If you've been diagnosed "probable" or "presumed" 2009 H1N1 or "swine flu" in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn't have H1N1 flu.

In fact, you probably didn't have flu at all. That's according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.

The ramifications of this finding are important. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Britain's National Health Service, once you have H1N1 flu, you're immune from future outbreaks of the same virus. Those who think they've had H1N1 flu -- but haven't -- might mistakenly presume they're immune. As a result, they might skip taking a vaccine that could help them, and expose themselves to others with H1N1 flu under the mistaken belief they won't catch it. Parents might not keep sick children home from school, mistakenly believing they've already had H1N1 flu.

There are many compelling reasons to conclude that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is not nearly as deadly as is currently feared. But COVID-19 panic has set in nonetheless. You can't find hand sanitizer in stores, and N95 face masks are being sold online for exorbitant prices, never mind that neither is the best way to protect against the virus (yes, just wash your hands). The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2-3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people.

Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold. The true case fatality rate, known as CFR, of this virus is likely to be far lower than current reports suggest. Even some lower estimates, such as the 1 percent death rate recently mentioned by the directors of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likely substantially overstate the case.

We shouldn't be surprised that the numbers are inflated. In past epidemics, initial CFRs were floridly exaggerated. For example, in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic some early estimates were 10 times greater than the eventual CFR, of 1.28 percent. Epidemiologists think and quibble in terms of numerators and denominators — which patients were included when fractional estimates were calculated, which weren't, were those decisions valid — and the results change a lot as a result. We are already seeing this. In the early days of the crisis in Wuhan, China, the CFR was more than 4 percent. As the virus spread to other parts of Hubei, the number fell to 2 percent. As it spread through China, the reported CFR dropped further, to 0.2 to 0.4 percent. As testing begins to include more asymptomatic and mild cases, more realistic numbers are starting to surface. New reports from the World Health Organization that estimate the global death rate of COVID-19 to be 3.4 percent, higher than previously believed, is not cause for further panic. This number is subject to the same usual forces that we would normally expect to inaccurately embellish death rate statistics early in an epidemic. If anything, it underscores just how early we are in this.

The Gardasil vaccine was first approved for the prevention of the human papillomavirus (HPV) in June 2006. It was eventually added to the childhood immunization schedule and recommended to all girls between the ages of 11 and 12. But since then, there have been reports linking Gardasil to autoimmune illnesses.

In order to see if there was an association, scientists used an epidemiological assessment of the vaccine adverse event reporting system database (VAERS) looking for adverse events with Gardasil from 2006 to 2014.

They found a 4.6-fold increase risk of serious autoimmune adverse events outcomes of gastroenteritis, a 7.6- fold increase lupus, 5.6-fold increase in rheumatoid arthritis, 1.6-fold increase in central nervous system demyelinating conditions like multiple sclerosis, 15-fold increase in ovarian damage, and a 10-fold increase of irritable bowel syndrome in women and girls who were given the Gardasil vaccine.

While many tend to think about strength training as a form of vanity — developing a six-pack and a bulging "muscle-man" look and whatnot — building and maintaining muscle is actually a lifesaving strategy, and an imperative for a long and healthy life.

Anytime you're sick or hospitalized, having reserve muscle mass will improve your chances of survival,¹ and as I'll discuss below, you can lose significant amounts of muscle in a single week of bedrest.

Muscle is lost far more easily and quicker than it's built, so finding ways to continuously promote and maintain your muscle mass is really crucial, especially as you get older.

We can all agree that 50 tons of vitamin C pretty much qualifies as a megadose. We can also likely agree that trucking 50 tons of vitamin C, straight into Wuhan, full in the face of the COVID-19 epidemic, qualifies as news.

The news media are not reporting this, or any other, significantly positive megavitamin news.

Loving the photo, but needing authentication, I consulted my physician correspondent in China, Richard Cheng, MD. He confirmed it, saying: "This was reported in the Chinese media about 2 weeks ago." Another translator has also independently verified the accuracy of the translation.

DSM, by the way, simply stands for Dutch State Mines, the Netherlands-based parent of DSM Jiangshan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The Chinese division has been recognized as a "China Enterprise with Outstanding Contribution to Social Responsibility." https://www.dsm.com/countrysites/locations/jiangshan/en_us/home.html There is another DSM factory in Scotland, which also manufactures vitamin C.

Following a two-day, DC-based workshop entitled "Saturated Fats: A Food or Nutrient Approach?" a group of leading nutrition scientists, mainly from the U.S., released a consensus statement detailing their findings on the latest research regarding the intake of saturated-fats and heart disease. After reviewing the evidence, the expert group agreed that the most rigorous and current science fails to support a continuation of the government's policy limiting consumption of saturated fats.

Members of workshop, who met Feb 10-11, included three former members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), from 1995 and 2015, as well as the chair of the 2005 DGAC. The DGAC is an expert group, appointed every five years to review the science for the government's nutrition policy, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), and make recommendations to the two agencies that jointly issue those guidelines, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Members of the group wrote a consensus statement on saturated fats and also sent a letter regarding their findings to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS. The letter stated, "There is no strong scientific evidence that the current population-wide upper limits on commonly consumed saturated fats in the U.S. will prevent cardiovascular disease or reduce mortality. A continued limit on these fats is therefore not justified."

Chemical pesticides have become a mainstay of modern agriculture, despite red flags that they're slowly destroying ecosystems. (Technically, pesticides are designed to kill insects, while herbicides are used to kill weeds or substances like bacteria or fungi, but when discussing them, the U.S. EPA lumps them all together as "pesticides."¹)

Part of what makes assessing the health and environmental risks of pesticides so difficult is that many of the risks remain unknown, and those that are known can be difficult to quantify, no matter what they're called.

So, researchers like Robert Brucker, who heads up a lab in the Microbial Sciences Initiative at the Rowland Institute of Harvard, are invaluable. Brucker and colleagues are looking into the hidden risks of pesticides — silent, insidious changes that are occurring before our eyes yet often under the radar, such that standardized risk assessments do not consider them, but should.

There's little scientific evidence behind recommendations by US health organizations that kids should stop eating full-fat dairy after the age of two, according a new analysis of 29 peer-reviewed studies on the role of dairy and childhood obesity.

"Taken as a whole, the limited literature in this field is not consistent with dietary guidelines recommending children consume preferably reduced-fat dairy products," said lead author Therese O'Sullivan, a clinical dietitian at Edith Cowan University in Australia.

Current guidelines (PDF) from the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other major US organizations only recommend whole milk and dairy for children aged 12 to 24 months. Australia (PDF) and the UK have similar guidelines.

Red meat has gotten the blame for almost every health condition currently afflicting modern society. Red meat raises your cholesterol and clogs your arteries. Red meat causes cancer. Red meat makes you more susceptible to the coronavirus. But when nutritional psychologist Georgia Ede recently read the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and came across a statement that red meat causes depression, with 19 studies sited to back up the claim, she decided to dig in to the research and see what this was all about.

On this episode of Objective:Health we talk about Ede's recently posted talk at CrossFit about the propaganda campaign against meat and look specifically at the claim that eating red meat will cause depression. Is it possible that a food we've eaten since the foundation of our race has been making us depressed for all this time? Does this claim actually have any scientific merit? What's the real deal with meat - is eating steak going to make you depressed?


And check us out on Brighteon!


See Georgia Ede's full talk here - https://youtu.be/WbNDrcoRi8g

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: 00:30:11

Download: MP3 — 27.6 MB

Intravenous vitamin C is already being employed in China against COVID-19 coronavirus. I am receiving regular updates because I am part of the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board to the International Intravenous Vitamin C China Epidemic Medical Support Team. Its director is Richard Z. Cheng, MD, PhD; associate director is Hong Zhang, PhD. Among other team members are Qi Chen, PhD (Associate Professor, Kansas University Medical School); Jeanne Drisko, MD (Professor, University of Kansas Medical School); Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD; and Atsuo Yanagisawa, MD, PhD. (Professor, Kyorin University, Tokyo).

Direct report from China

OMNS Chinese edition editor Dr. Richard Cheng is reporting from China about the first approved study of 12,000 to 24,000 mg/day of vitamin C by IV. The doctor also specifically calls for immediate use of vitamin C for prevention of coronavirus (COVID-19). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC0SO9KDG7U

A second clinical trial of intravenous vitamin C was announced in China on Feb. 13th. In this second study, says Dr. Cheng, "They plan to give 6,000 mg/day and 12,000 mg/day per day for moderate and severe cases. We are also communicating with other hospitals about starting more intravenous vitamin C clinical studies. We would like to see oral vitamin C included in these studies, as the oral forms can be applied to more patients and at home."

And on Feb 21, 2020, announcement has been made of a third research trial now approved for intravenous vitamin C for COVID-19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMDX0RSDp1k&feature=youtu.be