Thinking for Yourself May Be the Only Regimen for a Full Recovery – Part II | By Steven Ferry – Hospitality Net

"Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship." - Bruce Coville.[Preamble of 110 words]

Last week, we looked at how the official response to the pandemic morphed from great concern about the danger; to numbness at the economic devastation (the UN World Tourism Organization estimated earnings down 80% on 2019 and the loss of 120 million jobs); to increasing rejection of the absurd.

In this article, we review how a draconian censorship of the medical community is being enforced not just in China, as one might expect, but also in the Western world; we examine the information that has been hidden so enthusiastically from you, and finally explain why almost every action taken by authorities has been at variance with impartial science and common sense.

Burying Facts and Studies In viewing the stream of contradictory and ever-changing data about the Wuhan virus (where it came from, its true nature and virulence, what did or did not work to combat it, etc.), the idea that officialdom was being driven by the common good rather than some unknown special interests was laid to rest with the egregious social media/Google censorship of multiple respected medical voices raising persistent and serious doubts concerning many aspects of the virus itself and its treatment even challenging the notion that COVID-19 was really as dangerous a threat as was being advertized by multiple outlets and parties. Twitter, for instance, is censoring information that does not follow "public health experts' and WHO guidance." Google and Facebook's "third-party" FactChecker program is funded by Gates, Soros, and Clinton donors, hardly neutral politically and certainly heavily invested in the vaccines being touted as the only possible and permitted solution.

Let's take some treatments that have been and still are being silenced at a time when any valid treatment should be pursued if the actual purpose were to save the lives of those who were succumbing to COVID-19:

Looking for why these and other solutions might be rejected or outright attacked, as in the FDA's Quack Hack program targeting colloidal silver's effectiveness against pathogens, it seems the common denominator behind the suppression of these potential non-pharmacological solutions for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infections is that they are low-cost, unpatentable, and thus unprofitable protocols. It is not because they are not valid and effective protocols worth at least including in an honest search for possible solutions.

What is approved and pushed by the government (in the US) from the FDA to the FTC and including Dr. Fauci, who headed the White House's coronavirus task force, are patentable and inevitably expensive vaccines that do not even exist yet.

For its part, in addition to removing all social media and Internet mentions and smearing doctors promoting these non-vaccine solutions, the media and social media also take for granted that vaccines are the solution.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson.

When perfectly competent voices are silenced and measures continue to be taken that defy common sense (creating the worst financial depression in human history, for instance, and everything that will entail), then it would seem that a special-interest group is at work with a hidden agenda, not a general-interest group applying science and common sense openly to deal with a situation for the good of the citizenry as defined by the citizens, not by special-interest groups.

If the information and handlings being recommended by those in government were characterized by scientific accuracy, truth, and logic, there would be no difficulty in having citizens accept their statements and instructions despite being exposed to different and even contradictory information.

Furthermore, even though COVID-19 is actually a complete non-event health wise for the vast majority of the world, for the few who are impacted heavily, a truly scientific enquiry would look honestly at all possible elements before ruling them out in order to discover optimal treatments. Real science neither needs to hide information nor to be forced upon peopleit speaks for itself when it simply works as stated.

For Whom is COVID-19 Actually a Danger and Why? There is no question that what is called COVID-19, whether or not it is a virus, is dangerous to a very small number of easily identified people. In order to adjudicate what might be the best solution for COVID-19 and whether vaccines indeed might be the only valid solution, let's explore the nature of SARS-CoV-2 and any other factors that might be behind the various symptoms ascribed to COVID-19.

The first point to grasp is that life-threatening infections of COVID-19 are not necessarily caused simply by the virus SARS-CoV-2, but the combination of two other elements:

Five additional factors have also been highlightedand rapidly censoredas possible contributors that boost the COVID-19 virus into severe cases for some:

As was the experience in other countries, 80% of coronavirus deaths in the US have been those who are 65 and up with pre-existing, life-threatening conditions.

We can narrow down the danger further to nursing/long-term care homes: 40.8% to 50% of COVID-19 deaths in multiple countries occurred in nursing homes; for instance, nursing home residents in Virginia represent 0.3% of the State's population but comprise nearly 60% of Virginia's COVID-19 deaths. Similarly, Italy saw 40% of their coronavirus deaths (26,384) occurring in nursing homes (the average age of all deaths being 79.5 years and 97% having an average of 2.7 pre-existing morbidities). The heavy toll in several US states was partly due to lack of proper equipment and procedures in these homes, and government officials requiring recovering coronavirus-patients in hospitals to be returned to their nursing homes.

The Head of Forensic Pathology in Hamburg stated that "Not a single person without previous illness has died of the virus in Hamburg. All had cancer, chronic lung disease, were heavy smokers, heavily obese, or had diabetes or a cardiovascular disease." [English translation]

A real investigation of COVID-19 would have to include determining if any of these above factors played a part: Jabbing a vaccine into someone will not resolve EMF pollution or barium salt toxicity, for instance.

But then again, coronaviruses (i.e. SARS 2002-2003, MERS 2012-2013) move through the population in two years before herd immunity builds enough for the coronavirus to disappear without any workable vaccine ever being found or administered. Summer 2021 would inevitably see the back of COVID-19 if it were managed with the normal herd-immunity approach instead of lockdowns. Contrast this reality with the one being pushed by "experts" predicting a second wave will come in the fall of 2020 and the pandemic will last two years, and calling for more lockdowns to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmedthe same reasoning and policies that have already collapsed our lives with nothing to show for it. Yet there is no second wave.

Viruses are Not Villains but Vital to Life Here is a fresh look at viruses that won't be found in the general media or in Western allopathic medicine (based on mitigating symptoms in isolation rather than holistic medicine, which finds and resolves the causes of disease). If just the following information about viruses were known, respect for and understanding of viruses and the terrain theory (versus the germ theory) would have replaced the panic and knee-jerk responses to the fear generated so that a more sensible approach could have been adopted by governments.

First of all, this may be a hard pill to swallow given that we have all been raised with the germ model of health and sickness, but it has never been proven that viruses or bacteria cause disease as they have yet to be isolated and purified sufficiently to be sure something else may not be the actual cause. If the germ model were really spot on, then one has to ask why humanity experiences so much sickness and only enjoys an average lifespan of 72 years.

Additionally, humans are thoroughly reliant on a highly diverse and plentiful microbiome and viromebacterial and viral microorganismsin our bodies, the soil, air, and water around us. The diversity needed to support life includes viruses (50% of the human genome is made up of 380 trillion viruses such as hepatitis, influenza and herpes, with 10% being retroviruses like HIV), bacteria (30,000 species, with 1.4 quadrillion in our bodies), fungi (5 million), and parasites (300,000 species). This diversity has been under attack from the ubiquitous presence of chemicals and toxins in our bodies, food, water, soil, and air over the last 75 years and the effects are evident in our children: In 1960, 1.8% of children in the US had chronic health conditions that limited their activities; today, that number is 54% suffering from one or more of twenty chronic health-conditions.

Science cannot match the speed with which nature/these viruses adjust to stressors in order to sustain the biodiversity upon which life, including humans, depends. For instance, industrial agriculture pours 4.5 billion pounds of antibiotics into the soil each year, requiring the microbiome take extraordinary measures to avoid extinction. Seen from this perspective, COVID-19 is working in its own way to reestablish biodiversityassuming, of course, that this virus was not engineered in a laboratory with some other purpose, making it an unnatural virus that is not necessarily following the laws of nature.

Rather than dropping everything and declaring the virus to be an enemy that we cannot possibly beat in terms of a) skillsets as well as b) undermining the foundation of life in a self-defeating way that only humans are capable of, it would be smarter in the long-term to address the loss of biodiversity and to move away from polluting industries and products and instead create clean production methods.

This does not mean dropping the standard of living and switching entirely to renewable energy, for instance, that actually causes more pollution in its construction and/or operation and disposal than it saves in its energy generation, but smart solutions such as the Carbon Cowboys who eliminate the need for fertilizer and pesticides, handle soil erosion and run off, and reduce antibiotic use dramatically through entirely natural means that increase beef production and lower costs. There are solutions wherever we state the problem properly and apply human ingenuity to solving it. The barrier to moving forward is powerful industries holding onto their non-optimal solutions and income stream at the expense of all life, and behind that, the truth not being known and understood by every being on this planet.

Vaccines: Promising More than they Can Deliver for Patients but Delivering on the Promise Financially for Pharmaceuticals Back to the more immediate question of COVID-19 and the push for a vaccine "before life can return to normal," since 1976, scientists have identified 12,800 coronaviruses that have been travelling the world's airwaves for eons, constantly mutating, infecting animals and humans and some apparently even jumping species. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is the seventh known coronavirus to impact humans; others include MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) and SARS (Sudden Acute Respiratory Disease).

In all this time, nobody has ever found a vaccine for these or any other virus that works, simply because by the time they have identified a virus and created a possible vaccine, the virus has already changed. That is why flu vaccines have such poor results each year. Public health officials have to guess at least six months before the flu season starts which Type A or B influenza virus strain might be predominant so that pharmaceutical companies can manufacture the vaccines. However, even if they did score a hit, 80% of all respiratory infections are not Type A or B strains and so no flu vaccines can be effective against them.

"There is no evidence that any influenza (virus) vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway." -Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine Officer, FDA & the National Institute of Health.

At best, flu vaccines might be said to work on 24% - 50% of those to whom they are administered, and then only in terms of reducing the severity of the flu. The insert for the flu shot itself states, "There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval" and "no controlled trials" have been conducted.

The insert also admits, "Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children." Those safety studies done are flawed. It is no wonder then that 100,000 people experience adverse reactions, hospitalizations, injuries such as autism, and even death from the various toxins in the flu and other vaccines. Autism rates have jumped 30,000% since the early 1980's.

Not surprising, therefore, to hear that prior receipt of a flu vaccine increases the chances of catching COVID-19 by 36%.

The author's position is not that vaccines are bad, but that they have a lot of toxins in them today that are bad; they patently do not work as well as the PR and marketing claim; they cannot be considered the only permitted solution in a free society, and they cannot be forced on citizens against their will, if the Nuremburg Code is to mean anything at all, especially when the companies making them today fudge their safety testing, hide and deny adverse reactions, admit they do not work, make the taxpayers pay for inevitable injuries while the companies make huge profits, and require so much PR, marketing, and lobbying to persuade doctors to prescribe them and governments to force them on citizenry.

The drive by pharmaceutical companies to vaccinate (in the US) today is characterized by:

In fact, the history of vaccines is one long river of failed immunizations and major adverse reactions, including deathsthis link covers the years up to 1988 and tellingly, points out that 90% of the decline in mortality for scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles between 1860 and 1965, for instance, occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread vaccination, as a result of improved nutritional levels.

In other words, an immune system in good shape is the best defense against viruses that kill because a compromised immune system simply cannot regulate itself properly.

As can be seen, vaccines have major issues, one of which is that the ongoing push for mandatory worldwide vaccination (the European commission and WHO are working to create a passport for mandatory vaccinations, Argentina is already implementing it, with travel, education, and other rights turned into privileges granted upon immunization) can be seen to be motivated by money, as far as the pharmaceutical companies (and the government agencies and politicians they finance) are concerned, not health as claimed.

It is clear, in the final analysis, that people would not have to be forced to take a vaccine if it were known to be safe and effective.

A River of Irrationalities Looking at the above, it is obvious that

Evidence keeps popping up day after day that exposes the current government responses to be illogical:

Additionally, immunity does exist once a person has caught COVID-19 and has the antibodies in their system: Sweden's chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, stated on May 11, "It is quite certain that immunity does exist. For all the cases we have had in Sweden, there has not been one single person who had this disease twice."

If there were no lockdown of everyone and instead the elderly and immune-compromised were protected/quarantined, the virus would run itself out after enough people developed antibodies and then those at risk would be free to interact again

According to the New York Times, South Dakota, as of mid-May, had 20,573 cases (1 per 233 of the population) and just 1 COVID-19 death. They have not enforced any lockdown, as is true of Sweden: Much like the rest of the world that is in lockdown, it has seen lots of people catching the virus but very few seriously ill and even fewer dying.

Even if healthy people staying at home could be justified in some way as a valid new theory for preventing the spread of a virus, it is not borne out in the real world: i.e. 66% of new COVID-19 patients in New York were sheltering at home. Another study from China found that 79.9% of new outbreaks of three or more people were from indoor transmission in private homes.

While staying at home does not appear to reduce infections and deaths in society in the short term, in the long term it invites the continuation of the virus as it prevents antibodies from being developed for herd immunity and so the virus never runs its course; it keeps revisiting society in new waves (as ironically, the authorities keep warning us will happen if we do not stay at home) when it finds enough new bodies to invade that have no defenses.

As predicted by the experts, stay-at-home lockdowns have had dire consequences beyond the COVID-19 mortalities, a few of which so far have proven to be:

Does all this add up to COVID-19 being a very dangerous virus?

It seems the bigger danger is media generating fear and the resulting unscientific and irrational solutions being enforced by governments resulting in collapsed economies; the disappearance of cultural norms (i.e. socializing, going to sports events or religious services, having shops and restaurants to enjoy, or of interest to the hospitality industry, traveling on vacation or business); quite in addition to avoidable deaths, upset/confused/hungry citizens, silenced voices, and lost civil liberties (including the desired-by-some enforced vaccinations).

So we come to the end of Part II and hopefully you are better prepared to make up your own mind and help steer things in the right direction next time someone panics over something they do not understand or tries to force something harmful on you and society.

In Part III, we will shine a spotlight on those individuals and organizations who mismanaged things in a way that did not collapse a single hotel or chain, or even all those in a single country or continent, but the entire world, and most other industries and professions.

First published by Hotel Business Review and reprinted with updates with permission from the author.

Read the original:
Thinking for Yourself May Be the Only Regimen for a Full Recovery - Part II | By Steven Ferry - Hospitality Net