My biggest concern about the current vaccines for COVID and even the flu vaccines is the length of the safety studies. In the both these cases, these "treatments" are only studied for 1 +/- years. Compare that to pharmaceuticals that are often tested for 5 years prior to approval.
There are a slew of pharmaceuticals that, once introduced into the marketplace, after 5 years of testing, showed HIGHLY ADVERSE health effects in people. Vioxx is a prime example, killing more than 60,000 people, but there are many others.
If people we dying like flies and there was no alternative, then this meteoric acceleration of approval would make sense. But, the true mortality rate for COVID is similar to the seasonal flu. Additionally, there are safe and proven alternatives that I discussed yesterday (see below).
Here are some resources and summaries you may find useful.
From Eric Topol published as an opinion in the NY Times.
Highlights:
"According to the protocols for their studies, which they released late last week, a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.
To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine."
"Knowing how a clinical trial defines its primary endpoint — the measure used to determine a vaccine’s efficacy — is critical to understanding the knowledge it is built to discover. In the Moderna and Pfizer trials, even a mild case of Covid-19 — for instance, a cough plus a positive lab test — would qualify and muddy the results. AstraZeneca is slightly more stringent but would still count mild symptoms like a cough plus fever as a case. Only moderate or severe cases should be counted."
"The trials need to focus on the right clinical outcome — whether the vaccines protect against moderate and severe forms of Covid-19 — and be fully completed. It is not too late for the companies to do this, and the Food and Drug Administration, which reviewed the protocols, could still suggest modifications.
These are some of the most important clinical trials in history, affecting a vast majority of the planet’s population. It’s hard to imagine how much higher the stakes can be to get this right. Cutting corners should not be an option."
2. From Dr. Palmer who wrote an exhaustive book on "1200 Studies - To Vaccinate or Not to Vaccinate?" Since I haven't had time to read every word - I'm providing it as a resource but not an endorsement at this time.
Please give me your thoughts on this document.
The problems we face in understanding medicine are the statistics. There are so many variables that enable a "preferred" conclusion to be drawn. Here is a simple example that I will discuss in more detail in another blog.
Relative vs Absolute Risk (statistics)
Sadly, most outcome data is presented in relative statistics. My mentor, Dr. Trempe at Harvard was a subscriber to the top medical journal for 50 years, the NEJM. Every year, the NEJM wrote to Dr. Trempe (and others) and asked how they could improve the journal. Every years he gave the same response.
Do NOT publish relative statistical data - Only publish absolute data - sometimes referred to as "numbers to treat" or NTT.
Here is the difference - again to be discussed in more detail later - with examples.
Example 1: Let's say we have a treatment and before the treatment 2 people died. After the treatment only one person died. How good is the treatment.
1 life saved out of 2.
1/2 = 50% effective - this is an absolute value - this is meaningful to you.
Example 2: Assume the same outcome - before 2 people died, but after treatment only 1 person died. However, the study involved 1000 people.
1 life saved out of 1000
1/1000 = 0.1% - this is an absolute value - meaningful to you, however......most of the time in the medical literature, the benefit is reported as...
2 died before now only 1 died therefore:
1/2 = 50% - this is a meaningless relative statistic.
Imagine if the number of people treated was 1,000,000 and two people died before, but now only one died... This is like the odds of being struck by lightning... relatively meaningless to you.
Yesterday's blog....
Many people have asked me about the various COVID-19 vaccines. I must say that my expertise is on helping people become resilient to COVID. This is a much better health proposition because then you will become resilient to:
SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)
The next pandemic-causing virus
Viral infections
Bacterial infections
Chronic diseases including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and Alzheimer's
I assert that this is a MUCH better deal for you.
Let's look at some facts......
The 2019 - 2020 flu vaccine: According to the CDC, this vaccine was only 45% effective and the term "effective" was not clearly defined. Below is from the CDC
People with pre-existing conditions have MUCH higher death rates from COVID-19. The actual increase in risk by just having cardiovascular disease is 1200% compared to a healthy person. The translation of this information is the following. If you go from having cardiovascular disease to being healthy, your risk reduction is 95%. Compare 95% to the flu at 45%. Being healthy trumps the vaccine.
Cytokines, which are molecules tied to inflammation, are extremely elevated in COVID-19 severe cases. It's called a cytokine storm (or inflammatory storm). Your pre-existing burden of inflammation is linked to your outcome. If you have a lot of inflammation NOW, and get COVID - your outcome will be worse. We wrote a peer-reviewed article on this.
I hope you take the time to read the abstract, at least - as it explains what and why we do what we do.
There are very POWERFUL alternatives to vaccines, with Ivermectin being the most promising. In the study passionately discussed below, new data shows substantial protection afforded by this drug in at-risk healthcare workers. The particular study shows 100% effectiveness. I don't expect 100% protection for all people, but that is determined by your pre-existing conditions and your pre-cytokine storm status that we measure very accurately.
Please listen to this powerful testimony. Copy/paste link or click on the image.
Finally, there are combinations of supplement that provide important protection against the pandemic with vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, zinc, and cod liver oil leading the list. These supplements reduce the efficacy of viruses and also improve your immune response.
Many of you know that we run a biomarker panel called your "chronic disease temperature" panel. This panel is quite accurate at assessing your risk for COVID outcomes. Harvard Medical School recently published a treatment guideline for COVID-19 sufferers in their hospitals. As part of that guidance, they showed markers they use to RISK STRATIFY people who are very sick with COVID. We have expanded our chronic disease temperature panel to include markers in the Harvard panel. We offer that panel to your here.
Harvard treatment guidance:
I'm offering this advanced panel at a 15% discount this week only - Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Use promo code 15 at checkout.
If you cannot get Ivermectin from your doctor, contact me!
I'm offering 3 months of my services - unlimited - for the price of my 3h offering. You can start this program today to help you through the holidays and it will be good through March.
What you get: Unlimited time with myself or my wife (health and life coach) - or both (we have very different skills).
How it works:
Get the detailed COVID lab panel
Take or retake the Chronic Disease Assessment
Review your current treatment plan and labs
Schedule weekly sessions (15 minutes or more) (consistency)
Sign up for the Chronic Disease Support program and get 10% off labs and other tests.
Have a healthy longevity!
https://www.healthrevivalpartners.com/product-page/3-hours-with-dr-lewis-consults
It's not too late to join the chronic disease support program. I'll send any newbies a link to past presentations....
Stay Well
Thomas J. Lewis, Ph.D.