Monthly Archives: August 2022

The word orthomolecular means molecular balance and its purpose is to correct imbalances in cells. It is based on the biochemical study of each patient, to find out the causes of diseases, it is biochemistry that is applied in clinical medicine. Undoubtedly, it is the preventive medicine of the future, especially for heart attacks, strokes, osteoarthritis, memory loss or diabetes, a different way to conceive medicine, restore the bodys chemical balance, right at the right time. Giving molecules, therefore no adverse effects have been recorded in their treatment. Prioritize nutrition as treatment. Orthomolecular medicine is considered a complement to traditional medicine and vice versa. I dont think this adjective deserves alternative medicine because its not a substitute, but a requirement that we need, first of all, to repair our biology, our body, and above all to provide it with the nutrients it needs. have taken. Then, when an organism is late or continues to change a lot, whether due to injuries, poisoning or trauma, traditional medicine will come to cure it with drugs, to help with the acute, whether it is antibiotics. Be it with, anti-inflammatory, or analgesic But drugs are always foreign to our nature, so they are accompanied by adverse effects. Orthomolecular drug treatments are based on vitamins, minerals, amino acids (protein building blocks), essential fatty acids, and enzymes. Diagnosis is based on each patients individual biochemistry, considering the elements that poison us today due to environmental pollution, water and soil contamination, radiation, nutritional deficiencies and psycho-physical stress. The aim is to reach the cause of the disease and not just reduce its symptoms. Preventive and curative, when the pathology progresses silently, orthomolecular medicine comes first, capable of using micronutrients to repair the altered biochemistry. By combating pre-existing disease, the engine can be restarted, knowing how to prevent future diseases and maintain quality of life.Orthomolecular medicine is characterized by healing using only the bodys own elements, in contrast to traditional medicine which uses drugs foreign to the body, through patches for each symptom: if pain occurs, a analgesics; an anti-inflammatory if there is inflammation; And if there is depression then an antidepressantthe anti-everything prescription we can depend on and accumulate its adverse effects.Traditional medicine is very effective for acute pathologies, such as appendicitis, pneumonia, a heart attack that has already occurred, or a stroke. Orthomolecular medicine, on the other hand, is effective in preventing chronic diseases such as osteoarthritis or atherosclerosis and prevents them before a heart attack or stroke occurs.This specialty, which has evolved and provides preventive and therapeutic measures for many diseases, has been in existence for more than 40 years. With an aim to spread and share knowledge, I inaugurated the first Ibero-American School of Orthomolecular Medicine (EIMO) in the country, which provides comprehensive training through online courses.

Dr. Maria Alejandra Rodriguez ZiaClinical Physician and Endocrinologist,

Specialist in Orthomolecular Medicine (MN 70.787)

Read the original:

Orthomolecular Medicine, A Predictive Tool - Nation World News

It has been a while since Ive written about this particular topic, which is why I think it a good time to revisit it, particularly given that over the last month there seems to have been a large uptick in antivaccine rhetoric centered around portraying COVID-19 vaccines as a new Holocaust and the concomitant desire for Nuremberg-style trialscomplete with hashtags on Twitter like #Nuremberg2, #NurembergTribunal, the ominous-sounding #Nuremberg2TickTock, and related hashtags targeting Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and other perceived enemiesfor public health officials, with punishment meted out afterwards for their crimes. Ihn these calls for Nuremberg 2.0, the proposed punishment can range from imprisonment (lock them up!) to truly bloodthirsty calls for the gallows. While I have written about this particular narrative far more extensively at my not-so-super-secret other blog, I have mostly only alluded to it here; so I thought it would be useful to discuss how the Nuremberg Code and Holocaust have been misused by antivaxxers for a long time. What we are seeing is nothing in terms of content. What is new is the volume and broad reach of the narrative. Basically, calls for retribution disguised as justice against public health and vaccine advocates have reached places that I never would have predicted before when I first started writing about them over a decade ago.

First, however, lets provide a taste of what I mean from antivax websites and social media. I will list quite a few examples, just to give readers an idea of what Im talking about. First, attorney and longtime antivaccine advocate Mary Holland published an article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.s website entitled Those Who Violated Nuremberg Code Must Be Prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity, which was the inspiration (if you will) for me to write this post, which is a transcript of her speech given for a conference entitled 75 Years of the Nuremberg Code Never Again Forced Medical Procedures, a public conference held on August 20 in Nuremberg to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code. Unsurprisingly, it was hosted by Action Alliance, which appears to be a a group of German antivaccine activists. Her speech was amplified by Mike Adams on Natural News, and one of the highlights that you might have seen being shared was a speech by a Holocaust survivor named Vera Sherav, in which she likened the COVID-19 response to the Final Solution and deemed it the New Eugenics in which this time instead of Zyklon B gas, the weapons of mass destruction are genetically engineered injectable bioweapons masquerading as vaccines. Meanwhile, antivaxxers are promoting narratives that COVID-19 vaccines are killing millions of people, an example being Steve Kirsch (whom Ive written about before here) claiming that as many as 12 million have been killed by them worldwide, and that they are killing people worldwide at a rate at least 6X faster than the Germans did.. (I kid you not; if you dont believe me, click on the link.) Unsurprisingly, Mike Adams is amplifying this claim as well, with headlines like 10,000 people A DAY being killed by covid vaccines; worldwide fatalities likely larger than the HOLOCAUST and The mass culling of the HUMAN HERD is now under way heres exactly how its being accomplished to achieve mass extermination.

Feel free to scroll past if you are one of those readers who so objects to embedded Tweets.

In particular, this narrative has resurfaced since COVID-19 vaccines were approved for children:

It is, of course, not limited to that at all:

Ill discuss these principles in a moment, in particular how they do not apply to COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine mandates. In the meantime, here are a few more examples:

Such calls are not limited to just vaccine advocates. Unfortunately, COVID-19 conspiracy theorists of all stripes have taken up the call, including those who think that COVID-19 originated in a lab leak. This particular example also shows how the narrative of a Nuremberg 2.0 has reached beyond the antivaccine fringe and been taken up by a number of politicians:

Anecdotally, more and more vaccine advocates, myself included, are reporting to me that they are being targeted with threats, and here are some receipts:

And my favorite, here are threats that everything I Tweet is being saved to use as evidence against me:

I note that, even though I now have over 72K followers on Twitter, the threats and abuse that I receive are nothing compared to what a number of other vaccine advocates receive, particularly as a result of the Nuremberg 2 narrative. So lets compare what the antivax narrative about the Nuremberg Code, which was promulgated as a result of the Nuremberg Medical Trials in 1947, with reality and discuss why antivaxxers have long abused them, to the point where I once coined the term Nuremberg Code gambit, much as I coined the term pharma shill gambit, to describe a common false narrative by antivaxxers and medical science deniers. If you understand what the Nuremberg Code actually says, its role in the history of bioethics and evolving protections for human subjects in medical research, and how it has now been largely supplanted by the Helsinki Declaration, you will be better equipped to understand why the antivax narrative is so harmful.

Vera Sharav and Mary Holland appearing at an antivaccine, anti-public health event disguised as a 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code.

If you look at the lineup of the event commemorating the 75th anniversary of the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, youll probably recognize a few names other than Mary Holland. For example, Tess Lawrie, one of the foremost promoters of ivermectin as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19, was a prominent figure at the event, as was Rolf Kron, an rel=nofollowantivax homeopath (but I repeat myself) from a COVID-19 resistance group called Doctors Stand Up. There were also groups of Holocaust survivors included, which was particularly distressing to me given my history of combatting Holocaust denial online dating back to the 1990s. I didnt watch the entire event, which is archived at RFK Jr.s website, but I watched enough and read enough transcripts to get the gist of the overall theme, which was, predictably, that COVID-19 public health responses, particularly the experimental vaccines, violate the Nuremberg Code.

I note with some amusement how Mary Holland includes in her talk an expression of disappointment that representatives from the governments of the Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia) declined to take part:

I am especially honored to be here because the authors of the Nuremberg Code were doctors and lawyers from the United States who sought to prevent future horrors. And they built on medical and legal ethics established here in Germany before the Nazi regime.

I deeply wish that U.S., British, Russian and German government representatives were here to stand with us, as well as representatives of the global mainstream media.

It is a sad commentary that they are absent.

I wonder why these nations didnt send representatives. Could it be that they recognized this farce for what it was?

Lets see what Hollands narrative is, though. Its pretty predictable if you know anything about the antivaccine movement:

Tragically, in the last two-and-a-half years, we have witnessed a global assault on the Nuremberg Code.

Governments, medical establishments, universities and the media have violated the very first principle and every other principle of the codes 10 points.

They have coerced people into being human guinea pigs.

They have forced people on penalty of their livelihoods, their identities, their health, their friendships and even their family relationships to take inadequately tested, experimental, gene-altering injections as well as experimental tests and medical devices.

Those who have intentionally, knowingly and maliciously violated the principles of the Nuremberg Code must be punished.

They must be called out, prosecuted and punished for crimes against humanity. This is one of our key tasks.

We must stop this. And we must ensure this does not happen again.

See the narrative? Vaccine advocates have committed crimes against humanity in supporting vaccination against COVID-19 and vaccine mandates for certain jobs and activities. You can watch the whole thing at RFK Jr.s website, but theres no real need given that a complete transcript was published.

Throughout the rest of the talk, Holland portrayed the vaccines as experimental and deadly, stating at one point, In the U.S. and here in Europe, no vaccine has ever remotely compared to these injections the risk and death profile of these injections is unprecedented. They are not experimental, and, contrary to the claims of mass death due to vaccines, they are not deadly; indeed, they are amazingly safe.

As Ive said many times before, even when they were authorized under emergency use authorization (EUA) in the US, they had still undergone large phase 3 randomized clinical trials involving tens of thousands of subjects demonstrating safety and efficacy. Any pharmaceutical or vaccine that has cleared such a hurdle is, scientifically speaking, not experimental anymore. The term investigational is a legal term specific to the FDA and its mandate; all it means is that the drug or vaccine has not yet gone through the entire regulatory process in order to achieve full FDA approval. The mechanism of an EUA was designed to allow the FDA to act faster in the case of an urgent situation. If a global pandemic killing (then) hundreds of thousands of people didnt qualify, I dont know what does. Oddly enough, even after the mRNA-based vaccines achieved full FDA approval, antivaxxers continued to portray them as experimental.

Moving on, Ive been meaning to write about Vera Sharav for a long time. Indeed, she warrants her own post, and what I write about her here will be far briefer than is warranted. Before I go into her background as a Holocaust survivor and founder of a group ostensibly devoted to patient rights, informed consent, and, above all, the protection of human research subjects in medical research, lets take a look at a bit of what she said in her speech, which can be viewed in its entirety, again, on RFK Jr.s website, although the antivaccine blog Age of Autism helpfully provided a transcript.

To start out her speech, Sharav recounted her history:

In 1941, I was 312 when my family was forced from our home in Romania & deported to Ukraine.

We were herded into a concentration camp essentially left to starve. Death was ever-present. My father died of typhus when I was five.

In 1944, as the Final Solution was being aggressively implemented, Romania retreated from its alliance with Nazi Germany. The government permitted several hundred Jewish orphans under the age of 12 to return to Romania. I was not an orphan; my mother lied to save my life.

I boarded a cattle car train the same train that continued to transport Jews to the death camps even as Germany was losing the war.

Four years elapsed before I was reunited with my mother.

Sharav (born Vera Roll) had fallen victim to a move by the fascist government that ruled Romania and was allied with Hitler at the time, in which some 145,000 Romanian and Hungarian Jews to an area known as Transnistria along the Ukraine border, which became one of the most notorious killing fields of the war, with as many as 250,000 Jews were killed or allowed to die of disease and starvation. The Rolls were sent to a town called Mogilev, which had been turned into a concentration camp by the Romanians and Nazis. Her father died there of typhus within weeks of their arrival there.

In her speech, Sharav made an explicit parallel between the Final Solution and COVID-19 and more or less correctly blamed eugenics for the Holocaust. I say more or less because there was more to it than just eugenics, the belief that Jews were subhuman, and that German Aryans were the master race. He also believed that the Jews were working to destroy Germany and had decided that he had to destroy them before they could destroy Germany. In any event, she was correct that the Holocaust didnt happen all at once, observing that it did not begin in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka, had been preceded by nine years of incremental restrictions on personal freedom, and the suspension of legal rights and civil rights, and that the stage had been set by fear-mongering and hate-mongering propaganda. While this description was correct, unfortunately Sharav then pivoted to liken the current climate to the escalating restrictions and persecutions of the Jews during the Holocaust:

By declaring a state of emergencyin 1933 and in 2020, constitutionally protected personal freedom, legal rights, and civil rights were swept aside. Repressive, discriminatory decrees followed. In 1933, the primary target for discrimination were Jews; today, the target is people who refuse to be injected with experimental, genetically engineered vaccines. Then and now, government dictates were crafted to eliminate segments of the population. In 2020, government dictates forbade hospitals from treating the elderly in nursing homes. The result was mass murder. Government decrees continue to forbid doctors to prescribe life-saving, FDA approved medicines; government-dictated protocols continue to kill.

The media is silent as it was then. The media broadcasts a single, government-dictated narrative just as it had under the Nazis. Strict censorship silences opposing views.In Nazi Germany few individuals objected; those who did were imprisoned in concentration camps. Today, doctors & scientists who challenge the approved narrative are maligned; their reputations trashed. They risk losing their license to practice as well as having their homes and workplace raided by SWAT teams.

What Sharav meant when she mentioned FDA-approved medicines was clearly the repurposed and unproven drugs hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, neither of which are actually effective in treating COVID-19. As for the rest, you can see the same narrative that many antivaxxers have promoted that likens pandemic restrictions to another Holocaust at worst or, at minimum, to incipient fascism. I do have to wonder: Who are these physicians arguing against COVID-19 vaccines and for alternative treatments like ivermectin who have had their homes and workplace raided by SWAT teams? I like to think that Im up on all the latest COVID-19 news, particularly about contrarian doctors, and I dont recall ever having encountered a news story in which any of these doctors had their home or office raided by a SWAT team. Is she referring to Dr. Simone Gold, who was sentenced to 60 days in prison for trespassing in the US Capitol Building during the January 6 insurrection? Help me out here.

Of course, Sharav concluded her speech by bringing it back to the Nuremberg Code, warning:

Those who declare that Holocaust analogies are off limitsare betraying the victims of the Holocaust by denying the relevance of the Holocaust.

The Nuremberg Code has served as the foundation for ethical clinical research since its publication 75 years ago.

The Covid pandemic is being exploited as an opportunity to overturn the moral and legal parameters laid down by the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code is our defense against abusive experimentation.

While it is not incorrect to state that the Nuremberg Code is important as a foundation for ethical human subjects research and that it is a defense against abusive experimentation, it is not complete to say that either, as I will discuss in the next section. In the meantime, Ill simply quote from near the end of Sharavs speech:

Transhumanists despise human values, & deny the existence of a human soul. Harari declares that there are too many useless people. The Nazi term was worthless eaters

This is the New Eugenics.

It is embraced by the most powerful global billionaire technocrats who gather at Davos: Big Tech, Big Pharma, the financial oligarchs, academics, government leaders & the military industrial complex. These megalomaniacs have paved the road to another Holocaust.

This time, the threat of genocide is Global in scale.

This time instead of Zyklon B gas, the weapons of mass destruction are genetically engineered injectable bioweapons masquerading as vaccines.

This time, there will be no rescuers. Unless All of Us Resist, Never Again is Now.

Thats right. Vera Sharav directly compared COVID-19 vaccines to the Zyklon-B gas that Nazis used as one of their main tools of mass extermination of the Jews. She also repeated an old antivaccine claim, namely the portrayal of vaccines as a form of transhumanism.

I started this section by mentioning that I had long been meaning to write about Vera Sharav. The reason is that she had aligned herself with antivaxxers years before the pandemic. For example, in this STAT News story from 2016, she expressed her belief that Andrew Wakefield had been railroaded:

But her distrust of the drug industry and medical research institutions has also led her to embrace some dubious heroes, including discredited British physician Andrew Wakefield, who falsified data to imply a link between vaccines and autism.

Wakefields medical license was revoked for a series of ethics violations, and most in the mainstream medical community blame him for raising unjustified doubts about the safety of vaccines. Yet Sharav puts him on her honor roll of exemplary professionals, along with Florence Nightingale.

My research and my gut tell me that Wakefield has been wronged, she said. One thing Ive learned from early in my life is that if I dont stay true to my gut feeling, then Im lost. I dont have any control.

That same news story also described her better history, how she had been a force for protecting human subjects in medical experiments, founding the Alliance for Human Research Protection after the death of her son, who had suffered from schizophrenia, from neuroleptic malignant syndrome, an uncommon but frequently deadly side effect of antipsychotic drugs that causes muscle rigidity and fever and can ultimately lead to organ failure and death. Ive perused that the AHRP webside before, but lets take a look at one of the two articles that greet visitors to its homepage:

That illustration by David Dees on the right is a classic antivax conspiracy image that Ive seen on quack websites going back at least a decade, if not longer.

Lets just put it this way. If you use an image by David Dees to illustrate your article, you have gone far down the antivaccine road. Worse, the image is blatantly antisemitic. Notice how the vaccine enforcement officer has a badge of the Star of David with the word Zion in it. As for the article itself, its a typical antivaccine-style screed in which adverse events recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database are represented as definitely having been caused by vaccines when, in fact, anyone who understands VAERS knows that you cant do that. Seriously, both articles are nothing but standard antivax propaganda, and not even antivax propaganda chock full of conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines that could plausibly be portrayed as human subjects protection. The same is true of the other article, in which vaccination is described in typical antivax language as a medical assault. Throughout the website, vaccines are frequently referred to as child sacrifice in articles dating back more than a decade. This pivot is not a pivot, and the antivax lean of AHRP is not new, nor is her demonization of COVID-19 vaccines new. She was doing it in 2020, an example of which comes from an interview from October 2020, as COVID-19 vaccines were making their way through the regulatory process. In the interview, entitled Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav, Sharav characterized the push for a vaccine as being all about the profit, saying at one point:

You dont read about it in the media because the media is very much part of the business empire thats ruling that.

Vaccines are an empire, and now they really want to do a vaccine globally.

Do you know what kind of a market that is? More than 7 billion people for a vaccine. Can you even count the kind of profits, no matter what they charge for it?

Thats what their goal is. Thats the whole allure of this COVID 19 vaccine. Its that market.

You get the idea. What Vera Sharav was saying nearly two years ago was indistinguishable from the rhetoric I was seeing on hard core antivaccine sites, such as Natural News and, yes, RFK Jr.s website, where the interview was published. Her antivax rhetoric remains indistinguishable from that of RFK Jr., Mike Adams, Del Bigtree, Andrew Wakefield, and basically all the major antivax thought leaders (if you can call it thought). Whatever her achievements in raising awareness of shoddy human subjects research practices, the dangers of certain pharmaceuticals, the frequency of nontherapeutic research, and the increasingly cozy relationship between medical academia and big pharma, Vera Sharav has clearly followed others down the road from skepticism of psychiatric drugs to extreme distrust of pharma to outright antivax.

But what about the Nuremberg Code?

Nazi doctors facing justice in Nuremberg in 1947,

With the just completed discussion in mind, lets circle back again to the Nuremberg Code, a set of principles for human subjects research that published in 1947 as part of USA vs. Brandt et al (also often called the Doctors Trial) as one result of the Nuremberg Trials. The trial involved doctors who had been involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder disguised as euthanasia. Of the 23 defendants, seven were acquitted, while seven were sentenced to death. The rest received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.

There are ten points to the code, which was published in the section of the verdict entitled Permissible medical experiments:

It is true that the Nuremberg Code remains one of the foundations of medical ethics governing human subjects research. It is, however, old and has been largely supplanted, for all practical purposes, by newer statements of human research ethics. While it is certainly true that these newer statements (which Ill discuss in a moment) echo many of the points of the Nuremberg Code, its also true they go beyond them.

Before I do that, though, heres the key deficiency in the arguments that antivaxxers have been using that invoke the Nuremberg Code is actually quite simple, as I once wrote over a year ago on Twitter:

To reiterate, the Nuremberg Code only applies to human experimentation. Notice how each of the ten points of the Nuremberg Code mentions the experiment or experimental treatments. The Code is not about medical treatment, only medical experimentation involving human subjects. I dont know how it can be made much simpler than that. Of course, the desire to appeal to the Nuremberg Code is why antivaxxers try so desperately to misrepresent COVID-19 vaccines as being experimental. Its also why I like to retort that no one was forced, co-erced, or otherwise mandated to sign up to be a subject in any of the clinical trials of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines (or any of the other currently approved vaccines) that led to their authorization under an EUA and ultimately to their full FDA approval. Again, vaccines that have passed phase 3 clinical trials and been shown to be safe and effective are not, from a scientific viewpoint, experimental anymore. They might still be considered investigation from a legal standpoint because all that means is that they havent gone through the full FDA process yet, but thats it. Even while they were still being distributed under an EUA and before they were granted full FDA approval, From a scientific and medical standpoint COVID-19 vaccines being used ahave been legitimate medical preventative treatments, even when they did not yet have full FDA approval.

The second part of the Nuremberg Code gambit most commonly used is the deceptive appeal to informed consent. Of course, as I like to point out, while antivaxxers like to think they are really advocating for informed consent (and probably actually do think that), in practice, what they are advocating for is something that I like to refer to as misinformed refusal. (I used to call it misinformed consent before I realized that this term didnt quite catch the essence of what antivaxxers do.) Its an antivaccine trope that Ive been dealing with at least 17 years, if not longer.

Heres the idea. Antivaxxers vastly exaggerate the risks of vaccines and even attribute nonexistent risks to them (e.g., autism, autoimmune disease, sudden infant death syndrome) that are not at all supported by science. At the same time, they deny or downplay the benefits of vaccines, portraying them as largely ineffective and claiming that natural immunity from the disease is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Thus, if parents listen to the antivaccine narrative about the risk-benefit profile of vaccines, they will believe that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. They might even believe that vaccines are not only ineffective, but dangerous, deadly even. Thats where my term misinformed refusal comes in. Its the refusal of vaccines based on misinformation that portrays a falsely unfavorable (and even terrifying) risk-benefit ratio.

The Nuremberg Code, as important as it has been in the history and development of human subjects protections during medical research, has largely been supplanted by the Belmont Report (published in 1976) and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Belmont Report, for instance, goes beyond the Nuremberg Code by delineating the boundaries between medical practice and research. It also rests on basic ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, while emphasizing the importance of voluntariness (as the Nuremberg Code), a detailed discussion of benefits and risks (informed consent), and the selection of subjects. The Declaration of Helsinki, last updated in 2013, is similar, but goes into much more detail about informed consent. It also addresses the ethics of the use of placebos, post-trial provisions, and the dissemination of results. It even addresses the use of unproven interventions in clinical practice outside of clinical trials.

Finally, in the US, the federal regulations governing human subjects research are enshrined under the Common Rule, which was originally instituted in 1981 and was last significantly revised in 2018. Basically, the Common Rule is the operationalization of the principles of the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki into regulations governing human subjects research carried out by the federal government, institutions that receive federal funding, and pharmaceutical and device companies seeking FDA approval for their products. It requires Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and oversight of human subjects research, among other requirements for ethical human research and lays out the requirements for informed consent, as well as for research compliance by institutions. In effect, the Common Rule lays out the standard of ethics that govern not just human subjects research funded by the federal government or subject to FDA regulation for FDA approval, but in essence nearly all human subjects research. Almost all US academic institutions require their researchers to adhere to the Common Rule regardless of funding sources.

So why do antivaxxers always mention the Nuremberg Code and almost never the Belmont Report, Declaration of Helsinki, or the Common Rule when claiming that vaccine mandates somehow violate human subjects research protections and/or informed consent??] The reason is simple. Neither the Belmont Report, the Declaration of Helsinki, nor the Common Rule were written or promulgated in response to Nazi war crimes. The Nuremberg Code, on the other hand, was written as part of the verdict of the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg as a first attempt to codify what principles that should govern ethical human subjects research.

In other words, the simple reason that antivaxxers point to informed consent for (or, as I like to call it, misinformed refusal of) vaccines along with the Nuremberg Code is because its a Godwin. It not-so-subtly compares physicians, public health officials, and vaccine advocates to Nazis. Thats the one and only purpose of the Nuremberg gambit. If it werent, in order to try to portray vaccines as experimental or unproven, antivaxxers would instead refer to the Helsinki Declaration, which is the most recent and most applicable set of ethical principals governing human subjects research. They dont. That should tell you all you need to know about the Nuremberg gambit other than that COVID-19 vaccine mandates do not violate the Nuremberg Code anyway.

Unfortunately, the Nuremberg Code gambit is a Godwin that has permeated not just hard core antivaccine messaging. Indeed, its spread to pretty much every corner of COVID-19 contrarianism, minimization, and resistance to any sort of pandemic-related mandate, be it lockdowns, vaccines, or masks. Ill start by invoking a Tweet that has been cited on this blog before, mainly by Jonathan Howard:

Its interesting to note that Jeffery Tucker of the Brownstone Institute could have chosen pretty much any other image for his article, but he chose that of a guillotine, the symbol of the Reign of Terror, a series of executions and massacres after the French Revolution, with the guillotine being the favored method of individual executions. In the article, shared by Martin Kulldorff, one of the three writers of the Great Barrington Declaration, that propaganda piece of anti-Lockdown hysteria that basically advocated letting COVID-19 rip through the young and healthy population, the better to achieve natural herd immunity as fast as possible, while somehowits never really specified howusing focused protection to keep the elderly and those with chronic health conditions at high risk for serious disease and death due to COVID-19.

The first time that I first saw this image, I couldnt help but ask: If Tucker wasnt calling for executions, why did he and the Brownstone Institute choose a very menacing image of a guillotine? They could have chosen literally any other image, but they didnt. They chose a view of a guillotine that emphasizes the blade ready to fall, a very ominous and threatening image. (It very much looks like the view of a guillotine that someone near the front of the crowd baying for blood during the Reign of Terror might have hador the view that someone walking up the steps to be executed might have had.) If Tucker and the Brownstone Institute were really interested in portraying justice, instead of retribution, wouldnt an image of a courtroom or a juryor of virtually anything other than a guillotinehave been more appropriate? Did Dr. Kulldorff not even see the not-so-subtle message that such an image paired with an article like Tuckers broadcasts? As an aside, Ill also ask this question: Does anyone know who else used the guillotine as a method of execution besides le tribunal rvolutionnaire during the Reign of Terror? The Nazi regime in Germany! No, seriously, look it up if you dont believe me. Members of the White Rose resistance, for example, were executed by guillotine after show trials.

Reign of Terror or Nuremberg 2? Does it matter? The idea is vengeance against enemies of antivaxxers disguised as justice. This fantasy of retribution is not new, either, as I pointed out, referencing a 2017 post by an antivaxxer named Kent Heckenlively:

Note the same sort of imagery from a man who has in the past demanded the complete surrender of vaccine advocates, promising themmaybemercy if they recant and confess their crimes. These crimes? Given that at the time the predominant misinformation believed by antivaxxers was that vaccines cause autism, the crimes were advocating policies that make children autistic.

As I often say (admittedly sometimes ad nauseam) in the age of the pandemic, everything old is new again, and the same thing applies to the Nuremberg Code gambit. The difference is not the antivax fantasy of retribution against their perceived enemies, but rather that the language and rhetoric that was, until relatively recently, only associated with the hardest of hardcore antivaxxers, has started to wend its way into the mainstream, with right wing pundits like Tucker Carlson taking up the narrative, likening COVID-19 vaccine mandates to the cruel and grossly unethical that Nazis and Japanese carried out using prisoners during World War II, while mangling what Nuremberg is about by describing such mandates as forced treatment rather than abuse of human experimentation. Misunderstanding aside, this gave his interviewee, Robert inventor of mRNA vaccines Malone, the opportunity to thank Carlson for bringing up the Nuremberg Code:

Perhaps the most frightening thing about the pandemic is how antivaccine narratives once viewed as fringe even my most antivaxxers, the province of only the hardest of the hardcore, are now being amplified by mainstream pundits with millions of viewers and used by think tanks like the Brownstone Institute to stoke fear of vaccines and potential violence against vaccine advocates. Thats always been the purpose of the Nuremberg Code gambit. Unfortunately, today the chance of the Nuremberg Code gambit resulting in actual violence is higher than its ever been.

View original post here:

COVID-19 vaccines and the Nuremberg Code - Science Based Medicine

Media Contacts Julie Kiefer

Associate Director, Science Communications, University of Utah HealthEmail: julie.kiefer@hsc.utah.eduPhone: 801-587-1293

Aug 23, 2022 10:00 AM

Millions of people worldwide live with multiple sclerosis (MS), a disease in which the immune system attacks cells in the central nervous system (CNS). MS causes unpredictable symptoms that can include tremors, weakness, vision problems, and fatigue.

Treatments for MS aim to protect neurons by reining in the immune system. This slows progression of the disease, but it also leaves patients more vulnerable to infection.

Now, a discovery from scientists at University of Utah Health suggests an alternative therapeutic strategy: restabilizing a natural barricadethe blood-CNS barrierthat breaks down in MS. Ordinarily, this barrier keeps damaging molecules away from neurons.

Multiple sclerosis develops when wayward immune cells destroy the protective sheath that surrounds neurons. Its exact cause is unknown, but clearly inflammation helps drive the disease. That inflammation worsens when, early in the disease, the protective blood-CNS barrier begins to break down, allowing fluids and proteins in the blood to leak out of blood vessels and enter the brain and spinal cord.

We think the breakdown of the blood-CNS barrier is causing a real problem, says Shannon Odelberg, PhD, research associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine. So, if you can stabilize the vasculature and reduce that leak, you can reduce those proteins that do the damage, and you can reduce the inflammatory response.

In the journal Neuron, Odelberg; Weiquan (Wendy) Zhu, PhD, research assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine; and colleagues report that, in mice with an MS-like condition, the blood-CNS barrier becomes leaky when the cells that line blood vessels interior walls transform and lose the ability to assemble themselves into a tight-knit layer. They found they could restore the barrier by reversing this transformation. Once the barrier was repaired and inflammation-triggering molecules from the blood could no longer enter the CNS, damaged neurons began to recover, and the animals symptoms diminished.

We think the breakdown of the blood-CNS barrier is causing a real problem.

Zhu says researchers are just beginning to recognize how changes in the blood vessels that supply the CNS contribute to the neurodegeneration characteristic of MS. But evidence is accumulating that breakdown of the blood-CNS barrier plays a role in a number of conditions. Deterioration of the barrier has also been observed in studies of Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, and Huntingtons disease. We think the breakdown of the blood-CNS barrier is causing a real problem, Zhu says.

Zhu and Odelberg knew that when the blood-CNS barrier breaks down, the cells that line blood vessels walls have often lost the physical junctions that usually link them tightly to their neighbors. This keeps harmful molecules from slipping between them, much like the linked arms in a game of red rover stop advancing runners. But when postdoctoral researcher Zhonglou Sun, PhD, took a close look at the CNS in mice with the MS-like condition, he discovered that the change to those cells went beyond the loss of these structural connections. The cells appeared to have taken on a new identity.

Sun discovered that some of the cells were no longer true endothelial cells, the type of cells that line healthy blood vessels. Instead, they had characteristics of mesenchymal cells, which do not produce the hinge-like proteins that link endothelial cells together. Normally, they're really held tightly together to keep this fluid in, Odelberg explains. But they lose those tight junctions when they convert to a mesenchymal cell type, allowing the fluid and the proteins to pass into the tissue where damage can occur.

With further experiments, the team was able to trace how cellular signals that promote inflammation also trigger endothelial cells transition to be more like mesenchymal cells. Once researchers had identified those signals, they found that they could block the transition with compounds that targeted any of three different points along the signaling pathway. Even when the transformation had already occurred, they could coax the mesenchymal cells in leaky blood vessels to revert to endothelial cells. Doing so stabilized the blood-CNS barrier. Damaged neurons began to recover, and the animals symptoms became less severe.

Further experiments are needed to better understand endothelial cells transition to mesenchymal cells and how to control it. But given the critical role of the blood-CNS barrier, Zhu and Odelberg hope that reversing or preventing endothelial cells shift to mesenchymal cells could protect the CNS in people with MSand possibly other neuroinflammatory diseases.

Immunosuppressive drugs that are commonly used to treat MS can introduce some serious risks to the patient, Zhu says. But the evidence suggests that the therapeutic strategy we explored in this study does not affect the immune system, thus providing a possible way to treat MS without causing the severe side effects associated with immunosuppression. Thats the potential benefit for the future.

- Written by Jennifer Michalowski

# # #

In addition to Odelberg and Zhu, co-authors are Zhonglou Sun, Helong Zhao, Daniel Fang, Chadwick Davis, Dallas Shi, Kachon Lei, Bianca Rich, Jacob Winter, Li Guo, Lise Sorensen, Robert Pryor, Nina Zhu, Samuel Lu, Laura Dickey, Daniel Doty, Kirk Thomas, Allie Grossmann, and Robert Fujinami from University of Utah; Zongzhong Tong from ARUP Laboratories; Alan Mueller from Navigen, Inc.; Baowei Zhang from Anhui University; Thomas Lane from University of California, Irvine.

The research published as Neuroinflammatory disease disrupts the blood-CNS barrier via crosstalk between proinflammatory and endothelial-to-mesenchymal-transition signaling in Neuron on August 11, 2022, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Research News iii Multiple Sclerosis

Read this article:

Bolstering the Blood-CNS Barrier Could Lead to New Treatment Approach for Multiple Sclerosis - University of Utah Health Care

9/19/2020

I previously discussed an article from March 2020 by Drs. Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya titled Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say? In this article, they wrote that,

If its true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified.

While Dr. Bhattacharya later tried to pretend these words dont mean exactly what they mean, he is not the sole author of the Great Barrington Declaration who has said things about these extraordinary measures that I agree with. On 9/19/2020, Dr. Martin Kulldorff said the following:

This seems eminently reasonable. For much of the pandemic, South Korea and New Zealand kept their COVID cases low through lockdowns to buy time for a vaccine.

On 10/4/2020 the The Great Barrington Declaration was published. It said,

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

The Great Barrington Declaration said that those who are at minimal risk of death should live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection. Even though Dr. Kulldorff recognized that vaccines might be several months away, he wanted those at minimal risk to contract COVID before they were vaccinated. It falsely claimed that For children, the COVID-19 mortality riskis less than for theannual influenza, and said that,

We have seen only a handful of reinfections. If the virus is like other corona viruses in its immune response, recovery from infection will provide lasting protection against reinfection, either complete immunity or protection that makes a severe reinfection less likely.

Happily, Dr. Kulldorffs most optimistic projection about vaccines was spot on. Though the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration feared that Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, just two months later, something amazing happened. On 12/8/2020, 90-year-old Margaret Keenan stepped into history as the first person to receive a COVID vaccine outside of a clinical trial, and over the next several months, hundreds of millions of people were vaccinated in the fortunate parts of the world. The vaccines have since proven extremely effective at keeping people alive and out of the hospital.

Keep all this in mind when answering the question at the end of this article.

The tweet that opened this essay is one example amongst many where Dr. Kulldorff acknowledged that lockdowns drastically slowed the spread of the virus. Hes repeatedly said that lockdowns postponed the inevitable,and in January 2022, he acknowledged that many people had been able to avoid the virus for nearly two years, writing the laptop class is now getting infected with Covid. Dr. Kulldorff and I fully agree that interventions such as lockdowns helped postpone SARS-CoV-2 infections for millions of people until after vaccines were available and medical care improved. We just disagree on whether or not this was a bad thing.

While limiting COVID cases seemed to be an unambiguously good thing in the fall of 2020, when the population had negligible immunity and vaccines were plausibly just around the corner, the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration argued otherwise. Normal people feel the darkest days of the pandemic were immediately after vaccinations started in the winter of 2021, when 3,000 people were dying of COVID every day. However, proponents of infecting unvaccinated, young people reserve their outrage for the pandemics first months, when lockdowns prevented the virus from spreading. They wish more people had contracted the virus in 2020, and their pro-virus stance influenced politicians in many countries. For example, one headline from December 2020 declared,

We want them infected, Trump HHS Appointee Said in Email Pushing to Expose Infants, Kids and Teens to Covid to Reach Herd Immunity.

Though Dr. Kulldorff admits lockdowns helped postpone infections until vaccines were available, he views this a strike against them. Why is this?

Were he to admit that lockdowns were beneficial for this reason, hed be conceding that the arrival of vaccines in December 2020 rendered the Great Barrington Declaration utterly obsolete, which of course, they did. Vaccines meant that those who had avoided the virus thus far had a very attractive alternative to natural immunity. In order to maintain the illusion that his plan had any relevance in a post-vaccine world, Dr. Kulldorff has been forced to disparage vaccines, lockdowns, and all other measures that limit the spread of the virus. He even had the audacity to complain on 12/19/2020thatSpring #COVID19 #lockdowns simply delayed and postponed the pandemic to the fall. The very week that vaccinations began in the US, and as the deadliest part of the pandemic was starting, he argued that it was a mistake that hundreds of millions of people had postponed their infection. Think about how ridiculous that is.

As lockdowns interfered with his plan to infect unvaccinated, young people, Dr. Kulldorff now blames them for all sorts or maladies and issues unsubtle threats to decapitate those whom he deems responsible. He preposterously anointed himself as a spokesman for marginalized people and uses histrionic language to claim they continue to be harmed by lockdowns of varying stringency, that lasted several months, and ended nearly two years ago. For example, he wrote about the devastating lockdown carnage on children, workers and the poor and said lockdowns were the worst assault on the working class since segregation and the Vietnam War. He even blames lockdowns for variants, tweeting that they Generate more contagious variants, increasing herd immunity threshold needed for endemic stage, so more people infected. This is, of course, absurd, especially considering that in the same tweet he lamented that lockdowns postpone infections.

Even though 10 million children around the world lost a parent or caregiver to COVID, and 4 million Americans may be out of work due to long COVID, Dr. Kulldorff feels the children, workers and the poor would have been better off if the virus spread more freely among them before they were vaccinated. Hell never acknowledge what the virus has done to the people for whom he imagines himself an advocate.

Vaccines also interfered with Dr. Kulldorffs plan of herd immunity through mass infection, and to avoid recognizing their benefits, he now debases himself by consorting with anti-vaccine loons and fear mongering about vaccines based on a flawed study that misrepresents trial data. He absurdly argues that unvaccinated children should contract COVID because the flu is more dangerous. This is completely false, though even if it were true, this is not a valid argument against vaccinating children. With other viruses, Dr. Kulldorff recognizes its unacceptable for any child to suffer or die for lack of a vaccine. Its only with COVID that he argues such suffering is tolerable because the old have a thousand-fold higher mortality risk than the young. This too is a ludicrous reason to let unvaccinated children suffer.

If vaccines put the Great Barrington Declarations relevance on life support, the emergence of highly contagious variants capable of reinfecting people struck the fatal blow. To evade this obvious reality, Dr. Kulldorff been forced to fetishize natural immunity, claiming that The pandemic ends when enough people have natural immunity after Covid recovery. With herd immunity, we then enter the endemic stage. Even after the arrival of variants with immune escape, hes continued to act as a cheerleader for the virus. However, with reinfections now commonplace, its clear now that the only people who deny natural immunity are those who still claim it is robust and permanent. Even people with natural immunity benefit from vaccination, though Dr. Kulldorff wont admit this either.

Because his real goal has always been to generate outrage about measures that limited natural immunity, Dr. Kulldorff never bothered to formulate a workable plan as for how societies might actuallyprotect the vulnerable. Even even though this was the central aim of the Great Barrington Declaration, its entire plan consisted of the following four sentences:

By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Beyond this, the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Great Barrington Declarations website contains a handful of bland suggestions, such as saying an older family member might temporarily be able to live with an older friend or sibling, with whom they can self-isolate together during the height of community transmission. However, such statements are mostly inactionable pablum that look great on paper, but in reality have the same sophistication as my childhood plan to end crime by locking up all the bad guys. As Noah Louis-Ferdinand, who actually worked in a senior center at the pandemics start, wrote in a must-read critique, There was never any evidence that these flawed interventions could maintain zero COVID in one place despite rampant spread in the community.

Despite the complete absence of any real plan to protect the vulnerable, Dr. Kulldorff incredibly claims that without lockdowns, herd immunity would have arrived in 3-6 months. Even though the Great Barrington Declaration was published after lockdowns had ended in many parts of the world and after it became clear that natural immunity didnt lead to permanent immunity, Dr. Kulldorff insists he was proven correct, and the pandemic would have been over a year ago had we only listened to him.

This too is nonsense, and Dr. Kulldorff never provides any evidence for these grandiose claims. Its was always just a fantasy that not vulnerable people could be easily identified and then completely walled off from vulnerable people until herd immunity was reached. The pandemic would not have been over in 3-6 months had we let the virus rip through unvaccinated, young people. Some places tried that. They were falsely told they had protected the vulnerable, when in fact the vulnerable had been purposefully left defenseless and exposed. One country that hoped to achieve herd immunity through pediatric infections was instead rewarded headlines that read, Children Drive Britains Longest-Running Covid Surge and Twice as Many People Died With Covid in UK This Summer Compared With 2021.

Of course its unambiguously good that measures to control the virus allowed countless millions of people to avoid it until after they were vaccinated and medical care had improved. A fully vaccinated person who contracts COVID today has much better odds of a good outcome than someone who contracted it in March of 2020. Although Dr. Kulldorff will never admit it, even children benefit from vaccination. Someone who contracts COVID in 2030 will be better off still. Its good to try to postpone the inevitable. Even Dr. Bhattacharya wisely chose to postpone the inevitable until August 2021 after he was vaccinated.

Perhaps my position reflects my experience working throughout the pandemic at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. I saw what the virus could do to unvaccinated people, even those deemed not vulnerable. While we all regret the toll the virus took on essential workers, like my co-workers, its good that measures were taken to shield everyone else. Its ridiculous to claim that essential workers would have been better off if only more hedge fund contracted COVID in 2020.

Had the laptop class been infected en masse then the catastrophe that befell us in New York City and elsewhere would have been much worse. No one had treated this virus before, hospitals were deluged as it was, and the morgues were literally overflowing with bodies. Giant refrigerated trucks were parked outside my hospital to store them all. The carnage was from the virus, not the lockdowns.

Dr. Kulldorff, himself an exemplar of the laptop class par excellance, witnessed this all from his living room, which is just where he should have been. We essential workers wanted everyone, even sheltered doctors like him, to avoid the virus. So hell have to take my word for it, but no one in the hospital at that time bemoaned the fact that lockdowns protected the laptop class. Ive still yet to hear anyone in my hospital make this complaint. Ironically, its only the laptop class that complains locksdowns prevented them from getting COVID before they were vaccinated.

Though Dr. Kulldorff disparages lockdowns by saying they merely postponed the inevitable, so do seat belts and smoking cessation programs. Beyond just not dying, there can be great value in postponing the inevitable. A core goal of medicine is to postpone the inevitable, and one analysis from May 2020 found that,

36,000 fewer people would have died if social distancing measures had been put in place across the U.S. just one week earlier.

Sadly, millions of people failed to take advantage of the gift of a few extra months before they contracted COVID. Doctors tricked them into believing they were not vulnerable and that getting the vaccine was therefore ill-advised. Some of these people turned out to be vulnerable after all, and many of them expressed regret about not getting vaccinated just before COVID killed them. Dr. Kulldorff treated exactly zero of these patients, some of whom reacted with outrage and violence towards healthcare workers who actually have real-world responsibility.

Comparisons between countries can be tricky. Countries with older, sicker populations will fare worse than countries with younger, healthier citizens. Cultural factors, such as the willingness to wear masks/get vaccinated, and the ability to stay home when sick matter tremendously. So do living arrangements, the availability of advanced healthcare, and the reliability of reporting metrics. The timing of lockdowns matters, and the word lockdown means different things in different countries. The lockdown in Florida was very different from the lockdown in China. Moreover, the pandemic is not over and its effects will take years to manifest and understand.

Nonetheless, enough time has elapsed that we can begin to get a sense of whether or not South Korea and New Zealand benefitted from their efforts to keep COVID cases low. Everyone agrees that South Korea and New Zealand acted aggressively to suppress COVID cases. Both countries had a negligible number of COVID cases the first two years of the pandemic, and Dr. Kulldorff has repeatedly acknowledged that lockdowns are the main reason why.

The numbers dont lie. South Korea and New Zealand couldnt keep the virus away forever, but, they suffered many fewer deaths per capita than the US and nearly every other country in the world. Over 800,000 Americans would be alive today if the US had their death rate.

Moreover, while no one pretends lockdowns were harmless, Im unaware of evidence that South Korea and New Zealand suffered irreparable damage from their COVID policies, at least compared to other countries. Students in all three countries (USA, South Korea, New Zealand) suffered from remote learning and school closures, which were often due to the virus, not overly-cautious politicians. Even Sweden had to close high schools for awhile. While its fashionable amongst the laptop class to blame lockdowns for everything bad that has happened since, neither South Korea nor New Zealand suffered enormous collateral damage on cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, tuberculosis, mental health, education as far as I know.

So the real question is this: Did South Korea and New Zealand damage themselves by postponing the inevitable, or would the US have benefitted had it tried a bit harder to postpone the inevitable? You tell me.

Dr. Jonathan Howard is a neurologist and psychiatrist based in New York City who has been interested in vaccines since long before COVID-19.

View all posts

More:

Lockdowns Postponed the Inevitable. Is That a Bad Thing? - Science Based Medicine