Welcome to Sott.net
Sun, 26 Sep 2021
The World for People who Think

Health & Wellness


Indian study finds smokers and people in blood group O less vulnerable to Covid-19

Comment: The 'Covid surge' in India - like the rest of this nonsense - is probably mostly media hype. In the meantime, here's some real 'Covid news' out of India...

woman smoking cigarette tobacco
An Indian study has found that the SARS-CoV-2 virus nearly spares smokers and people with 'O' blood group. The serosurvey conducted by the Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) also found that vegetarians also have less sero-positivity than the rest of the population.

The pan-India serosurvey studied the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in people. One of the authors of the study said the paper was recently peer-reviewed.

While smokers and vegetarians had lower sero-positivity, those with blood group 'O' were found to be less vulnerable to the disease, the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, citing the study.

Comment: We're unsure what to make of this vegetarian signal in their data. India has the highest percentage of vegetarians in the world - by far - at up to 40%, while just 12% of its population smokes. Meanwhile, blood group O people, generally, function best on a high (animal) protein diet.

Comment: By April 14th, when this 'Covid surge in India' made international headlines, more than 111 million people had been vaccinated in that country. So the vaccines aren't working, but smoking sure seems to.

For clarification, the smoking-Covid statistics listed for each country above are phenomenal. What it means is that SMOKING TOBACCO, not 'getting the jab', is the only real 'Covid-preventative medicine'.

As we've been pointing out for - ooh - 20 years now, the official message on smoking tobacco has covered up its health benefits. What's worse is that governments today are moving fast to ban smoking outright - just when it's finally getting the credit it deserves as arguably the most potent anti-viral 'on the market'...

SOTT Logo Radio

Objective:Health - The Best Reasons Not to Get a Covid Shot

O:H header
Self-described 'natural health nerd', Christian Elliot has written an excellent article that covers multiple reasons he personally will not (and by extention, the reader shouldn't) be getting the Covid shot. Titled "18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine," the article serves as a good round up of all the reasons the many Covid shots are problematic. Many of these reasons have been covered on our show before, and the article serves both as a refresher and provides some new perspectives and new information to boot.

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we go through some of our favourite reasons not to get a Covid shot and offer some additional insights into why these shots are a very bad idea. Anyone who's on the fence about the vaccine will surely not want to miss this one!

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth

♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
♥Odysee: https://odysee.com/@objectivehealth:f

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:


Running Time: 00:40:15

Download: MP3 — 36.9 MB


Is the coronavirus vaccine a ticking time-bomb?

non-neutralizing antibody
Will a vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 actually make the problem worse? Although not a certainty, all of the current data says that this prospect is a real possibility that needs to be paid careful attention to. If you stay with me, I'll explain why.

First, let's set aside the debate surrounding the topic of whether vaccines work and the negative health consequences due to the components of the vaccine. No matter where you stand on the vaccine issue, I'm not asking anyone to capitulate on this point. I'm just asking that this issue be set aside, because in this instance this argument is completely irrelevant. Even without bringing any other issue into the vaccine debate, a coronavirus vaccine is a highly dangerous undertaking due to a peculiar trojan horse mechanism known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Regardless of someone's conviction about vaccines, this point needs to be acknowledged. In the remaining portion of this article, I'm going to explain how ADE works and the future perils it may bring.

For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce a neutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. A neutralizing antibody is one that can recognize and bind to some region ('epitope') of the virus, and that subsequently results in the virus either not entering or replicating in your cells.

Comment: And for another angle on the monumental problems with these vaccines, don't miss:

Stock Down

Covid's IFR just keeps dropping

Covid Decline Chart
A new study says the infection fatality ratio of the "deadly virus" has fallen from 3.4% to 0.15%...that's plummeting 95% in less than a year

With every new study, with every new paper, the "deadly" pandemic gets less and less, well, deadly. The most recent data review, published in late March, puts the infection fatality ratio (IFR) at 0.15%.

That is, once again, pretty much the same as a normal flu season.

The new paper is the work of Dr John Ioannidis, whom you likely remember. He is an eminent epidemiologist and statistician who publicly urged the need for "good data" last spring.

Do you remember last spring? The blissful days of never having even heard of "infection fatality ratio"? (I do. Fondly.)

The phrase really rose to prominence last year, after the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the IFR of the scary new virus was 3.4%.

This is not, in and of itself, especially high. But it is significantly higher than most cold/flu viruses.

Comment: The story that Covid-19 doesn't exist and hasn't been isolated is equally dangerous as the story that the same virus is very dangerous and deadly. We have a lot of evidence and scientific papers showing that the virus was isolated in January 2020. But its IFR and mortality rate were exaggerated by some sick minds in powerful positions in order to impose total control over the world population and gain more power from the largely exaggerated pandemic.

See also:


MIT researchers challenge indoor social distancing rules: 'No safer at 60 feet than 6 feet'

mask social distance
© Getty Images
"Many spaces that have been shut down in fact don't need to be," said study coauthor Martin Bazant.
A new study out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is challenging major COVID-19 mitigation measures of the past year, claiming the widely accepted six-foot "social distancing" rule is more or less meaningless in indoor settings.

The study, authored by MIT chemical engineering Prof. Martin Bazant and applied mathematics Prof. John Bush, "characterize[s] the evolution of the concentration of pathogen-laden droplets in a well-mixed room, and the associated risk of infection to its occupants."

Indoor gatherings have been one of the most aggressive targets of COVID-19 mitigation measures over the past year. Health officials have warned that people congregating in indoor settings are at significant risk for COVID-19 infection. Authorities worldwide have mandated both that occupancy limits in public facilities and spaces be sharply decreased and that individuals should maintain strict 72-inch spaces between each other when inside them.

Comment: Which further proves that any decline in spread has had nothing to do with social distancing measures. It's just as well, then, that for the vast majority of people the coronavirus is harmless: Reuters: Sweden had 10% lower 2020 death spike than much of Europe


Covid can cause more pregnancy complications than thought - but only if the woman is suffering symptoms

Like everything in this pandemic, the knowledge we have about how COVID-19 affects pregnancy has changed since we first learnt about the virus at the start of 2020.

Unfortunately, gathering information and research in this area has been slower than many doctors would like, and a new study has now found that pregnancy risks could be greater than what we thought.

"We now know that the risks to mothers and babies are greater than we assumed at the start of the pandemic and that known health measures when implemented must include pregnant women," said University of Oxford reproductive medical researcher Stephen Kennedy, one of the study authors.

Comment: The above is certainly not an argument for pregnant women to be vaccine, because the vaccines themselves have been shown to actually cause problems in healthy people, and because the vast majority of people will become infected but not experience any significant symptoms: And check out SOTT radio's: Objective:Health - Kids and Covid Shots


New study on face-masks highlights problems with safety and efficacy


A new study on face masks highlight their inefficacy, lack of safety and ability to cause physiological, psychological and long-term health problems, which may culminate in immune suppression, worsened chronic disease, accelerated aging and premature death

Baruch Vainshelboim, who works with the cardiology division at Stanford's Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in California, is among the latest to sound the alarm that face masks should be avoided for the general public.

It's not simply an issue of whether or not they "work" - though as he writes, "scientific evidence supporting facemasks' efficacy is lacking" - or that wearing something is better than nothing because, as noted by Vainshelboim, "adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established."[i]

The paradox, he notes, has been apparent from the beginning as SARS-CoV-2 affects the respiratory system, potentially leading to respiratory failure and death (though it should be noted that the case fatality rate is low - considerably less than 1% or, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci and colleagues in March 2020, consequences may be "more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza"[ii]).

Comment: Masks are a ticking time bomb:


Covid19: Prior infection vs vaccination

Prior infection vs vaccination
© SebastianRushworth.com
Ever since the beginning of the covid pandemic, one of the big topics of discussion has been whether infection results in lasting immunity. Since the advent of the vaccines, that has expanded in to a discussion about whether prior infection or vaccination provides a higher degree of immunity.

Back in December, I wrote about a study that showed that 90% of people who get covid still have antibodies six months out from infection. This was encouraging news. However, all it really did was show that most people keep their antibodies for a decent period of time after infection. It didn't actually tell us anything about the probability of being re-infected.

Antibodies are a "surrogate" marker. We think they might tell us something useful, but we can't really be sure. It's kind of like looking at the share of a population that have high blood pressure instead of looking at the proportion that are having strokes. We really don't know whether the presence of antibodies after infection means that someone is immune, or whether the absence of antibodies means that someone has lost their immunity. In fact, we still don't really know whether antibodies play a meaningful role in fighting covid or not. Correlation isn't always causation. Antibodies appear to be a good marker for prior infection, but that doesn't mean that they have a causal role in preventing a re-infection.

So, what we really need is a study that looks at the degree to which people actually get re-infected, not more studies that look at antibodies. Once we have that, we can do a comparison with the results of the vaccine trials, and then we will finally have a reasonably good estimate of whether prior infection or vaccination provides a higher level of immunity, or if they are equivalent. That is now exactly what we have, thanks to a study that was recently published in The Lancet.


Army's own vaccine that could fight COVID variants begins clinical trials

Maryland Army National Guardsmen
© Sgt. Chazz Kibler/National Guard)
Maryland Army National Guardsmen fill out medical paperwork to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at the U.S. Capitol Complex in Washington on Jan. 14, 2021.
A unique vaccine produced by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research started clinical testing Tuesday, and Army researchers hope it will combat variants of SARS-COV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

The vaccine, called spike ferritin nanoparticle, or SpFN, could also help fight other coronaviruses, a group of related RNA viruses that often cause respiratory-related diseases in mammals.

Army researchers have been tracking the threat posed by new coronaviruses even before the pandemic, according to Kayvon Modjarrad, director of emerging infectious diseases at Walter Reed. That threat has been accelerating in recent years.

"That's why we need a vaccine like this: one that has potential to protect broadly and proactively against multiple coronavirus species and strains," Modjarrad said in a statement announcing the SpFN testing.

Comment: Nano particles as an alternative doesn't really sound all that much better than mRNA tech. A bit on SpFN:
The vaccine, which is being developed for COVID-19, uses nanoparticles of an iron-containing protein called ferritin. Each of the ferritin nanoparticles has several of the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins attached to its surface. The spike protein is what the virus uses to enter cells, similar to a lock and key. The vaccines authorized to date employ various ways of introducing the virus's spike protein into the body so the immune system can recognize it and attack it if it encounters it again.

Prior to this focus, Kim's laboratory was working on a ferritin-based vaccine against the Ebola virus. In animal studies, nanoparticle vaccines of this design created a stronger immune response than injecting the animals with isolated viral proteins. This appears to be that the nanoparticle mimics whole viruses.

SOTT Logo Radio

Objective:Health - Kids and Covid Shots

O:H header
If there's one thing the elites seem to love to do, it's injecting kids with questionable biological material.

Take, for instance, the following: We know children do not transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children. Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. It is well-noted that asymptomatic cases are not the drivers of the pandemic; something particularly important in relation to children as they're generally asymptomatic.

In other words there are no data whatsoever that could be used to support the need for vaccination of children in this Covid-19 pandemic. Yet there are currently a number of trials in process for a number of covid shots where the subjects of the studies ARE CHILDREN. Why are we vaccinating children against Covid-19 when we know the vast majority don't catch it or spread it? Has anyone bothered to assess whether the risk of adverse reaction to the shot is worth the (possible) minuscule benefit?

Join us on this episode of Objective:Health for a rousing discussion about the pros and cons of injecting kids with experimental genetic material.

For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
♥Odysee: https://odysee.com/@objectivehealth:f

And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:


Running Time: 00:31:52

Download: MP3 — 29.2 MB