The reality is more complicated. Brazil has staked its climate prestige on keeping COP30 in the Amazon. The UN’s official notice still lists the venue as Belém’s City Park and Hangar Convention Centre, 10–21 November. And the summit’s incoming president, veteran diplomat André Corrêa do Lago, has told critics there is “no plan B.” But here’s the catch: there may not be enough beds, and the beds that exist are often priced like Davos, not the delta.

This is not a hypothetical headache. After an emergency discussion at the UN climate bureau, Brazil faced pressure to shift at least part of the gathering — perhaps the leaders’ segment — out of Belém. Organisers demurred. Meanwhile, a government-backed booking platform showed rooms at $360 to $4,400 a night, and Brazil’s offer to reserve a handful of subsidised rooms for the poorest countries still overshot the UN per diem, a measure of daily allowance. The labels tell one story; the prices tell another.

Belém is racing to make it work. Brasília says roughly 4.7 billion reais (public and development-bank money) is flowing into airport upgrades, venues and transit fixes. The city boasts a 50% jump in scheduled flights for the COP window compared with last November. And organisers have added those cruise ships, docked at Outeiro, to ease the crunch. On paper, it sounds like progress. It isn’t — unless the pieces land on time and the access is fair.

Air travel is the hinge. The Val-de-Cans airport concession was amended to accelerate apron and terminal works to August — mere weeks before delegates land — though local reporting has flagged heat and construction delays that could complicate operations. You can feel the knife-edge timing in every press release and drone shot.

Why insist on Belém? Because the Amazon is the story. Brazil has engineered a conspicuous shift from oil-rich hosts in recent years to the world’s foremost carbon sink, and the Lula government wants negotiators to look deforestation drivers in the eye. To be fair, enforcement has helped Amazon forest loss fall to a nine-year low; at the same time, drought-fueled fires surged across vast areas last year. Both things can be true. Both matter for climate credibility.

And yet the city’s basic services and urban form were never designed for a 50,000-person, two-week jamboree. Belém routinely appears near the bottom of Brazil’s sanitation rankings; one widely cited analysis found only about 17% of residents connected to a sewage network. That’s not a moral failing — it’s a legacy of uneven investment, a reminder that climate summitry lands in real neighbourhoods with real pipes.

Then there’s the symbolism problem. In March, images of a new four-lane “Avenida da Liberdade” slicing through a protected green area ignited international outrage even as state officials argued the road was long planned and not a federal COP project. The paradox was brutal: clearing urban forest to ease access to a climate summit meant to protect forests. Belém’s defenders note wildlife crossings and solar lighting in the design; critics warn of the “fishbone” pattern of illegal expansion that often follows new roads. The Amazon rarely gives you a clean moral line.

Is there a fallback? Not officially. But something interesting is happening on Brazil’s southeast coast. Days before the COP opens, a COP30 Local Leaders Forum — mayors, governors, the people who move bins and buses — will convene in Rio de Janeiro, the city that hosted the 1992 Earth Summit that birthed the UN climate convention. It’s not the COP itself. It is, however, a tacit admission that a multi-city approach might be the most pragmatic way to include thousands who can’t afford Belém’s bottlenecks.

Meanwhile, business is hedging. Some companies and financiers are reportedly scaling back Belém plans, shifting events to São Paulo or Rio, where hotels, airports and meeting spaces are abundant. The risk is obvious: a hollowed-out core summit in the Amazon with a well-heeled, parallel circuit elsewhere. Climate diplomacy is bifurcated by bandwidth and room rates.

So should COP30 stay in Belém? Yes — with conditions. Because moving it would evacuate the point. The Amazon is where climate, food and health are braided so tightly you can’t tug one thread without the others tightening. Beef and soy supply chains that begin as pasture and clearings upstream ripple into supermarket meat cases and alternative-protein pitch decks far away. Fires and heatwaves feed respiratory illness and strained hospitals. Water security, flooding and sewage are not side stories; they are the texture of climate risk and resilience. Hosting the world here forces the agenda to stop floating above the canopy and come down to the ground.

But here’s what must happen, fast.

First, accessibility. Price gouging needs to be checked by moral suasion and market solutions. Brazil and the UNFCCC should expand the pool of capped-rate rooms, extend the cruise-ship model if needed, and underwrite shuttle networks from satellite lodging hubs so that least-developed countries and frontline communities aren’t priced out of the very talks that shape their futures.

Second, transparency. Publish a live, multilingual dashboard — rooms, prices, transit times, venue queues — so delegations can plan without panic. Fold in the Leaders’ Summit logistics as soon as they’re nailed down; people can’t book what they can’t see.

Third, split smart — formally. Take advantage of the Rio forum to design a sanctioned, high-bandwidth “twin” programme for side events and city-focused sessions, with guaranteed virtual bridges into negotiation rooms in Belém. Don’t let a thousand uncoordinated fringe conferences do this by accident. Organise it by design.

Fourth, leave a legacy that’s more than tarmac. If a highway is being built, hard-wire protection against the land-grabbing and settlement creep that so often follow new access roads. Pair every piece of concrete with measurable gains in sanitation, flood management and green jobs that outlast the motorcades. Otherwise, the summit’s footprint becomes the story, not its outcomes.

Fifth, connect the dots publicly. Use Belém to make explicit the chain from enforcement against illegal clearing (which Brazil has recently strengthened) to healthier forests, cooler cities, steadier rainfall, safer crops and fewer hospitalisations. If climate is a health crisis — as the WHO keeps saying — then COP30’s deliverables should read like a public-health plan as much as an energy one. People understand clinics and clean water. They vote with their bodies as well as their wallets.

Will this be enough? It has to be. Because relocating the COP to Rio or São Paulo might spare the delegates a humid queue and a pricey bed, but it would also spare the rest of us the jolt of seeing the climate’s front line up close. The labels tell one story; the science tells another. If we cannot convene in the Amazon without razing what makes it special — or pricing out the very countries that most need a voice — what does that say about the transition we’re building?

For now, at least, the plan is set: Belém or bust. Amazon will host the world. Whether the world shows up in a way that’s fair, focused, and honest is still up to us.

The post Beds, Forests and the Price of Credibility at COP30 appeared first on Medika Life.

Conflicts compound these inequities. Fragile and conflict-afflicted countries account for just a quarter of the world’s infants, yet they harbour half of all zero-dose children, whose numbers have increased from 3.6 million in 2019 to 5.4 million in 2024. In Sudan, vaccination coverage collapsed — from 85% pre-war to as low as 8% in conflict zones — while Yemen’s zero-dose figures climbed significantly, driven by instability, health service disruptions, and misinformation.

Conversely, Gavi-supported, low-income countries saw marked improvements, reducing un- and under-vaccinated cohorts by around 650,000 in 2024. Yet even high- and upper-middle-income economies are experiencing slippage, with measles coverage hovering at 84% (first dose) and 76% (second), below the 95% threshold needed for herd immunity. Consequently, measles outbreaks surged, with 60 countries reporting significant incidents in 2024, doubling since 2022.

Country case snapshots powerfully illustrate these trends. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, measles vaccination rates are at just 55%, compared to Croatia’s 90%, contributing to over 7,000 cases and two adolescent deaths, prompting WHO and UNICEF to urge intensified immunisation campaigns. In Pakistan, polio resurgence has occurred amid militant threats and disrupted campaigns, with over one million children missing doses in 2024. The government’s response includes large-scale vaccination drives and policy enforcement, such as arrest warrants, signalling both the challenge and political recognition of routine immunisation’s fragility. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has steadily expanded its vaccine schedule — adding Hib, rubella, PCV, IPV and MR2 — achieving DTP3 coverage around 93% and fully vaccinated rates near 84% by 2019.

These illustrations reveal both progress and vulnerability. Countries with strong political will, robust systems, and community trust — like Bangladesh — are managing gains. Others, like Pakistan and Bosnia, highlight how instability, mistrust, and misinformation can swiftly unravel public health gains.

The 2024 immunisation data reiterates an urgent message. Global coverage has stabilised and broadened, but millions of children remain vulnerable in conflict zones and complacent high-income settings. Measles outbreaks, polio flare-ups, diphtheria spikes, and new threats like RSV underscore that the progress we’ve made is neither permanent nor evenly shared. Unless we decisively fill funding gaps, fortify health delivery in emergencies, ensure vaccine equity, and strengthen trust, these vulnerabilities will deepen — and outbreaks will follow.

The post Global childhood vaccination remains resilient, but equity cracks are widening appeared first on Medika Life.

Founded in 1948, WHO is a United Nations agency whose charter is to plan and coordinate the international response to health emergencies and help countries monitor, prepare for, and recover from disease threats. 

While not without controversy, WHO is the single best forum for predicting and planning for events affecting the health of humans across the planet.

Media coverage of the US withdrawal has focused on political rancor (Trump believes WHO mishandled the pandemic) and funding (While the US is one of 194 participating countries, it funds almost 20% of the agency’s $6.8 billion budget).[i]

As the new Administration gives up America’s seat for global health planning, its important to shine a light on real issues impacting Americans’ health and well-being. They are worth public scrutiny and debate, starting with this statement:

America is a First-World Nation Battling its Own Third-World Health Crises

America’s health care system is the most expensive in the world. It’s staffed with some of the world’s best health and medical talent. Despite this, we are at the bottom of the list in overall health compared to all developed nations. This includes access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. ^[ii]

• Americans are among the least healthy people in the rich world and among the most likely to die early.
• The richest men in America live longer than the average man in any country. The poorest have life expectancies comparable to men in Sudan and Pakistan.[iii] 
• If you are a citizen of Mississippi, you probably won’t live as long as someone from Bangladesh. [iv] [v] [vi]

• Maternal mortality rates for American women are worse than in most third-world countries. Even more unexplainable is that Black women are three times more likely to die of childbirth than White women. This gap is worse today than it was when we began keeping records in the early 1900’s.[vii] 
• America is a global leader in avoidable amputations. This is mainly due to the improper management of diabetes, which impacts 38.4 million Americans.[viii]
• 30 million Americans die prematurely each year from preventable diseases. Twenty-seven percent of US health-care spending goes to managing health conditions that are preventable.[ix]

As the World Health Organization focuses on increasing its investments in global Public Health, it’s important to note that America’s investment in similar Public Health services is declining.

Winston Churchill once said, “Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have.”  And so, as we discuss and debate America’s role in creating a healthier world through organizations like WHO, let us actively debate and decide what priorities we will invest in to improve the health of the 330 million people who call America home.

[i] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/what-is-the-world-health-organization-and-why-does-trump-want-to-leave-it/ar-AA1xFf0l?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[ii]Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System,  Commonwealth Fund, September, 2023, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

[iii] Raj Chetty, Michael Stepner, Sarah Abraham, Shelby Lin, Benjamin Scuderi, Nicholas Turner, Augustin Bergeron, and David Cutler,  Income and Life Expectancy in the United States: Executive Summary,  The Health Inequality Project, April 2016, https://www.healthinequality.org/documents/paper/healthineq_summary.pdf 

[iv] NICHOLAS KRISTOF, How Do We Fix the Scandal That Is American Health Care? New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/health-care-life-expectancy-poverty.html?smid=em-share

[v] Life Expectancy at Birth by State, National Center for Health Statistics, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/life_expectancy/life_expectancy.htm (cdc.gov)

[vi] Life Expectancy at Birth – Bangladesh, World Bank Group https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=BD

[vii]Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies (cdc.gov)

[viii] NICHOLAS KRISTOF, How Do We Fix the Scandal That Is American Health Care? New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/health-care-life-expectancy-poverty.html?smid=em-share

[ix] Sandro Galea, Nason Maani, The Cost of Preventable Disease in the US,  The Lancet, October, 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30204-8/fulltext

The post The Real Conversation We Should Be Having as the United States Pulls Out of the World Health Organization appeared first on Medika Life.

Doctors still struggled to keep me alive as my fever spiked to 105 degrees Fahrenheit and my resting heart rate hovered around 175. I had multiple intravenous bags of quinine dripped into me, a routine treatment that brought with it the unfortunate risk of sudden cardiac arrest due to my infection while on Larium, a controversial and, in hindsight, ineffective antimalarial drug.

It’s a massive understatement to say malaria sucks, but I am among the lucky ones who get to say it at all. Malaria remains one of the greatest public health threats facing humanity, infecting 241 million people each year and inflicting incalculable damage on the economic prospects of endemic countries. If my description of malaria sounded bad, how could a 4-year-old kid battle the disease without most of the resources I had in Kinshasa? Most of the 500,000 people killed yearly by malaria are children under 5 – a vicious toll on future generations.

That’s why this week’s announcement by the WHO approving the use of a second malaria vaccine is astoundingly good news. Since the introduction last year of Mosquirix, the first-ever malaria vaccine brought to market by GSK last year, health officials have been trying to balance the limitations of the vaccine – both in efficacy and supply – with the high cost and urgency to get it distributed. With the approval of R21/Matrix-M, developed by the Serum Institute of India, Oxford University and Novavax, comes the potential for greater price competition and sufficient supply.

The news couldn’t come soon enough. As climate change expands the habitat of malaria-carrying mosquitos, two issues are rapidly emerging. First, regions that have been malaria-free for decades – or have never experienced malaria – will be in the projected range of vector-borne diseases within a matter of years. These include North America and parts of Europe. At the same time, the overuse of prophylactic medications, such as chloroquine-based drugs, is fueling increased resistance in regions such as Southeast Asia.

Second, malaria primarily afflicts rural communities in many areas where malaria is endemic. No longer. Researchers are now tracking new forms of malaria that are settling in densely populated urban areas. This is a potential tectonic shift in the threat that vector-borne disease poses to sustainable economic development and health system resilience. Seasonal outbreaks may crash worker productivity, shutter universities, and overwhelm hospitals.

The two approved malaria vaccines may help prevent the worst-case scenario looming in our future, but they are not solutions by themselves; they are part of a Swiss Army knife of tools that public health officials are deploying to contain malaria. Some, like insecticide-treated bed nets, provide trusted, low-cost and accessible interventions for low-income populations worldwide. Other theoretical options, such as genetically modifying male mosquitos or making humans “invisible” to the insects, may prove more effective in grabbing headlines than protecting communities. But with more volatile weather patterns and increased resistance fueling a surge in malaria mosquitos, nothing should be off the table or dismissed out of hand.

Why is malaria prevention more than a feel-good development story? The answer to that question lies in a simple calculus. Most of the potential for future economic growth will come from markets in the Global South. Several countries in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia represent a surge in young, increasingly educated and upwardly mobile consumers. The rise of megacities and other large urban centers can focus economic productivity, but such concentration also dramatically increases the impact of widespread, uncontrolled disease outbreaks.

The implications for the business community are clear. As we saw with COVID-19, the potential for disease outbreaks to cause prolonged economic disruption is high. And the ripple effects are extensive. Vector-borne diseases such as malaria are not the same as the next pandemic threat, of course. Thankfully we have a variety of tools to prevent and treat malaria.

The imperative now is to make sure we apply a greater sense of urgency and policy support to fund the research and mitigation programs that are necessary to protect vulnerable populations today, as well as the growth markets of tomorrow. This requires the global business community to become vocal champion for public health initiatives that help blunt a future where disease-carrying mosquitos can derail the economic vitality of the next generation of consumers.

The post Securing our Economic Future Against Malaria appeared first on Medika Life.

I won’t lie: I do miss it. In a lot of parties to which I go, and restaurants in which I’m dining, there are not many alternatives to diet soda other than water (or perhaps iced tea). Still, I remain steadfast in my abstinence from diet soda

This is not because of the recent World Health Organization classification of aspartame, a ubiquitous nonnutritive sweetener (and the one used in Diet Coke) as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” I was never worried about getting cancer from an artificial sweetener. I was concerned, however, of the effect of aspartame on my microbiome.

The microbiome is the collection of billions of bacteria that reside normally in our gut. In the past, it was not believed to have much of an effect on human health and well-being, although it is known that gut bacteria are mainly responsible for the production of vitamin K, which is critical to the formation of the clotting factors in our blood. It is also known that it is the gut bacteria’s metabolism of lactose, in lactose intolerant individuals, that is causing the discomfort when dairy products are consumed.

Recent research, however, has shown that the Microbiome exerts a real effect on our health, such as metabolism of glucose and glucose intolerance, along with appetite and possibly even weight gain. And, there may be even a link between the microbiome and our mental health. The research in this arena is only beginning. 

For me, I was concerned that the bacteria in my gut were consuming the aspartame I was drinking and adding to my coffee and tea, and that it was having an effect on my overall well-being. Recent research has confirmed my concern. 

Yet. the data are all over the place. There are studies that show no effect of nonnutritive sweeteners on glucose metabolism, and there are others that show consumption of artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain. That said, there seems to be increasing evidence that the microbiome definitely interacts with the nonnutritive sweeteners we are consuming, and it may have an effect on our overall health.

Whether or not this can lead to cancer is unclear. Indeed, when the WHO declared aspartame “ possibly carcinogenic,” a related body indicated that a 150 pound individual can safely consume a 12 pack of Diet Coke without any risk. This is annoyingly confusing. 

All of that said, my own study of an N = 1 (that is, me) showed that the aspartame I was consuming did indeed have an effect on my health: when I stopped, I lost a little bit of weight. Now, I am consuming beverages containing Stevia, and I am adding Stevia to my coffee and tea for the most part.

Could later research shows that this is also detrimental? Of course. For now, it seems to be working for me, and that is what I am going with. And that is the main message we should take away.

Not everybody will be affected by nonnutritive sweeteners. Not everyone’s microbiome will be affected by these sweeteners. For some, it can be detrimental. For others, there could be no effect. The main thing is to assess how it affects us individually and make our own choices.

Sign up for Dr. Hassaballa’s Newsletter, Healthcare Musings, at www.healthcaremusings.com

The post Why I Stopped Drinking Diet Coke appeared first on Medika Life.

This article contains claims that many will consider incendiary and anti-science. It therefore requires context and if you indulge me for a minute or two, I’d like, at length, to provide background before we address the large mammal. Words have power and we use them to record our history, describe the world around us, create narratives and chart the future. We use words to communicate our deepest thoughts, describe our fears and share our joys. And then, in some instances we use words to lie, both to others and ourselves.

I understand fully the responsibility that comes with the gift of being able to convey complex ideas to others, more importantly however, I also grasp the moral obligation attached to the gift. It should only ever be used for truth, or in the pursuit thereof. Science isn’t that different. It relies on words to describe complex concepts, often utilizing its own specific language, one that for most laypeople, places much of what is discussed beyond reach.

I am, for the record, a disciple of science. I believe. I always have. The logical purity of numbers and the wonders of the natural world are intertwined in an almost mystical fashion and our salvation, as a species will undoubtedly depend on science. Much like the Spiderman character however, the ability to wield an understanding and control over the natural world grants the scientist almost unlimited power. Power that, you guessed it, requires responsibility. Responsibility, morals and a strong sense of ethics.

That it what this article is about. It is not about science per se, but rather about the consequences we now face from the abuse and corruption of the discipline, morphing it into a tool whose primary focus is profit and control, rather than the betterment of our species. That, unfortunately, makes the brand of science currently being practiced, a danger to you and I. A fact the pandemic has highlighted with stunning clarity.

mRNA is the Pandora’s box of science, one of many advancing technology has uncovered. Make no mistake, mRNA holds huge promise for medicine, potentially even rivalling the discovery of penicillin. You can read an article I wrote on that exact topic in 2021, exploring the promise the technology holds.

So no, I am clearly not anti-science, at least not when the science being practiced is honest, ethical and cautious science, science that is aware of the potential impact of its actions on society and our wellbeing. That is not the science we have endured for the last three years, and we need to speak up. We have been systematically and intentionally lied to, misled and chemically abused for the last two years of the pandemic, potentially even right from the outset. Misled with words, scientific phrases couched in ambiguity and force-fed fear by the mass media, at the behest of politicians and scientists.

Now, when the dust settles, we need to face uncomfortable truths and a world that has changed, in ways we have yet to fully grasp. So, to the article, and if you should find yourself at odds with it, please, at least consider the questions it raises.

The Viral Elephant

If, and the “if” is looking more and more likely, the entire human race was just exposed to the first genetically engineered virus, we need to be urgently addressing the elephant in the room. The effects of the SARS-COV2 virus on our physiology are widespread and complex and it is critical more time is spent reverse engineering exactly how the virus was altered to increase its transmissibility.

I came across an incredibly interesting article while writing this piece from one of Medika’s contributors, William Haseltine, that describes in detail one of the unique tools this novel virus utilizes to evade and suppress our immune system. The article may prove heavy going for some, but it is an excellent read and provides insight on just how well adapted the virus is at exploiting our defenses.

Far more than being a one trick pony, SARS-COV2 is the Swiss army knife of viruses and we, unfortunately, are the can of baked beans.

You may notice how I refer to the above tool as unique. Its a term used all the time when discussing this virus. It is unique and the more we discover about it, the more likely it becomes that it was intentionally weaponized (for whatever purpose) to exploit our physiology. Simply put, the virus that has killed millions across the globe was likely released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a product of science, American science, it is worth adding, practiced at a safe distance, on foreign soil and funded by American taxpayers.

For the first time in the history of humanity, over the course of the next two generations, this genetically manipulated virus will have infected the entire global population. For those who escaped the virus itself, there is no escaping the engineered bits (or spike protein) that have been artificially stimulated in your system by the mRNA vaccines. So the extent of the damage caused by the SARS-COV2 virus and its ability to access our entire physiology is not surprising, given it was designed for exactly that purpose.

We now face a new kind of threat, unknown medical risk by intentional design, a threat for which we are physiologically unprepared. This new world is filled with unknowns. Future mutations, revisited on us by livestock as we infect a host of animals that live in close proximity to us, or a reversion to the original SARS strain, far more deadly than SARS-COV2. How the virus and the vaccines impact our immune system’s response to future viral attacks is also up in the air. These are the issue’s we should be addressing now, with a sense of immediacy.

It is not melodramatic to suggest our species survival may depend on it, and if you think this is being melodramatic, then you still haven’t grasped the gravity of what has just unfolded.

The first step in this process requires accountability from the players involved, most notably EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen, Dr. Ralph S. Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli, et al. must be made to cooperate with a view to establishing the exact nature of their Gain of Function research on coronaviruses. Exactly what did they cook up in the lab in Wuhan and what else resides there on ice, patiently waiting for the next breach in safety protocols.?

It is also worth pausing a moment to consider the irony of the last three years, of looking to those who created the SARS-COV2 virus for our salvation.

The pandemic is rapidly transitioning from a global viral infection to chronic, long-term complications, with a range of symptoms so broad, doctors are at a loss as to how to define and treat them. Covid vaccines may play a significant, but as yet, unquantified role in many of these chronic and often fatal conditions, further muddying the waters. To truly understand which actor, the vaccine or the virus, both manufactured, may be to blame for the afflictions faced by millions, we need reliable, unbiased research and securing that is proving increasingly difficult.

Sifting Quicksand

Every corner of science and the politics that governs it has skin in the Covid game. The pharma industry, perhaps best positioned to carry out large-scale clinical research, can no longer be trusted. Any data released by pharma relating to anything pandemic related – especially in the absence of critical, independent third party review, cannot and must not be taken at face value.

The original Covid mRNA vaccine trials are evidence of this. The trials (170 people, in case you were not aware) were subjected to the most appalling “management” of candidates and data to validate the vaccine’s safety. Rapid development of a vaccine or treatment was of the essence to alleviate a collapsing medical infrastructure that was buckling under the pressure of the pandemic. Moderna took 28 days to solve the problem. 28 days. I’d say it again, but you can draw your own conclusions.

After nearly two decades, we hadn’t managed to develop a vaccine for the original SARS virus and yet, 28 days later, we had a working SARS-COV2 vaccine ready for clinical trials. The absurdity of this and the euphoric acceptance of this break with scientific reality go a long way to illustrating the desperation felt by many in the early days of the pandemic. Logic would rather suggest the virus was familiar to both Moderna and Pfizer prior to 2019.

Government agencies within the U.S. have been deeply complicit, providing funding via the NIH and the NIAID for developing and effectively weaponizing coronaviruses, ostensibly for the purposes of “further research.” Their ability to provide unbiased opinion on what poses a danger to the public they serve has been compromised. It is essential, moving forward, that both the FDA and CDC are overhauled, effectively preventing their pursuit of policies that place the public directly in harms way. Take their latest unanimous advice on vaccinating children as young as six months with mRNA vaccines.

Possibly the greatest indictment of the CDC is their mismanagement of VAERS. The CDC took 15 months before it finally evaluated data from the VAERS system in June of 2022. VAERS is a dedicated tool for collecting reports on vaccine side effects. So why wait 15 months? No sense in checking data for safety signals to simply verify what you already know, is there? Once you’ve checked that data, you can also no longer ignore it.

Every academic medical institution capable of performing the required research we so desperately need is at the same time beholden to outside funding. Research grants and future employment are dependent on not rocking the boat. To produce data that conflicts with, compromises or exposes funding sources (for the most part, pharma) is the equivalent of professional suicide and banishment to the land of the unfunded.

That leaves us with the politicians, whose agendas are rarely fueled by the best interests of the public. Although elected by us, they are all cling to the purse strings that enable them to reach their lofty heights. We will probably never know who orchestrated the official pandemic narrative, but it was the politicians who enforced it. In 2023, despite irrefutable evidence that disputes this narrative, most still repeat it ad nauseam.

To understand just how interwoven this has all become, take Peter Daszak, appointed by the WHO to head up a team to investigate the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan, effectively policing his own research. In record time he appeared on camera, stating that his investigation had turned up no evidence of a breach in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Lie upon lie, layer upon layer of deceit and deception. Little wonder then that trust is science is at an all time low.

Given the above, where do we then turn for reliable, agenda free research that is motivated only by the pursuit of the truth? We need to overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle before we can even consider unpacking the plethora of virus related questions that require answers. Some would suggest, the World Health Organization is best placed to oversee an investigation, but they too, possibly more than any other health body, are riddled with conflicts of interest on every level.

One thing is glaringly apparent though. There is large and growing body of evidence supporting the fact Covid vaccines are harming some, in many instances, fatally, which begs the following question.

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO USE THEM? Why have we extended vaccination to healthy children and why does the CDC support this and promote it? How, in good conscience and with the safety of the public in mind, can governments and regulatory bodies allow the current narrative to continue? The study I have linked to above, references post vaccine induced myocarditis. Myocarditis post the Pfizer-Moderna combo was 28 times more common than post-Covid in 16-24 year old males in this massive Nordic study.

Impunity and the Point of No Return

No one is coming to save us and any hands that reach out from the medical and scientific community must, in light of the last three years, be considered tainted by default, until proven otherwise. This is the sad reality of where we currently find ourselves. Everyone in a position to put an end to the current pandemic narrative is compromised. They have passed the point of no return and although many may be racked by feelings or remorse, there is no world in which anyone admits fault, in particular to the virus’s origin and the efficacy of the vaccines.

That wonderful phrase “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is absolutely applicable. Everyone sold the narrative and no one institutes an investigation in which they are also likely to be held accountable. Add to this, a growing number of individuals, intimately involved in the pandemic, who act with absolute impunity and concern only for shareholder and personal profit – or glory – and we seem to find ourselves in a spot of bother.

Realistically, no one in a position of power or acting from within the industry is going to the sound the alarm. Our only hope of getting to the truth lies in picking at the edges of the tapestry until it frays and pulls apart. It is left to fringe reporters to harass individuals like Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, who was accosted recently in Davos by two reporters from Rebel News. He was peppered with questions about their vaccine, its efficacy and more. Understandably, he diplomatically kept silent .

An eminent British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra has also taken a stance against the vaccines and their manufacturers after the death of his father from a vaccine related illness. He is among a rising number of influential voices now starting to speak out publicly to call for an end to the mRNA vaccination campaign.

It is by no means a simple task or one for the feint of heart. Censorship is still frequently applied to any information that questions the ongoing Covid narrative, and on many social media platforms, content and users are still frequently de-platformed and often professionally sanctioned. Many have turned to Twitter, which, in recent months, since it’s acquisition by Elon Musk, has stopped censoring information that conflicts with the official narrative on the pandemic.

I’ve shared many articles during the last three years, relying mostly on common sense to question the incredibly dubious public health decisions as they’ve unfolded on a very public platform. At this point in the pandemic, we are now confronted with a very new and real threat, in the face of which, who did what, where, when and why, become almost irrelevant.

Mankind 2.0

What legacy will SARS-COV2 leave in its wake and how does that impact us and future generations? What long term impacts will the continued boosting of a novel drug with an abysmal safety record have on our physiology? What has it done to us over the last three years?

The truth is, we really don’t know the answers, which, in some instances, will require time and separating the vaccine’s effects from those of the virus have now become a research nightmare, thanks to the billions already vaccinated. In 2021, a group of academics valiantly tried to sound warning bells, this incredibly detailed article highlighting the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines.

We are headed into troubled waters, from a public health perspective. We may yet be plagued for generations to come by the ill effects of both the virus and the vaccines, no matter their delivery methods. More so, there is swirl and mistrust in voices of influence.

Long Covid, vaccine Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s – to many to list here) and strokes and heart related damage, in many instances fatal, already blight the medical landscape. Worryingly, the younger members of society appear to be as prone, if not more so, to developing adverse reactions, perhaps because their immune responses to the vaccine are more pronounced.

Humanity may have undone humanity, only time will tell. Time is needed to sort-out fact from fiction – probability from certainty. The responsibility now rests with us (you and I) to ensure we attempt to repair the damage and prevent any further rushed science being put to trial in the public space.

What can you do, you ask? Research all sides of the conversation. Ask questions and demand answers from those you have placed into positions of accountability. The truth will out – over time. Make your own, informed decisions – balancing your personal care and risk/risk – the risk of the current virus variant alongside your health status.

I’d ask one more thing of you. Trust your instincts and try to approach public facing pandemic information with a critical mind. There is almost always an agenda, from both sides of the fence and a little digging will normally uncover it. It’s time to leave the safety of the flock. In case you hadn’t noticed they’ve appointed the wolf as shepherd.

As a parting thought, please don’t vilify science. It is as much a victim of the avarice and greed of humanity, as we are. Perhaps, while we attempt to save ourselves, we can, in the same moment, rescue science. We are going to need it.

Missed Part 5 of the Covid Files on The Origins of Covid? Catch up here.

[EDITORS NOTE: The author is pro public health, pro science and pro vaccination. In this situation, he raises important questions and concerns for readers around the Covid SARS2 virus and Covid treatment approaches. His goal is to get people thinking in the best interest of future health innovation.]

The post Covid’s Elephant in the Room. We Must Address it appeared first on Medika Life.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE

Medika Life has obtained these exclusive comments from Resolve to Save Lives CEO and President Dr. Tom Frieden. Dr. Frieden is the former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since WHO first called for the global elimination of industrially produced trans fat in 2018 – with an elimination target set for 2023 – population coverage of best-practice policies has increased almost six-fold. Forty-three countries have now implemented best-practice policies for tackling trans fat in food, with 2.8 billion people protected globally.

Despite substantial progress, however, this still leaves 5 billion worldwide at risk from trans fat’s devastating health impacts with the global goal for its total elimination in 2023 remaining unattainable at this time.

Industrially produced trans fat (also called industrially produced trans-fatty acids) is commonly found in packaged foods, baked goods, cooking oils and spreads. Trans fat intake is responsible for up to 500 000 premature deaths from coronary heart disease each year around the world.

“Trans fat has no known benefit, and huge health risks that incur huge costs for health systems,” said WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “By contrast, eliminating trans fat is cost effective and has enormous benefits for health. Put simply, trans fat is a toxic chemical that kills, and should have no place in food. It’s time to get rid of it once and for all.”

Currently, 9 of the 16 countries with the highest estimated proportion of coronary heart disease deaths caused by trans fat intake do not have a best-practice policy. They are Australia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Nepal, Pakistan and Republic of Korea.

Best-practices in trans fat elimination policies follow specific criteria established by WHO and limit industrially produced trans fat in all settings. There are two best-practice policy alternatives: 1) mandatory national limit of 2 grams of industrially produced trans fat per 100 grams of total fat in all foods; and 2) mandatory national ban on the production or use of partially hydrogenated oils (a major source of trans fat) as an ingredient in all foods.

“Progress in eliminating trans fat is at risk of stalling, and trans fat continues to kill people,” said Dr Tom Frieden, President and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives. “Every government can stop these preventable deaths by passing a best-practice policy now. The days of trans fat killing people are numbered – but governments must act to end this preventable tragedy.”

While most trans fat elimination policies to date have been implemented in higher-income countries (largely in the Americas and in Europe), an increasing number of middle-income countries are implementing or adopting these policies, including Argentina, Bangladesh, India, Paraguay, Philippines and Ukraine. Best-practice policies are also being considered in Mexico, Nigeria and Sri Lanka in 2023. If passed, Nigeria would be the second and most populous country in Africa to put a best-practice trans fat elimination policy in place. No low-income countries have yet adopted a best-practice policy to eliminate trans fat.

In 2023, WHO recommends that countries focus on these four areas: adopting best-practice policy, monitoring and surveillance, healthy oil replacements and advocacy. WHO guidance has been developed to help countries make rapid advances in these areas.

WHO also encourages food manufacturers to eliminate industrially produced trans fat from their products, aligning to the commitment made by the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA). Major suppliers of oils and fats are asked to remove industrially produced trans fat from the products sold to food manufacturers globally.

The report, called Countdown to 2023 WHO Report on global trans fat elimination 2022, is an annual status report published by WHO in collaboration with Resolve to Save Lives, to track progress towards the goal of trans fat elimination in 2023.

For editors:

The World Health Organization has partnered with Resolve to Save Lives, a not-for-profit organization, to support the development and implementation of the REPLACE action package. Launched in 2018, the WHO’s REPLACE action package provides a strategic approach to eliminating industrially produced trans fat from national food supplies.

Since 2017, Bloomberg Philanthropies has supported Resolve to Save Lives’ global efforts to save lives from cardiovascular health disease.   

To find out more, visit: https://www.resolvetosavelives.org or Twitter @ResolveTSL  

The post Five Billion People Unprotected from Trans Fat Leading to Heart Disease appeared first on Medika Life.

The Covid pandemic has been the first true global outbreak our modern society has endured. Our responses to contain it were neither swift, nor effective, perhaps reflecting a fundamental flaws in our preemptive planning and a lack of cohesion a united global health federation would have offered. Governments faltered, floundered and then did what anyone does when they see the ship sinking. They panicked.

What followed was a textbook example of how not to deal with a pandemic that cannot be contained. The public was cajoled, coerced, forced, frequently misled, and perhaps even lied to, often intentionally so. Current Covid policy suggests we have learned nothing in the past three years or have chosen to blithely ignore our missteps.

Many claim that it is easy to be critical of our pandemic strategy utilizing the perfect science of hindsight, that we were in uncharted waters and that “we didn’t know”.

These arguments are of course condescending, an easy out for the cold, harsh reality of how science and politics cohabited to produce the pandemic from hell. Many voices sounded caution in our response, many voices urged restraint, and more still, questioned the wisdom of advice issued by our bastions of health, the WHO, the CDC, the FDA and other global health infrastructures. These voices of dissent, without exception, were silenced in favor of an official global narrative.

You were either on board with this Covid policy or you were sidelined, silenced or discredited. An unprecedented global health dictatorship was born, impervious to logic, medical safety and long established ethical precedents for public health and patient safety. At the end of the day, pandemic policy, not science or common sense, dictated our miserable management of the pandemic.

Information, Facts and Fictions

Dealing with the the distribution of information on a global scale in an internet enabled world is an art form, a science on it’s own, that is in its infancy. Poorly understood and even more poorly applied, the act of sharing accurate, trustworthy and believable information on a global scale suffers from what some would suggest is an insurmountable obstacle. Humanity and its proclivity toward tribes.

Push information publicly to promote an agenda and you are assured of two things. Large swathes of the public will buy into your narrative. Large swathes of the public will not.

And so it was with Covid, and still is, with one exception. There is migration occurring in the tribes, an exodus from the Village of Blind Obedience to the Village of Skepticism, and it is growing daily. It is a migration that governments and healthcare willfully ignore and should this trend continue, it will, once and forever, sever any remaining trust the general public still holds for healthcare.

The migration is driven by one simple thing. Facts, the lack of, or their emergence. To underscore this point allow me to provide an example, one I recently wrote on, relating to advice provided globally on the risks posed by the Covid inoculations to nursing mothers. the following advice is offered by the CDC website. Emphasis added by author.

“CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and older, including people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future and getting boosters, if eligible.”

The fact that zero data existed (verified on the same page) to support the CDC opinion on the safety of nursing infants to the Covid inoculations didn’t stop the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) or the WHO from offering identical advice. This advice persists even now despite mounting evidence of harm to nursing infants. So to facts then, and willfully ignoring them in pursuit of a plan.

The Covid agenda ignored the most basic of human rights, the premise of self autonomy, that we are in charge of our own health and that we enjoy that very human luxury of choice. The public have been subjected to mandates, coerced, pressured, shamed and manipulated like sheep, herded with intent into a pen for the largest clinical trial in the history of humanity. A trial which remains ongoing, possibly fueled by the flawed logic of “in for a penny, in for a pound”.

I cannot speak to the specifics of the global agenda on Covid. I can freely speculate about profit, mismanagement, political gain, economics and even indulge in wild conspiracy theories, but it is a pursuit without point. What really matters now is where this gross mismanagement of information has led us and how, if at all, the situation can be remedied.

Even doctors use Dr. Google

For generations, doctors have been revered as people of science, these learned folk that would cure us of our myriad afflictions. Many patients would feel better simply from sitting in front of their doctor and describing their symptoms. A simple combination of trust and lack of public knowledge has served the industry admirably for centuries. Doctors shared that rarified air enjoyed by those we place on pedestals. For many, technology and the free flow of information have shattered this illusion. It was and is, in many ways, simply an illusion.

Doctors are fallible and the scope of knowledge required to discern a medical condition, given the breadth of our expanding understanding of human anatomy, is beyond the scope of an individual person, justifying the existence of specialized doctors. The odds of a correct diagnosis for your condition are staggeringly low and are dependent on the skill, empathy, level of education and interest (yes, interest) your doctor takes in your case. Sadly, your insurance status and financial standing also affect outcomes.

Even doctors resort to Google to access literature, not only to assist them forming a diagnosis, but for information on health policy and practice.

A sound approach, assuming the information you obtain from “trusted sources” reflects advice based on solid science and is ethically in the best interest of the practitioner/patient relationship. Needless to say, doctors require scientific and medical fact to safely treat their patients. In 2020 the internet was inundated by “medical information” relating to the SARS-COV2 virus and the associated disease we called Covid. Medical information and opinion (most of it of questionable origin) was the order of the day, rather than medical fact.

We were in the dark, facing an unknow enemy and much of what transpired in 2020 was trial and error, best guesses from a completely overwhelmed medical industry, horrendously equipped and fielding practitioners who were as terrified as their patients. Many medical staff resorted to the quickest pandemic updates they could find, turning to “trusted” outlets such as CNN and other mainstream media.

In the age of Internet Information Dissemination, we had just committed the cardinal sin, one that would single handedly destroy the credibility of treatments, of doctors, scientists and once revered healthcare institutions among large segments of our society.

We ignored fact in favor of assumption and then, to compound our error, we lied.

The art of Internet Information Dissemination (IID)

IID sounds like some IED (Improvised Explosive Device) but in many ways, it is far more deadly. It is a tool that if wielded incorrectly, irresponsibly and with impunity can result in disaster, and even death. We see the devastating impact of this so clearly in America’s fragmented political system, overwhelmed by those who abuse their digital privilege and responsibility.

To avoid having information appropriated and misinterpreted in our digital age, a simple, yet difficult to adhere to, mantra must be followed faithfully.

Tell the truth, share only verifiable fact and acknowledge when you simply “don’t know”.

Share information that doesn’t adhere to the above, that is disseminated for the purposes of furthering an agenda, that draws erroneous conclusions and manipulates fact, and you are faced with the current debacle healthcare grapples with. The erosion of trust, coupled with any loss of goodwill your predecessors may have built up.

As an analogy, it’s like Apple bringing out a new phone that does none of what it’s marketing suggests. The company would suffer irreparable damage to its reputation and destroy hard won trust with its customer base. This is the predicament healthcare now faces. Their phone isn’t holding up to the marketing they’ve published.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but it turns out their phone (the vaccine) isn’t actually even a phone (an inoculation). The Covid “vaccines” are not a multi-dose treatment regime for at risk patients. They form the backbone of the worlds largest and ongoing clinical trial, one that patients have in most instances been coopted into joining. You bought the phone based on a misleading pamphlet.

Unlike Apple however, Governments keep changing their sales ploy, seemingly blissfully unaware of the indelible footprint left by their previous pitches. The accepted and favored Covid narrative is unwinding in real time as facts emerge to conflict with “expert opinion” and questionable manipulation, interpretation and presentation of data to support the narrative.

Unfortunately for healthcare, this event is occurring in the public arena and everyone is able to participate in its demise. The naysayers are circling, waiting to claim their pound of flesh and the justification is self-evident. No one likes being told what to do, no one likes their freedom compromised and least of all, no one enjoys being forced to participate in clinical experimentation, no matter the scale.

How do we fix this?

Healthcare is one of the most lucrative industries we have created and therein lies the problem. It is infinitely complex in it’s subject matter, continuously evolves and it is subject to huge financial and political influences, most of which are self-serving and rarely align with the interests of public health or the patient. Healthcare also uses a multi-layered approach to risk management by spreading accountability where possible. The WHO will assign their policies to SAGE documents, while SAGE will reference the CDC or FDA, who in turn will reference the WHO for the identical policies.

Medical-speak protects the industry and practitioners by erring on the side of caution and avoiding offering specific advice. Medical literature is overwhelmed with non-committal safe terms such as “may lead to”, “unlikely to”, “more likely” and my all time favorite, “when in doubt consult your doctor” Unfortunately, in times of crises, such as global pandemics, these factors all conspire to produce an industry that is incapable of producing clear, concise and honest medical advice to the planet’s denizens. There is a thoughtful piece on the subject from Medika’s editor regarding the CDC and their communication calamities that I recommend reading.

In short, the medical and healthcare professions are their own worst enemies when it comes to engaging the general public. Add the internet to the mix, and the results are calamitous, particularly when the industry attempts to promote an agenda by publishing questionable information.

After three years and billions spent on marketing, many members of the public still do not understand that the so called Covid “vaccines” do not offer any protection against infection from the SARS-COV2 virus. To have portrayed the treatments as inoculations rather than treatments would have been truthful, rather than trying to profit falsely from the established reputation of vaccines, now all but ruined.

Truth bears up under scrutiny, fictions do not, well intentioned or otherwise. Lie in the digital world and you will be found out.

Truth is the only way forward for the industry to regain trust and rebuild its relationship with the general public. Sadly, for this to occur, healthcare would need to free itself from the shackles imposed by political, pharmaceutical and other corporate interests seeking to benefit or enrich themselves at the expense of public health. Currently healthcare communication considers manipulation and marketing as being mutually inclusive. Neither are conducive to re-establishing trust. Manipulation reeks of an agenda and is easily exposed, while marketing suggests you are trying to sell something.

Healthcare exists to serve the patient and its sole communicative duty is to inform, factually, truthfully and accurately. That is all.

The post Restoring Credibility. Can We Ever Trust Healthcare Again? appeared first on Medika Life.

Our biggest challenges aren’t lack of ability to source ideas and innovate. We demonstrate daily the power of collaboration over competition to accelerate new medical possibilities. There is a different problem we must resolve in order to move beyond the status quo — lack of confidence in authority.

But, for decades we have been sowing fields of scientific doubt and global health disparities. The 24/7 news cycle gives equal voice to naysayers of “possibilities” and hypotheses to keep many wondering. Social media feeds on placing clinical experts on an even par with skeptics and anti-vaxxers. We are stuck — a paralysis that contributed to some 800,000 COVID-related deaths in the United States alone.

I’m republishing the original article from March 2020 — with little change. These words still have power. In the past 21 months, ideas and innovation — science — demonstrated we can navigate this incredible public health labyrinth. Now, communication skill must rise to exceptional levels in support of policymakers, public health scientists and health professionals if we are to see any meaningful progress in rallying consumers to move with confidence toward thefinish line.

Consider this hypothesis: Lack of a widely embraced information clearinghouse on COVID prevention and mitigation, using consumer-friendly language and championed by a widely respected voice and global bodies sustains confusion instead of collective and collaborative, swift action.

On February 7, 2020, PR Week ran a story about the coronavirus that examined the disease’s progress from a communications standpoint. The piece noted that governments and businesses were struggling to give their stakeholders accurate, current information on the spread of the virus — because they lacked a strong, centralized source of information to consult in determining the next steps. Two year ago, I said:

“… governments and multinational businesses, especially tourism companies and organizations with supply chains in China, are lacking a primary information source about the virus, notes Gil Bashe, managing partner of global health at Finn Partners.

“It’s evident that comms is not yet aligned [among major organizations],” he says. “What we don’t have is a central clearinghouse of expertise and accuracy that all partners can draw from.”In the absence of an authoritative source, a void is created, and people fill the void with what they think.”

What has changed in two years? Unfortunately, when it comes to communicating about the outbreak and what people in the United States might do, very little.

When people hunger for direction, they seek authoritative voices. Right now, writing eyeball-popping headlines and generating viewership seems to be the news media’s focus. Reporters even pressed noted soccer coach Jurgen Klopp for his opinion on how coronavirus would impact championship games. Klopp, with more sense than many, snapped back that his opinion was unimportant — ask a real expert.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, fighting this virus varies from place to place, state to state and, no surprise, country to country. When facing pandemics, Americans have traditionally relied on good, solid public health information from Federal and state governments upon which local authorities can base their response and which the public can use to protect themselves and their families. This time, information is lacking and inconsistent. In Newton, Massachusetts, a school group returning from a trip to Italy is quarantined, and yet, in New York City, a group that visited the same towns in Italy is not. Both municipalities are working from communications that are weeks old and which leave discretion to local authorities and individuals to “self-monitor,” without clear direction.

It turns out that, at least as far as COVID-19 is concerned, communicating about the disease is more difficult than overcoming its contagion.

In fact, poor communications are clearly making it more difficult to fight the disease. Public-education campaigns have been critical to fighting pandemics and scourges like polio ever since public health authorities began their work in the 20th Century. Communicating is key to the success or failure of public health efforts around infectious diseases — and our inability, so far, to do it well with COVID-19 is as dangerous as the virus itself.

When authorities fail to communicate facts and “what you can do” next steps, people fill the void with what they (and others) think — not what they know. When those people are the heads of businesses or local public officials, messages about the disease are not just mixed — they’re completely jumbled and often in conflict. [2022: Company leaders may need to apply the same thought and rigor to communicating to their employees about vaccination and mitigation strategies as was expected by government. Employees may have more confidence in corporate leaders and local elected officials than Federal policymakers. Still coordination and collaboration is essential.]

Not even the news media are immune to the effects of poor disease communication. The competition among news sources to be “your address for updates” is fierce — and in some cases, doing a disservice to public information.

One local New York news broadcast led last week with a frenzied report on panic in the city’s stores as customers made runs on hand sanitizer, protective masks, canned goods and bottled water. Buried several stories later was the information that people actually needed: a balanced report with the head of infectious diseases at a city hospital explaining that viewers shouldn’t panic, should take basic precautions and that COVID-19 would impact most people less than a mild case of flu. At one point, a New York Times headline grabbed readers with the information that coronavirus’s death rate hovered at around 3.4 percent. Buried in the body copy were the reassuring facts: “…this figure does not include mild cases that do not require medical attention and is skewed by Wuhan, where death rate is higher than elsewhere in China. It is also quite possible that there are many undetected cases that would push the mortality rate lower.” The headline was updated that same day to reflect balance.

What can we as communications professionals do to make the situation better?

1. In successful issues management, it’s vital to start with “what we know.” Here, it’s hard. We don’t know everything. Some facts change daily. Public health experts learn more every hour. But, it is more vital than ever that we in the US and worldwide get a handle on communicating clearly what we know and what we don’t. Those of us communicating on this issue, even peripherally, need to base our language on facts from authoritative public officials dealing with the disease.
2. Separate fact from opinion. As communicators, we must always recognize that self-appointed experts may not have the clinical expertise or insight to comment authoritatively. We must then clearly offer their comments as an opinion to ensure that reporters — hungry for a new angle on this attention-getting subject — are able to recognize speculation from fact. [2022: consumers are finding that the CNN, MSNBC, FOX news formats designed to retain viewership require constant hypotheses. This swirl keeps eyeballs tuned to screens — but it also creates public health mobilization push back.]
3. Build authoritative voice. While epidemiologists, virologists, infectious disease experts and others plumb the data for insights, no leader has stepped forward and secured the public’s ear, eye and heart on this issue. For that reason, those tasked with communicating — whether to the public or to their companies and communities — should look to these sources of reliable information to build an authoritative voice:

• World Health Organization recommendations and guidelines
• Centers for Disease Control advisories and guidelines
• National Health Service coronavirus information
• WebMD Coronavirus Updates

Also, on Twitter, there are several knowledgeable influencers worth tracking. These include former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD), WebMD Chief Medical Officer John Whyte, MD (@drjohnwhyte) and UK-based Junaid Bajwa, MD (@jrjbajwa), NHS England advisor and global digital/health biopharma leader. These two public health physicians double- and triple-check their data sources and have access to both public health officials and scientists on the frontline. My last go-to source is one of the world’s leading virologists and champions in confronting infectious and viral disease, Dr. Peter Piot. [2022: Dr. Piot has since stepped into the shadows. WHO has been pushed aside. I have now added George Washington University Professor Leana Wen, MD, @DrLeanaWen, and James E.K. Hildreth, MD, @JamesEKHildreth president and CEO, Meharry Medical College to my trusted info source list.]

Are we facing a World-War-Z-zombie-apocalypse situation? The answer is no. But, we are anxious and uncertain, vacillating between bravado and self-imposed isolation. Now is the perfect time for us to support — and rely on — our public-health leaders and infrastructure and use common sense when communicating. We live under a partially unknown threat, and our access to constant information — pushed via phone alerts and constant social and traditional media updates — transforms what we hear into what we fear. Perhaps, when considering how we communicate, we can heed the words of one of our greatest communicators, who steered the world forward during a period of much greater uncertainty that included a depression and looming world war — the 32nd US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he said:

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

The post The Pandemic of Poor Communications appeared first on Medika Life.

Wave 1, Wave 2 and so on, or just all the same wave with peaks and troughs? Covid hasn’t just exposed flaws in countries health systems, it’s also highlighted our global inability to deal with a pandemics at a governmental level. Part of the problem is the Covid virus itself and its severity. 

Yes, Covid can kill you, but the odds, if you’re healthy, are massively in your favor. Even if you are old. The virus, although deadly to certain groups, isn’t that dangerous to the general population. I’m not going to delve into the aspects of comorbidities and quantifying risk, there’s more than enough written on that topic already. This article will instead look at possible solutions moving forward and why our current strategy (we really only have lockdowns) is fundamentally flawed and often deadly in it’s own right to our societies. 

What has become clear is that our lockdown mentality and isolating entire cities, communities and even countries hasn’t and isn’t working. If anything, we may simply have prolonged the pain. 

Yes, you can argue lockdowns slow the spread of the virus and allow hospitals the opportunity to provide beds and respirators for the seriously ill and that is wonderful, if that were all lockdowns did. But that isn’t the actual result of lockdowns. Their consequences and impact on our communities have been immense and have and will result in massive damage to mental health, societal health and fiscal health. We are engaged in digging a bottomless pit.

I have medical associates and friends who work on the front lines of Covid. They experience the horrors of the pandemic first hand. They get to see the really ugly side of a disease that kills slowly, suffocating its victims as it overpowers their lungs and attacks other organs. With limited treatment options, these doctors are forced, day after day, to watch patient after patient die. These doctors are angry, frustrated and many feel abandoned to their lots. Justifiably so.

There are NO BULLETPROOF TREATMENTS FOR COVID! That is an indisputable fact. Lets get that out the way first. If you are hospitalized and you take a turn for the worse, it is still a crap shoot as to whether or not you survive, and then, the odds we mentioned earlier are no longer in your favor. You may or may not respond to a variety of treatments your desperate doctor is going to ply you with to try and save your life. Like I said, its a crap shoot. 

There are two important take-aways from this paragraph.

For patients it is this. Seek medical attention early if you suspect you are infected. Existing treatment protocols seem most effective if delivered early in the life cycle of the infection. Wait too long and, well, you may not be around for too long. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the truth of it. Covid is not something to be trifled with. Ask the millions of grieving family members.

The second point to be drawn from the above is directed at health care workers embedded on the front lines. It may not be a popular view but I believe it to be the truth. The health of your patients matters as does your ability to provide them with the best care possible. The cost of that life and that care however, cannot be exacted from the innocent casualties of lockdowns. Every life has value and this is where the crux of our societal problem starts to rear it’s ugly head.

If you are a doctor on the front lines of Covid, you are engaged in a war, one you’ve been poorly equipped to fight and your batting average ain’t great right now. It is human nature to want to do everything you can to improve that batting average, to ensure that you are able to save more lives than you lose. 

That desire to improve the lot of your patient cannot however outweigh the social wellbeing of the society outside of the doors of your hospital. Cutterntly it does.

A life for a life

What is the value of your patient’s life as he lies gasping for air in an isolated ward, cut off from his loved ones? What if the indirect cost of treating that patient comes at the expense of a child’s life, three blocks away. A child who has starved to death in her cot, abandoned and alone. Her young mother, recently unemployed, lies motionless beside the cot, having taken her own life. An eviction order lies unopened on a small battered table, the only remaining piece of furniture in the families cramped lounge. They are victims of the lockdown policy and their lives have been lost to Covid, as surely as if the disease itself infected them.

All across the length and breadth of our planet the fictitious scenario I’ve outlined above is played out again and again in real time as millions suffer, not from the virus itself, but from our ill-conceived responses. There is no daily list broadcast across the planet publicizing these deaths. They are the silent victims of Covid-19 and our flawed policies and their numbers cannot be quantified. Not now and perhaps never. Pre-Covid we already had nearly 28 million homeless children globally according to Unicef. It’s safe to assume that number will double by the time the pandemic passes.

This inability on our part to put numbers (quantify) to the lives we are destroying or losing from lockdown is one of lockdowns greatest immediate strengths. History will show it up for the flawed response it has been, but for now, it continues unabated as our sole management strategy; a reflection of just how powerless we are in the face of an unknown enemy against which we have no defenses.

Another inescapable fact of the Pandemic is this. Millions are suffering and the cost in human life is unacceptable. Children literally starving to death, widespread hunger, even in first world countries, as unemployment soars and levels of depression and suicide skyrocket. Solutions, always, should be commensurate with the problems they attempt to resolve. Lockdowns are clearly not fit for purpose. They never were. What good saving the few at the expense of the many?

Are there alternatives?

There is no sense in criticizing a woefully inadequate solution without offering viable alternatives. Until recently, there wasn’t much on the table and those with alternate mindsets had been vociferously silenced by the majority. That is gradually changing and it is thanks to members of the scientific community who have chosen to take a moral stand on the damages enforced lockdowns are having on our societies. An example of this is the Great Barrington Declaration, more on them below.

Before we examine their suggestions in more detail, lets quickly recap. We know now that we aren’t dealing with an extinction level pandemic here. Far from it. Covid is, as I have stressed above, a dangerous and nasty virus that can kill you, but it is, based on statistics you can freely google, only marginally more fatal than influenza. It is also more targeted in the individuals and groups it poses a real threat to, which makes it eminently manageable. We know WHO to protect.

These facts would suggest that our current lockdown strategies and their debilitating and often fatal outcomes, warrant an immediate alternative. Clearly we cannot simply end one response without something to offer in its stead and one such alternative has been tabled by a group of concerned scientists and doctors.

Who or what is the Great Barrington Declaration?

Who better to explain this than the founders, The following statement is taken directly from their website.

Great Barrington Declaration — As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

So what exactly is Focused Protection and who supports it? To answer the second question first, their website currently displays the following information regarding signatories to the declaration.

The three primary signatories listed are

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

The list of medical figures that have signed this document is impressive and growing daily. Let me be the first to admit that I have no way of currently validating these numbers. The signatures are however of secondary concern. We don’t live in a democratic world where the public get to decide global health protocols. These are decided for us on our behalf by governments who supposedly take into consideration the voices of their experts and the numbers. Numbers matter, statistics matter and our ability to quantify something influences our decisions. We use numbers as yardsticks.

Lockdown uses the table of Covid infections and deaths to justify itself. It is aided in this process by the media. It is the only table of numbers ever presented to the public and in much the same way we buy into it, so do the politicians. Projection, projections, projections. It’s what drives our policies and decision making processes.

As stated earlier, the silent victims of the pandemic, those who suffer the consequences of lockdown, have no public face, they are legion, but as of now, exist as an unquantified force with little or no voice. The real gravity of their situation in the aftermath of global lockdowns is only now starting to emerge, months after the initial strategies were implemented. It may take years to fully understand just how wrong we got it. 

These emergent consequences have not however stopped countries from seriously considering and even implementing new or secondary lockdowns. There are no countering numbers to provide to the strategists, so lacking in the basic tools they depend on for policy, they ignore the plights of their societies and forge ahead with yet more destruction.

I have written articles before on this topic and have been an outspoken critic of the lockdown strategy. Anyone with a modicum of foresight could see the consequences of lockdown unfolding in real time and the actual risk posed by Covid NEVER warranted our lockdown response. 

It still doesn’t and even less so now that evidence of lockdown’s failures are beginning to emerge. We can no longer ignore that evidence. It is no longer convenient or politically expedient to do so, not at the expense of innocent lives.

Examining the Focused Protection strategy

For those who don’t wish to move between browsers windows, I have reproduced sections of the basic premise of the strategy below, but to read the full version, please visit this link. It should be noted that their concerns raised are made from a medical perspective and largely avoid issues such as rampant poverty, unemployment and hunger, all of which can be directly ascribed to the current lockdown policies.

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health — leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all — including the vulnerable — falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity — i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable — and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

I can hear the moans and groans relating to the use of the term ‘herd immunity.’ This overly politicized term and its inclusion in their statement may yet come to haunt them. It is indicative of how we have allowed volatile language and the appropriation of medical terms by the lay community to affect our decision making processes when it comes to Covid. My advice to the Great Barrington group would be the removal of this term in favor of less contentious English.

Strictly speaking, in medical terms ‘herd immunity’ refers to a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. You can read more about this term and its appropriate scientific use in this brilliant thread on Twitter by Dt Tedros, Direct General of the WHO. Read the thread for the correct use of the term herd immunity.

Just how practical is Focused Protection?

The logic underpinning their solution is sound and sensible. We have a known pathogen with a clearly identified target. Protecting entire populations when only segments are at risk makes no sense, especially not when this “protection” is detrimental to the wellbeing of said populace.

Imagine if the trillions of dollars poured into US public spending to support the public and the economy during lockdown had instead been spent on buffering healthcare and protecting the at risk. Only a fraction of the money would have been required and would have returned far more beneficial results, immediately in terms of quality of care and in the long term, medical healthcare in the US would have been revolutionized.

Instead we are now left with growing numbers of infected faced with ever shrinking numbers of hospital beds in hospitals that are short staffed and manned by exhausted, disheartened personnel. Then there’s the flu season, about to kick into full swing in the US. 

Reapportioning support to where it is most needed and shifting the public mindset may by now be impossible. The hole we’ve dug may already be beyond the scope of our abilities to escape it. Should we be able to acknowledge the mistake of lockdown and look to embrace new solutions, one of which may very well be Focused Protection in one form or another, the media will be integral to the success of any future Covid campaign.

Their desire to protect and promote the health of their audience through honest, unbiased reporting that isn’t politically or financially motivated may yet still determine how many people die from Covid-19. In the meanwhile I’m off to sign a certain document. feel welcome to add your voice.

On a political note. I await with interest the Biden camp’s official plan to combat the pandemic. Vocal criticism of Donald Trump and the Republicans, mostly deserved, does not obviate the Democrats need for a clear and transparent Covid policy. They seem to awfully quiet on that front. Perhaps, they too, along with Trump, are praying for that miracle respite that wont come. 

We need to deal with this, humanely this time, with due concern for all segments of our society, particularly the segments we are tasked with protecting…

The post The Uninfected Victims of Covid. In Search of Pandemic Solutions appeared first on Medika Life.