I didn’t mean for this website to go as basic as this, quite the opposite, but apparently there’s still a huge need for basic stuff for basic people. And we can’t really advance much without covering the basics properly.
Not much else to add, besides our motto: “Don’t believe what we say, research what we say!”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Best part: the admission comes from a court trial that has recently been concluded, then put a lid on. I discovered this accidentally, while following other leads.
Please contemplate this most spectacular paragraph and then I’ll give you all the background info you need:
Regarding factual material within the document, the court finds that “[t]he CDC does not . . . justify its withholding based on inextricable intertwining of facts and opinions.” “Rather, it defends the withholding because the facts about COVID-19 were changing frequently, and therefore any facts in the Media Strategy are ‘no more than . . . hypotheses advanced but later revised or rejected altogether.'” “The CDC states that releasing such ‘seemingly factual statements’ would ’cause damage both to the agency – by contradicting and/or undercutting the more reliable information that it ultimately released – and to the public, by creating confusion and potentially sowing mistrust in the guidance provided by the CDC and other Federal agencies.'” The court finds that “Defendants cite no law for the validity of such a justification under FOIA . . . and the Court is aware of none.” Moreover, the deliberative process privilege focuses on whether disclosure would ‘expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.‘” “The CDC does not argue that disclosure of the facts would chill the CDC’s internal discussion.” “Therefore, the Court rejects the agency’s justification for withholding the factual portions of the document.”
The reason I call it a “boomerang throw” is because the case was obviously a politicized attack on Trump admin’s alleged dictatorial oversight on science. They meant to show CDC wants to do better and OrangeManBad is keeping them on a leash, preventing transparency. But the solution to it blew up in Biden’s lap, exposing more of CDC’s foul plays when they least needed another public image blow. I mean, could’ve blown up, if anyone made a fuss about this.
Below is how Deep State University aka Harvard presented the case in April 2020:
CDC Sued to Disclose Restrictions on Scientists’ Right to Speak
By Adam Toobin – Edited by Genie Gorbonosov
April 16, 2020
<< Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Knight Institute v. CDC (S.D.N.Y Apr. 2, 2020) (No. 20-2761), complaint hosted by the Knight Institute.
Demanding the Trump Administration make public any restrictions on when employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may speak to the public or the press, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is suing to force compliance with an unanswered Freedom of Information Act request they filed on March 19.
The complaint follows an extended controversy over whether and to what extent governments may restrict public employees from speaking to the press on their personal views. Laden with free speech concerns, the issue demands heightened urgency in the context of a worldwide pandemic that has killed tens of thousands and sparked fierce debate about the role of political leaders and scientists in responding to the crisis.
Motivating the Knight Institute’s concern in this instance is a record of severe restrictions on the rights of government scientists to speak freely to the press. In 2017, Axios published an email from Jeffrey Lancashire, a public affairs officer, to the National Center for Health Statistics, announcing that for every employee of the CDC “any and all correspondence with any member of the news media, regardless of the nature of the inquiry, must be cleared through CDC’s Atlanta Communications Office.”
This policy may exacerbate fears that the White House has politicized the nation’s response to the pandemic and inhibited the voicing of alternate views that could shed light on the extent of the crisis, according to the Knight Institute’s complaint.
“According to recent news stories, scientists and health officials at the CDC must now coordinate with the Office of Vice President Mike Pence before speaking with members of the press or public about the pandemic,” the complaint reads. “These stories have raised concerns that public health experts who know most about the risks to the public are not being permitted to speak candidly and that the information the government is now conveying may be incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading.”
This lawsuit follows recent litigation that has raised questions about the current constitutional status of rights of public employees to speak to the press without official oversight. In 2006, the Supreme Court held in Garcetti v. Ceballos that speech by public employees should only receive First Amendment protection when they are communicating in their capacity as private individuals. However, in the 2014 case of Lane v. Franks, the Court held that “the mere fact that a citizen’s speech concerns information acquired by virtue of his public employment does not transform that speech into employee—rather than citizen—speech.”
Rather than facing doctrinal hurdles in overturning government restrictions on the right of public employees to speak, a recent law review article by Frank LoMonte, head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, identifies the fact that public employees have had to put their careers and employment relationship in jeopardy in order to bring suit. LoMonte suggests that journalists and news organizations should have standing to challenge overbroad restrictions on the right of public employees to speak.
While still untested, the prospect suggests a new line of attack on the type of rules the CDC may be enforcing against its employees. The Knight Institute’s lawsuit may then be seen as the first step in raising a more fundamental question about the constitutionality of these restrictions.
On the alternative side, public health officials have also emphasized the importance of clear and trustworthy information reaching the public during a period of such acute national and international challenges. The spread of misinformation online has drawn particular concern and forced some social media platforms to take unprecedented steps to control what their users can see and share, including partnering with organizations like the CDC and the World Health Organization to verify the information blitzing around their sites. Multiple conflicting messages from government officials — not bound by tight central controls — could contribute to the public’s confusion.
Ultimately, the Knight Institute’s lawsuit focuses on a much more narrow question: Whether the government should be permitted to keep secret its rules for when government scientists may speak publicly. As the coronavirus pandemic enters a new month, long since having banished facets of everyday life once taken for granted, the issue takes on the weight of all those who worry everyday about the information they receive from the government and the media.>>
Fantastic presentation, Harvard! Now, you know what’s way more stunning? Let’s have a look at the full court decision on this!
Friday, September 17, 2021
Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CDC, No. 20-2761, 2021 WL 4253299 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021) (Torres, J.)
Re: Request for certain records concerning coronavirus or Coronavirus Task Force, as well as records concerning communication with news media and public policies
Disposition: Denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search: “The Court concludes that the CDC’s search for documents responsive to requests one and two was not reasonably likely to uncover all responsive documents.” First, the court finds that “the CDC improperly narrowed the scope of [its] search, and shall reconduct it in light of this order.” “Here, the plain language of the requests indicate that they encompass more than the CDC’s interpretation.” “Requests one and two seek records ‘relating to’ policies and procedures, and so are broader than merely the policies themselves.” Responding to plaintiff’s argument, the court finds that “courts have rejected the idea that including a specific request invalidates an overlapping broader request.” Second, the court finds that “‘FOIA requests are not a game of Battleship.'” “‘The requester should not have to score a direct hit on the records sought based on the precise phrasing of his request.'” The court explains that “an agency must search for synonyms or common variants of a term used in the request that are likely to be used in responsive documents, unless it can reasonably justify declining to use them.” “[T]he agency justifies its limitation of search terms as a means of ‘strik[ing] a balance between fully and completely capturing emails dealing with the subject matter of Plaintiff’s requests and eliminating the large number of nonresponsive emails captured by the first search.'” “But, an agency’s duty under FOIA is not to strike such a balance; it is to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, unless such a search would be an undue burden.” Additionally, the court finds that “Plaintiff correctly observes that the agency’s affidavit does not give sufficient detail about how the search was conducted.” “[I]t does not specify how Boolean searches were used: for instance, if it searched for the two-word terms like ‘covid communication’ in quotes (producing only documents containing those two words in sequence), or not (producing documents with either one of those words anywhere in the document).” “Without such detail, the Court cannot conclude that the agency demonstrated that the search terms were reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents.” Finally, the court finds that “CDC has given no reason it did not search the inboxes of the individuals identified by Plaintiff, which Plaintiff reasonably contends may contain responsive documents.” “Therefore, it was unreasonable of the CDC to omit those individuals likely to have responsive documents from the search.” Of specific note, the court finds that “Defendants . . . argue that the CDC’s search was reasonable despite the omission of [one individual], because the produced records demonstrate that her supervisor . . . ‘was included in all correspondence to or from [the omitted individual] concerning items 1 and 2 of Plaintiff’s request.'” “However, this logic does not hold: [the supervisor’s] inclusion on the emails uncovered by a search of her email inbox does not mean that [the omitted individual] did not send or receive other responsive emails which did not include [her supervisor].” “Therefore, it is reasonably likely that [the omitted individual] has other, undiscovered responsive documents, and must be included in a reasonable search.”
Exemption 5, Other Privileges: The court holds that “Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the presidential communications privilege covers [two documents], given the scope of dissemination of those documents.” The court relates that the two documents are “a February 25, 2020 email authored by . . . President Donald J. Trump’s then-acting White House Chief of Staff[] and sent to ‘Senior Government Officials,’ described as a ‘[p]roposed coordinated media communication strategy for COVID-19 with designated speakers for various issues/topics,'” and “a February 25 and 27, 2020 email chain involving [the then-acting White House Chief of Staff], described as an ‘[u]pdate and elaboration of proposed coordinated media communication strategy for COVID-19.'” The court relates that “Plaintiff no longer disputes that these documents were properly authored by a member of the President’s staff.” “However, Plaintiff disputes whether these documents were kept sufficiently confidential for the privilege to apply.” The court finds that “[d]isclosure of the documents would not prevent the President from operating effectively.” “The media strategy of an executive agency is not a quintessential presidential power like the removal power; it is and was performed without presidential input.” “Nor would disclosing the documents undermine future presidential decision-making; as discussed below, the policies appear to have been forward-looking plans to coordinate strategy.” “And finally, because the policies were distributed to more than just the President’s closest advisors, his ability to communicate his final decisions privately was not implicated.” “Moreover, the documents were not treated as confidential for purposes of the privilege.” “The documents were also distributed throughout the Executive Branch, including to individuals whom Defendants have not established are covered by this privilege.” “Though Defendants state that the majority of the recipients were in the EOP, not all individuals in the EOP are within the narrow circle of the presidential communications privilege.” “Finally, the documents appear to have been distributed to some of the recipients for a non-advisory purpose.”
Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Other Considerations: The court denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding “a ’02/25 – 02/26/2020 Division of Global Migration and Quarantine email chain . . .’ and the information withheld within them[,] [specifically,] ‘[d]iscussion of how to apply 02/25/2020 EOP email to Senior Government Officials.'” The court finds that that material consists of “discussions of how to apply a binding policy, rather than conferring about developing that policy.” “Therefore, any discussion of its application was post-decisional, and outside the scope of the privilege.” The court relates that “Defendants . . . argue that [some of that material] was not an operative policy because on [a later date], a new email was sent, erasing the [earlier] framework.” “However, although the Document 9 policy may have been temporaru, it is still a final decision while in effect.” “In addition, the CDC has not sufficiently articulated a harm associated with disclosing [that material].” “Defendants merely assert that disclosure of some of the documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege ‘could cause harm by chilling future free exchange of ideas and opinions by agency leadership on similarly sensitive matters.'” “[T]his assertion is not specific enough to meet the FOIA requirements.”
Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requrements: Separately, the court considers a “a number of iterations of a document titled ‘CDC Communication and Media Strategy for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Response.'” The court relates that “the CDC avers that [one of these iterations, the only one plaintiff still challenges,] was ‘revised and circulated to help frame ongoing deliberative discussions within CDC for anticipated consideration by CDC decisionmakers,’ but that no Media Strategy was ultimately decided upon.” “Plaintiff has identified a number of features of [the document] that suggest it is, at least, the closest to final version of the Media Strategy produced.” Additionally, the court notes that “[p]roduced documents discussing the Media Strategy also indicate that the goal was ‘to finalize the first iteration of this strategy document,’ . . . which indicates that the CDC intended to create an operative version, even if that version was to be updated.” Also, the court finds that “[t]he CDC also does not describe, specifically for Document 12, the author, its recipient, or those individuals’ relationships to each other and the decision-making process, details which have been considered ‘critical’ to a court’s analysis under the deliberative process privilege.” The court also relates that “Plaintiff argues that [the document] should not be withheld because it is a ‘messaging’ document.” “Though courts in this district are split over how to handle messaging documents, . . . the Court agrees that when considering documents ‘about how the agency should communicate its policies to people outside the agency,’ it must focus on ‘whether the drafts or communications reflect deliberations about what “message” should be delivered to the public about an already-decided policy decision, or whether the communications are of a nature that they would reveal the deliberative process underlying a not-yet-finalized policy decision.'” “On this record, the Court cannot determine if [the document at issue] is merely articulating how to discuss agency policy, or if it is itself an expression of the CDC’s ‘essential policymaking role.'” “Accordingly, the Court cannot yet decide whether [this document] falls into the deliberative process privilege.”
Regarding factual material within the document, the court finds that “[t]he CDC does not . . . justify its withholding based on inextricable intertwining of facts and opinions.” “Rather, it defends the withholding because the facts about COVID-19 were changing frequently, and therefore any facts in the Media Strategy are ‘no more than . . . hypotheses advanced but later revised or rejected altogether.'” “The CDC states that releasing such ‘seemingly factual statements’ would ’cause damage both to the agency – by contradicting and/or undercutting the more reliable information that it ultimately released – and to the public, by creating confusion and potentially sowing mistrust in the guidance provided by the CDC and other Federal agencies.'” The court finds that “Defendants cite no law for the validity of such a justification under FOIA . . . and the Court is aware of none.” Moreover, the deliberative process privilege focuses on whether disclosure would ‘expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.'” “The CDC does not argue that disclosure of the facts would chill the CDC’s internal discussion.” “Therefore, the Court rejects the agency’s justification for withholding the factual portions of the document.”
Updated November 4, 2021
You could start the Comedy Central Roast of CDC with that material. Hey, Rand Paul, where art thou?
“Science will win”.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
As per usual, Reuters did not fact-check what they claimed. Almost all their smear jobs are based on this type of text-book straw-man. But you will learn more than the headline promises here.
‘I CALLED PHARMAFIA AND THEY SAID NO’ – EVERY MEDICAL FACT-CHECK EVER
The claim in the original article, the claims in the fact-check and the verdict are three separate things. Reuters manages to straw-man its own straw-man.
THIS BLOG IS NOT AN ANTI-VACCINE COMMENTARY. I WISH TO ENCOURAGE READERS TO CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENTATION, DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, AND NOT BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT WE ARE BEING TOLD.
WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED OR CONCERNED TO LEARN THAT THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU” HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAIN AND MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A FLU AT ALL? WELL, HANG ON TIGHT, YOU ARE IN FOR A ROUGH RIDE!
WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU”
History tells us that the 1918 Spanish Flu killed between 50 – 100 million people. At the time, medical and pharmaceutical sources described it as THE MOST horrific disease process since the Black Plague of 1347, which killed an estimated 25-30 million people.
Reuters does not dispute this
VACCINATION: “THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM”
In the book,Vaccination Condemned, by Eleanor McBean, PhD, N.D., the author describes, in detail, personal and family experiences during the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.
McBean’s coverage of the 1918 “Spanish Flu”, as a reporter and an unvaccinated survivor, requires that the historical basis of the event needs to be revisited, not as a “conspiracy theory” but with evidence that will “set your hair on fire”.
A few years ago, I came across another book by Eleanor McBean: “Vaccination…The Silent Killer”. McBean provides evidence that not only were the historical events of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” compromised, but also those of the Polio and Swine Flu epidemics.
LET’S TALK “SPANISH FLU” FACTS:
THE SPANISH SCAPEGOAT
Spain was neutral during WW1 and did NOT censor its press, unlike the combatting countries. As a result, Spain was the first to report the 1918 Flu epidemic and the world “scapegoated” Spain as the source. Thus, the “Spanish Flu” is born.
THE FIRST CASE: MILITARY VACCINATION EXPERIMENTS IN FORT RILEY, KANSAS
In preparation for WW1, a massive military vaccination experiment involving numerous prior developed vaccines took place in Fort Riley, Kansas- where the first “Spanish Flu” case was reported.
WW1 DRAFT = HUMAN TEST SUBJECTS
The fledgling pharmaceutical industry, sponsored by the ‘Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research’, had something they never had before – a large supply of human test subjects. Supplied by the U.S. military’s first draft, the test pool of subjects ballooned to over 6 million men. CLICK HERE for more details.
BACTERIAL MENINGITIS VACCINE: THE KILLING FIELD
Autopsies after the war proved that the 1918 flu was NOT a “FLU” at all. It was caused by random dosages of an experimental ‘bacterial meningitis vaccine’, which to this day, mimics flu-like symptoms.
Reuters simply calls this main claim ‘baseless’ without providing any base for their call, then move on to flog more straw-men of their own:
So, basically, we have a Pharmafia-licensed doctor’s word vs. a Reuter presstitute’s word, and I bet my ass the Reuter NPC has no medical studies. Anyway, to settle the truth here, you have to do your own research, which I did below.
However, to settle that Reuters faked its fact-check is already adequate at this point.
The original article follows up:
The massive, multiple assaults with additional vaccines on the unprepared immune systems of soldiers and civilians created a “killing field”. Those that were not vaccinated were not affected. – Links to the article in the pic below:
Reuters claims there is a disagreement between their findings and the article’s, but they both claim the same thing: it was a flu AND a bacteria that ended the lives of those who got a flu in 1918
Undisputed
SO… HOW DID CIVILIANS DIE?
WW1 ended sooner than expected, leaving HUGE quantities of unused experimental vaccines.
Fearing that soldiers coming home would spread diseases to their families, The U.S. government pushed the largest vaccine ‘fear’ campaign in history. They used the human population as a research and development lab to field test experimental vaccines.
Tens of millions of civilians died in the same manner as did the soldiers.
Instead of stopping the vaccines, doctors intensified them, calling it the great “Spanish Flu of 1918”. As a result, ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED.
“Seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. Letters were sent to their families that they had been killed in action.”
In the examples given in my previous blog “COVID 19: Another Chapter in the History of Deception and Secrecy”, history is replete with intentional lies told to the public to either “save face” or to deceive for nefarious purposes. The 1918 “Spanish Flu” was no exception.
So what did the autopsies really reveal?
This is the only actual dispute Reuters made to the article, and neither sides backed their claims.
Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness
Abstract
Background
Despite the availability of published data on 4 pandemics that have occurred over the past 120 years, there is little modern information on the causes of death associated with influenza pandemics.
Methods
We examined relevant information from the most recent influenza pandemic that occurred during the era prior to the use of antibiotics, the 1918–1919 “Spanish flu” pandemic. We examined lung tissue sections obtained during 58 autopsies and reviewed pathologic and bacteriologic data from 109 published autopsy series that described 8398 individual autopsy investigations.
Results
The postmortem samples we examined from people who died of influenza during 1918–1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia. Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.
Conclusions
The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria. Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1968 pandemics are consistent with these findings. If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of viral-bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs). Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.
The 1918 to 1919 “Spanish” influenza pandemic virus killed up to 50 million people. We report here clinical, pathological, bacteriological, and virological findings in 68 fatal American influenza/pneumonia military patients dying between May and October of 1918, a period that includes ~4 mo before the 1918 pandemic was recognized, and 2 mo (September-October 1918) during which it appeared and peaked.
The lung tissues of 37 of these cases [a little over half – S.m] were positive for influenza viral antigens or viral RNA, including four from the prepandemic period (May-August). The prepandemic and pandemic peak cases were indistinguishable clinically and pathologically.
All 68 cases had histological evidence of bacterial pneumonia, and 94% showed abundant bacteria on Gram stain.
Sequence analysis of the viral hemagglutinin receptor-binding domain performed on RNA from 13 cases suggested a trend from a more “avian-like” viral receptor specificity with G222 in prepandemic cases to a more “human-like” specificity associated with D222 in pandemic peak cases. Viral antigen distribution in the respiratory tree, however, was not apparently different between prepandemic and pandemic peak cases, or between infections with viruses bearing different receptor-binding polymorphisms. The 1918 pandemic virus was circulating for at least 4 mo in the United States before it was recognized epidemiologically in September 1918.
The causes of the unusually high mortality in the 1918 pandemic were not explained by the pathological and virological parameters examined.
These findings have important implications for understanding the origins and evolution of pandemic influenza viruses.
Frederick Lamont Gates, born in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN, December 17, 1886, married, September 11, 1917 in Duluth, St. Louis County, MN, Dorothy Olcott, born June 20, 1891, daughter of William James and Fannie (Bailey) Olcott.
His father said he was “born for study and inquiry and disclosed this at an early age”. Ill health disqualified him from athletic activities and his life was centered wholly on activities of the mind. He was accepted at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago and, after a year and a half at Chicago, he chose to continue his studies at Yale. He stood at the head of his class, received the Phi Beta Kappa key, and graduated Summa Cum Laude in 1909. The same year, he entered John Hopkins Medical School, and graduated with highest honors four years later. He was recommended for research work at the Rockefeller Institute and took a position on its staff.
On the declaration of war in 1917, Mr. Gates volunteered for the U.S. Army Medical Corps, was accepted and commissioned a first lieutenant. He was assigned to duty on the Rockefeller Institute staff where he gave lectures to military groups selected to attend training there. He was also assigned to visit training camps, in the interest of preventive medicine, and traveled widely. He continued at the institute after the war and his researches, especially those on influenza, received worldwide recognition. His health failed in 1927 and he was required to undertake a less demanding schedule. He continued his research at Harvard and moved his family to Cambridge, MA where he died, June 17, 1933, at age forty-six, after suffering a concussion from a fall. – SOURCE
Frederick Lamont Gates was the son of Frederick Taylor Gates (1853-1923) was the principal business and philanthropic advisor to the major oil industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Sr., from 1891 to 1923.
In 1901, Frederick T. Gates designed the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), of which he was board president.
Yale Obituary Record Frederick Lamont Gates, B.A. 1909* Born December 17, 1886, in Minneapolis, Minn. Died June 17,1933, in Boston, Main Father, Rev. Frederick Taylor Gates (B. A. University of Rochester 1877, M.A, 1879; Rochester Theological Seminary 1880$ ULD. University of Chicago 1911); a Baptist minister; business and benevolence manager for John D. Rockefeller; president of Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research; chairman of General Education Board; son of Rev. GranviUe Gates and Sarah Jane (Bowers) Gates, of Maine, N. Y. Mother, Emma Lucia (Cahoon) Gates; daughter of Lyman Hall and Cordelia Lucinda (Teague) Cahoon, of Racine, Wis. Montclair (N. J.) High School; attended University of Chicago 1905-06 as member of Class of 1909. Entered Yale as a Sophomore; Andrew D. White prize in history Sophomore year; philosophical oration appointment and honors in physical sciences Senior year; member University Orchestra, Alpha Delta Phi, Sigma Xi, and Phi Beta Kappa. M.D. Johns Hopkins 1913 (member Alpha Omega Alpha); connected with Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York City, 1913-1929^ as fellow 1913-14, assistant in Department of Physiology and Pharmacology 1914-17, associate 1917-1921, and associate member 1921-29; had since been research fellow and lecturer in Department of Physiology at Harvard; member China Medical Board of Rockefeller Foundation 1916-1929 and of its commission to China 1915; commissioned First Lieutenant, Medical Reserve Corps, April 17, 1917; assigned to Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kans., in December, 1917, and to Camp Taylor, Ky., in November, 1918; received discharge January 18,1919; contributed to Journal of Medical Research, Journal of Experimental Physiology•, and Science; member Harvey Society, Optical Society of America, Society of Experimental Physiology, and American Association for the Advancement of Science. Married September 11, 1917, in Duluth, Minn., Dorothy Olcott (B.A. Smith 1913; M.A. Columbia 1917), daughter of William James Olcott (Ph.B. University of Michigan 1883, M.S. 1884, honorary M.A. 1908) and Fanny (Bailey) Olcott. Children: Olcott, Barbara, Frederick Taylor, ad, Dorothy, and Deborah. Death due to a fractured skull and brain hemorrhage. Cremation took place. Survived by wife, five children, three brothers* Franklin H. Gates, ’12, Russell C. Gates, ’14, and Percival T. Gates (B.A. Yale College 119 University of Chicago 192a), and three sisters, Alice Gates Pudney, wife of William K. Pudney (M.D. Columbia 1917), of Montclair, N. J., Lucia Gates Hooper, wife of Leverett F, Hooper (B.A. Harvard 1915), of New York City, and Grace Gates Mitchell, wife of Morns R. Mitchell (B.A. University of Delaware 1919), of Montclair. – SOURCE (PDF) – P.118-119
Your doctor knows nothing about nutrition? Ask him confidentially and he’ll probably confess he had only one course in nutrition. And there’s a reason.
Back in the late 19th century American medicine was in a deplorable state. To the credit of the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Institute for Medical Research, funds were made available to staff teaching hospitals and to eradicate some pretty horrible diseases. On the other hand, a chemical-based medicine was introduced and the medical profession cut its ties with naturopathy. Cancer statistics tell you the rest.
For the moment we want only to note that the impetus for reorganizing medical education in the United States came from John D. Rockefeller, but the funds were channeled through a single member of The Order.”
“One day in 1912 Frederick T. Gates of Rockefeller Foundation had lunch with Abraham Flexner of Carnegie Institution. Said Gates to Flexner:
”What would you do if you had one million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?”
“Flexner’s reply, however, to the effect that any funds — a million dollars or otherwise — could most profitably be spent in developing the Johns Hopkins Medical School, struck a responsive chord in Gates who was already a close friend and devoted admirer of Dr. William H. Welch, the dean of the institution.”
Welch was President of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901, and a Trustee of the Carnegie Institution from 1906.”
”There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun.
Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.
Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War One. The reader will be interested to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then more historians than analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order and the first President of the American Historical Association.”
It is true that in early 1918, before the first cases of Spanish flu were reported at Camp Funston at Fort Riley in Kansas in March 1918 ( here ), a trial of a vaccine made with inactivated strains of the meningococcus bacteria ( here ) was conducted on military volunteers at the same location. According to a report published in July 1918 by Frederick L. Gates, First Lieutenant of the Medical Corps, U.S. Army ( here ), the experimental vaccine created in the laboratory of The Rockefeller Institute was given to “about 3,700 volunteers” and the doses “rarely caused more than the mildest local and general reactions”, which included “headache, joint pains, and nausea” and in some cases, diarrhea.
While virology would not emerge until the 1930s, physicians could identify many of the bacteria causing the deadly pneumonias that were killing their patients, but without antibiotics they could do little to fight the infections. Thus, as the epidemic struck their camps, hospitals, ships, ports, or divisions, many medical officers documented what they saw, as if trying to define that which they could not control.
IF YOU’RE STILL NOT CONVINCED, YOU HAVEN’T FULLY READ THE REUTERS PIECE, IT DOES A GREAT JOB AT CONFIRMING EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO DEBUNK:
“Stephen Kissler, Postdoctoral Fellow of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health ( here ) told Reuters via phone that the vaccine used at Camp Funston “was derived from existing meningitis strains” that were potentially inactivated with heat. He saw no reason to conclude a vaccine, which was made with existent, inactivated strains of meningitis bacteria from people who had previously been sick with meningitis, had “caused a major epidemic.”
As explained here the Office of Medical History of the U.S. Army Medical Department, meningococcal meningitis, which causes inflammation around the surrounding tissues of the brain ( here ), “has always been one of the most serious and important of the various communicable diseases of man” among soldiers. “It becomes more common when young people are together in closed quarters like dormitories or barracks,” so “the military had a good reason to test a vaccine against meningitis,” Burke said.
It was also not rare to research and test vaccines at this time in history given it was an “early era of microbiology,” Burke added. “The Fort Riley meningococcal vaccine experiment was not an unusual scientific undertaking” and “Many [bacterial] vaccine trials were going on all over the U.S. around 1918.”
The article “The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918” by John M. Eyler provides more context ( here ). For example, during the 1918 flu pandemic itself, experimental bacterial vaccines for influenza were used in army camps as well as on workers, including 275,000 employees of the U.S. Steel Company ( here , here , here ). The cause of the pandemic was unknown at the time, explaining why bacterial vaccines were being tested in the hopes they might work on this new deadly disease.” – REUTERS
And this, my friends, was the kick-off for today’s Military BioTech Complex that I’ve just biographed. This was just an earlier Great Reset, like they regularly do. You have the military, the Rockefellers, the experiments, all the motives and the weapons, they assemble themselves like the Transformers. Only malfeasance or a severe cognitive-dissonance seizure could blame this on coincidence rather than conspiracy. Because if it’s not intentional, it’s coincidental, and you should know by know this is not a place for coincidence theories.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I survived many tough times focusing on the humor in them. And I find this highly amusing. But even more disturbing, when I look around and I see most people don’t flinch hearing such a claim.
As for insurances and vaccines, the topic of that Forbes article… oh boy, oh boy… Check this out! And then THIS!
Follow up:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
The testimonies may be only implicit, but they can’t be any more solid and legit.
Let’s play in a paradigm where we and YTFT (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) recognize same figures as authoritative.
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG
What would happen if I made a video claiming no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus, like this Twit above, which is still live on many platforms? What if I’d be just genuinely naive (like they assume we all are) and I’d bump into this Twit without following up for updates and retractions? And then I’d spread that claim around? I’d go straight to internet jail, maybe even offline jail. Unlike other people.
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcocki says users are using the platform during the coronavirus crisis.
It started with basic information but now users “want to know about life under quarantine… like exercise at home. How do I fix my freezer? How do I give myself a haircut.” pic.twitter.com/p8jxTUBRte
Don’t trust us, verify and consider the following facts:
Each and every medical organization on the planet has retracted or adjusted medical information, since 2020 more than ever. Thus, they admitted the initial publications were actually wrong aka “misinformation”. It’s part and parcel of sciencing and that’s not the issue here, that’s the point: errors are scientist’s best teachers.
YTFT has actively promoted this admitted misinformation, its terms and policies did nothing to stop it, proving they can’t arbiter jack shit.
This misinformation has not been retracted from YouTube, persists there to this day. In fact, most of the science believed to be true today has been retracted
Users who argued this misinformation have been deplatformed and their content has been erased, while the misinformation persists on all platforms.
YTFT are not independent from, but massive investors in medical business.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that has been abhorred by most science icons ever and only denotes scientific illiteracy.
Therefore, YTFT’s claim that they are in position to arbiter what is medical information is not only a blatant con job and misinformation, as proven by everything they do, it’s utterly insane. Anyone supporting it is accomplice in all their crimes. They can’t do better than the authorities they subject to, which have admitted to failure. Which makes YTFT a huge threat to the global public health and security, given their immense global reach.
What happened to HCQ supporters on YTFT?
Bonus: Where is risk, there has to be freedom of choice, where is risky speech there has to be freedom of choice for speech (free speech, in short).
And if you needed me to explain such super-basic logic, you’re not intellectually equipped for survival and most likely you don’t have anymore time to catch up because the mental lazies stole the horizon from everyone. You are the virus, in fact. We’re better off if you go get a vaccine! If you did figure this out by yourself, in your own terms, we need you to put some daily effort into spreading the truth and making our objection more powerful, it’s the only antidote to lies. You know what you have to do, thank you! Ah, and also this:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
So you can give someone Rona just by sneazing less than six feet away. but they can’t test for it unless they stab your brains out with their swabs, right? We launched this discussion a few months ago, but it hardly caught any attention being heavily censored by fact-fakers and in competition with Gates and Fauci’s 24/7 media circus. Luckily, recent mainstream news have have just revived the topic, and this is essential knowledge for our health and even survival.
A Covid-19 Nasal Swab Test Punctured Woman’s Brain Lining and Leaked Brain Fluid From Her Nose. What does that mean?
ACovid-19 nasal swab test punctured a US woman’s brain lining, causing fluid to leak from her nose and putting her at risk of life-threatening infection, doctors reported in a medical journal Thursday.
The patient, who is in her 40s, had an undiagnosed rare condition and the test she received may have been carried out improperly, a sequence of improbable events that means the risk from nasal tests remains very low.
But her case showed health care professionals should take care to follow testing protocols closely, Jarrett Walsh, senior author of the paper that appeared in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, told AFP.
People who’ve had extensive sinus or skull base surgery should consider requesting oral testing if available, he added.
“It underscores the necessity of adequate training of those performing the test and the need for vigilance after the test has been performed,” added ear, nose and throat specialist Dennis Kraus of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who wasn’t involved in the paper.
Walsh, who practices at the University of Iowa Hospital, said the woman had gone for a nasal test ahead of an elective hernia surgery, and afterward noticed clear fluid coming out of one side of her nose.
She subsequently developed headache, vomiting, neck stiffness, and aversion to light, and was transferred to Walsh’s care.
“She had been swabbed previously for another procedure, same side, no problems at all. She feels like maybe the second swab was not using the best technique, and that the entry was a little bit high,” he said.
In fact, the woman had been treated years earlier for intracranial hypertension — meaning that the pressure from cerebrospinal fluid that protects and nourishes the brain was too high.
Doctors at the time used a shunt to drain some of the fluid and the condition resolved.
But it caused her to develop what’s called an encephalocele, or a defect at the base of the skull which made the brain’s lining protrude into the nose where it was susceptible to rupture.
Brain computed tomographic image from 2017 in the coronal and sagittal planes demonstrating encephalocele situated over the fovea ethmoidalis prior to nasopharyngeal testing for COVID-19. Sullivan, et al/JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
This went unnoticed until old scans were reviewed by her new doctors, who carried out surgery to repair the defect in July.
She has since fully recovered.
Walsh said he believes the symptoms she developed were a result of irritation to the lining of the brain.
If the problem hadn’t been treated, she could have developed a potentially life-threatening brain infection from bacteria that traveled up the nose.
Or, air could have entered the skull and placed excess pressure on the brain.
Most testing protocols call for clinicians to follow the path of the floor of the nose, which lies above the roof of the mouth, rather than pointing the swab up — or if they point it up, to do so with great care.
Walsh said that though this was likely a very rare occurrence, it was a reminder of the need for high-quality training, given that hundreds of millions more tests will be performed before the pandemic is over.
Let’s read this again:
But it caused her to develop what’s called an encephalocele, or a defect at the base of the skull which made the brain’s lining protrude into the nose where it was susceptible to rupture.
Jarrett Walsh, head and neck surgeon
update: Another report of a woman leaking spinal fluid after a covid test. Experts say it’s rare, but they aren’t surprised it happened.
From Fox29 TV, SAN ANTONIO (WOAI/KABB February 27th 2021)
A San Antonio woman is still in shock after she says a Covid nasal swab test went horribly wrong.
“It hurt, it was an immediate instant migraine,” says Chari Timm. “I’ve never had a migraine ever in my life.”Volume 90%Chari Timm says the swab was inserted in her nose and she instantly felt pain.
Chari was in need of a heart diagnostic test and protocol states she had to test negative for Covid before they could run any tests. She says the swab was inserted in her nose and she instantly felt pain.
“It started from the back of my head and just extend it to the front of my head and my entire brain was an extreme pain,” she says. “Instantly fluid just was leaking out of my nose.”
Chari was leaking spinal fluid.
A neurologist from Methodist and an ear, nose and throat doctor diagnosed her with pneumocephalus days later.
Pneumocephalus is when there has been a rupture in the dural membrane, or the lining that’s around the brain, which allows air to enter the space that’s normally occupied by the head.
Experts say it’s rare, but they aren’t surprised it happened.
“Patients are asked to tilt their head back and the trajectory is more parallel to the nostril, the bridge of the nose and that’s what can bring the that swab further up and put you in a range of potentially having that Covid swab then rupture the dural membranes,” says ENT specialist Spencer Payne.
Fortunately, there is a procedure to fix the hole, that would be a laparoscopy.
While it’s unlikely it’ll happen to you , if you feel uncomfortable when getting swabbed, speak up.
“It’s important that swab be directed as straight back as possible,” says Payne. “Patients should be empowered to understand that anatomy and direct their care if they think their swab is going in the wrong direction.”
If the brain can protrude into the nose, the swab certainly can breach the blood brain barrier, even if only indirectly.
Check the highlighted area in the figure above, the circled area is the access gate. That’s not soft tissue, but it’s far from a really resistent and insensitive one. You don’t need to go through it to cause harm to the brain, more or less directly.
“There are three layers of protection in the nose. There’s the mucosal lining which covers the inside of the nose. There’s the olfactory epithelium (involved in sense of smell). The inside, the dura mater, which means ‘tough mother,’ is a tough lining of skin around the brain. It’s hard to penetrate through (it) without something sharp,” said Dr. Shawn Nasseri, an ear, nose and throat surgeon in Los Angeles, in an interview with USA TODAY. (“Resurch” done on the toilet bowl).
Protrusion is one of their own typical straw-men, not the point they’re claiming to invalidate. It’s never been about protrusion. And “hard” doesn’t mean impossible. Same as in almost every fact-checker blog post (that’s all they are), they don’t even argue what they calim they do, but own fabrications.
“Increases in blood-brain barrier permeability occur and can be maintained with increasing inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress being the initial drivers”, according to top Australian and Canadian researchers. All you need to do is to introduce the right agents in the right area,
Bottom line: the Covid-19 nasal test swabs, which are not used nasally at all, may not be able to easily protrude all the way to the brain blood barrier directly, but they certainly have the potential to get there or close enough, hurt and cause inflamations that can further leade to the “leaky brain” disease.
What Is the “Leaky Brain” and how it affects health
We took advice on this from Peter Smith, who specialises in treating and coaching people how to live well with mental health problems, digestive health problems/IBS, sleep problems and type II diabetes using natural therapies. He used these techniques to overcome and live well with his own bipolar disorder, IBS, he also briefly had and reversed type II diabetes. You can read about his mental health recovery story here.
The blood-brain barrier is a specialist membrane that surrounds the brain, it’s supposed to prevent toxins, bacteria and foreign proteins such as gluten from entering the brain. When the blood-brain barrier allows undesirable substances to enter the brain it can trigger inflammation that can damage key structures in the brain involved in depression, bipolar and other mental health problems; it can also cause a ‘foggy’ brain. In this section I’ll tell you how you can test the health of your blood-brain barrier and if it leaky how to fix it.
How to test the integrity of your blood-brain barrier
You can perform a basic test on your blood-brain barrier yourself at home, you can buy the neurotransmitter GABA as a supplement and take 1000 mg in the evening when you’re not going to go out or drive a car. When you take a GABA supplement and it is absorbed from the digestive system into the systemic blood it should not be able to get into across the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain; this is because the GABA molecule is very slightly too large to pass through a healthy blood-brain barrier.
When the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is excessively permeable or leaky however GABA from supplements can cross the BBB and will cause a rapid rise in GABA levels in the brain. Most people would experience this as a noticeable feeling of relaxation, sedation and a reduction in feelings of anxiety however paradoxically some people actually experience a temporary increase in anxiety or even a feeling of panic, this can be because their GABA synapses and pathways are already at the point of exhaustion and even a little bit of increased stimulation quickly leads to a temporary exhaustion and depletion. If you experience this paradoxical reaction because your GABA pathways are at the point of exhaustion you may initially respond badly to treatments aimed at increasing GABA activity in the brain, the solution is to aggressively reduce neuro-inflammation (inflammation in the brain) by treating any and every source of inflammation, see how to reduce neuro-information.
In terms of the GABA challenge test the important point is if feel any of the above effects it implies you have a leaky brain and you should fix it.
If you pass the test i.e. don’t feel anything on 1000 mg I would actually repeat the test the following night with 1500 mg just to be doubly sure. Do not engage in anything that you wouldn’t do if you were under the influence of alcohol or sleeping pills like drive a car during the test, ideally do the test in the evening just in case it produces a strong relaxation effect so that you have ample time to sleep it off overnight.
If you fail the GABA challenge test above you should not keep taking GABA because of the risk that repeatedly flooding the brain with GABA could desensitise your GABA synapses, the balanced way to increase GABA is to take substances like ashwagandha and theanine that readily pass the blood-brain barrier and stimulate the brain to make its own GABA and lithium orotate and passionflower that increase GABA sensitivity by increasing receptor sites within GABA synapses. See GABA Deficient Anxiety
A personal anecdote is I used to occasionally take GABA to sedate my brain counteract bipolar hypo-mania long before I knew that GABA should not be able to cross the BBB and that it could be used as a test the health of the blood-brain barrier. I found that GABA did work for me but was unpredictable, sometimes producing strong sedation and other times no noticeable effects at all. I now understand that this means the health of my blood-brain barrier was borderline and when the level of inflammation in my body was elevated my blood-brain barrier was leaky enough to allow GABA from supplements to enter my brain and other times my blood-brain barrier worked should; today GABA has no effect on me.
The importance of the blood-brain barrier in mental health
The blood-brain barrier is a protective membrane that separates the brain from the rest of the blood in the body, its job is to prevent unwanted substances from entering the brain. When healthy the blood-brain barrier blocks everything except nano-sized particles and a few desirable larger molecules are specifically allowed to pass through, even antibodies made by our own immune system are too big to pass through the blood-brain barrier, so the brain has its own separate immune system; furthermore the blood-brain barrier can make it difficult to administer medicines both pharmaceutical and natural to the brain, in my line of work I always have to ask the question does this medicinal substance cross the blood-brain barrier.
By and large the blood-brain barrier prevents viruses and bacteria from entering the brain, this is why infections in the brain are actually quite rare; some notable exceptions to this are the bacteria that cause meningitis, syphilis and Borrelia that causes Lyme disease, these smart pathogens release inflammatory chemicals called cytokines that cause inflammation and increased permeability in the blood-brain barrier to gain access to the brain.
The blood-brain barrier also prevents many toxins and pollutants from entering the brain it does not however do a good job of preventing toxic metals such as mercury[i], lead or cadmium from entering the brain.
Mercury is a highly penetrating substance, a dentist that specialises in safe amalgam filling removal once told me that the mercury vapours released when you drill an amalgam filling can penetrate a man-made rubber dam during the drilling process, inhaled and absorbed, which led to the development of new safer extraction techniques.
Besides obvious things such as bacteria and viruses the blood-brain barrier should keep toxins, pollutants and large half-digested food molecules such as gluten from wheat out of the brain. Our digestive system attempts to break down large protein molecules into individual amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), we then absorb the amino acids and build up into human shaped proteins but the process of breaking down foreign proteins into amino acids is never hundred percent complete or successful resulting in half-digestive protein molecules and strings of amino acids. Ideally the walls of our digestive tract should not allow these half digestive protein molecules to enter the bloodstream but when the walls of the digestive tract are excessively permeable then half-digested proteins pass through into the blood, this is sometimes called leaky gut syndrome. If the blood-brain barrier is also leaky then the half-digested proteins can make it all the way from digestive system into the brain and trigger the brains immune system and inflammatory response. Generally treating a leaky blood-brain barrier should go hand-in-hand with treating a leaky gut.
The role of hidden neuro-inflammation in mental health
The people mcking your “Google Univeristy diploma”. I’ve seen vlogs by 17y olds that look and sound better than Factcheck.org
There’s a growing understanding that mental health problems including depression, bipolar syndrome, OCD and anxiety are caused by diminished function in specific parts of the brain that control mood and mental health. In the affected areas there is literally a loss of synaptic connections and inflammation is thought to be the primary factor that causes this; a loss of serotonin carrying synapses in the limbic system that controls our mood for example result in depression. This is the new BDNF hypothesis of what causes mental health problems.
It can be very upsetting to hear that you may have a loss of synapses in your brain, so let me immediately reassure you that the brain is constantly remodelling itself losing and growing new connections this is called neuroplasticity and it can be stimulated and increased so you can regrow and repair the function in the affected parts of your brain. To learn how to do that see: How to regenerate your broken brain One of the key goals to achieve to increase neuroplasticity and overcome a mental health problem is to eliminate neuro-inflammation.
A leaky blood-brain barrier is not the only thing that can cause neuro-inflammation, other things that can independently cause neuro- inflammation include a pro-inflammatory diet, elevated cortisol production from overactive stress responses (a common finding in people with mental health problems), elevated blood sugar/insulin levels, drug and alcohol use although the latter also weakens the blood-brain barrier causing it to become leaky. Furthermore when a leaky blood-brain barrier is combined with leaky gut syndrome and an unhealthy bowel flora it increases the ability of the latter to cause neuro-inflammation.
In my practice a big part of my treatments is to eliminate neuro-inflammation by working on everything just mentioned.
Understanding inflammation
It’s common to think of inflammation is a bad thing but a short appropriate burst of inflammation is part of a healthy immune response, inflammation helps the affected body part to fight infection, clear toxins and repair itself.
Inflammation can exist in an extreme form with tell-tale signs including swelling, fever, pain and clinical markers such as elevated CRP in the blood; in the brain extreme inflammation is extremely dangerous and should be treated immediately with aggressive anti-inflammatory drug therapy such as steroids.
Alternatively inflammation can exist in a low-level in the background without producing any obvious signs this can be referred to as hidden inflammation; one of the big problems with low-level background inflammation is that it hidden and so may persist unnoticed for years chipping away at the health of your brain. When hidden inflammation persists over a long period of time it can damage key parts of the brain that control mood and cause at least contributes to mental health problems. Hidden inflammation can also be a central component of degenerative diseases including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. For more information inflammation see: How to Reduce Neuro Inflammation to Treat Depression and Mental Health Problems
The brain has a separate hyper-sensitive immune system
Two important things to note about the brains immune/inflammatory response are firstly because the brain is so important it’s defensive immune/inflammatory responses are very easily provoked and secondly once provoked they remain active for a very long time. The combination of features is why a leaky blood-brain barrier can be so detrimental, for example just a small seemingly benign provocation from the entry of gluten into the brain can provoke neuro-inflammation that could last for days; gluten is notorious for being able to provoke a particularly aggressive immune/inflammatory response. I recently treated a patient who identified wheat is a clear trigger for her bipolar mania.
When we have a leaky blood-brain barrier and leaky gut syndrome the immune/inflammatory response may switched on literally every time we eat from half-digested foreign proteins entering the brain; the result would be continuous persistent neuro-inflammation wreaking havoc on delicate brain structures.
There’s also growing evidence that the toxins produced by an unhealthy bacterial colony in our intestines can be a significant contribution to neuro-inflammation if they are allowed to enter the brain, there are often so many supplements to take when you’re using natural therapies to improve a mental health condition that is easy to overlook the health of the bowel flora but it can have a significant effect and it’s worth taking probiotic supplements.
A personal anecdote is that for many years I used to eat wheat once a week, if I ate it twice a week I would get a pressure headache at the back of my head feel very slightly depressed and very grumpy; at that time I didn’t understand the significance of this and for over a decade enjoyed my one sandwich a week. I now understand that that one serving of wheat provoked inflammation in my brain that lasted several days and if I had a second serving of wheat before the inflammation from the previous serving had completely subsided the inflammatory effects were combined and compounded on top of each other to produced sufficient neuro-inflammation to give me a headache and psychological symptoms. Looking back I regret provoking low-grade hidden inflammation in my brain for several days each week. Today I avoid wheat and use rye/spelt bread made with sourdough rather than modern yeast which as far as I can tell does not produce any neuro-inflammation, I follow an anti-inflammatory diet and I have improved the health of both my digestive tract and blood-brain barrier.
What makes the blood-brain barrier become leaky?
The main thing that makes the blood-brain barrier become too permeable or leaky is inflammation in the blood-brain barrier itself. Just to be clear inflammation in the blood-brain barrier causes the blood-brain barrier to become too permeable or leaky which then allows undesirable substances to enter the brain which then triggers the brains defensive immune/inflammatory response and this results in increased neuro-inflammation.
The blood-brain barrier is just another part of the body and when there is widespread systemic-inflammation in the body in general it can inflame the blood-brain barrier and therefore from a practical treatment point of view to heal a leaky blood-brain barrier we have to eliminate systemic-inflammation throughout our whole system. Systemic-inflammation can be caused by a poor pro-inflammatory diet, over-active stress responses, pollution, toxins from and friendly bacteria in the intestines, leaky gut syndrome, allergies, autoimmunity, et cetera.
Alcohol and yeast overgrowth (Candida)
Excessive consumption of alcohol specifically weakens the blood-brain barrier because one of the breakdown products of alcohol is acetaldehyde and this specifically damages the blood-brain barrier. Acetaldehyde is also produced from yeast (Candida) overgrowth, the worst thing in the diet to promote the overgrowth of yeast is sugar. I have a question if anyone can answer this for me: does yeast overgrowth produce acetaldehyde by fermenting sugar in the blood into alcohol and then the alcohol breaks down into acetaldehyde or is the acetaldehyde produced independently of alcohol production and breakdown?
The clinical significance here is that if you have abused alcohol and or you have a yeast/candida overgrowth you should suspect you have a leaky blood-brain barrier and treated just in case.
How to heal a leaky blood-brain barrier
As just mentioned above systemic-inflammation in the body is a primary cause of a leaky blood-brain barrier, the practical implication of this is that the key thing to do to heal a leaky blood-brain barrier is reduce systemic-inflammation.
Two really big things to do to reduce systemic-inflammation are:-
Follow the anti-inflammatory diet and
Dampen down overactivity in the HPA axis.
Additional measures to reduce systemic-inflammation and heal the BBB include:-
Drink no alcohol for the duration treatment.
Eliminate leaky gut syndrome by following the anti-inflammatory diet and if necessary treating and eliminate SIBO (small intestine bacterial overgrowth) and intestinal yeast (Candida) overgrowth
Improve the condition of your intestinal microbiota (the bacteria) primarily with a diet containing a large amount of diverse polyphenols and fibre, if necessary thoroughly cleanse the bowels first then repopulate with friendly bacteria.
Consume copious amounts of chicken stock, this promote regeneration of both the blood-brain barrier and the intestinal wall. See How to Make a Healing Chicken Stock
Remove amalgam fillings from your teeth and detoxify heavy metals
Eat organic foods because they contain less pesticide residues.
Improve the quality of your sleep, because sleep deprivation particularly inadequate the rapid eye movement sleep that occurs in the second half of the night when we dream and learn new memories has been shown to degrade the integrity of the BBB[ii][iii]. For techniques on how to improve your sleep see my book: Sleep Better with Natural Therapies by Peter Smith available from Amazon.
Improve your oral hygiene, particularly your gum health with regular flossing and if necessary the use of the new oral pro/friendly bacteria lozenges. Believe it or not oral bacteria can be a significant source of inflammation in the body, if you have poor gum health consult with an oral hygienist before embarking upon the use of dental floss to avoid initially releasing dangerous bacteria into your bloodstream.
Supplements to heal a leaky blood-brain barrier
Only a few supplements are known to specifically improve the health of the BBB they include acetyl-L-carnitine, a specific form of B5 called pantethine and melatonin.
Acetyl-L-carnitine boosts the production of antioxidant enzymes that protect and heal the BBB[iv]. Unfortunately there some studies have suggested that if carnitine is regularly consumed it feeds and builds up a particular bacteria in the intestines and these bacteria produce a chemical from the carnitine that damages our arteries; the suggestion is that the inherently high level of carnitine found in meat may actually be the mechanism whereby meat consumption increases the risk of heart disease. The evidence that this is the case still limited furthermore in the animal studies the form of carnitine look at was specifically L carnitine as opposed to acetyl-L-carnitine which can help heal the BBB, nevertheless I don’t recommend consuming something that could cause arterial damage and contribute to heart disease which is the leading cause of death in developed countries especially at high doses. I hope that further studies will show that acetyl-L-carnitine is not harmful to arterial health because carnitine is useful for depression, cellular energy, weight loss and healing the BBB.
Pantethine boosts the production of the key enzyme that clears acetaldehyde from the brain and therapeutic use of pantethine has been shown to strengthen the BBB so significantly it was able to prevent malaria from entering the brain (you can easily find references to this online).
Therapeutic doses start at 1000 mg twice a day with meals.
Melatonin besides being a potent free radical scavenger and inherently anti-inflammatory, melatonin has been shown to protect the integrity of the BBB, however the dosage used in the animal studies was enormous way beyond any human would supplement [v]. I’ve accumulated quite a lot of both personal and professional experience with the use of melatonin supplements, I have observed that at high doses above 2-3 mg many people experience a significant increase in the intensity their dreams even to disturbing levels and by personal experimentation one can work out a dosage that enhances and prolongs the rapid eye movement dreaming sleep phase.
Resveratrol is an antioxidant/polyphenols naturally occurring in foods such as red grapes, red wine and raspberries that has numerous health benefits especially the health of the brain, it has also appears to restore the integrity of the BBB and reduce neuro inflammation[vi].
High strength resveratrol is expensive, a good value for money resveratrol containing product I take myself and regularly prescribed Doctor’s Best French Red Wine Grape Extract 2 to 4 capsules a day, the same company also make quite good value resveratrol, if you are not limited by the expense Life Extension make very high quality resveratrol supplements; you can find all these products on iherb.com
Remember alcohol specifically weakens the blood-brain barrier so abstain from alcohol while you are treating a leaky BBB.
In addition to the above remedies I would recommend simultaneously taking high doses of antioxidants supplements that reduce systemic-inflammation to help create the conditions in the body conducive to repairing the blood-brain barrier.
My recommended combination:- Rutin Now Foods one capsule twice a day Ascorbyl palmitate 1000 mg twice a day Curcumin plus piperine (there are lots of curcumin products available but only very few deliver significant levels of curcumin to the brain) I recommend Super Bio Curcumin from Life Extension with a separate piperine. Vitamin E (gamma E) 400 IUs twice a day Alpha lipoic acid 150 to 600 mg twice a day NAC cysteine 1200 mg once or twice a day.
REFERENCES:
[i]American Chemical Society. “Mercury Can Jump Barrier That Keeps Toxins Out Of Brain.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 September 1999. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990909080318.htm>.[ii] J Immunol Res. 2016;2016:4576012. Epub 2016 Sep 21. Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Induced by Chronic Sleep Loss: Low-Grade Inflammation May Be the Link. Hurtado-Alvarado G1, et.al. PMID: 27738642 PMCID: PMC5050358 DOI:10.1155/2016/4576012[iii] Sleep Restriction in Pairs Blood-Brain Barrier Function PMID: 25355222 PMCID: PMC4212067 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2111-14.2014[iv] Haorah J, Knipe B, Persidsky Y. Stabilization of superoxide dismutase by acetyl-l-carnitine in human brain endothelium during alcohol exposure: Novel protective approach. Free Radic Biol Med. 2011 June Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Neuroscience, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-5215, USA.[v] PLoS One. 2016; 11(5): e0154427. Published online 2016 May 6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154427 PMCID: PMC4859489 Melatonin Preserves Blood-Brain Barrier Integrity and Permeability via Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 Inhibition Himakarnika Alluri, Rickesha L. Wilson, et al[vi] Georgetown University Medical Center. “Resveratrol appears to restore blood-brain barrier integrity in Alzheimer’s disease ScienceDaily 27 July 2016.
Leaks in Brain May Contribute to Dementia
Study finds blood vessels in older adults break down, age-related blood vessel leaks in the brain may contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, according to a 2015 study.
The findings suggest it may be possible to use brain scans to detect such leaks and repair them in order to prevent damage that can lead to dementia, the University of Southern California researchers said.
The investigators analyzed contrast-enhanced brain images from 64 people of various ages and found that the brain‘s protective blood barrier becomes leaky with age. This leakage begins in the hippocampus, an important learning and memory center damaged by Alzheimer’s disease.
“This is a significant step in understanding how the vascular system affects the health of our brains,” said lead investigator Dr. Berislav Zlokovic, director of the Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute at the university’s Keck School of Medicine.
“To prevent dementias including Alzheimer’s, we may need to come up with ways to reseal the blood-brain barrier and prevent the brain from being flooded with toxic chemicals in the blood,” Zlokovic added in a university news release.
The study was published Jan. 21 in the journal Neuron.
Post-death examinations of Alzheimer’s patients’ brains reveal damage to the blood-brain barrier. However, why and when this damage occurs is unclear, the researchers noted.
About 5.2 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease, the most common type of dementia. By 2050, about 16 million Americans over age 65 will have dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
This article is as old as 2010, but no one has ever heard of any actual progress on these issues since, so it’s as good as fresh off the press. It originally appeared with a different title, as seen below. Christopher Lane, Ph.D., has won a Prescrire Prize for Medical Writing and teaches at Northwestern University. He is the author of Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness. – S.m
Ghostwriting and Medical Fraud
Can any medical research studies be trusted?
Banner at the March for Science 2017, Washington, D.C. Photo: becker1999 @ Flickr
“Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong,” writes David H. Freedman in November’s Atlantic Monthly. “So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice?”
Freedman’s hard-hitting article, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science,” concentrates on the work and findings of Dr. John Ioannidis, a medical professor in Greece who has “spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.” Far from being dismissed as a maverick or crank, Dr. Ioannidis is highly sought after. “His work has been widely accepted by the medical community,” Freedman writes. “It has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences.” One of his articles for PLoS Medicine, on bias in clinical trials, is the most downloaded in the journal’s history.
The real shock of Dr. Ioannidis’ work? He charges that “as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.”
The Greek professor’s underlying goal, the Atlantic reports, is to shed an uncompromising spotlight on just how often—and how much—drug companies have been “manipulating published research to make their drugs look good.” This issue was, you may recall, the subject of my last post, following news that the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and New York Times had successfully lobbied for the release of 1,500 documents that the drug-maker Wyeth commissioned to boost its spotty product, Prempro. Prempro, a Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), has been shown to increase women’s risk of breast cancer, stroke, and dementia. Beyond that, the journal and newspaper discovered that Wyeth not only had fabricated evidence about its treatment, but also had paid a ghostwriting agency to create and plant vast amounts of that “evidence” on the drug-maker’s behalf. (The documents are freely available here.)
To the evidence uncovered by the Atlantic, Guardian, New York Times, and PLoS, we can also add GlaxoSmithKline’s highly incriminating document CASPPER, short for “Case Study Publications for Peer Review,” which the drug-maker seems to have chosen as the name of its shell company because it brought to mind the cartoon ghost Casper, as in “CASPPER, the friendly ghost-writing agency.”
A confidential brochure published by GSK’s Philadelphia office and circulated “for consultant use only,” CASPPER makes clear that the drug maker’s “PAXIL Product Management” team had “budgeted for 50 articles in 2000″ (p. 11). That was the year, incidentally, the corporation spent more than $92 million on an ad campaign to promote social anxiety disorder, following the medical truism that one must first sell the disease before pitching the product advertised as treating it. Among other things, the CASPPER brochure indicates a strong preoccupation with devising and planting favorable articles about Paxil, the first of the SSRI antidepressants to be given an FDA license for the treatment of social anxiety disorder (March 1999). Other confidential documents that colleagues have sent me indicate that GSK internally was concerned about 1-in-5 patients reporting significant side effects from Paxil within weeks of starting treatment on it in their clinical trials.
According to the Associated Press, which covered this scandal when it broke last year, GlaxoSmithKline “used [the] sophisticated ghostwriting program to promote its antidepressant Paxil, allowing doctors to take credit for medical journal articles mainly written by company consultants.” “Manuscript preparation can be a time-consuming task,” the company recognizes in its brochure, while “CASPPER coordinates these responsibilities for contributing physicians” (p. 8).
Working with professors and researchers with names in the field, even to the point of mimicking their personal styles, CASPPER committed to crafting positive-sounding data in such a way that the professor would be willing to add his or her name to the fabricated article. After dogged effort targeting and revising for journals, the shell company would then be responsible for placing said article in prominent publications.
According to Policy and Medicine, “Articles from the company’s [ghostwriting] program [did indeed] appear in five journals between 2000 and 2002, including the American Journal of Psychiatryand the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.”
In the case of Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline, who’ve been caught red-handed with their ghostwriting agencies, the fabrication of medical evidence amounts to widespread, certifiable fraud. A spokeswoman for Glaxo’s London office even is on record as saying, “The published articles noted any assistance to the main authors,” which is supposed to sound reassuring, I guess, though readers of the American Journal of Psychiatry expecting good data clearly wouldn’t have known the extent of the drug company’s involvement in crafting more or less the entire article. The same spokeswoman is quoted as adding that the ghostwriting program “was not heavily used and was discontinued a number of years ago.”
So we can all breathe a sigh of relief that medical fraud is over, right? Wrong. For starters, there’s Wyeth’s 1,500-document ghostwritten archive, which the drug company has been required to make available to the public. The Wyeth Ghostwriting Archive constitutes an example of medical fraud on a massive scale.
According to the Guardian, moreover, DesignWrite, the medical communications company that Wyeth hired, “boasts that over 12 years they have planned, created, and/or managed hundreds of advisory boards, a thousand abstracts and posters, 500 clinical papers, over 10,000 speakers’ bureau programmes, over 200 satellite symposia, 60 international programmes, dozens of websites, and a broad array of ancillary printed and electronic materials.”
And what about seemingly milder infractions and distortions of evidence?
“Wasn’t it possible,” Dr. Ioannidis is reported as asking his colleagues in the Atlantic article, “that drug companies were carefully selecting the topics of their studies—for example, comparing their new drugs against those already known to be inferior to others on the market—so that they were ahead of the game even before the data juggling began? Maybe sometimes it’s the questions that are biased, not the answers.”
“Though the results of drug studies often make newspaper headlines,” concludes Freedman at the Atlantic, “you have to wonder whether they prove anything at all. Indeed, given the breadth of the potential problems raised at the meeting, can any medical-research studies be trusted?”
It’s a bleak and troubling question, and in his last post for “Mad in America,” his excellent PT blog, Robert Whitaker came last week to the same conclusion:
“Research in this country is financed by pharmaceutical firms that can’t be trusted to conduct honest science.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
SILVIEW.media 