Results from two early-phase Russian non-randomised vaccine trials (Sputnik V) in a total of 76 people are published today in The Lancet, finding that two formulations of a two-part vaccine have a good safety profile with no serious adverse events detected over 42 days, and induce antibody responses in all participants within 21 days.

Secondary outcomes (planned outcome measures that are not as important as the primary outcome measure, but are still of interest in evaluating the effect of an intervention [1]) from the trial also suggest the vaccines also produce a T cell response within 28 days.

The new paper reports the findings from two small phase 1/2 trials lasting 42 days - one studying a frozen formulation of the vaccine, and another involving a lyophilised (freeze-dried) formulation of the vaccine. The frozen formulation is envisaged for large-scale use using existing global supply chains for vaccines, while the freeze-dried formulation was developed for hard-to-reach regions as it is more stable and can be stored at 2-8 degrees centigrade.

Since 1900, there's been a dramatic 74% decline in mortality rates in developed countries, largely due to a marked decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. How much of this decline was due to vaccines? The history and data provide clear answers that matter greatly in today's debate about vaccines as the race to find a vaccine for COVID-19 pushes us towards a vaccine that might be mandated for everyone.

Since 1900, the mortality rate in America and other first-world countries has declined by roughly 74%, creating a dramatic improvement in quality of life and life expectancy for Americans.

The simple question: "How did this happen?"

Why did the mortality rate decline so precipitously? If you listen to vaccine promoters, the answer is simple: vaccines saved us. What's crazy about this narrative is how easy it is to disprove, the data is hiding in plain sight. The fact that this easily-proven-false narrative persists, however, tells us a lot about the world we live in, and I hope will encourage parents to reconsider the veracity of many of the narratives they've been fed about vaccines, and do their own primary research.

1970, Dr. Edward H. Kass

Standing before his colleagues on October 19, 1970, Harvard's Dr. Edward H. Kass gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that would likely get him run out of this same profession today. At the time, Dr. Kass was actually the President of the organization, which made the things he had to say about vaccines and their impact on the reduction in American mortality rates even more shocking, at least by today's standards. Forty-eight years after Dr. Kass' speech, vaccines have taken on a mythological status in many corners of our world, hyped up by the people who benefit the most from their use. Of course vaccines saved the world. Of course every child should get every vaccine. If you don't vaccinate, you will enable the return of deadly childhood diseases. If you don't vaccinate, your child will die. If you question vaccines, even a little, you're an "anti-vaxxer" who should be shunned and dismissed!

But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn't even true?

After claims of double infections added to the prevailing anxiety around Covid-19, Russian scientists say it's not possible to be sick twice from the virus if you have no comorbidities, such as allergies, diabetes, and obesity.

As reported by business daily Kommersant, researchers at the private DNKOM laboratory examined 1,512 people from the Russian cities of Moscow, Ryazan, Kursk, and Nizhnevartovsk, and concluded that, after 74 days of observation, there is no chance of most people becoming sick again from Covid-19.

The study showed that a second infection could only affect patients with underlying issues, such as allergies, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and obesity. In addition, people who take significant doses of anti-inflammatory drugs may also be re-infected by Covid-19, as the medicines suppress immunoresistance.

When you visit your doctor, you might assume that the treatment they prescribe has solid evidence to back it up. But you'd be wrong. Only one in ten medical treatments are supported by high-quality evidence, our latest research shows.

The analysis, which is published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, included 154 Cochrane systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2019. Only 15 (9.9%) had high-quality evidence according to the gold-standard method for determining whether they provide high or low-quality evidence, called GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation). Among these, only two had statistically significant results - meaning that the results were unlikely to have arisen due to random error - and were believed by the review authors to be useful in clinical practice. Using the same system, 37% had moderate, 31% had low, and 22% had very low-quality evidence.

The GRADE system looks at things like risk of bias. For example, studies that are "blinded" - in which patients don't know whether they are getting the actual treatment or a placebo - offer higher-quality evidence than "unblinded" studies. Blinding is important because people who know what treatment they are getting can experience greater placebo effects than those who do not know what treatment they are getting.

You generally take more medications as you get older. The doctor prescribes a statin to lower cholesterol, a steroid spray for allergies, a proton pump inhibitor for reflux, and a painkiller for the knee that's still sore after that running injury a few years back. But too many medications, sometimes referred to as polypharmacy, can become a problem — the more medicines you take, the greater the chances one medication will have a negative interaction with another and cause a serious adverse effect.

At some point, you and your doctor may need to ask a fundamental question: Do you need all of these medications?

"It's always a little bit of detective work to figure out where the medications came from — who prescribed them and when," says Gregory Ouellet, MD, MHS, a geriatrician at Yale Medicine's Dorothy Adler Geriatric Assessment Center.

Adverse drug events, or unexpected medical problems that occur during treatment with a drug or other therapy, cause 1.3 million emergency department (ED) visits in the United States each year and about 350,000 hospitalizations, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

These medical events are most common among older people — those over 65 are nearly seven times more likely than younger people to be admitted to the hospital after an ED visit, and most of the time that visit is due to a negative drug interaction. "It only takes one unnecessary medication or a negative drug combination to cause a serious problem," says Karen Jubanyik, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

In many cases, you may not need all the medications you're taking, says Marcia Mecca, MD, a Yale geriatrician who directs a "de-prescribing" program at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven called IMPROVE (Initiative to Minimize Pharmaceutical Risk in Older Veterans Polypharmacy Clinic). The clinic's sole purpose is to eliminate unnecessary medications and help avoid emergency room visits for patients who are 65 or older, have multiple chronic conditions, and take 10 or more medicines a day.

"We look at people's medication lists carefully — especially if they have a new concern, are having trouble with their memory, or are at risk for falling," Dr. Mecca says. It's a process that involves listening to the patient and learning about what they want and expect from a given medication, she says.

Fresh cases of disease linked to oral vaccine seen in Sudan, following outbreak in Chad.

A new polio outbreak in Sudan has been linked to the oral polio vaccine that uses a weakened form of the virus.

News of the outbreak comes a week after the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that wild polio had been eradicated in Africa.

The WHO linked the cases to a strain of the virus that had been noted circulating in Chad last year and warned that the risk of spread to other parts of the Horn of Africa was high.

The release of previously repressed studies shows that if you substitute saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats, this INCREASES the risk of cardiovascular disease. My fellow doctors need to accept the evidence.

Whilst we are in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, it seems that all other diseases have been relegated to a position of complete irrelevance. Should this be happening? According to the British Heart Foundation, cardiovascular disease kills four hundred and sixty people each and every day in the UK. That's just shy of 170,000 every year.

Since the start of 2020, Covid-19 has killed 40,000 in the UK, and now kills about ten a day. On the other hand, heart attacks and strokes have killed 115,000, and continue to kill 460 people a day. Which one should we be really concerned about? Have a wild guess on that one.

Welcome to another Objective:Health 'In the News' show, where we go through the latest health-related headlines and give our take. This time we've focused on children's health in the news.

Good news for kids over the last few months sees Oaxaca Mexico banning sales of junk food to minors, the Russian government recommending the ban of Wi-Fi and cell phones in primary schools, and a study finding that having pet dogs helps nurture kids emotional-social development.

In other news, New Zealand's largest child study has finally caught up with Weston A. Price from almost a century ago , revealing white flour products and rice rot teeth (duh), e-books as opposed to real books change how parents interact with their kids at story hour and the FDA approves the first prescription video game for kids with ADHD.

Tune in for the Objective:Health perspective!


And check us out on Brighteon!

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

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.
Running Time: 00:57:09

Download: MP3 — 52.3 MB

At 79 years old, Dr. Anthony Fauci — who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 — has yet to come out with the "Big One" — a vaccine or infectious disease treatment that will allow him to retire with a victory under his belt.

He failed to create a successful vaccine for AIDS, SARS, MERS and Ebola. A COVID-19 vaccine is essentially his last chance to go out in a blaze of glory. As evidenced by his history, he will stop at nothing to protect Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine and Gilead's antiviral Remdesivir.

He even threw tried and true pandemic protocols out the window when COVID-19 hit, turning into an unquestioning spokesman for draconian liberty-stripping measures instead. To echo a question asked by Dr. Sal Martingano in his article,¹ "Dr. Fauci: 'Expert' or Co-Conspirator," why are we not questioning this so-called expert?

Should you get a PSA test to screen for prostate cancer? What are the advantages and disadvantages of screening? Do the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms? Those are the questions we will seek to answer in this article.

Prostate cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death in men. About one in 41 men die of the disease. This has led to efforts to find a way to screen for prostate cancer and discover it before it has a chance to spread in the body, when there is still a chance to cure.

The problem is that prostate cancer is common, and for most people who have it, it is something that never causes any symptoms, and certainly not the thing that's going to kill them. In medical school I was taught that the probability of having prostate cancer is about the same as the number of years you've lived. So, if you're 50 years old, there's a 50% chance that you have prostate cancer, and if you're 80 years old, there's an 80% chance. For most people, prostate cancer is a slow growing disease that never causes any problems. So, most people who have prostate cancer die with it, not from it.

PSA (prostate specific antigen) is an enzyme produced by the cells in the prostate. It was first discovered in the 1970's and its biological function is to make semen more liquid after deposition in the vagina, freeing sperm to move around. It is normally present in low levels in the blood, but can increase to abnormally high levels in prostate cancer, due to the large number of cancerous prostate cells that are dividing in an uncontrolled fashion. This led to the idea that PSA could be used as a method to screen for prostate cancer, hence the PSA test.