President Trump, Ultra Violet Light, and Disinfectants

President Trump, Ultra Violet Light, and Disinfectants

A Health Care Crisis Is No Time For Political Games

I feel that I am forced to preface this post with some comments on my feelings towards Donald Trump. I personally do not like him as a president. I disagree with many of his policies. I did not vote for him.

I am not a supporter of the republican or democratic party. In the last presidential election I actually voted for Jill Stein and Green Party.

Nonetheless, just because I disagree with the president on many issues, that does not mean I am automatically against anything he says, just because he said it.

At a recent press conference Trump make commends about investigating treatments for coronavirus using UV light or disinfectants. See the short clip of him speaking below:

In response to this pundits on "the Left" (for lack of better word) jumped all over Trump. I saw multiple social media posts making fun of him, telling people to not inject bleach into their veins.

What this really comes down to is people using the crisis to distort the president’s words and play political games. They are automatically against anything Trump says, simply because Trump said it.

Personally, just because I often disagree with Trump, if he says something that is worth agreeing with, I have no problem admitting it.

This will be a quick posts of 2 treatments that may fall into the category radiation and disinfectant treatments. I am not an expert in these treatments, as unfortunately naturopathic doctors have a very limited scope in most states (including New York). However, these are non-drug options that may be used for severe infection.

Ultra Violet Irradiation of Blood

UV irradiation of blood was most commonly done in the 1940's and 50's. This is a procedure where blood was taken from a patient, exposed to ultraviolet light and then put back into patient.

It then lost popularity for several reasons. One was the popularity of antibiotics. The other was confusion over how it worked.

It may seem at first the UV irradiation worked by radiating microbes to death. This turned out to not be the case, as the amount of blood irradiated to make the procedure work best was not that much. Therefore it seemed to work more by having an oxidative effect on the blood.

This treatment was used for various conditions including: infectious arthritis, sepsis, osteoarthritis, tuberculosis, chronic blepharitis, mastoiditisis, uveitis, furunculosis, sinusitis, acne and secondary anemia. One of the criticism of UV irradiation seems to have been that it helped so many different conditions, so it is therefore too good to be true.

So given the history of UV therapy was president Trump wrong in suggesting that this is something worth looking into?

For more information of UV blood irradiation please following this link

Ozone Therapy

For Ozone Therapy I do not wish to say too much about it, since as a ND in New York State, it is not something I am currently offering.

It’s another oxidative treatment, commonly given as an IV (although there are other methods) and has been used for a wide range of different infection.

For in depth information about ozone I suggest the website https://ozonewithoutborders.ngo

Ozone, as an oxidative treatment can be considered a disinfectant. So, is president Trump wrong for suggesting we look into such alternative treatments?

What Do The People Who Make Fun Of Trump Propose?

As I am writing this, the global economy is in lockdown. Tens of millions of people in the United States alone have lost their jobs. Many businesses are gone, never to reopen. The lockdown itself besides causes an economic crisis, is creating a health crisis as well.

Just a few health issues caused by the lockdown include:

  • Economic stress
  • People unable to leave abusive living situations
  • Doctors, dentists, naturopaths, chiropractic, acupuncture, massage therapy, physical therapy and other health offices closed, leaving people without proper care. In some cases procedures are delayed which may become life threatening in itself
  • Increase in depression and anxiety
  • Breathing issue and hypoxia due to chronic mask wearing

In the meantime there is no conventional treatment for coronavirus. What many Trump opponents are waiting for is a vaccine which could take more than a year to develop.

After that point is this to be given to the whole country without any knowledge of possibly adverse effects? How well will this vaccine work in everyone (they are usually only tested on healthy adults). How will it combine with other vaccines? How may it effect the immune system in terms of susceptibility to other infections?

Vaccines are not all safe. There is great potential for injury by bringing out a rushed vaccine and forcing it on the whole country.

Therefore, this vaccine is a product that does not yet exist, and if it does would constitute a massive medical experiment on the whole population.

So what should the president do? Nothing but hope for a vaccine? Or perhaps investigate other treatments that may be available now, but have simply not been fully embraced by conventional medicine.

You would think the whole country would be in agreement to do anything an everything to bring this crisis to a quick end. Trump opponents would prefer to forgo alternative treatments for no other reason than to spite Trump and further their own political agenda.

Trump did not tell people to inject or swallow bleach. He is simply looking for alternative treatments other than a non-existent vaccine.

I am not a Trump supporter. But on this one issue, I see no reason other to agree with Trump that other treatments should be investigated other than waiting/hoping for a vaccines to materialize.

If anything many more resources should have already been put into looking for alternative treatments rather than an all or nothing vaccine approach which many are advocating for. My criticism of Trump is that for so long he has only seemed to listen to a handful of “experts” and only now do we hear such statements.

Flu shot For Protection Against Coronavirus?

Flu shot For Protection Against Coronavirus?

When it comes to the mainstream media and vaccines, there is one clear message. Vaccines are safe and effective. It also seems that the more vaccines, the better. With this in mind and coronavirus phenomena, this spring we are already seeing the media promote flu shots as for protection against coronavirus.

An an example here is a recent article promoting this idea.

As quoted by CDC director Robert Redfield:

One of the greatest tools we have as we go through the fall-winter season is to get the American public to embrace the influenza vaccine and thereby minimize the impact of flu to be the other respiratory disease we confront

Expect to see many more such statements from the main stream media, CDC and drug industry about the importance of getting the flu shot to protect against coronavirus.

This represents a one size fits all approach to health. Vaccines are the answer. Everyone needs them. The more the better. Nothing can possibly go wrong.

However, the problem with cold and flu like illnesses is that there are so many different pathogens. All of the following may cause cold flu like illness: influenza, rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, human respiratory syncytial virus, adenoviruses, parainfluenza virus, Legionella, Chlamydia pneumonia, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae.

To make matters even more complicated, viruses can have different strains. This is why they bring out a different flu shot each year, to try to match the strain that is already out there. By now we all know that coronavirus (nothing new, known for decades as a common cold virus) has different strains. So according to the vaccinate everything model, we don't just need a lot more vaccines. We would have to be constantly updating them to match how viruses mutate and adapt in nature.

The CDC does not seem interested in other methods, such as healthy living, vitamins, herbs supplements, IV vitamin C, ozone therapy or even medications.

How Many Vaccines Do We Need

How far can the vaccinate everything strategy go? The childhood vaccine schedule has significantly increased in size since the 1980s. We are also the rise in vaccine for adults.

Of course there is not much money in advocating natural methods that keep your immune system up and running. With the recent push for vaccine mandata, a single vaccine that be forced upon 300 million American can rake in billions.

Basic questions are not being asked. Some questions I would have are:

  • Is it safe to combine vaccines together
  • Can one vaccine effect the immune system so people are more susceptible to other infections

The following are a few well known problems with vaccine saftey:

  1. Vaccines are tested against healthy people, and then given to everyone. So if there are people with certain illnesses who will not response well to vaccines, this may not be seen in trials.

  2. Vaccines are not tested in combination. In trials it is just one vaccine at a time. In real life many may be given at one. If a hypothetical coronavirus vaccine is created, will patients be expected to get it the same day or shortly after their flu shot?

  3. Vaccines are not tested against placebo. Whenever a new drug is tested, there is a placebo group. They are given an inert substance, such as a sugar pill as a control group to compare to those given the drug. Vaccines however are not considered drugs. They are “biologics,” and thus do not need to be tested against true placebo. Vaccine trial often mention placebos, but the term is misleading. Vaccine are not tested against a true placebo which would be a saline injection. They are tested against other vaccines or vaccine adjuvants. Therefore, the true effect of vaccines are not known based upon trial, as the “placebo” agents are biologically active.

When we combine all this together, we start to see a scary picture. A vaccine everything agenda means new adult vaccines will not stop at one for the novel coronavirus that causes covid-19. There are many more infections that vaccines can be developed for.

For each new vaccine we can expect the following:

  • Tested only against other vaccines or adjuvants, not true innert placebo

  • Only tested in a healthy population, then given to everyone upon release

  • There will be no testing of the new, upcoming adult vaccine schedule against simply not taking any vaccines.

We know this to be true, because this is how childhood vaccines and schedule are developed.

Virus Interference

This article raises a question about flu shot safety and coronavirus. Does getting a flu shot raise your chance of coming down with another infection which causes cold and flu like symptoms?

The following link goes to a large study which looked at flu shot status and compared to rates of other infections.

Buried in the middle of data we can find the following

Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals

People who had flu shot where 36% more likely to test for coronavirus. They were also 51% more likely to test for human metapneumonia infection.

To be fair, the article also says that rates of other infections decreased in those who had the flu shot.

Conversely, all other non-influenza respiratory viruses had decreased odds in the vaccinated population, including significantly decreased odds ratios in vaccinated people with parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections

So we can see that the flu shot does more than simply trigger a response against the flu. It changes response against many viral infections.

Flu Shot For Coronavirus and Covid-19 Prevention?

What conclusions someone wants to draw from this study depends on what they do with the statistics. Data can be pulled and quoted to support the virus interference theory, or to dismiss is.

As the old saying goes, there are lies, damm lies and statistics.

Based on the data for many infections besides influenza the flu shot seemed to be protective. For coronavirus and human metapneumonia, there was increased risk. If all these results are averaged in together we can arrive at the same conclusion in the paper’s closing remark.

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination.

However, the data is not clear on what exactly is going on, or why the flu shot seems to change rates for so many other infections.

The reason I’m posting this however is because the upcoming sell by the media to get a flu shot because of coronavirus. The results for this was clear. Flu shot was associated with increase in testing positive for coronavirus. It is not protective.