Chorioamnionitis: Toxicology avoided

by Jim West (please share and cite) 
from Chapter 3 of DUS Book2B (not yet published, but Book1 and Book2A are published)

The following is a hypothesis describing my unique consideration of the toxicological aspects of chorioamnionitis.

Officially declared "infectious"

Chorioamnionitis is described as an inflammation of the chorion/‌amnion region, an intra-amniotic infection (IAI). This official infectious paradigm is illustrated, for example, on Mom Junction.

The supposed infection leads to FIRS (fetal inflammatory response syndrome). That is, it is said to be an inflammatory response to the presence of infection, e.g., GBS (Group B Streptococcal), E. coli, and/or mycoplasma bacteria. The disease is associated with preterm birth, and a risk factor for other disorders such as microcephaly.

It is often diagnosed by the presence of maternal fever and increased heart rate in mother or child. Notice in the following, the caring rationale for skipping the bacterial test. Tita (2010):

...chorioamnionitis is diagnosed solely based on clinical signs since access to uncontaminated amniotic fluid or placenta for culture is invasive and usually avoided.[1]

A diagnosis of chorioamnionitis due to fever alone could bring a treatment of intravenous antibiotics to the mother and fetus, or newborn. Dr. Audra Robertson explains:

Chorioamnionitis usually develops when bacteria that are part of the normal vaginal flora ‘ascend’ [upward] into the uterine cavity. The amniotic fluid and placenta, as well as the baby, become infected. E. coli, group B streptococci… Chorioamnionitis affects between 1 and 10% of women at term and up to 33% of patients preterm… In most cases, your doctor can diagnose chorioamnionitis due to fever in the mother and an increased heart rate in both the mother and her baby.[2]

“Infection”, ascertained by signs of inflammation such as fever, is the official cause of chorioamnionitis — and the declared most common cause of microcephaly.

Retrospective study indicates the commonest etiologies for prenatal microcephaly are in utero infection.[3]

A critical approach

The inflammation is real. But could the “infection” be a weak assumption? Could not chorioamnionitis actually be a symptom of DUS (diagnostic ultrasound) damage? Any germs, if possibly found, could be common symbionts, microbial scavengers and helpers in a toxic environment.

Gestation timeline

Fever and infection are symptoms ov both virus infection and toxic exposure. Chorioamnionitis and other “infectious maternal diseases” such as puerperal fever, initiation of autism, and Zika virus positives, are commonly diagnosed near the 20^th week of gestation, i.e., all correlate with the common DUS schedule. Allanson (2010):

Chorioamnionitis is a common cause of second trimester pregnancy loss, usually due to ascending infection. This study investigates the prevalence and bacteriology of chorioamnionitis in cases of spontaneous pregnancy loss in previable gestations (16-22 weeks).[4] 

Historical timeline

There appears to be no official history of chorioamnionitis. So I found a historical word correlation with the Google ngram viewer.

The correlation began in recent times, correlating with the fetal ultrasound timeline, according to this word-history analysis.

Robert W. Bendon, MD

Dr. Bendon is an obstetrical pathologist with vast experience and knowledge, a world-class authority. He is a straight-laced Medical official, as is apparent from his extensive article on chorioamnionitis. He begins with the standard definition.[5]

Chorioamnionitis is an ascending infection of the intrauterine cavity during pregnancy. The concept is that microorganisms, primarily bacteria, ascend from the vagina through the cervix into the intrauterine cavity where they initiate an inflammatory response in the mother and fetus.

Critical evidence

Dr. Bendon’s article is a wealth of mainstream science, from which I can assemble a critical view, as follows.

He describes chorioamnionitis as virtually aseptic, i.e., no infection found.

The majority of microscope slides showing chorioamnionitis do not demonstrate microorganisms.

Yes, you read correctly. And as follows, even the powerful germ detection technique, PCR, fails to find an infection source in the endometrium (inner uterine membrane)!

The role of vaginal flora and its potential interaction with the cervix remain incompletely understood aspects of chorioamnionitis. Is chorioamnionitis initiated by microorganisms chronically in the endometrium? Not surprisingly, pathogenic microorganisms, E. coli and Group B streptococci, were not found in genetic amniocenteses by the PCR technique.

Is chemical and radiation causation being... overlooked?

Only infectious causes of chorioamnionitis have been plausibly proposed, but it remains a frustrating fact that even very sensitive molecular techniques [PCR, etc] have failed to find bacteria in the amniotic fluid in all cases of chorioamnionitis…

"...in all cases of chorioamnionitis..." Wow.

When microbes are found, they are usually not dangerous.

Surprisingly the microorganisms were often not very pathogenetic, with ureaplasma being the most common either alone or in culture with other organisms.

Maternal defenses are strong.

The cervix is filled with mountainous ridges raining down viscous mucus, drone like antibodies, chemical warfare, and white cell snipers... The evidence is against this mad rush of microorganisms reaching the uterus.

Bendon carefully walks along the threshold of blasphemy. Without saying “poison”, he indirectly supports a toxicological view.

...even if we accept that all chorioamnionitis has an infectious etiology, it does not necessarily follow that the organism detected in the amniotic fluid is actually the organism that initiated the inflammatory response...

Diagnoses could include signs of inflammation that indicate tissue injury, not necessarily infection.

Bendon describes mediators of inflammation as evidence of inflammation.

As a pathologist, I identify chorioamnionitis by the presence of neutrophils, a white cell that is relatively easy to identify with routine H&E sections, and is a recognized marker of acute inflammation. Neutrophils are normally circulating in the blood, but enter the tissue in response to acute inflammatory signals (chemotaxis) secreted by lymphocytes and macrophages or from tissue injury…

Bendon writes, “neutrophils [are a] marker of acute inflammation” — however, it is known that neutrophils also move substantially towards non-acute injury.[6] Thus there is a stronger toxicological context, one that could even more certainly include DUS as a good explanation for neutrophil presence.

Without a toxicological review, CDC advises that maternal fever is reason enough to presume the presence of pathogens,

In an effort to avert neonatal infections, maternal fever alone in labor may be used as a sign of chorioamnionitis and hence indication for antibiotic treatment…[7]

Administering poisons (antibiotics) for a disease that could be caused by poisons -- is a common, profitable, and potentially tragic protocol. 

Bendon finds "adverse outcome":

...antibiotics have not prevented preterm labor even in patients with positive endometrial culture or plasma cells on endometrial biopsy at the start of the study and may have increased the incidence of adverse outcome...

Note that chorioamnionitis can lead to “poor cardiorespiratory, neurological, and renal outcomes”, per Galinsky (2013).[8]

Should not such outcomes be expected from radiation damage (DUS) and toxic synergists (intravenous antibiotic treatment for chorioamnionitis)?

Here is industry’s complicated causative chain.

Maternal germs ascend to® chorioamnion region and fetus® An inflammatory response® causes damage

That is similar to claiming that fever is the cause of disease symptoms, rather than itself a symptom.

Industry’s paradigm remains unresolved because both valid microbial and toxicological reviews are missing. The paradigm is backwards. It contradicts the evidence, implying causation to the mother. Was she infected? Was she weak, unable to mount a sufficient or correct response to germ invasion?

DUS Causation

The DUS paradigm, on the other hand, has relatively few contradictions as it agrees with the evidence.

With the DUS causation evidence, can interpret the test for inflammatory mediators, i.e., neutrophil presence. They can view neutrophil presence as a marker, a positive test result for DUS synergistic damage.

DUS damage is always present. Capable pathogens are not usually present.

Bendon:

...we seldom see microorganisms in the tissue sections of chorioamnionitis...

DUS causation theory is sensible, scientific, and simple, yet avoided by Modern Medicine.

DUS has been empirically demonstrated to readily damage the chorioamnion region, so of course, inflammation or neutrophil presence could occur after DUS. Tests are supposedly for inflammation, however, they test for inflammatory mediators such as neutrophils

DUS causation is supported by a rare Western human study, Carrera (1990): Carrera studied DUS chorionic damage with two sub-studies, one in vivo that results positive, and one in vitro lab study that results negative.[9] Carrera is dismissed by Marinac (2002), who asserts that Carrera utilized high DUS intensity and infers Carrera’s human study was unethical.[10] Andreassi (2004) lists Cerrera’s negative results and omits Carrera’s positive results that indict DUS.[11] Carrera is not very strong, yet the study should be presented as evidence.

JZhang (2002) is a modern Chinese in vivo study published in English that documents human chorioamnion damage due to DUS.[12] 

There appears to be no public discussion of JZhang, and it has been reviewed in my ultrasound book. 

The study is perhaps masked from the general public by its title, which indicates a technical focus on DUS’s relation to biochemical pathways leading to chorioamnion cellular apoptosis (cell suicide), rather than, simply stated, as DUS damage to the fetal region. JZhang brilliantly obfuscates, fulfilling the unwritten rules, dodging the taboos, while providing tremendous evidence for DUS damage to the villi.

The following image from JZhang (2002) shows ultrasound damage to the maternal villi. The text, I added to clarify.

Other Chinese in utero human studies of approximately 600 maternal-fetus pairs, describe DUS damage in the chorionic region.

Given the destructive ability of DUS, here is a DUS causation chain, a simple commonsense view:

DUS damages chorioamnion and fetus® An inflammatory response occurs® Neutrophils appear

DUS exposure to various areas is a matter of chance, operator habits, and shading from adjacent organs, as organs of various densities shade each other from the radiation.

Historically, ultrasound (at 9 megahertz more or less), has been described by scientists as "radiation", before it was marketed for prenatal imaging. I'll use that word hereon.

DUS radiation flows directionally like a penetrating flashlight beam. Knowing this, we can interpret Bendon’s text as an analogy for DUS damage:

The intensity of the fetal response may be less or even more intense than the maternal response. An area of the membrane may be markedly more intense than another.

Next, Bendon describes inflammation intensity and location. For a 180 degree perspective, we can critically interpret this in terms of proximity to the DUS transducer to the fetus and mother's organs. In the following quote, I use brackets and bolding to interpret his words as if he were describing DUS radiation.

Daily histologic examination of placentas confirms that there is a wide range of difference between maternal [nearer to DUS] and fetal [farther from DUS] response in individual placentas.

It is unusual for the fetal response [farther from DUS] to be more intense than the maternal [nearer to DUS]. In general the more intense the maternal response, the more intense will be the fetal response [as if DUS were an x-ray beam].

Political options

Even if one assumes germ causation, what prevents the medical industry from considering DUS damage? It could create microbial ecological imbalance. Direct germ pathogenesis need not be stated. That is, if industry must pursue germ pathogenesis then it could consider that DUS damage in the chorion region would open up vulnerabilities for microbial infection.

Chorioamnionitis and FIRS should be considered as natural responses to DUS damage.

Bendon becomes extra-verbal when he nears the possibility of environmental causation.

The failure to prove an infection is not evidence that it is not present. The possibility that a subset of chorioamnionitis is not infectious cannot be excluded, but no plausible alternative mechanism has been proposed.

He does not write “environmental” or “toxicological”, which fall under his phrase, “not infectious”. He moves into an unusually intricate phrasing with five negatives and four diminishments, i.e., “failure… not… not… possibility… subset… not… not… excluded… no… alternative”. Ten such words within a 35 word paragraph! Such convolutions. This, I have found, is the common semantic behavior of professionals when swimming through politically sensitive material.

In that netherland, Bendon calls non-infectious chorioamnionitis a “subset”, but that is logically improbable, if not impossible. He already stated that the general case is not found infectious. He already established infection as the minor nearly non-existent subset. The official view politically dominates but in terms of available data that he can present, it the subset.

We conversed

Bendon is a fine intellect, willing to consider DUS possibilities. I believe he understands the sensitivity of this topic, and that he can only discuss it within the limits of the netherland. We had an email discussion, quite cordial and with several emails. I held back in order to extend the conversation. Yet, as expected, despite being quite helpful with my implied challenges, he maintained the official view at all times.

His blog allowed for comment. So I commented, proposing a consideration of DUS causation. This is necessary because he had asserted in his article (as quoted above) that "no plausible alternative mechanism has been proposed."

My comment awaited moderation for several days, then was rejected without reason.

 

I emailed Bendon again. No reply.

His article still states that "no plausible alternative mechanism has been proposed."

________________________________

Thanks to OregonMatt at POM forum. His reply to Steve Kelley's smart post, got me thinking about toxic cause for the maternal disease, "puerperal fever". Thanks also for his editorial review.

________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

________________________________

[1] Alan T. N. Tita and William W. Andrews, “Diagnosis and Management of Clinical Chorioamnionitis,” Clinics in Perinatology 37, no. 2 (June 2010): 339–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2010.02.003.

[2] Audra Robertson, MD, “Chorioamnionitis: Could This Infection Spell Disaster?” (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, March 15, 2012), http://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/infections-chorioamnionitis.

[3] L. Dahlgren and R. D. Wilson, “Prenatally Diagnosed Microcephaly: A Review of Etiologies,” Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 16, no. 6 (December 2001): 323–26, doi:53935.

[4] Ben Allanson et al., “Infection and Fetal Loss in the Mid-Second Trimester of Pregnancy,” The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 50, no. 3 (June 2010): 221–25, doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01148.x.

[5] Robert Bendon, MD, “Chorioamnionitis,” Obstetrical Pathology, December 3, 2012, http://obstetricalpathology.wordpress.com/chorioamnionitis/.

[6] Zaccaria Ricci et al., “Whole Blood Assessment of Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin versus pediatricRIFLE for Acute Kidney Injury Diagnosis and Prognosis after Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Cross-Sectional Study*,” Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: A Journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies 13, no. 6 (November 2012): 667–70, doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182601167.

[7] CDC, “Prevention of Perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease.”

[8] Robert Galinsky et al., “The Consequences of Chorioamnionitis: Preterm Birth and Effects on Development,” Journal of Pregnancy 2013 (March 7, 2013), doi:10.1155/2013/412831.

[9] Paola Carrera et al., “Sister Chromatid Exchanges in First-Trimester Chorionic Villi after in Vivo and in Vitro Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound,” Prenatal Diagnosis 10, no. 3 (March 1990): 141–148, doi:10.1002/pd.1970100302.

[10] Marinac-Dabic, Danica; Krulewitch, Cara J.; Moore, Roscoe M. Jr, “The Safety of Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure in Human Studies,” Epidemiology 13, no. 3 (May 2002): S19–22.

[11] Maria G. Andreassi, “The Biological Effects of Diagnostic Cardiac Imaging on Chronically Exposed Physicians: The Importance of Being Non-Ionizing,” Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2, no. 1 (November 22, 2004): 25, doi:10.1186/1476-7120-2-25.

[12] JiaYin Zhang et al., “Long Dwell-Time Exposure of Human Chorionic Villi to Transvaginal Ultrasound in the First Trimester of Pregnancy Induces Activation of Caspase-3 and Cytochrome C Release,” Biology of Reproduction 67, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 580–83, doi:10.1095/biolreprod67.2.580.

[13] Gianluigi Pilu, Philippe Jeanty, “Microcephaly,” The Fetus, July 27, 1999, http://sonoworld.com/fetus/page.aspx?id=127.

EMF and Musicians

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Carpal Tunnel

Guitar players have been plagued with carpal tunnel syndrome and muscle cramps. This is a modern era phenomena. The term "carpal tunnel" was lightly mentioned circa 1892, which correlates with the advent of radio transmissions. But the term only became common around 1932. That correlates with electric guitar and electric appliance popularity.

Fine muscle function and any coordination is related to chronic and acute EMF exposure. 

Poignant question by a chiropractor, Dr. Keith Lynch:

Have you ever wondered why the old manual typewriters didn’t cause carpal tunnel and the new easy-to-push electric computer keyboards are causing so many problems?[ref]

Only adrenaline and other supportive hormone-like macro-molecules keep the ship stable. Eventually, the ship is overloaded and it sinks. The musician cries tragedy, sees a Medical Doctor, who will ignore the musician's environment (WHO orders him not to empathize with patients who suspect EMF). 

He will likely advise surgery and/or pills on the diagnostic basis that carpal tunnel is caused by repetitive motion. The Doctor collects a fee and unless the environment is changed by wisdom or accident, a greater health disaster awaits... with more fees.

The environment of an electric musician is worse than the average person's environment: Wah-Wah pedals, equalizers, synthesizers, saturation and sustain pedals, not to mention the octaviders. mics, switchmode transformers everywhere that power all the devices including LED and fluorescent lights, plus the wireless junk. Their instrument uses steel strings and a magnet transducer, plugged into a pre-amp and amp that are plugged into a utility power cable emitting high "dirty electricity".

Example: Allan Holdsworth, is said to be possibly the greatest innovator of electric guitar since the 1960s. He always ran his guitar through a synth and was an 'electronics' innovator. By his late thirties, he was had severe carpal syndrome.

Here he is at home, buried in EMF, and stumbling around -- just before he died of the final EMF symptom, a stroke. He can hardly strum the strings. He says, "I'm an old man." "It was easier in the old days."

Here is a video that demonstrates how much dirty electricity comes through a plugged device. 

Circa 2012, I awoke to the ongoing EMF holocaust while living and sleeping over Con Edison main lines, which fed 126 luxury apartments in Manhattan, all running air conditioning, etc. I suffered many symptoms and was on m way to tortuous death were I not made aware by fellow environmentalists of the symptoms of EMF exposure: Cancer, neurological damage, depression, insomnia, backache, rashes, muscle atrophy, eye, ear, and dental problems, etc. 

EMF subverts vocal apparatus

I recently found EMF to be related to a specific fine motor dysfunction.

In 2019, after decades of being out of the scene, I was recovering my skills as a brass instrument player. I was practicing with the mouthpiece only. 

Not wanting to disturb anyone (as it was night), I went into the bathroom, turned on the lights, and practiced.

After 20 seconds my throat locked up, as if there were a "tick" in my throat. I could not continue the exercise. Aside: This had also happened previously on stage during a solo performance.

Being EMF-aware, I looked around and realized that the bathroom lights were fluorescent bulbs (high EMF generators). Important: See here and here.

I turned off the lights and found that I could immediately continue the exercise without any problems. Yes, this is anecdotal, but based on 10 years of studying EMF bioeffects.

It is common for modern-day opera singers, the greatest of all, lose their voice, damage their voice, lose their will, blown out. This is EMF, which is especially prevalent among people in stage and theater, not to mention the usual EMF at home.

Generally

The implications are vast. That means EMF affects every fine and subtle thought and motion we have. Every opportunity to avoid any EMF must be taken.

This would apply to those trying to improve guitar playing, the fine motor skills involved in strumming and finger-picking, etc. Practice in the lowest EMF environment possible. Maybe that's why successful writers, artists, and musicians move to remote areas. I moved, but routers/modems, smartmeters, and utility earth current are still a problem.

The same issues of fine motor coordination goes for vocalists, the fine apparatus of the voice, and writers, thinkers, everyone: The fine hormonal coordination and interactions of the nervous system is magic, but vulnerable. Protect it.

Vocal example

Early 2021, I had permission to turn off breakers in a house I was renting. I had not been practicing singing at all, but after three weeks of this low EMF environment, I sang from low F of the bass clef, to high F of the treble clef, with full voice, no falsetto. 

This occurred during my discovery and subsequent research into earth utility current.

Related research

Toenails and EMF

EMF Introduction

Culture and vocal vibrato

_____________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Flu not contagious

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Many studies tell us that influenza may be a misdiagnosis, that it may be entirely toxicological, not viral, as exemplified by Dolan (1985). 

Many diseases begin with "flu-like" symptoms. Many air pollution chemicals produce "flu-like" symptoms. Doctors nevertheless ignore environment as they send their patients to literal hell with repeated visits, with pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, pain killers, etc. Patients are returned to their toxic environment, misinformed. And, returned to the doctors office.

Therefore, the following makes perfect sense. 

Scientists found influenza to be non-contagious, and published their findings in JAMA. 

Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. 

The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. 

Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918. 

His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. 

Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. 

Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: 

“We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”

Extracted from:

"The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918"

John M. Eyler, PhD

Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 27–36.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/

* * *

Thanks to Thomas Quinn for sending text by Raymond Obomsawin, PhD, which referenced the Eyler study above.

_____________________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Sweden's Success is Real ("COVID-19")

by Jim West (please share and cite)

Fake News (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc) has misrepresented Sweden's COVID-19 history as a failure because Sweden did not invoke mandates and lockdowns.

However...

Sweden actually succeeded. No lockdowns, no face mask mandates, and "COVID" deaths declined to ZERO. 

Some mainstream business publications, such as Forbes, support Sweden.

Newsweek supports Sweden.

Sweden, Which Never Had Lockdown, Sees COVID-19 Cases Plummet as Rest of Europe Suffers Spike

Total deaths/100K during 2020 are the same for US vs Sweden. [Ref] 

However, while Sweden's death rate is down to zero, the US continues on.

A detailed look, including Medical protocols and environmental toxicology, would undoubtedly be revealing. 

US death rates are up as employs draconian measures and its economy and society suffers. 

At the height of Sweden's epidemic, the Health Minister described policy as "more sustainable" in the long run, and without the economic consequences. Tourism is at a record low, but that could mean that the smarter, more aware tourists, are visiting, the ones we want to meet.

Sweden is one of the few nations whose economy has grown this year and Swedes continue to socialize more normally.

Swedes weren't born yesterday.

Swedish life at the height of the epidemic, as portrayed by Business Insider, April 13, 2020. 

Caveat: There could be a 2nd COVID-19 wave (for Sweden or any nation) when winter cold brings high indoor air pollution, or if Sweden's fuel sources change away from relatively clean fuel towards fracked fuel.

Update: 2/25/2022

Sweden is the winner, with its personal freedom and low total COVID incidences.

Sweden's major petroleum source was Russia at the start of the epidemic and during 2021 became a minor source, this in response to a question about Sweden's incidence rise in 2021.

_____________________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Medicine: Etymology

 by Jim West (please share and cite)

Here is an original yet likely accurate etymology of Medicine.

Medi-cine

•     Medi -- To meddle, mediate, intercept.
•     -cine --  From Greek "kine", actually "kīnéō" (to move). The Greek word, "kinema" means "movement" with the syllable "-ma" (suffix meaning today, -ment). "-ma" can also mean "to seat". Commonly "cinema" was used since 1890s, to mean movie theater. "Kinema" may have meant to the ancients, in some contexts, "theater".

Thus, Medicine -- to mediate with action theater.

This suggests that Doctors must always be doing something and portraying fiction. They cannot leave well enough alone, or leave to nature (the patient). This meaning conforms with reality.

A Doctor is analogous to a religious priest with military support. Medicine was once the function of military judicial priests (e.g., the Levites in the Old Testament). And still are.

This can be seen with hospitals named after religious figures from all the major religions, and the Public Health System (PHS/CDC/NIH/FDA) as a branch of the U.S. military. 

All major religions support prenatal ultrasound and vaccines: Buddhism, Catholicism, Daoism, Islam, and Protestantism. Some Jewish and Christian sects do not support vaccines, such as some Hasadim and some Christian Scientists.

Robert S. Mendelsohn, MD (as described by Wikipedia) says that Medicine as an evil religion.

Robert S. Mendelsohn... portrayed doctors as powerful priests of a primitive religion, with dishonesty as its central ethic.

Here is Mendelsohn himself from his book, Confessions of a Medical Heretic. [Whale]

...doctors are really the priests of the Church of Modern Medicine, most people don’t deny them... Doctors... turn out to be dishonest, corrupt, unethical, sick, poorly educated, and downright stupid more often than the rest of society. 

Here is the fake mainstream etymology of Medicine.

Note that "Medicine" is split after the "c". Medic - ine

That split is suspect. It drives the origins of the word to be those which occur after the invention of the words with the root "Medic-", after the invention of Medical terms. 

The split results in the last syllable, "-ine", which could mean "pertaining to", though that seems meaningless in this context.

__________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

 

Critique: "COVID-19 Isolated in Canadian Lab"

 by Jim West (please share and cite)

It was announced on March 12, 2020, that the COVID-19 virus was isolated by a Canadian Lab. See this press release from McMaster University:

Because Medicine has an extremely bad reputation, this mere announcement cannot be taken at face value. How bad is Medicine? Many examples abound, as exemplified by John Horton, Senior Editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, who admitted that in general, 50% of published Medical studies are likely invalid. [JRappoport]

Unpublished studies should then be even more untrustworthy. This study will be published possibly in September 2020, but under what terms? Peer-review, or just a description without going through a critical gauntlet?

Even if it were published, it would not survive dissident criticism. See how to argue against virology. Their avoidance of environmental toxicology invalidates their work.

When I find that this study is published, I will return to review the announced study.

Off-hand I can say that this is not a seminal discovery, but a followup of prior work by other scientists who claim to have discovered and properly characterized COVID-19 virus. The earlier, seminal study should be critiqued.

This study does not attempt to prove the existence of COVID-19 virus, and it does not verify for itself that it is actually working with COVID-19 virus. It is taking on faith the word of prior work, as the basis for its work, and it is overlooking flaws in prior work.

The title is stunning, "key role in isolating COVID-19 virus... urgent research".

The title, like much Medical news, stresses emergency and "urgency", and that attitude encourages everyone including the scientists, to skip a close read of the details.

_____________________________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.

Mississippi COVID-19 Pre-Existing Disease

 by Jim West (please share and cite)

Mississippi (the COVID-19 hotspot, as of 8/7/2020)

 

44% of deaths are in Long Term Care, can be seen in  this chart of death statistics in  Mississippi, truncated and annotated here.

 

 

Most of the other 56% are likely suffering pre-existing diseases. The CDC has stated, generally,

The percentage of COVID-19 patients with at least one underlying health condition or risk factor was higher among those requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission (78%) and those requiring hospitalization without ICU admission (71%). [CDC]

Thus, COVID-19 is "helping" the economy by ousting vegetative vulnerable people from the planet.

 

Balance is the problem. "COVID-19" (as pollution and malpractice) is creating even more vegetables for the next season's harvest.

Yet, balance is always optimized. The challenge for global management: How to oust vegetable humans (increase Darwinian pressure) without creating too many more vegetables. This is a known toxicological problem for the required poisoning of human society -- to maintain "hormesis". 

Yes, poisoning is required according to global human management protocol. It is not just greedy industry making mistakes. So says Yuval Harari, elite historian.

This hormetic system for human society is in parallel with agricultural protocols. It is a long ongoing agenda, to optimize the global economic metabolism, and is hidden by journalism.

See how toxicologists explain required social poisoning: "Rationale for Industrial Poisoning".

__________________________

Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer.

This site is for discussion purposes only.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights

The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.