they’ve been noted in all cases of disease therefore they must be to blame.

None of the scientific literature suggests that mitochondria are at the root of all diseases. They are merely present and play a role. So are the nostrils.

Zach Bush on Germ Theory

The entirety of Bush’s germ theory rests on a common false construct, that in many ways is reminiscent of the anti-vaxx campaigner’s insistence that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The MMR fallacy has been proven to be a fabrication concocted by Dr. Andrew Wakefield (now thankfully banned from practicing medicine) to promote his own vaccine in place of the MMR.

Germ denialism has been proven to be complete nonsense and Bush’s insistence that the viral and bacterial worldsare not to blame for disease and infections boggles the mind.

Here’s a fact to kick us off. Viruses, bacteria, and parasites of all sorts are very real, can very much cause disease and do. Ask anyone in India currently battling for breath from a Covid infection what their opinions on viruses are. 

According to Bush, they’ve all brought it on themselves. If he is in fact so sure that viruses and bacteria are not the cause of disease, why does he pursue antibiotics and pesticides so aggressively, falsely labeling, for instance, the pesticide glyphosate (a synthetic compound which is a nonselective systemic herbicide, particularly effective against perennial weeds) as an antibiotic, which it most certainly is not?

The glyphosate is an interesting case in point so let’s stay with that for a moment. Why would Bush describe it as an antibiotic? It is simply a lack of understanding on his part and poor research. Licensing of the compound was based on its antimicrobial properties, which allowed it to include the category of antibiotic during the licensing process, increasing access to funds for later research.

The product works by impacting the Shikimate pathway in plants, a mechanism absent in mammals and humans. While it may exhibit antimicrobial properties in plants, glyphosate cannot be classified as an antibiotic. It’s an easy mistake to make and the result of sloppy research. 

So rather than killing us, according to Bush, viruses exist merely to update our genetic software. They are innocent and innocuous messengers of genetic code, life’s happy little programmers. If you happen to fall ill it’s the fault of pesticide manufacturers and antibiotics that have corrupted your system’s ability to be happy and healthy. This absolute drivel, particularly given the current pandemic, doesn’t even justify a response.

Pasteur provided ample evidence in support of his germ theory, as did Koch after him, and thousands of microbiologists following in their footsteps, to the point where the germ theory of disease is as established as the theory of evolution, plate tectonics, and a round planet (no, its not flat, unless of course Bush proclaims it to be) that revolves around a stationary sun. To me, the most simple deconstruction of this nonsense idea is to be found in the remote jungles of South America.

Tribes previously unknown to man were discovered in the course of the 1900s by explorers venturing into previously inaccessible portions of South America’s jungles. These tribes had no prior exposure to modern-day toxins or antibiotics, living a life of complete isolation. Contact with outsiders soon decimated their villages as they died in large numbers, stricken by viruses and bacteria they had never previously encountered. An unwelcome and unintended gift shared by the explorers. Viruses kill, bacteria kill, no matter your health status or toxicity levels. 

No doubt, had Bush been around, he would have saved the unfortunate villagers with a tonic and a little positive earth energy.

Zach Bush is the not anti, anti-vaccinist

Bush is outspoken about the covid vaccine and you’re unlikely to find his converts queueing outside the local covid vaccination center, patiently awaiting their shot. A far more likely course of action for his followers is the path he so disingenuously guides them down. Purchasing his products and following his advice in the hopes of boosting their immune systems. Here’s a news flash for converts of the Zach Bush Church of Health.

Under the right circumstances, the coronavirus will kill you, irrespective of your immune system. You can be a yoga monk perched among the rocks in the Himalayas or an Olympic athlete. If you have an undiagnosed physiological condition, are in an at-risk category, or possess a genetic predisposition towards Covid (these are documented) then it’s got your ticket punched. All the immunity, Youtube video’s and supplements in the world aren’t going to save you, but the vaccine probably will. At least, you’ll give your body a fighting chance.

Zach Bush on Autism

Autism is possibly the most used and abused condition by alternate health gurus and quacks. As modern medicine has come up pretty much empty-handed, opportunists seize on this to offer up their own theories and treatments, and while I am not discounting the possibility that someone, somewhere may have identified the actual root cause of autism, I doubt it’s Bush.

I also seriously question the wisdom of him offering an opinion on the disease if he fails to understand the simple concept of passive immunity, that mothers pass on their immunity to their newborn children, who benefit from it after birth, allowing their little bodies time to develop their own defenses. They arent “perfectly balanced against disease and organisms” as Bush ridiculously claims, they are in fact sporting mom’s immunity.

I would be more than a little cautious in even entertaining Bush for an instant on the topic of autism. 

Generations of scientists, far better qualified than Dr. Bush, have been examining autism for decades. The fact their research is only now starting to yield marginal success in understanding the disease doesn’t entitle Bush to share insights possibly obtained from a spiritual interlude with a tree.

Particularly when that advice may lead a very vulnerable sector of the community to begin experimenting on their children based on his ramblings. His reference to the runaway incidence of autism is also complete nonsense. We’ve dealt with that before and you can refer to our older article on him.

The Health Cult Lives

We are sorry to dash the hearts and minds of thousands across the globe, ardent supporters who latch onto Zach Bush’s every word but the facts, if viewed objectively, are damning in their conclusion. Dr. Bush is a quack par excellence, a gifted and highly intelligent orator and businessman who has lost the plot, either intentionally or through a firm belief in the deluded principles he espouses.

It’s hard to imagine that someone boasting his education would follow his current course out of mistaken beliefs, but we will allow him the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, with con artists and grifters, there are always financial rewards, and Bush masks his monetization strategies behind his clinics, websites, therapeutic courses, and health products he markets to his eager flock. It is, as I’ve noted before, the slickest of slick operations, carefully orchestrated and flawlessly executed.

In many ways, Bush has perfected the alternative health scam, connecting health and the environment in a seamless package he pawns incessantly to his followers, and I am certain aspiring quacks look to his model for inspiration. His work is littered with trending catchphrases, ideas like “optimize your gut brain”, “gut brain connection”, “natural ancient soil extracts”, “regenerative agriculture” and “soil extracts that work’. The eco-health warrior has arrived.

Where real solid science is concerned, however, Bush has long since parted company with it. It no longer serves his purpose, other than to selections of choice misrepresentations, abused for the sake of validating his lie. While he may not be the most ethical doctor we’ve ever encountered, he’d make one hell of a poker player. Watch your wallets!

Zach Bush, MD, images are all used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, and increase public health knowledge.

The post Worshiping at The Alter of Zach Bush’s Messianic Health Cult appeared first on Medika Life.

The question, two actually, which immediately came to mind on seeing this, was the following.

• What is the clinical justification for these trials? In other words, does the SARS-CoV2 virus pose a significant and proven threat to this demographic that would justify the risk?
• What is the ethical justification for using an unproven EUA vaccine — remember no Covid vaccines have been granted a full license as they have been unable to comply with the rigorous trials required — on children and babies?

How does Moderna describe this trial?

Let’s establish first of all exactly what the trials entail and the demographic of the participants? In a press statement released on the 16th of March, Moderna announced the following.

Moderna Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines, today announced that the first participants have been dosed in the Phase 2/3 study, called the KidCOVE study, of mRNA-1273, the Company’s vaccine candidate against COVID-19, in children ages 6 months to less than 12 years. The study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

As to specifics of the participants and the trial endpoints, Moderna goes on to say;

This Phase 2/3 two-part, open label, dose-escalation, age de-escalation (Part 1) and randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled expansion study (Part 2) will evaluate the safety, tolerability, reactogenicity and effectiveness of two doses of mRNA-1273 given 28 days apart. The Company intends to enroll approximately 6,750 pediatric participants in the U.S. and Canada ages 6 months to less than 12 years.

In Part 1, each participant ages two years to less than 12 years may receive one of two dose levels (50 μg or 100 μg). Also in Part 1, each participant ages six months to less than 2 years may receive one of three dose levels (25 μg, 50 μg and 100 μg). An interim analysis will be conducted to determine which dose will be used in Part 2, the placebo-controlled expansion portion of the study. Participants will be followed through 12 months after the second vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness will either be inferred through achieving a correlate of protection, if established, or through immunobridging to the young adult (ages 18–25) population. Evaluation of vaccine safety and reactogenicity is also a primary endpoint of the study.

You can read the full contents of the Moderna release by following this link.

Establishing Risk. Is there any?

My initial response is based on being a parent. It is quite simply this and has nothing to with science, but rather logic and a desire to protect my children. Would I, if I were in possession of a six-month-old, knowingly expose that infant to unnecessary risk.

It’s important to establish facts here first before we go any further. Despite the turmoil surrounding Covid, the vaccine, and all the misinformation floating around on the internet, we still have a relatively good idea of what is fact and what is fiction. Figures don’t lie.

What percentage of Covid-19 deaths comprise children?

Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, this data isn’t easy to come by. To assess risk from the SARS-CoV2 virus in children aged 12 years and under we’ve looked for data for this age demographic. One article quotes the following official figure of 172 children who had died as of Dec. 17.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) provides some useful US-based data that would on the surface appear to be reliable, taking into consideration how deaths are recorded and state-by-state data fragmentation which seriously hampers the collection of reliable health data across the US.

These state-level data are the most recent available, 3/11/21. The age limits that apply to the definition of a child vary from state to state. The link above will allow you to download the reports.

Hospitalizations (24 states and NYC reported)

• Children were 1.3%-3.0% of total reported hospitalizations, and between 0.1%-2.1% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization

Mortality (43 states, NYC, PR and Guam reported)

• Children were 0.00%-0.19% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 10 states reported zero child deaths
• In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death

By comparison, a total of 186 pediatric deaths from influenza had been reported to CDC during the 2017–2018 influenza season. In 2018, over 21,000 infants died in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading causes were birth defects, low birth weight and preterm birth, maternal pregnancy complications, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and unintentional injuries.

While Covid does pose a very small, but undeniable risk to some children, it is most certainly not their health that it impacts the most, but rather their levels of poverty. Unicef has this to say on the matter in a statement issued in 2020.

The global socio-economic crisis caused by the pandemic could push 142 million more children into monetary poor households in developing countries by the end of the year, according to projections as of November 2020. The total number of children living in poor households globally could reach just over 725 million in the absence of any mitigating policies. Nearly two-thirds of these children live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

So in terms of actual deaths, it is really difficult to form an accurate picture from pandemic data in the US. Data is hugely fragmented and methods of collection vary from state to state, so much so, that one year and a month into the pandemic, we still can’t say conclusively which blood groups are most at risk from serious covid. We also cannot ascertain beyond doubt, the age breakdowns for mortality, comorbidities, and other conditions that could have contributed to these children’s deaths,

The CDC tries to quantify the risk of hospitalization and death by age group in this chart, published in Feb 2021.

So there would appear to be no exact way of determining specific and accurate numbers for the risk children face from Covid. We never expected to find any, given the data shambles, but what is clear, even if not precise, is that the risk is minuscule in terms of actual numbers.

And what about the safety of the vaccines?

We have to go there, don’t we, as the safety of the Covid vaccines is key to the whole debate. There are issues, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Some of the issues are based on ignorance, conspiracy nonsense, and a general mistrust of pharma and governments. Others are justified and an indictment of our desperate societies.

mRNA Technology

Much is written about this medical revolution that has the potential to change the efficacy of many drugs and the way we treat disease. The most important term in all these documents is the word “novel”. It refers to the fact that we are dealing with a new and as yet, unproven (long term) method for delivering, in this case, an instruction to our body’s cells to produce a programmed response. Both Pfizer/BionTech and Moderna have opted for this route for their “vaccines”.

Johnson and Johnson have opted for a more traditional approach for their vaccine and while I would still question the need to extend trials at this point to children using their vaccine, I would be far less concerned. My reasons are again, not based on science, but rather in simple logic and known facts.

The novel mRNA method of delivering instructions to our cells has not been thoroughly tested to its logical conclusion. Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, which is the status currently awarded to all Covid vaccines indicates the following.

The FDA appreciates the fact that these products have not been tested properly, but given the interests of public health and the weighted risk, have decided to allow the public early access to them.

We are all now part of a large global trial revolving around the long-term impact of mRNA as a delivery mechanism for medication. Hopefully, for the sake of the participants and the long-term future of this promising technology, things don’t go wrong between now and the next two to three years. You see, it can potentially take that long for side effects to become apparent, and that’s when dealing with conventional vaccines. It’s the reason vaccines take so long to achieve FDA approval. Time. There is no shortcut.

When it comes to mRNA-based medicines, we haven’t a clue what a safe safety window might be. That’s a fact not even the most brilliant virologist can argue. We are in largely unchartered waters, dealing with cutting-edge technology that impacts us on a genetic level. We are fiddling with biological systems we have barely begun to understand properly and hell yes, there is risk.

There always is, for anything new, and these are risks worth taking.

The future benefits of mRNA delivery to medicine are enormous. The potential applications of the technology are almost limitless. It is an exciting and daunting time to be alive, especially if your interests lie in the sciences. This does not however mean to say we can lose sight of the risks and simply throw caution to the wind.

It does not mean we unnecessarily endanger patient populations simply for the sake of testing new technology, which is suspiciously what the new Moderna trials look like.

Based on the available evidence, it makes no logical sense to expose a young child’s developing physiology to this kind of trial, where we are not merely testing the efficacy of a vaccine, but the tolerance of young systems to a novel medical intervention. The ethics of these trials are highly questionable as are the motivations of the supporting bodies that have actively requested the trials.

The post The New Covid Vaccine Trials. Has Moderna Just Crossed an Ethical Line? appeared first on Medika Life.