Is It The Virus, Or Is It The Treatment ?
Everyone has seen the pictures from Italy and Wuhan, the chaos in the hospitals, make-shift quarantine wards, and tracked the ever-rising death toll. The great majority of these deaths have been from acute respiratory distress, lung failure. The assumption is that this is the result of a viral infection, COVID-19. But is it ?
(Pic is of the Texas Refinery Explosion. For its relevance see below)
The official narrative is that a novel coronavirus is sweeping the world, and that in a minority of cases, around 15%, it causes severe breathing difficulties. For some it escalates to the point where intensive care is required, including mechanical ventilation. 3% do not recover, although this number is loose, the latest estimates from Wuhan are now put at 1.4%, and possibly 1% for Italy.
The course of the illness appears to run along these lines -
The virus infects a host
The infection is in the upper respiratory tract, and symptoms are no different from a cold or flu, if there are any.
For a minority it then transitions into either a lower respiratory tract infection, or else triggers a hyper immune response which introduces fluid into the lungs - pneumonia. The first hypothesis is somewhat dubious, the second is more secure.
The pneumonia causes severe acute respiratory distress (SARD), which kills many.
For those of us who have been in the nutrition space for any length of time, or who have any grasp of the concept of 'causality', the problem here will be immediately obvious. It is that the causal relation is simply ASSUMED, asserted, NOWHERE is it demonstrated, nowhere is the mechanism made clear.
Nor does it fit the known facts.
What we have here is nothing other than 'co-relation', the presence of co-factors that may or may not have a causal relationship, and if they do, it could be in one direction or another. Let's look at these assumptions.
Lots of people in the same location are getting sick, therefore it must be an infectious outbreak.
The virus is detected among a high percentage of those who get sick, so the virus is making them sick.
Those who develop severe symptoms usually have the milder fever first, so the two have the same cause
If they die, the virus is the cause of death.
The problem here is that a STATISTICAL co-relation is being used as if it were an adequate description of a causal relationship. This is a logical fallacy, it is a flawed way of thinking. If 1000 people get the virus, 30 will die, the stats tell us so, there is even a certain predictive ability about this use of statistics, which adds to its appeal, and is being used by policy makers. But, this is an INCORRECT method.
This misuse of statistical relations is widespread in our society today. There are profound reasons for this, which we will explore later. A good example can be found in the safety world, in the Heinrich/Bird Safety Pyramid, which argues that a reduction in minor injuries such as those from slips, trips, and falls will lead to fewer fatal accidents. It does so on the basis of a statistical relationship between fatalities and the much larger number of everyday incidents. This is the pyramid. As it happens, today is the 15th anniversary of the Texas Refinery Explosion which blew this theory out of the water. The problem lies in that the causes of fatalities are quite different from those that produce twisted ankles, reducing the latter will not affect the former. This was the lesson of Texas, and this whole conception is now fiercely disputed among safety professionals, although many corporations still pursue this approach.
Let's follow the logic behind our current pandemic narrative and highlight the limitations of this method, as well as the known facts which do not fit the story and so require explanation if it is to stand up to scrutiny.
It must be an infectious outbreak, lots of people are getting sick at the same time, in the same place.
There are many reasons why this may be so. Environmental factors are the most obvious, leading to mass poisoning. Both Wuhan and Lombardy are notorious for poor air quality. There is also a psycho-social element here, stress, fear, even hysteria, have all been traced to large scale illness in the past without any pathogen being present. Kosovo in 1990 is one example.
There are also lots of cases of the virus NOT being transmitted, even to close family members. Some of these later develop symptoms, but are still negative when tested.
Those who are sick test positive for the virus
There are several problems here, the first being the unreliability of the tests. This is a topic in its own right. Here I will just say that the presence of the virus does NOT prove it is the cause. It could just as well be an EFFECT, or simply irrelevant. It is equally plausible that the strands of RNA which are picked up in the PCR test are PRODUCED by the body's response mechanisms that also generate a fever. They are cell debris after a cleansing process. There are also large numbers who do NOT test positive and yet have the same symptoms, just as there are even more who 'have' the virus and yet have no symptoms.
The point is - THIS REQUIRES EXPLANATION. If the virus causes the disease, then why in some people and not others ? Why is it present in some patients and not others ? Off the cuff answers such as 'weakened immunity' do not hold up because if this was so we would expect children to be the most effected. The presence of co-morbidities is also not sufficient, unless the MECHANISM of the disease progression is understood. Why is smoking an issue, high blood pressure, heart disease ? It is not that no explanation can be found, high levels of inflammation being the obvious suspect, but that the official narrative DOES NOT LOOK for one, it assumes that saying its a 'virus' behind it all is enough.
Those who deteriorate, first have the milder symptoms
Here we see the statistical fallacy most clearly. There is an association, NOT causation. Clinical studies show (see the WHO, CDC, and Lancet sites) that the 'viral load' is DECREASING just at that point when they deteriorate. In other words, they are getting over the fever, they are on a path to recovery, and then, something happens, they go into a massive tailspin and often die as a result. The deterioration sets in on average around 6 days after hospitalisation.
This was the case with the first Seattle patient, who had only mild symptoms but presented at hospital in order to 'do the right thing'. On day 2 they got severe diarrhoea, almost certainly from the hospital food. On day 5 they were doing well, but then, for no apparent reason, they went into a rapid decline, requiring mechanical ventilation and almost dying. Healthworkers, however, were familiar with this pattern, which is so common it has a name, 'nomocosial pneumonia', it was a HOSPITAL infection.
This provides us with an important clue as to what might be happening in Italy, and earlier in Wuhan.
What triggers the pneumonia ? It is an immune reaction, sometimes known as a cytokine storm. This leads to the accumulation of fluid around and then in the lung. The source of this fluid is the blood supply, any connection with the upper respiratory tract infection that may be present is tenuous at best. Instead, the most common cause for such reactions is TOXINS, it is a response to being POISONED. This most often takes place in a hospital or aged care setting.
This gives a second clue.
The main point is, the chain of causality has not been shown, between virus and death there are a number of steps and for each there exist a range of possibilities as to what is going on.
Is it the quarantine ?
If an alternative hypothesis to a viral epidemic is mass poisoning, then where and how could that come about ? If it is environmental, then why now ? Bad air is not new to Wuhan or Lombardy, or unique to them.
A possible answer lies in the differing fatality rate between Hubei Province and the rest of China, around double. This raises the question, what did they do different in Wuhan that they didn't do throughout the rest of the country ?
The answer is, they quarantined people en masse. Everyone who tested positive. These people were couped up indoors, many had the mild fevers. This was winter, most likely the windows were shut and the heating was on full blast. What kind of air quality would emerge after a week or two of this ? If we consider also that the deterioration usually set in at that point when people are expelling the disease as part of their recovery, then what effect would this have on the air ?
We are not necessarily talking about infection here, although this is possible, it is more that the exhaled cell debris from the illness would circulate in the air as dust. This would then be BREATHED BACK IN, causing massive irritation within the lungs, and triggering the cytokine storm.
This would also take place after the patient had been treated with a course of anti-biotics. This is standard treatment because the thinking is that the virus weakens the immune system and then a secondary bacterial infection will strike. There is little evidence that this has happened, but this could be explained by the use of anti-biotics. The problem is that these drugs destroy the biome that exists within the lungs, and which serve as a vital component of the body's defence systems, particularly against toxins in the air.
So after a week of anti-biotics, and being couped up indoors with hundreds of other sick people, patients suddenly deteriorate to the point where they need mechanical intervention.
Anti-biotics are often combined with steroids too. These have the purpose of suppressing the immune system, in order to avoid the cytokine storm. It is not hard to see here how we have a cocktail of drugs pushing and pulling in different directions, combined with a toxic environment, plus the stress and fear surrounding the outbreak, among a population who are mostly elderly, not in good health, already on a range of medications, in the depth of a cold winter when vitamin D levels will be highly compromised.
Is it any wonder they died in droves ?
In Italy the pattern is very similar, mass hospitalisation, around 50% of those testing positive. This sets victims on a downhill path and a fatality rate pushing 10% at one point.
It also worth noting that the most effective treatment to have emerged so far has been intravenous injections of vitamin C. This is standard now in China.
There is a historical precedent to this pattern too, the Spanish flu. If you went to hospital during this outbreak, it was almost certainly a death sentence. If you stayed away, your chances were infinitely higher. Why ? The bad air, and the drugs.
All this is only a hypothesis. It doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that this is indeed a pandemic involving a virus. But it does help explain the wild differences in mortality rates between South Korea on the one hand, and Italy on the other, between the rest of China and Hubei province.
Maybe its not the disease, its the cure.