Posted on

New York State Assembly Bill 99

New York State Assembly Bill 99

A proposed NYS law, currently in committee would allow the state to detain people deemed to have a commutable disease and are thus a danger to public health.

As of the day of this post, May 7, 2020 the bill is available to read here on the New York State senate website.

In this post I will review and comment on each section of the bill

Section 1: Removal and Detention

This bills allows the state to remove and detain people who “are or may be a danger to public health.” This provision can only be enforced if the governor declares a state of emergency.

Comments

I see no difference between the words “Remove,” “Detain,” and arrest. Using the states monopoly on violence to lock people up in cages against their will is arresting them.

Furthermore, there are no limits on the states power given. All the governor has to do is declare a “State of Emergency.” Nothing more is said. Is a season flu a state of emergency? A cold? A strep infection?

Section 2: Detention of Individuals and Groups

This section repeats much of the first, but with more detail of who may order the medical arrest (my phrase) of people. A single sentence in this section dramatically changes how this law may be used. This is not just about individuals.

Comments

The bill states: “individuals or group being detained.” So what is a group? A group of sick people? A group of people who due to religious, scientific or moral objections have not undergone a vaccination? The bill does not given any elaboration. All the state has to say is that people in a group may be a danger due to a communicable disease, and the can all be detained by the state.

Section 3: Length and Manner of Detention

The governor can decide how long and in what manner detainment can be for.

Comments

Detainment can last indefinitely. Conditions of detainment can be whatever the governor chooses. So, what if someone is detained because they do not wish to have a vaccine? Can the state detain them for life or until vaccine is given. What if the state claims someone has an infection and since it can not be cured, they must be locked up. Imagine what the state could have done with bill during the HIV/Aids crisis of the 1980s!

Section 4: When will a person be released

This section sets guidelines for when detainees shall be released. Conditions include:

  • State determines someone is no longer contagious
  • State determines that a person has not been exposed to such disease, or if infected, will no longer be contagious.
  • Person what detained only as a contact with an infected person, and is found to not be infected.

Comments

Lets take for example the recent measles scare in New York. Ignoring the argument over how valid the measles vaccine is, governor Cuomo has police roaming the streets of certain neighborhoods, issuing fines for people found to be vaccinated. Now the state can come in and detain people.

Any infection in a community or group, and the governor can have detained anyone in it. All the state has to do is declare a state of emergence. The criteria for what is a state of emergency is also up to the whim of the state. There are no checks on state power.

Section 5: Treatment of those detained

Anyone medically detained shall have his medical needs addressed. Isolation and infection control principles will be implemented.

Comments

So who shall determine how his/her medical needs are addressed. The individual with a self chosen health care team or the state.

What is just as concerning is the power of state to hold detainees in essentially solitary confinement, for as long as deemed medically necessary. What if family, lawyers are a private physician who wish to challenge the state’s detainment wishes to see them. Can the state say it is not safe and bar visitors?

This spring in response to Covid-19, hospitals have not allowed family to visit their relatives. This leaves patients without advocates.

Section 6 and 7: Court hearings

After 3 business days, detainees have a right to be heard. Detention can not last more than 5 days without a court order. For each 90 day interval after, the state needs to go back to the courts to continue the detention.

Comments

While it is good to see some limits placed on state power, these provisions are weak. If the state claims someone in a public danger, then they can be essentially be held indefinitely. All the state needs to do is renew the detention every 90 days with a judge

Sections 8 – 11

This sections deal with what information is to be given to detainees, translators and right to notify people on the outside about their detention.

Section 12: additional state powers

This section give the governor and state even more broad powers to do the following:
  • “the governor 11 or his or her delegate may, in his or her discretion, issue and seek enforcement of any other orders that he or she determines are necessary or appropriate to prevent dissemination or transmission of contagious diseases or other illnesses that may pose a threat to the public health”.
  • Power to quarantine people in locations outside of state detention.
  • State has the power to require medical testing on individuals.
  • Individuals may be required to be vaccinated.

Comments:

Up to this point the bill was limited to only contagious disease. Once sentence at the end extends power to any other illness, for which the state wishes to detain people over.

House arrest and group quarantines. If it’s is not practical for the state to detain you in a facility, they can simply tell you to stay home.

This is a mandatory vaccination bill. All the state needs to do is claim it’s not safe for you to skip a vaccine. At this point they can hold you indefinitely, as long as the courts agree to extend detention every 90 days.

Section 13: Final limit on state power

“The provisions of this section shall not be construed to require the forcible administration of any medication without a prior court order.”

Comments

This is not a check on state power. The governor and state will clearly be able to get the courts to comply with any powers used in this bill.

Final comments on the dangers of excessive state power

Nuremberg Codes

After world war two, in response to Nazi atrocities the Nuremberg Codes where produced as ethical guidelines for research and medical experimentation. We currently have numerous examples of the state forcing medical experimentation on the public. Vaccines do not undergo testing against inert placebo. Nor long term trials. Instead of long, rigorous safety trials that are unleashed onto the public, and then screened for adverse effects. All vaccines are thus medical experiments on the public. The current coronavirus lockdown, with all it’s economic destruction does not constitute prove public health measures. It is thus another medical experiment; what will take more lives, the virus or economic destruction?

With this in mind I think it is very reasonable to judge New York State Assembly Bill 99 against the Nuremberg Codes. We see many violations

.

  • Voluntary consent is essential. The whole purpose of this bill is to allow the state to force medical procedures on people and whole groups without consent.

  • The results of any experiment must be for the greater good of society. By putting such power in hands of the state, there is no guarantee if medical procedures are to benefit society, the state, or corporations who may benefit.

  • We can see in the current rush to created a coronavirus vaccines, typical guidelines of first experimenting on animals is being bypassed. (3) This bill will give the state power to force medical procedures on people according to it’s standards. What checks are there on improper testing when individuals can not opt out.

  • Risks should never exceed the benefits. As of writing this we are in the middle of the coronavirus lockdown. Since none of the public health benefits (socials distancing, mask wearing, home quarantine, closing business’s, canceling “non-essential” medical procedures) have been proven to be of benefit in current context, this is a giant medical experiment. The actual public health cost will be huge.There is no way to know exactly how many people will die from the lockdown. But it undeniable that the poverty inflicted on the people from the state (not the virus) will kill many. The following comes from the April 28th edition of Trends Journal:

    2011 study by Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health concluded that poverty, combined with other associated categories, such as income inequality and low levels of education, caused 874,000 U.S. deaths in the year 2000.Since 33.3 million Americans lived in poverty in that year, those 874,000 deaths amounted to a 2.62 percent mortality rate among the impoverished.

    If we apply this 2.62 percent mortality rate to the 21 million Americans soon to be impoverished as a result of the shutdowns, that comes to 550,200 who are likely to die in just the first year alone!

    So we can see in the case of coronavirus lockdown, the state conducting a massive medical experiment on the population that will almost surely kill many more people than it saves. How much power should be state be given to force medical experiments on the population?

  • Experiments should be conducted only by qualified scientists. The governor, nor state health officials are not qualified to order detention of people and force medical procedures on them. This bill takes such decisions away from individuals and their own health care team and hands it over to the state. Court procedure are weak protection against state abuse compared to not giving the state such power to begin with.

State power and government trust

Giving the state having this power to protect citizens may sound reassuring. However, it comes with a problem. Do you trust the state with this power?

Even if you think the current governor should be able to do this, what about the next, or the one after that? Even if you are for mandatory vaccinations, what if a new treatment comes out with potential dangers? Should the state automatically have the power for force it on people?

New York State Assembly Bill 99 may potentially protect the public against a disease. But it is also a blueprint for medical tyranny. What worries you more, the fear of contagious or unchecked state power?

Reference

1.You may download the text of Assembly Bill 99 here

2. Police fine people vaccinated against measles

3. Researchers fast-tracck coronavirus vaccine by skipping key animal testing first

4. Article on the Nuremberg Code

Posted on

Face mask research and coronavirus

People in New York wearing face masks because of coronavirus

Face mask research and coronavirus

People in New York wearing face masks because of coronavirus

As of writing this article on May 1st 2020, most people are wearing various forms of face masks to prevent transmission of coronavirus. Many state governors have have ordered people to wear masks. I have not found instances of fines or arrest at the time of writing this article, but the way things are going, it would not be surprising if we start to see this happen.

Mask wearing is changing social norms. Showing your face in public is a new cultural taboo. Masks are required to enter a store or conduct business. Government, businesses and social intimidation or forcing people to wear masks.

All this is of course believed to be based on science. Experts in organizations such as the WHO, CDC and state officials have told to wear masks. Since they are the experts and must know the science isn’t it best if we just follow along?

In order to figure this out, I’ve been doing some research on mask wearing.

Surgical and cotton masks for blocking sars-cov-2 virus

Surgical masks are commonly used to prevent coronavirus, despite a lack of scientific information that they will be effective

How much research has actually been done in the effectiveness of face masks in preventing the Sars-Cov-2 virus?

According to an April 2020 study “Whether face masks worn by patients with coronavirus disease prevent contamination of the environment is uncertain.”

This paper cites another study from March 2020. “Evidence that face masks can provide effective protection against respiratory infections in the community is scarce, as acknowledged in recommendations from the UK and Germany.”

Back to the mentioned April 2020 study, patients who had already been diagnosed with covid-19 were recruited. They were asked to cough towards a petri dish so the amount of viral particles could be counted. This was done with no mask, surgical mask, cotton mask, and then again with no mask.

Results found that neither the surgical or cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2. Although looking at the data, the cotton masks did filter out more viral particles.

After the masks where used, they were tested for viral particles. There was actually more viral particles on the outside of mask, then the inner area where the patients would have been breathing directly on.

This means that with use the masks become a reservoir for viral particles. Hand washing is thus important to follow after touching the outer surface of masks.

Dangers of face masks

A 2015 study in the BMJ compared the effectiveness of cloth and medical masks in healthcare settings.
1607 healh care worker were divided into 3 groups:

    • Wearing a medical mask at all times
    • Control group, only wear mask in some situations. Different mask were used, medical and cloth.
    • Wearing a cloth mask at all times

    The study concluded:

    We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of clothmasks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks.

    The authors pointed out several ways that masks may increase infections:

        • Water retention may create an environment for pathogens to live
        • Reuse and being used often allow viruses to contaminate the mask
        • Self contamination is possible

Should cloth face masks be used for SARS and coronavirus

The study states:

“Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention. These effects may be associated with cloth masks.”

Therefore, the science does not support wearing these masks. Face masks have been designed to work in certain clinical settings with proper use. Different masks have different uses and properties. Putting on a random face mask, using it outside the environment it was intended for, and without following proper protocols can not be supported by the actual research.

Surgical face masks have been designed so a doctor or nurse dose not spread infectious material into a patient they are working for. They are not meant to protect the user from viral particles in the air

N95 respirator masks and SARS virus

The data does seem clear that if someone is going to wear a mask to protect against coronavirus, then a N95 respirator is the best option.

N95 Respiratory Mask

So does this mean that everyone should wear a N95 mask?

That would really depend on a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. These mask are designed to protect health care workers in professional settings where they are exposed to numerous sick people during the day. They also can be beneficial if you are close proximity to someone who is sick, such as caring for a family member.

Potential risks of wearing masks include:

    • Lower blood oxygen and increased carbon dioxide
    • Mask may start to harbor infections themselves with prolonged used
    • Psychological stress of always needing to wear a mask and perceived danger
    • Impaired social relationships. Humans are social creatures. Positive social relationships place a huge part in our psychological and physical health. Mask wearing impairs much of our non-verbal communication, which may effect our psychological state and thus overall health

    Evidence that mandatory face mask wearing is preventing coronavirus

    I have not found any evidence whatsoever that mandating face masks is doing anything to prevent the spread of coronavirus. The same can be said about other new public health measures that no one ever heard about a few months ago. “Social Distancing,” seems to be a made up thing. We don’t have any scientific research to support it.

    Cost Benefit Analysis of mask wearing and “social distancing”

    There are numerous social costs to mask wearing.

      • Financial cost of masks

      • Health care workers, or those caring for sick people, who genuinlly need masks, may run out of supply or be forced to reuse masks, which has it’s own dangers.

      • Masks cause lower oxygen in the blood and increased carbon dioxide. For a fit, healthy person who is not being very active, this probably will not be a problem. For people who are doing physically demanding labor, pregnant women, or with health conditions which cause fatigue or poor circulation this may be a problem

      • Masks may be a challenge for people with asthma, COPD and other lung conditions that compromise breathing.

      • Masks themselves may harbor infections, especially used incorrectly of for prolonged periods of time.

      • Psychological stress of always having to wear a mask.

      • Emotional stress of emotions such as fear, which add another psychological burden to people.

      • Demands of lower oxygen intake will stimulate cortisol, the body’s major stress hormone. Increased cortisol is associated with stress induced disease. And virtually any disease can have a stress component to it.

      • Perhaps the largest factor is economic. Many jobs simply are not possible to do, or much more difficult with mask wearing and especially “social distancing.” Economic effects can include death from suicide, stress related illnesses, increase in anxiety, depression, lack of money to pay rent or buy food. All this contributes to illness and earlier death.

So what is the point of mask wearing?

If people do not wear masks properly, then there is not point to it. What is the purpose of putting society through all this stress, when there is a total lack of scientific evidence to support it, and most people are not even wearing masks properly. Due to health issues not all people can wear masks

On the day I wrote this post, outside my apartment building one of my neighbors was sick. Not from coronavirus, but she has apparently shortness of breath. She was outside with friend and family and seemed to have trouble breathing and apparently it was related to a heart condition.

I don’t know all the details and am not the type to be nosy about such things. But she was wearing a mask. A surgical mask outside. She didn’t even have it on properly all the time, often lowering it around her chin.

Surrounded by people, not breathing well, waiting for 911, she was standing their with her mask on. I yelled at them to take the mask off. From the research on mask use, a dirty, used mask, that is not even the right type to stop coronavirus would not nothing but make her breathing harder and lower her oxygen levels.

The other part of this, is according to our “experts” coronavirus is spreading through the population and it’s not so much a question of if we will be exposed, but when. So all this effort, expense, stress and harm to economy and people’s lives, for what? What is the point of this? What does our society get out of it?

It seems to me mask wearing is more of social ritual then genuine public health measure.

Virologist speaks about mask wearing

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.