|| Global Events || Ideas || People || Studies || Opinions || Echoes || Topics To Follow ||
(!!) Andrew W. Saul - World-wide nutritional immunity: Why everybody, everywhere is taking vitamin C
- Category: Health, Food
Shortly after this release, CDC and WHO put up statements at their respective websites declaring that vitamin C was useless against COVID-19. Without even checking sources, USA Today and other newspapers declared it "fake news" and "false information." YouTube deleted videos of licensed physicians supporting therapeutic or even preventive use of vitamin C. Facebook literally blocked and banned this quote from one physician with over 30 years' experience treating viral illnesses:
"I have not seen any flu yet that was not cured or markedly ameliorated by massive doses of vitamin C."But something else, something big, also happened. OMNS Chinese edition editor Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, was already in place in China. He was first to report in on several Chinese doctors' initial successes using intravenous vitamin C against COVID. This was followed by OMNS publishing quotes from seminars and interviews with these doctors. Videos of these physicians have been promptly and repeatedly removed by YouTube for "violating their community standards."
(Robert F. Cathcart, MD)
In spite of this, with no help from the network news, or the NIH, or the CDC, and certainly not from WHO, the public nevertheless drew a vital conclusion: if high dose intravenous vitamin C is useful for treating COVID-19 in hospitalized, ICU patients, then moderate oral doses of vitamin C will likely be a good preventive. Almost immediately, vitamin C sold out worldwide. Shelves were empty. Even the largest retailers were backordered for weeks. Some still are.
Practically the whole world is now taking vitamin C. I think this is the real reason why COVID-19 will not become COVID-20. Or 21.
Andrew W. Saul founded the peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service in 2004 at the request of Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, and Hugh D. Riordan, MD. Saul, Dr. Hoffer's coauthor for four books, has written, coauthored, or edited twenty-one more. He has no financial connection whatsoever with the supplement industry.
Spring is in the air, and it is increasingly found in the confident step of the people of Sweden.
With a death rate significantly lower than that of France, Spain, the U.K., Belgium, Italy, and other European Union countries, Swedes can enjoy the spring without panic or fears of reigniting a new epidemic as they go about their day in a largely normal fashion.
Dr. Mike Ryan, the executive director of the World Health Organization’s Emergencies Program, says: “I think if we are to reach a new normal, I think in many ways Sweden represents a future model — if we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns.”
The Swedish ambassador to the U.S., Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter, says: “We could reach herd immunity in the capital” of Stockholm as early as sometime in May. That would dramatically limit spread of the virus.
A month ago, we first wrote about Sweden’s approach, which we said “relies more on calibrated precautions and isolating only the most vulnerable than on imposing a full lockdown.” ...
Read the full article in National Review
- Category: USA, North America
- Category: Books, Periodicals
- Category: Global issues, False Flags, Wars, NWO
Unfortunately the official policy of Washington is not to “cooperate” with Russia, or indeed with many countries, but rather, as detailed in the current National Defense Strategy, to challenge them. The Pentagon justifies the enormous annual expenditure on armaments and world-wide deployment because “Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the department [of defense], and require both increased and sustained investment, because of the magnitude of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those threats to increase in the future.”
Inevitably, the Trump-Putin statement came under fire from those to whom the forging of world-wide trust and harmony signifies national corrosion rather than a desirable advance in trade and prosperity.
Member of Congress Eliot Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a not inconsequential post, promptly tweeted that “Everyone knows that Trump has a bizarre infatuation with Russia’s autocratic leader and that Trump constantly plays into Putin’s hands.” This was not surprising, coming from a long-term and suspiciously dedicated opponent of Russia, and he was joined by Angela Stent, formerly, amongst other things, of the State Department’s Office of Policy Planning, who opined that “Putin wants validation from the United States that today’s Russia, like the Soviet Union, is a great power.” Stent is an outstandingly intelligent person, but it not clear why she objects so strongly to Russia’s desire to improve the quality of life of its citizens and advance its international standing.
Her contention about the Elbe statement that “I am sure this was a Russian initiative,” was at best disingenuous because, as she certainly knows, there is a organisation called the Elbe Group of U.S. and Russian representatives, based at the Harvard Kennedy School, which “believes that our mutual interests are better served through cooperation than confrontation. Obstacles to joint cooperative efforts should be reduced or eliminated.” The Elbe spirit lives on, no matter the intensity of the campaign to destroy it, and there is little doubt that the Joint Statement was literally what it is titled.
Engel’s assertion that “Trump constantly plays into Putin’s hands” is similarly confusing, if only because Trump has signed a decree to stop “construction of a pipeline that is set to increase the flow of natural gas directly from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea” by imposing economic sanctions on “all businesses and individuals participating in construction of the pipeline”, which to any impartial observer would seem to indicate that Trump is not exactly in anyone’s hands — especially as Germany and the European Union consider his action “a severe intervention in German and European internal affairs.” Russia was, to put it mildly, most unimpressed by Washington’s spiteful sanctions.
There have been many off-the-planet statements by anti-Russia commentators, but one of the more captivatingly fatuous is the allegation by Max Boot of the Washington Post that “Trump helps Russia simply by spreading chaos in the U.S. government and division in U.S. politics. It is Putin’s dream to have an American president who denigrates dedicated FBI agents, intelligence officers and diplomats…” Be assured that, while President Putin may well laugh at Trump’s antics (and few people don’t, save for his Republican supporters who will do anything to keep out the Democrats no matter what they really think of him), it is a trifle doubtful that he dreams and schemes about Trump’s denigration of U.S. public servants.
It is most regrettable that all the efforts being made by such as the Elbe Group and many world figures to ease tension and promote goodwill between the U.S. and Russia are being so energetically undermined by the powerful anti-Russia lobby, based on Washington’s military-industrial complex which has no desire to slow down or in any way interfere with movement to ever-greater expenditure on armaments. It is grimly coincidental that at the time of the Elbe Joint Statement the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) produced a report indicating among other things that the “United States drives global growth in military spending.”
SIPRI notes specifically that “military spending by the United States grew by 5.3 per cent to a total of $732 billion in 2019 and accounted for 38 per cent of global military spending. The increase in U.S. spending in 2019 alone was equivalent to the entirety of Germany’s military expenditure for that year. ‘The recent growth in U.S. military spending is largely based on a perceived return to competition between the great powers,’ says Pieter D. Wezeman, Senior Researcher at SIPRI.” It was further stated that “total military spending by all 29 NATO member states was $1035 billion in 2019” as against Russia’s $65.1 billion which, although an increase of 4.5 per cent over the previous year, does not look exactly threatening. ...
Read the full article @ Strategic Culture Foundaition