Coronavrus numbers are going up – should we worry?
Last Update: July 8, 2020 at 11:19 am
Source: News for the Soul
Date: July 8, 2020
Coronavrus numbers are going up – should we worry?
by Dr Holly
heard Wednesdays at noon pacific on News for the Soul Radio
Wednesdays at NOON PST / 3PM EST – The Whole Health Initiative with Dr Holly – An NFTS Global Luminary broadcasting from Canada since March 2014 – Dr Holly is a Doctor of Natural Medicine, a scientist, a professional speaker, an author of Cancer: Why what you don’t know about your treatment could harm you and 12 other books and a practitioner. As a Doctor of Natural Medicine with 7 degrees & 3 designations in a wide range of healing modalities and 20 years experience, she can assist you in identifying and understanding your path to health. She can identify your underlying life themes, coping mechanisms, value systems and defense mechanisms to understanding the physiology and biochemistry and energy patterns of your body. She has a mobile health clinic that comes to your door and can assess 1000s of variables in front of you AND create a protocol unique to you. In addition, she provides consultation for physicians and clients around the world.
Coronavrus numbers are going up – should we worry?
First off, let’s look at the basic numbers:
- Over 10 million confirmed cases – normally we have over 1 billion diagnosed with the flu – and again, let’s remember 20-40% don’t even know they have it; 20-40% may feel a little off, even stay home and in bed, but don’t go to the doctor for a diagnosis – so who knows how high the real number may be if there was a push on diagnosis like we have with covid 19
- More than 500,000 have died – normally anywhere between 290,000 and 650,000 die annually because of the flu and that’s not with the high pressure the physicians are getting to identify everyone as having covid – remember the Minnesota Senator who is a physician, Dr Scott Jensen, who talked about the pressure physicians are under? Well he is now being investigated – that figures… https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/dr-scott-jensen-says-hes-being-investigated-by-medical-board-for-spreading-covid-19-misinformation
- Now lets look at it in terms of total population
Smallpox in 1520 killed 56M – the population was about 450 M = 0.124444%
The Spanish Flu in 1918 killed 40-50M – the population was about 1.8 B = 0.2222%
Asian flu in 1957 killed 1.1M – total population was about 2.8 B = 0.00392857
Covid 19 in 2020 – so far the death toll is – 535 K – the population is about 8 B = 0.000066%
- so in reality, we still haven’t seen a pandemic!!!
Now, let’s look at why the numbers are going up for Covid 19. The virus has mutated over 40,000 times. That’s a lot of different viruses running around. This is actually norma. AND the repeated acknowledgement is that they are even less worrisome than the original virus. https://globalnews.ca/news/7025003/coronavirus-mutation-who/ : https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-mutations-strains-variants ; https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/sars-cov-2-mutations-study-shows-that-g614-strain-less-lethal-in-short-term-than-d614-but-is-aggressive-in-transmissions-and-multiplies-rapidly
So the question needs to be restated – was the original virus that worrisome? Not really. We have gone over the numbers umpteen times. AND the numbers are repeatedly claimed to be exaggerated – which certainly seems so.
Why are the numbers presented as being so high – even if in reality they aren’t?
- Well have you ever seen such a push for testing?
- Let’s not forget that a multitude of testing is inaccurate.
- Or let’s remember that you can test positive but the virus load in your system isn’t sufficient to even cause symptoms.
- And then there is the whole issue about physicians being pushed to identify covid as the cause of admission – $13000 to the hospital if it is covid. And, $39,000 to the hospital if they go on a ventilator.
So why has this gotten so out of hand? I want to work with an article from National Geographic, because it was a good review of what several different scientists have acknowledged. It was published on May 6, 2020 – so not that far back.
I like the comment that Samuel Scarpino said, who heads Northeastern University’s Emerging Epidemics Lab. ““It’s very difficult to really figure out what’s going on.”… “What we’re facing here are some numbers that are being reported without the context necessary to interpret them.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/
“One notable example is a recent survey for COVID-19 antibodies among residents of Santa Clara County, California. On April 17, Stanford University researchers reported in a preprint that, of the 3,300 people they’d screened, 1.5 percent were positive. Ultimately, the team claimed that the county actually had 48,000 to 81,000 cases of COVID-19, which seemed implausibly high given only 50 deaths and about 1,500 cases were recorded at the time.
This funky math has been widely criticized, and because the study entered the public sphere without peer-review, it launched a controversial debate over whether COVID-19 is less deadly than epidemiologists have said. Since then, the Stanford team has updated its report, dropping its estimate to a range seen by other studies.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/
Or lets look at what Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida who has spotted problems among other antibody surveys says “ In general, this first wave of antibody testing “ends up being a balance between a quick and dirty approach, and something that’s more rigorous and representative, but will take longer. “So we’re seeing the fast ones coming out the earliest.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/
Is testing the problem?
So again why are the numbers so high – this time let’s look at the testing problem.
“The problem is, many tests on the market are demonstrably not up to snuff. In the U.K., officials paid $20 million for antibody testing kits from China that didn’t work. The Spanish government had to trash 640,000 antibody testing kits that ended up having an accurate detection rate of just 30 percent. And a recent evaluation of 12 widely used antibody test kits, which declared upfront its funding by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and others, concluded that only two had reported accurate results 99 percent of the time—the benchmark for reliability set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 4.
Prior to this date, the U.S. was flooded with more than 150 unvalidated tests because the FDA had allowed companies to sell these products without seeking Emergency Use Authorization. The FDA shifted its policy after Congress opened an investigation into this runaway testing market.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/
Then we have Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist and director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, who says ““Testing is important, but how it’s done is really concerning to me,”… “People who are saying they’re going to use antibody testing as a way to reopen—that’s kind of like the person that looks down the barrel of a gun and pulls the trigger to see if it works.”
Osterholm worries that mediocre diagnostic tests will miss true COVID-19 infections, delivering what’s called a “false negative” and potentially prompting an infectious person to unknowingly spread the disease. As well, he says, faulty tests detecting COVID-19 antibodies, which should only be present if a person has been exposed to the virus, might deliver a “false positive” result, in which unrelated antibodies are flagged in a person who hasn’t yet been infected. If cities or states fall for shoddy tests with unreliable, misleading results, Osterholm says, it could endanger good decision-making on both personal and governmental levels.
“It’s the Wild West out there,” he says. “The FDA could do their job, and they should do their job. It’s that simple: Do your damn job.”
Test biasing – I took the following piece from the National Geographic.
Well if that weren’t enough reasoning, we can always look at test biasing. “Even when the tests are reliable and accurate, it’s crucial to gather representative participants. In theory, this is easy—but in practice, it’s almost impossible to eliminate bias without testing 100 percent of a population.
For example, screening folks at a drive-through testing center preferentially captures data from the portion of a population with cars. The same goes for randomly dialing phone numbers and asking people to show up for testing at a local hospital—an approach that relies on transportation, or the ability to leave work. And in New York City, where scientists are randomly selecting people for testing in grocery stores, they are surveying a percentage of the population that’s at higher risk of infection simply by being out and about.
Although some experts questioned the tests used by the Santa Clara study, the team drew stronger criticism because of a sample population that skewed white, wealthy, and female. One argument suggests that this demographic might have a lower incidence of COVID-19, given how the disease hits harder among impoverished communities. (There are a variety of variables that need to be addressed with why it hits impoverished communities. For example, we have the most obvious ones: their diet or congested living quarters.)
Highlighting the study’s confusing design, a contradictory argument notes that participants volunteered for the study based on a Facebook ad, and critics argue that such strategies are more likely to attract folks who already thought they’d been sick—potentially leading to a higher percentage of people with COVID-19 antibodies.”
Testing biases are always a problem in research of this nature and certainly the huge number of biases found when looking at covid 19 are no exception.
False positives and false negatives
Then we have the old problem, that is seen repeatedly throughout Western Medicine, false negatives and false positives. How can there be any sense of reliability with the testing for covid when there are so many issues? As we mentioned earlier:
- In the U.K., officials paid $20 million for antibody testing kits from China that didn’t work.
- The Spanish government had to trash 640,000 antibody testing kits that ended up having an accurate detection rate of just 30 percent.
- And a recent evaluation of 12 widely used antibody test kits, which declared upfront its funding by Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, and others, concluded that only two had reported accurate results 99 percent of the time—the benchmark for reliability set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 4.
- Prior to this date, the U.S. was flooded with more than 150 unvalidated tests because the FDA had allowed companies to sell these products without seeking Emergency Use Authorization. The FDA shifted its policy after Congress opened an investigation into this runaway testing market.
Remember Osterholm’s statement above:
“Testing is important, but how it’s done is really concerning to me,” says Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist and director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. “People who are saying they’re going to use antibody testing as a way to reopen—that’s kind of like the person that looks down the barrel of a gun and pulls the trigger to see if it works.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/why-unreliable-tests-are-flooding-the-coronavirus-conversation-cvd/
Now there is a controversial article also in National Geographic entitled
“How scientists know COVID-19 is way deadlier than the flu” but this is in direct contrast to the article in Global News entitled “Coronavirus mutations don’t seem to be ‘dangerous,’ but other threats remain” https://globalnews.ca/news/7025003/coronavirus-mutation-who/
So who is right?
Well if you go further into the research you find that the “spike protein”, an aspect of the virus that is required for the virus to attach to a cell, has mutated. What that means is that it is more infectious! But it is also recognized that it is less severe!
So the word “dangerous”, like everything else, needs to be taken in context. It is more dangerous in that it is more infectious, but it is not more lethal – in fact, it is less severe! This is a good example, once again, of misleading marketing – which there seems to be a lot of when it comes to Covid 19.
Now this provokes a whole other issue that many are not aware of. Most viruses we know, do mutate. We have talked of this many times – in fact, some can mutate within 15 minutes. Wow – wish we were that effective. However, when viruses mutate – they typically become less serious.
So what about mutations?
Well let’s go back to understanding virus evolution if you will. First of all, viruses that actually have DNA mutate at a much slower rate. However, most viruses work with RNA, which is much more unstable and therefore more capable of quicker mutations. There are two types of influenza viral evolution:
- Antigenic drift – whereby the surface proteins on the virus (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase (HA and NA in shorthand) mutate so that the outer surface of the virus looks different to our immune system. When this happens, the antibodies that our immune system created in response to the prior virus, can’t effectively protect us from the mutation. With each mutation the virus makes, the virus “drifts” away from the original strain.
- Antigenic shift – this occurs when two or more viruses (only applies to Type A viruses – there are in fact three groups: A, B & C) combine to form a new viral RNA, which is significantly different from any of the prior ones. How well it can pass from one person to another determines how well it becomes a pandemic. Type A viruses can also jump from one species to another which is just one more variable that needs to be addressed.
So, one thing to make note of – not all mutations survive – some die off quickly. Well okay, that makes sense. But we have all the other mutations to think about.
Think about it, the virus is moving quickly; has the ability to replicate very efficiently; mutating to become more lethal to us wouldn’t be in its best interest. So, it simply becomes another flu virus.
So let’s quote another scientist, Nathan Grubaugh, a virologist at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut, ““The rate at which this virus is mutating or evolving is not unexpected; it’s exactly what we would expect for a virus like this,” …“All viruses continuously evolve and there shouldn’t be anything alarming about the process in general.” https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-coronavirus-mutates-changes/
And what about vaccinations?
Some believe coronavirus mutations might add a few challenges to creating a vaccine, as mutations may change how effectively our immune cells can recognize infection. This is the problem with seasonal influenza (flu) vaccines, as hypermutation of the virus’ surface proteins allow it to evade vaccine antibodies. However, scientists don’t believe this to be the case with coronavirus, and with positive results coming from early-stage trials of the Pfizer vaccine and others, it looks like they are right. https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/coronavirus-in-the-west-is-a-mutated-more-dangerous-version-of-the-original/
The challenge is, how can a vaccination be effective – when all these different types of changes are constantly taking place? We already have 40,000 recognized mutations in the covid 19 virus. Now not all of the changes occur on the “spike protein” there are a variety of places that the mutations can take place. However, the underlying issue is still a pretty major one. In fact, some have suggested that they will have to create a number of vaccinations – but is this really necessary?
Like all over viruses, this one is going through its natural progression of infection and mutation and will seemingly move through a normal cycle – like they all do.
So let’s sum this all up. Numbers are high because:
- They are really within the normal range
- There is an absurd push for testing
- The testing has huge problems
- The reporting has huge issues
- The mutations are normal but do cause more infections although less serious
So why all the fuss? What are they marketing such fear for? What we really need to be concerned about is whether they are going to enforce a multitude of vaccinations on us. Again, we are looking at who is going to profit? This really isn’t about health at all.
What should you not do? Don’t get caught up in all the fear marketing. Fear, worry, paranoia are all well known to deplete the body and your immune system!!
What should you do? Eat the proper foods and herbs that you require to ensure a good healthy immune system and get on with life.