• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Pol&Sci. Part 3. Coronavirus, Immunity, & Vaccines. 4/7/2020

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
JB: Welcome to Politics and science, I'm your host Jon Barkhausen. This week we return to part of our conversation with RP. This is recorded on the 31st of March 2020. We are discussing the CV virus, CV-19 which has caused a lockdown in the US and many, many areas due to its expected high contagion rate and potentially very serious mortality rate. So I hope you find this show informative, its not intended as medical advice, its just an independent analysis of what's going on. Ray Peat has Ph.D. in Biology from the university of Oregon. He specialized in Physiology and hormones. His newsletter is also available from raypeat.com. You can read many of the archived newsletters, and you can also subscribe to get on his mailing list for new newsletters ( 28$ to raypeatsnewsletter((at))gmail((dot))com ) which come out every other month. The following show presents the viewpoints of its producers and participants, it does not necessarily represent the viewpoints of any other person or organization. And now here's the show.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JB: Ray has a Ph.D. in Biology from the university of Oregon where he specialized in physiology and hormones, is that right?

RP: Age related, reproductive hormones.

JB: We've been having a conversation the past few weeks about the ongoing coronavirus, pandemic, which swept the globe and is scaring everybody, especially in the united states where the news reporting is particularly sensational. Do you watch mainstream news Ray?

RP: No

JB: I've been checking it out lately, its just plain scary. Talking about bodies piling up in the back of trucks in NYC. Today were going to talk about the actual data about this disease. We've been tracking it over the past couple weeks. They've been predicting huge numbers of mortalities. do you see that yet Ray?

RP: No, I haven't seen any numbers that convince me that anything unusual is happening, according to the virus mortality.

JB: Can I ask you where you go for data?

RP: Google mostly, and somewhat on pubmed when something on google isn't available, I often find back up material on pubmed.

JB: So where are we in the figures of the figures. Maybe first give us what a normal flu year would bring again?

RP: A little over a year ago the CDC announced that the 2017 to 18' flu year had killed at least 80,000 people, but then several months later they revised it down to a little over 60,000. Which is interesting because it shows how wildly approximate their estimates of the deaths are. But they say that the average has been a little over 40,00 for the last ten years or so. I just saw an article on Huff post from 2014, I think, Laurence Solomon** was his name, quoting CDC people in 2004 saying that they had contact from the vaccine industry, worrying about their week sales, that they had decided to rouse the public by convincing them that something dangerous was happening and that they should get vaccinated. That follows long after the 1976 swine flu fiasco where they supposedly had a pandemic but only 1 person died in the US. But, in this program, they started in 2004 it was too get media excitement going on the number of flu deaths so even though the verified actual immunological evidence from people dying of respiratory diseases and showing that there was an influenza virus or particular other viruses present, that showed very, very few documented cases of flu just because they weren't doing any test. But despite that, the national statistics based on certificates showed several hundred people recorded as dying of influenza. But with those, on the order of maybe a couple dozen documented, and several hundred with doctors statements on the death certificate without expressing whether they had tested for the virus, with those very small numbers, they didn't have a good case for mass vaccinations. So they started including pneumonia deaths with influenza so they called it influenza-like-diseases. And that's how they managed to get up in the tens of thousands of deaths every flu season.

JB: So, they started including a broader category of illnesses, and putting it under the category of flu?

RP: Yeah, that way they can get approximately 10% of everyone dying while 6% on the average year is closer to everyone dying the four months of the flu season, they can classify it as flu. But, the old people that's probably just about the normal proportion of very old people dying. They all get respiratory problems. Their breathing ad circulation are failing, and the lungs fail to work so they accumulate water, so they can put down pneumonia as cause of death or respiratory problems. When the lungs are slowing down from old age and circulatory and other diseases, the flow of mucous which usually runs up the tubes and toward the area of the mouth and the mucous gets swallowed, that flow of mucous lows down so the bacteria that are always falling into bronchial tubes from the air, they stay in place longer just because the cilia rent sweeping them out quickly. So as you're dying from heart failure, liver and lung failure, and so on, the mucous allows bacteria to accumulate so you're very likely to have an infection ,super imposed bacterial infection, on top of whatever is happening. A viral infection also slows the cilia movement and lets the mucous and aerial bacteria accumulate. So a typical viral infection also ends up with a bacterial infection, which the bacteria can cause all kinds of damage and are pretty sure to kill a person if they aren't getting antibacterial antibiotics. But that doesn't mean that the bacteria was the cause of the infection ,or even that the virus added to bacteria, added to circulatory problems, then you can choose any one of those to blame it on.

JB: So basically their body was shutting down to begin with and that's why they got infected.

RP: yeah

JB: So, with the new and improved statistics where they went from several hundred people actually dying of the flu to 40 to 60 thousand, if I have that right, per year.

RP: mmmhm

JB: Which is an extraordinary increase. Considering those cumbers, how many have actually officially died from coronavirus, where stand on the 31st of march (2020)

RP: I think it was probably yesterday I looked at it and it was about 2,400 at that time. In just a day it had just about doubled, so it was going up fast. But since about 10% of the people dying of flu, you would expect to have the coronavirus, because what they were doing the samples of people with respiratory diseases, they would see about half the people had no identifiable cause, and then the rhinovirus would be maybe 30%, flu virus maybe 15%, and the coronavirus maybe another 15% or something like that. So, just on the basis of samples from previous years you would expect maybe 10% of the dead people to have an identifiable coronavirus in them. And so, if 45 people are expected to die then 10% of those you could say, anywhere from 5-15%, but 10% would be 4,500 expected dead people containing the coronavirus. Not that it killed them, but that it was identifiably present as they were sick with respiratory disease.

JB: I see. Of all the people who die with the flu, and they say 50% of those are unknown flu causes, does that mean they haven't tested them, or they cant identify the strain.

RP: Can't identify. It could have been bacteria or simple heart disease.

JB: So, what you're saying and what I think you've said in the previous shows, people are dying, they're testing them for coronavirus and they come up positive but it's not necessarily what killed them?

RP: Um, true. If you have a limited number of tests and you use them mostly in hospitals at first, people who come in, I don't know why they bother testing sick people coming in as if they had something special with which to treat people who had the coronavirus. Most of the tests, people have said are really for any corona virus, not this particular strain. But since they don't have anything effective for coronavirus, why they should be testing sick people coming into the hospital isn't very clear. But when you test only sick people then you're going to have a very high percentage of the tests showing positive, just because of that known figure from previous years that 10% of the respiratory infections averaged coronavirus. And therefore of the people that die, there's also going to be a very high percentage, because you're testing primarily the sick people. Then as you go out into a broader part of the population and start testing healthy people, the mortality rate for infection shrinks. That happened in China from something from like 3.5 to 4% shrank down to around 1% and South Korea had very big testing program, so they had only 6/10ths percent mortality. I don't know if that's the situation in New York , Spain, and Italy, where there having a high percentage mortality. You cant know at all what the numbers mean unless you know who they're picking out to test.

JB: Yeah, that makes sense. I think the reason there testing the people how come in is because there worried about the disease being such a fatal one, there trying to determine whether these people need to be isolated or not.

RP: Except they didn't have any meaningful figures on which to assume it would be fatal. Since they're talking about these preliminary tests on sick people.

JB: I see. It seems we're operating on the assumption it's fatal right out of the box.

RP: It looks very much as if they were inclined towards that presumption by the fact that the World Economic Forum, Gates foundation, and John Hopkins University organized this pretend pandemic in October of last year. What to do, how to prepare the government, and hospitals how to respond if a deadly corona virus were imported and threatened to kill tens of millions of people. So they had this in everyone's consciousness, they invited people who were in influential positions politically and economically around the world and had them run through this program in October of last so that everyone had this implanted fear, and so at first meaningless numbers that I think inclined people to jump to the fear that this was that imaginary virus that they had proposed could be imported from South America.

JB: So basically they had a dry run for this back in October. Maybe you could explain to me what the Gates foundation, what is its relationship to the World Health Organization, which I thought was a multi country, basically all the countries in the world where they get together and decide mutually how to approach health issues?

RP: The foundation is pouring a lot of money into reorganizing the world for example African agricultural programs. I read that I think it was compared to the United Kingdom donations to that United Nations fund. the Gates foundation was giving 14 times as much money as the United Kingdom. so they're pouring money into changing the economy, focusing on Africa. Privatizing the economy, economics, farming and such and the healthcare system.

JB: So they're not just pouring money into the WHO, you're talking about pouring money into specific countries in Africa.

RP: So they're vision of what should happen in the world. They're also, I heard at the last meeting of the World economic forum, there was also a discussion of this program. What to do in response to the pandemic.

JB: They discusses that in Davos.

RP: That's what I've heard as well. The same people at this New York dry run.

JB: I did read something about the WHO, never used to take money from private person or organizations before, but now they are just a few years ago they started accepting money, they increased their budget, or revenue, they're supposed to be nonprofit, by a large percentage. I don't know what that is, do you know that?

RP: I read that but I forgot the numbers.

JB: Anyway they're now open to private funding, does that mean they're open to funding from the pharmaceuticals as well as the NGOs?

RP: umm, yeah. I think the pharmaceuticals are probably the biggest source of money.

JB: Do you have any specific worries about that?

RP: Haha, uh yeah the drug companies would be happy if everyone took the flu vaccine. The trouble is the flu vaccines contain multiple antigens besides influenza or if they get a coronavirus antigen. They contain adjuvants and junk antigens such as what they grew the virus in, the cells they were using in their culture process. So its a very complex and highly inflammatory material that they use just too promote the immune reaction for whatever the vaccine is and the trouble is the viruses mutate so quickly after one or two or three years they are very likely to have disappeared and might never come back. But it takes a year and a half or two typically to make a vaccine and in 1975 and 76 the CDC's man in charge of overseeing flu vaccine kept telling his bosses that it was futile to try to get a vaccine in time to catch these rapidly mutating viruses and they ignored him and went on with the program and finally he went on television and got fired for it but he exposed that basically the fraudulent idea that you could have an effective, not only effective, but harmless flu virus. He was emphasizing the uselessness of it but there's also the harmfulness of it.

JB: The potential damage?

RP: Only one person died of documented swine flu supposedly, it was about 300 deaths were reported to the government and thousands of paralysis cases were reported following the flu virus injection.

JB: yeah so, the flu vaccine shot that everyone's getting every year, I know a lot of people who just go get it. they recommend it for older people now because you're more at risk. That's considered a vaccine isn't it?

RP: Yeah, I've looked at the annual flu deaths per year and there were dips occasionally, 2004, 2012, and I think 2016 there were noticeable decreases form the previous year. And I looked at the vaccine supply and I saw that there was a big shortage in 2004. And the biggest surge of vaccine production and distribution was proceeding the 2017-2018 flu season and that was the season that they first estimated 80,000 deaths. It was interesting to see the historic peak and descending vaccines around the country and the number of people dying even though they revised it down a little bit, still there was the correlation between more vaccine and more deaths.

JB: Now that's interesting. Is there any way to judge the efficacy of a flu shot? Does anybody try to do that?

RP: They're supposed to test it first on animals, which now they're trying to bypass the process but they aim to get an antibody produced in first the animals and then in the people they test and validate that they're producing specific antibodies. And the trouble is the antibodies are, they have some generality and overlap but they are fairly specific for particular strain so they're not much good for the next strain which comes in around the time that the flu vaccine becomes available and the real part of the immune system which, it's really prior to the vaccines and is I think a more important part of the immune system is the so called innate immune system but it has been known for at least 20 or 30 years to be trainable or educable the same way the adaptive antibody system is. So the fundamental whole body that processes that catch viruses in many ways, reduce the harm they do, this just isn't attended to because the vaccine companies can't demonstrate that they're producing antibodies but they cant really, clearly show what's happening in the innate system because it involves changes in the whole body. Starting with for example the surfactant proteins in the air sacs of the lungs and the nature of the composition of the mucous and the surface of the cells and that applies to the nose and the intestine as well. And the coronavirus when they've looked for where in the body it ends up, it seems to be equally distributed the small intestine and the lungs and bronchial tubes.

JB: So it really gets dispersed. so those are all surfaces where a surfactant is supposed to be present to protect you?

RP: Yeah. Many factors on the surface. The mucous is healthy mucous is very powerful protector, especially if the mucous is being swept constantly out of your lungs. And then once in the cell, there are many layers of other innate protectors and since the viruses, the corona virus in particular is known to activate all of the inflammatory processes, including tending to stop the flow of mucous out of your tubes and changing the circulatory pattern releasing histamine, serotonin, angiotensin, everything that is harmful is activated by these infectious things. That's fairly general for viruses, but coronavirus is very powerful at activating immunity, activating inflammation.

JB: This particular coronavirus is supposed to be more transmissible than others, is that true?

RP: I don't think there have any situation for accurately judging that.

JB: It sounds like a lot of these viruses, these flu viruses, they come and go every year and a lot of people have them and never even know they had it.

RP: that's the same with this. When they've tested a broader section of people, not just the sick ones, they find that something like 85% didn't know they had anything or anything serious.

JB: Maybe we can talk about how we as a country can move forward, you know approach this problem rationally.

RP: I think that's the important thing, because they're deliberately getting people scared so that they'll next season be ready get vaccinated. But, that panic they're creating, our whole generation, going back at least 50 years, has been heavily indoctrinated to go to the doctor, like 1950 they were putting out instructions, how to identify cancer at an early stage and training people to recognize these signs of cancer. There are these various programs designed to get these people to go to their doctors regularly for checkups. If you're having regular checkup for heart disease, that's supposed to be protective. People are trained to think of the medical profession as protective, but there's really no objective evidence that that protects against anything. when you look at the studies that try to be objective, there are two publication I know of, looked at the hospital deaths alone and one group said at least 220,000 deaths are caused by accidents caused by the medical staff. Another group said 440,000 deaths per year caused by medical mistakes. Still there were surveys asking doctors whether they had seen deadly mistakes made in the hospital without reporting them and that's another reason the numbers might be bigger than 220 or 440,ooo because many doctors said that they saw the accidents and didn't report them. It doesn't account for the mistaken things doctors do because they're taught to do them, that have no valid scientific basis. My next newsletter is going to be on some of those points that probably will make hospital mortality caused by medical mistakes of various kinds bigger than those numbers that've been published. But those numbers already put deaths caused by medical mistakes in 3rd place behind heart disease and cancer deaths. And that wasn't including hospital acquired infections which amount to around 100,00 deaths per year. When you look at just those numbers, going to the hospital should be a very last resort, like when you want some repair that you know there's an appropriate treatment for a broken bone or a cut blood vessel or something. Since there's nothing safe and effective against the virus, people are going into hospitals, with very little examination and putting them on ventilators. One of the common practices when people come in with respiratory infections, even before they go on a ventilator, they might get aerosolized antiviral, such as Ribavirin, even though there's no published evidence showing that reduces mortality. Since they know it work in vitro it will reduce the virus in cells in a culture dish but there's no proven evidence it protects a person against the virus in the living state. That's still a common practice in hospitals. that and several other viruses and these viruses-

JB: Is that antivirals you mean?

RP: So called, yeah. They're classified. hydroxyquinoline is classified as an antimalarial and anti-inflammatory for rheumatoid arthritis and such, but these, the nucleoside analogues or nucleotide analogues or the hydroxyquinoline categories, these are all recognized as hazardous, mutagenic, possibly carcinogenic drugs. They damage the RNA or DNA of the virus, but they also damage the human DNA and RNA. And so they're known to be very toxic and if they are figuring that the person is beyond reproductive age then they minimize the effects of mutating their DNA. But especially in people who might reproduce its not good to give mutagens. And the ventilation itself, if they have to stick a tube down your windpipe, that tends to activate inflammation just by the mechanical damage it does and they are typically using 40-60% oxygen supplements. Sometimes its just air but if you speed the respiration with just ordinary air and especially if you double or triple the amount of oxygen in the air, you're necessarily going to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in their lungs and blood stream in general. Carbon dioxide is a major anti-inflammatory defense against the damage the viruses are doing. So, scientifically there's a lot of evidence what they're doing when someone gets the hospital panicked over the coronavirus, what they're doing is very dangerous and its increasing the speed of-

JB: Not what they're intending to do, but its what's happening... They're telling us not to go to the hospital unless you're extremely sick-

RP: that's the best advice haha

JB: haha yeah its very good advice aha it turns out. I was just wondering if you do have some respiratory problem and your having trouble getting enough oxygen and trouble breathing, going off what you just said it seems like it would naturally increase your CO2 as a response to that.

RP: If they would more generally use Carbogen, which is 5% carbon dioxide added to Oxygen, that will give you more Oxygen than actually just hyperventilating a person with an ordinary ventilator. The carbon dioxide is anti-inflammatory, and has many pro-respiratory effects. It helps you deliver the Oxygen into moving it from the blood into the energy producing cells, and it opens up capillaries that've been constricted by things such as angiotension that've been produced by infections-

JB: So uh if you wanted to instruct somebody how to do it, if you had to do the ventilator or breathing tent, is probably less invasive than a ventilator but it would be 35% oxygen and 5% CO2 or what would you suggest?

RP: O well with 30% I would think even 1% CO2 would be a big help.

JB: O, okay. And the it would not be so dangerous you think?

RP: Yeah

JB: Alright, good to know. Are you isolating at home or going out?

RP: O, I pretty much always stay at home. Just go out to buy milk and gasoline haha

JB: Yeah, its kind of the same here, we haven't noticed too much difference. I did notice going to the grocery store, which I did yesterday, people actually seem quite traumatized. A lot of people have masks on, they look furtive (*attempting to avoid notice or attention). No one stopping to chat, at least not for very long.

RP: Yeah, I think infected people it's good if they wear masks when they go out in public, but I don't think masks are helping people. People are not infected because if its floating in, submicroscopic particles, they'll get around the masks.

JB: I was wondering, do masks increase your CO2 levels? Like bag breathing?

RP: Not very much, the CO2 doesn't stay in place

JB: So bag breathing is much more effective?

RP: Yeah

JB: You're just recirculating it over and over again?

RP: mmmmhm

JB: That brings me to the subject of anti-inflammatories on our radio station here we carry a show that is carried on a lot of radio stations, its called "time of useful consciousness radio" with Maria Gilardin. It's usually an excellent show. This last week she carried an English doctor, named I think John Campbell (Dr. John Campbell: Corona Virus Update – TUC Radio), and most of his show was talking about how important isolation is, but he concluded the show by saying that there's a reason we get a fever and its important, especially with corona virus and he quoted some French medical ministers as confirmation of this that with the fever of coronavirus it can cause a lot of negative complications if you use anti-inflammatory of any kind; non-steroidal and steroidal. I was wondering what your opinion of that is?

RP: I saw that and his video and his video on vitamin D. The vitamin D talk is very good and what vitamin D is doing is profoundly anti-inflammatory but he recommends vitamin d. Vitamin D and aspirin and vitamin B1 and progesterone they're benefit is in this situation largely by lowering the angiotensin receptor, a very central basic thing in anti-inflammatory protection. So Vitamin D is one of our central anti inflammatory things, a nd very protective against all kinds of viral infections and other infections as well.

JB: I would be curious to know if the corona virus has a hard time surviving in humans in sunny places then, where there's vitamin d?

RP: The trouble with that correlation is that um for example in the Islamic countries, women in particular cover up and I've had friends in Mexico who, even though its high altitude and very sunny, they had very low vitamin d levels because they don't want to get over sun tanned so women in particular go out in the sun with parasols or hats or long sleeves and those, surprisingly, living in a sunny climate, especially women are deficient in vitamin d.

JB: good point. going back to John Campbell's talk about fever being important and not getting in the way of the fever's work and getting in the way of the fevers work to kill the coronavirus, do you feel like aspirin would interfere with the fever or what's your feeling about fever in general?

RP: Aspirin can often increase your thyroid function and cell respiration so much that it doesn't affect your fever, but it can lower the need for a fever since angiotensin overproduction is a basic harm factor of any infection that you have. You're stopping the mechanism of the harm and that is what is lowering the fever. It isn't just mechanical turning off heat production, it actually increases oxidative metabolism and at least temporarily increase thyroid function. So when aspirin reduces fever I think its most because it's remedying the thing that is causing the fever.

JB: So the fever is basically hinges on the inflammation. So if aspirin lowers the inflammation, then the fever is no longer necessary?

RP: It happens to be an antiviral agent in itself. Its been tested in 4 or 5 major viruses all of which...I think it ranks up with the toxic chemicals they sell for the purpose of killing viruses but it happens, just as a side effect, aspirin itself interferes with the reproduction of viruses

JB: Well yeah, why use something cheap like aspirin when you can use something that is exciting and dangerous?

RP: The idea of something really strong to kill the virus and pathogen, aspirin, even though there's evidence that it's very effective at stopping viruses, they don't think of it as a deadly toxic agent. Same with cancer. The ideology is that you have to kill cancer cells, but in fact cancer cells are weak and defective and don't live very long, but the problem is they're being replaced so fast, that if you just work on slowing whatever it is causing their replacement then you don't have to worry about killing them because they just naturally die because they're defective.

JB: Going back to the fever from the coronavirus, is the fever is it capable of killing the virus?

RP: It activates various parts of your immune reaction so I'm not sure whether there have been studies on this particular kind of virus. But the ability to produce antibodies for example is increased with fever. White blood cells can eat faster at a high temperature. So in general your resistance is increased with a fever.

JB: I've always associated that, the fever is basically you're getting hot and miserable but its killing off the bug inside of you. So in a way it because its allowing your immune system to rev up.

RP: Ya, it's revving up your whole system. It doesn't... it might even make some germs more energetic too, but it gives your body the greater advantage, more than it does speed the replication of the germs.

JB: I mean how hot can you get before you cant survive anymore? 106?

RP: when they treat people with cancer, sometimes they keep them at more than 106, up around 107 for a few hours. People seem to tolerate that.

JB: They'd give them something to cause they're body to heat up?

RP: No, put they put them in a hot tub or box with heat lamps, just they're head sticking out. They put thermometers, they have thermometers you can swallow. They used to just give rectal thermometer or oral thermometer and take care not to go over 107 degrees. They found several major types of cancer would die after multiple types of treatments of maybe 5-10 hours at a time.

JB:Is there anything we didn't cover that you wanted too?

RP: A lot of places warning about anti-inflammatory drugs, they're extending it too aspirin and they're generally getting confused thinking that the ace-2 enzyme that is the target of the coronavirus, thinking that that shouldn't be increased because it would increase the chance of catching the coronavirus. They're even confusing it as a cause of hypertension and so on. It's complicated enough its hard to even explain it too doctors because they get fixed ideas.

JB: ya, it is hard to understand...So maybe that what John Campbell was talking about? He was quoting a French...

RP: Um, yeah and there was an article in Lancet that said basically the same thing; "stop taking anti-inflammatories because they'll increase your ACE-2 enzyme and make a bigger target. But they've already been half a dozen very clear papers showing the virus decreases your ACE-2 enzyme, increasing your proinflammatory angiotensin production. So what you need to do is get your ACE-2 back in production to destroy the inflammatory mediator.

JB: Okay, that's great to know. I was reading an opinion piece (Widespread isolation and stopping all human interaction will not eradicate COVID-19) by Scott Atlas and he was working off the statistics or epidemiolocal analysis by Doctor John Ioannidis

RP: Ya

JB: He was saying it doesn't make much sense to lock everyone up forever, in terms of physical distancing during this pandemic. He thought it would make much more sense to isolate only those who are most vulnerable and let the rest of the population build up immunity because 99% of everyone's symptoms will be minor, they'll get sniffles or nothing at all?

RP: Ya, that's very reasonable. Sweden has basically done nothing resembling the united states program. The government so far has told old people and sick people to stay home and everyone to wash their hands. And basically behave sensibly, not shutting down businesses.

JB: That does seem to make a lot of sense. I think were operating on the premise that even 30 year old's are dying and I've heard reports that even 30 or 40 year old nurses are wearing some protective gear and they're just getting exposed over and over again and a couple of them have died even though they're not old and with no pre-existing conditions. What do you make of that?

RP: At first I would have to see what drugs they were being given and whether they were being respirated but its possible that the virus is more deadly than previous ones but there's just no statistical evidence of that.

JB: Yeah, so we started the show talking about the statistics, and the...in an average year the way the CDC is counting deaths has been 40,000 average. Do you know, what is the four month flue months? Is it December through April?

RP: It really starts halfway through November and usually ends in March, but its variable every year. Its like December, January, February, and March are the most, historically, most respiratory infections. With small, very small relatively sicknesses. Even starting in October through April and tailing off very faintly in June.

JB: Do you know what the current total is for flu deaths in the Us for this season?

RP: What I saw yesterday was uh...O total no I haven't seen it. In the case of two years ago it took them about a year or two to revise that 80,000 estimate down to 60,000. So I don't think they'll even come out with their general estimate, which will include all kinds; pneumonia and such

JB: I was just wondering whether we could tell where we were on the...compared to the average at this point, but there's no way to know that.

RP: uh, no[FONT=Georgia,"Times New Roman",Times,serif]. Well the number that they are blaming on coronavirus is less than what you'd expect if its normally 10% of the flu deaths.
[/FONT]

JB: Yeah so um...

RP: If for example if it was in the 60-80,000 range as in 2017 and 18', and if the variation was 15% instead of the average 10% coronavirus, then you could say that just a statistical fluctuation based on the last 5 years, could be 15,000 deaths this year from Coronavirus.

JB: I just went to the CDC page about flu. This year they're estimating 24,000 to 64,000 which sounds like what your saying is a light year range to a slightly more than normal year range.

RP: Yeah

JB: That's a little puzzling.

RP: The figures that Wolfgang Wodarg gave a range from 5-14% of the respiratory diseases being coronavirus. So if this year coronavirus happened to be a larger percent, then that could be about 1/7th of about 50,000 for example so 7,000 would still be not outside the recent history figures.

JB: Alright, I guess well see what happens. I very much appreciate your analysis of the situation. You had a quote in one of your newsletters, the recent one in fact, "context for vaccinations" and I think it was fear of terrorism and fear of disease are marketing tools. It does seem like at least the media is certainly hyping the fear factor and another thing to take note of the biggest advertiser in the United states and maybe around the world are the pharmaceuticals. They advertise more through the media more than any other type of business.

RP: Yeah, and the CDC is being the most co-operative spreader of their ideology.

JB: Yeah they do seem to workhand in hand. Just to sum up Ray, if you wouldn't mind going over again all the things one can do to keep themselves healthy and working well, sleep is one of those isn't it?

RP: Ya, and a good diet is necessary for sleep. Vitamin D and the associated Calcium work together. Vitamin d is anti-inflammatory and it works by lowering parathyroid hormone. It cant do that if your phosphate intake is very high relative to calcium. So cutting down on beans, nuts, meat and fish and increasing cooked green leaves, cheese, and milk will improve the function the anti-inflammatory vitamin d, lowering the parathyroid hormone and all of the associated pro-inflammatory things that it does.

JB: That sounds good, lets see if we can work on that. Even if it is a worse flu year than other years, well beat that back and make it too summer and get our country back online again. Okay, well Dr. Raymond Peat, thanks so much for being on the show today and really appreciate your analysis.

 

Similar threads

Top