Sweden’s No-Lockdown Coronavirus Results Speak For Themselves

Remember the abandoned trope of “flatten the curve”? Well, it looks like the country that did the best job of that is the one that did the opposite of what we were told would achieve that goal. Sweden is now averaging about one death per day in the entire country, and that is based on a very liberal definition of a COVID-19 death. In fact, Sweden has been over this epidemic for a long time. The country hasn’t had a day of double-digit deaths since July 19.

The continued panic of all the governments that have been mandating lock downs, masking, and fearmongering restrictions for six months speaks for itself.

Is there anyone out there who STILL believes this virus is an epedemic rather than politically motivated?

This should come as no surprise...

…CDC Now Says 94% of COVID Deaths Had an Underlying Condition

In comments released at the time, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said risk “is a continuum.”

Based on what we’ve learned, we now understand that as you get older, your risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death increases.  We also updated the list of underlying health conditions that can put you at higher risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death, based on the latest review of scientific evidence to date.

But the bottom line is that the CDC has finally come clean with the actual stats in terms of who is dying and why.

Overall, of the 161,392 deaths covered by the report, 42 percent (68,004) of those who died also had the flu or pneumonia while 34 percent (54,803) had an underlying condition [such as diabetes, heart-related conditions including cardiac arrest, ischemic heart disease (aka hardening of the arteries), cardiac arrhythmia and heart disease leading to] respiratory failure.

I’m not sure how much clearer things could be with regard to who gets seriously sick or dies from coronavirus than this mainstream message from the CDC not less.

Cost benefit? Does the data does support lockdown or further economic restrictions?

Systems Engineer, Ivor Cummins & his scientist guests suggest the data does not support lockdown, distancing, masks, or further economic restrictions. While people may or may not test positive for the virus – it means relatively little in terms of possible death as most people survive this virus. In other words, 99.98 people survive.

But those people with serious comorbidities/metabolic syndrome such as T2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and lung disease – including those who ‘look’ healthy, because their blood glucose, insulin levels and pancreatic function have not been screened are the only people at risk.  These are critical steps that must be factored into the virus equation on a per person basis!

With that said, the virus will follow its natural curve with or without lockdown & restrictions (see Hong Kong Flu Pandemic).

Meanwhile, the media is following its own narrative, and not reporting the science from researchers from March – May 2020 such as:

LATEST UPDATE July 16, 2020: Ep89 Viral Impacts Explained - The PANDA Pandemic Data & Analytics Group

This is a deep-dive on the real impacts of this viral issue across the globe, with a special focus on how the cost-benefit of suppression measures is destroying middle-income countries like Africa. Have we lost the plot in trying to stop the unstoppable? Is the cost-benefit horrifically in the wrong direction? Will the middle-income countries suffer enormously and pointlessly, from our Western notions of holding back the tide?

To view the PANDA (Pandemics – Data & Analytics) paper in its entirety click here.

 Other helpful info:

The technical reality is scientific data is not portrayed in the media - that's for sure. See 2006 Biosecurity Paper.

List of additional science-based videos showing no validation for lockdowns, click here.

Big News Regarding Saturated Fats!

While this is not ‘big news’ for those of us following a low carbohydrate diet, or for the many researchers whose studies have been ignored or hidden (both in the past and currently), it is nevertheless ‘big news’ for those in mainstream nutrition, including your doctor.

This news has been all over Instagram, Twitter and the like, but for clarity here is the news via Nina Teicholz’s Nutrition Coalition June 23, 2020 newsletter:

Major New Paper on Saturated Fats

A group of leading nutrition scientists, including a former member of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and the Chair of the 2005 DGAC, were among the prominent authors of a “State-of-the-Art Review” in the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): “Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-based Recommendations.” This review found that government limits on saturated fats are not justified by the science.

Advice to limit saturated fats has been a basic pillar of the Dietary Guidelines for 40 years. Yet this advice has never had any substantial scientific backing, according to a large and fast-growing body of scientific literature, which now includes the JACC paper.

The JACC abstract reads:

“The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke. Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are much less strongly related to CVD risk. It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering the overall macronutrient distribution. Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.

The paper also notes, “These historical facts demonstrate that saturated fats were an abundant, key part of the ancient human diet.”

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is Ignoring the Science on Low-Carb Diets

They only way things are going to change with respect to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines is with YOU!

Our dietary guidelines touch every aspect of nutrition and health in America (i.e., our hospitals, schools, nursing homes, prisons, military) and must be founded on sound science. The US dietary guidelines currently do not follow the evidence, and in fact consciously ignore the evidence & nutritional benefits with respect to RCTs and health benefits of a low carbohydrate diet lifestyle!

A large, university-based clinical trial of 349 participants shows Type 2 diabetes can be reversed: This means pre-diabetes can also be reversed. The only other diet demonstrating the ability to reverse the course of diabetes is a formula-based, starvation-level diet, yet the outcomes are not as well sustained.

55%Reversed diagnosis in patients with T2 diabetes

91%Participants who reduced or eliminated need for insulin

For more information and the opportunity to have your voice heard, please contact The Low-Carb Action Network*. By doing so you help to ensure that the science behind low-carb diets is not excluded!

*I have no conflicts of interest, and am not paid by Low-Carb Action Network. I simply want to be heard by those making decisions for our nation’s food policy, and your help is needed.

Nutrition policy conversation sorely needed

The conversation about viruses with respect to the covid pandemic must include understanding the relationship food’s impact has with our body’s ability to fight off infection and recover.

Nutrition policy must be at the center of the conversation

In the coming months, much conversation will be centered around how to mitigate and prepare for pandemics like COVID-19. As we look at the death toll from this disease, reports show that many of the people who died had obesity and other related ailments including Type 2 diabetes. There’s a clear correlation between death rate and obesity and diabetes — the more severe, the higher the death rate.

Apologies for sounding like a broken record… but here we go….

Since the U.S. Dietary Guidelines were introduced, adult obesity rates have doubled, while childhood obesity has tripled. Annual medical spending attributed to obesity nationally is nearly $150 billion, about half of which is paid to Medicare and Medicaid. And rates continue to climb. Researchers have estimated that by 2030 if obesity trends continue unchecked, obesity-related medical costs alone could rise by $48 to $66 billion a year in the United States.

The evidence is clear. If we don’t change course, many Americans will continue to follow the current guidelines that not only won’t improve their health but could make them sicker. We can alter this path by acknowledging that low-carbohydrate nutrition requires serious consideration for its inclusion in our dietary guidelines, and not merely as a footnote.

The case is urgent, and the solution is apparent. What remains is for the U.S. government to step up and safeguard public health immediately. - Dr. Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D.

GLOBAL RAMIFICATIONS?

THE MAN BEHIND BREAKING SCIENCE SCANDAL JAMES TODARO, MD

13 days after publishing a paper on hydroxychloroquine (a potential drug for coronavirus treatment), The Lancet retracted the study due to faulty data.  In the midst of a global pandemic, the study (that has since been retracted) was used as a basis for the guidelines set by the WHO, the CDC, elected officials, and...well, let's see how deep this rabbit hole leads us by the man who helped break the story. James Todaro, MD, played a significant role in this multi-layered scandal: By revealing the red flags of a study published by one of the world's oldest and best-known medical journals, and causing The Lancet to retract it in just 13 days.

If The Lancet’s editor and WHO (now defunded by our country) aren’t politically and economically motivated to approve (in less than 3 days!) & publish an unsubstantiated report submitted by a “reputable” doctor from a bogus “research database”, I don’t know what is!

But why?

Could it be that there is no money to be made if doctors world-wide prescribe hydroxychloroquine, an affordable medication that could potentially benefit millions - and, double bonus - its a viable way to discredit and humiliate the US President, whom they openly disagree with? The Lancet, WHO, and the mainstream media have chosen instead to malign and discredit both the affordability and theraputic benefits of hydroxychloroquine, along with the US President at the alter of their hubris. How could they resist? But don’t wait for the mainstream news to report the retraction of this article based on some of the most outrageous unsubstantiated claims in one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.

Thank God for the research integrity, tenacity and skill of Dr. James Todaro, MD to have the bogus “out of thin air” article retracted in less than two weeks after its publication.

From the Nutrition Coalition

  • By Nina Teicholz, author “The Big Fat Lie”

    Member(s) of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Blows the Whistle on the Process

    TNC published a letter detailing allegations by one or more members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee/DGAC). The far-ranging allegations include:

    Exclusion of nearly all studies on weight loss involving a hypocaloric intervention, owing to the idea that weight loss would confound other health outcomes. These studies have been excluded even when obesity is the primary object of the study. It is inconceivable in a country where obesity continues to rise—now 42.4% of all adults—that these studies would be excluded.

    Exclusion of nearly all studies on low-carb diets. The Committee used an exclusion criteria that is the very definition of a low-carb diet, and this had the effect of excluding virtually all low-carb diet studies. The Committee's apparent effort to ignore the low-carb science is unfortunately consistent with actions taken by the last DGAC, in 2015, which buried all low-carb studies in the Methodology section of its report, making it impossible to issue any formal recommendation on the topic. TNC's Nina Teicholz explains and documents these events in her recent WSJ op-ed here—in case you missed it. Link is to full text, without paywall.

    Outdated science:
    Some scientific reviews, such as those by the Birth-through-24-months subcommittee, include studies only up to 2016, despite a Congressional mandate that the Dietary Guidelines should include a comprehensive review of the science "that is current at the time."

    In addition, the Nutrition Coalition notes that all the recent studies challenging the caps on saturated fats have been ignored. The evidence linking saturated fats to heart disease was judged by the DGAC to be “strong,” not only for adults, but also, for the first time, children. Yet scientific justification for a continuation of these caps is lacking, and the Subcommittee presented weak evidence to make its case. Read our blog post on this issue. 

    See the many other scientific problems with the DGAC report detailed in our letter.

A Low-Carb Strategy for Fighting the Pandemic’s Toll

To be less vulnerable to this and future pandemics, we must talk about not only the masks that go over our mouths but the food that goes into them. Comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, etc. contribute to our vulnerability to Covid, yet the government is ignoring the latest science.

[We] need to consider better nutrition as a tool in fighting pandemics, now and in the future. Also, I reveal some information about the 2015 and 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committees, with some startling inside information obtained by the Freedom of Inside Information Act.

Wake up people in decision-making seats!

Do we really need a lockdown?

It’s now apparent that hospital systems haven’t been overwhelmed by the feared surge in admissions. In fact, even in the worst-affected areas, the hospital systems have held up. In some lightly affected areas, hospitals are actually underused because normal procedures have been rescheduled to accommodate a surge that never came. The social distancing measures adopted by most people have no doubt contributed to keeping those numbers low.

Pandemic Lockdown: Are We Just Delaying the Inevitable?

“The food you eat can be either the safest and most powerful form of medicine or the slowest forms of poison.” – Ann Wigmore