WEDNESDAY, Sept. 21, 2022 (HealthDay News) – In a report issued Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration acknowledged numerous shortcomings in its response to the infant formula shortage earlier this year.
“For things that are critical to the public health, if you don’t have some understanding of how all the pieces fit together, then when you get into a crisis or a shortage you have a real problem,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf told the Associated Press. “To a large extent, that’s what happened here.”
Among the problems highlighted in the report were outdated data-sharing systems, while staffing and training for food inspectors was below normal. The agency also had poor insight into the supply chains and manufacturing procedures for infant formula.
The 10-page report comes eight months after the agency closed Abbott’s infant formula plant in Michigan amid safety concerns and reports of illness in infants. The review was led by a senior official who interviewed roughly 60 agency employees.
Although a whistleblower had tried to warn the FDA about problems in September 2021, the agency didn’t investigate until the following February.
By then, four infants were ill and two had died. The FDA is still investigating whether there is a connection between those infants and the formula, the AP reported.
“Whistleblower complaints come into the agency in many different ways, from many different sources,” Dr. Steven Solomon, director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine and the person who oversaw the review, told the AP. “One of the actions we’ve already taken is to make sure that however they come into the agency, they get triaged and escalated to the right leadership levels.”
Mail delays were one of the reasons the FDA didn’t learn about the complaint earlier, according to information the agency gave Congress. Another was a failure to escalate the whistleblower allegations.
The FDA’s “inadequate processes and lack of clarity related to whistleblower complaint” likely contributed to delays, according to the report.
Shipping issues experienced by “third party delivery companies” further caused delays in testing bacterial samples and the agency struggled with its testing capacity for the rare but potentially deadly cronobacter bacteria that was linked to the infant formula outbreak.
Continued
Still more issues were caused by the pandemic, both when the agency missed inspections after removing inspectors from the field and also because of COVID cases among agency staff, the report said.
The FDA plans to seek new authority that would require companies to provide samples and records on manufacturing supply chains, quality and safety.
The report also asked for funding from Congress to improve infant formula inspections and standards. This would increase funding and hiring authority for new experts in the FDA’s food division, as well as improve technology to share data on FDA inspections, consumer complaints and testing results.
Still, the report doesn’t go far enough, Scott Faber, of the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement.
“This internal evaluation treats the symptoms of the disease rather than offering a cure,” Faber said. “Nothing in this evaluation addresses the fragmented leadership structure that led to critical communication failures.”
The problems at the Abbott plant in February triggered significant formula shortages and resulted in the United States airlifting about 80 million bottles of formula from other countries.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on cronobacter .
Many, many millions of years ago, an HIV-like virus wriggled its way into the genome of a floofy, bulgy-eyed lemur, and got permanently stuck.
Trapped in a cage of primate DNA, the virus could no longer properly copy itself or cause life-threatening disease. It became a tame captive, passed down by the lemur to its offspring, and by them down to theirs. Today, the benign remains of that microbe are still wedged among a fleet of lemur genes—all that is left of a virus that may have once been as deadly as HIV is today.
Lentiviruses, the viral group that includes HIV, are an undeniable scourge. The viruses set up chronic, slow-brewing infections in mammals, typically crippling a subset of immune cells essential to keeping dangerous pathogens at bay. And as far as scientists know, these viruses are pretty uniformly devastating to their hosts—or at least, that’s true of “all the lentiviruses that we know of,” says Aris Katzourakis, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Oxford. Which means, a long time ago, that lemur lentivirus was likely devastating too. But somewhere along the way, the strife between lemur and lentivirus dissipated enough that their genomes were able to mix. It’s proof, says Andrea Kirmaier, an evolutionary virologist at Boston College, that lentivirus and host “can coexist, that peace can be made.”
Détentes such as these have been a fixture of mammals’ genomic history for countless millennia. Scientists have stumbled across lentiviruses embedded in the DNA of not just lemurs, but rabbits, ferrets, gliding mammals called colugos, and most recently, rodents—all of them ancient, all of them quiescent, all of them seemingly stripped of their most onerous traits. The infectious versions of those viruses are now extinct. But the fact that they posed an infectious threat in the past can inform the strategies we take against wild lentiviruses now. Finding these defunct lentiviruses tells us which animals once harbored, or might still harbor, active ones and could potentially pass them to us. Their existence also suggests that, in the tussle between lentivirus and host, the mammal can gain the upper hand. Lemurs, rabbits, ferrets, colugos, and rodents, after all, are still here; the ancient lentiviruses are not. Perhaps humans could leverage these strange genetic alliances to negotiate similar terms with HIV—or even extinguish the modern virus for good.
When viruses assimilate themselves into animal genomes in a heritable way, a process called endogenization, scientists generally see it as “kind of a mistake,” says Daniel Blanco-Melo, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Once cemented into one host, the virus can no longer infect others; much of its genome may even end up degrading over time, which is “certainly not what it evolved to do.” The blunders usually happen with retroviruses, which have RNA-based genomes that they convert into DNA once they enter cells. The flip allows the viruses to plug their genetic material into that of their host, which is then forced to manufacture its pathogen’s proteins alongside its own. Sometimes, a retrovirus will inadvertently stitch itself into the genome of a sperm or an egg, and its blueprints end up passed to its host’s progeny. If the melding doesn’t kill the animal, the once-pathogen can become a permanent fixture of the creature’s DNA.
Over time, the human genome has amassed a horde of these viral hitchhikers. Our DNA is so riddled with endogenous retroviruses, ERVs for short, that they technically occupy more space in our genomes than bona fide, protein-manufacturing genes do. But on the long list of ERVs that have breached our borders, lentiviruses are conspicuously absent, in both our genomes and those of other animals; up until the mid-aughts, some scientists thought lentiviruses might not endogenize at all. It wasn’t a totally wonky idea: Lentiviruses have complex genomes, and are extremely picky about the tissues they invade; they’re also quite dangerous, not exactly the kind of tenant that most creatures want occupying their cellular real estate. Or perhaps, some researchers posited, lentiviruses were endogi-capable, but simply too young. If they had only begun infecting mammals within the past few hundreds of thousands of years, there might not have been time for such accidents to occur.
Then, some 15 years ago, a team led by Katzourakis and Rob Gifford, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Glasgow, discovered an endogenous lentivirus called RELIK in the genomes of rabbits and then in hares, a hint that it had lodged itself in the animals’ mutual ancestor at least 12 million years before. In an instant, the lentivirus timeline stretched, and in the years since has kept growing. Scientists have now identified endogenous lentiviruses in a wide enough array of mammals, Gifford told me, to suspect that lentiviruses may have been a part of our history for at least 100 million years—entering our very distant ancestors’ genomes before the demise of the dinosaurs, before the rise of primates, before the land masses of North and South America kissed. “That tells us just how long virus and host have been connected,” Katzourakis told me. Through those eons, lentiviruses and the mammals they afflict have been evolving in concert—the pathogen always trying to infect better, the animal always trying to more efficiently head its enemy off.
Knowing that lentiviruses are so deeply laced into our past can help us understand how other mammals are faring against the ones that are still around today. Two species of monkeys, sooty mangabeys and African green monkeys, have spent so much evolutionary time with a lentivirus called SIV—the simian version of HIV—that they’ve growntolerant of it. Even when chock-full of virus, the monkeys don’t seem to suffer the severe, immunocompromising disease that the pathogen induces in other primates, says Nikki Klatt, a microbiologist and an immunologist at the University of Minnesota. The key seems to be in the monkeys’ ultra-resilient, fast-healing guts, as well as their immune systems, which launch more muted attacks on SIV, keeping the body from destroying itself as it fights. Such immunological shrugs could enable certain retroviruses to eventually endogenize, says Lucie Etienne, an evolutionary virologist at the International Center for Infectiology Research, in Lyon, France.
Many mammals have also developed powerful tools to prevent lentiviruses from reproducing in their bodies in the first place—proteins that can, for instance, mess with viral entry or replication, or prevent new viral particles from busting out of already infected cells. Viruses, too, can mutate and evolve, far faster than animals can. That’s given the pathogens plenty of chances to counteract these defenses; HIV, for instance, has no trouble sidestepping or punching through many of the shields that human cells raise against it.
But take the equivalent immune-defense protein from a monkey, and HIV “cannot degrade that,” says Michael Emerman, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. Other primates have had different infectious histories from ours, which have shaped their immune evolution in distinct ways. Studying those primates’ genomes—or maybe even the genomes of mammals that are carrying lentiviruses as neutered genetic cargo—might eventually inspire therapies that “augment our immunity,” Emerman told me. At the very least, such experiments could point scientists to lentiviruses’ common weak spots: the parts of the virus that ancient immune systems once targeted successfully enough that their hosts survived to tell the tale. “Evolution has already taught us the best places to target retroviruses,” says Maria Tokuyama, a virologist at the University of British Columbia. “Why not push for the types of interactions that we already know have worked?”
Another, perhaps more radical idea might yet give way to an HIV cure: speeding the path toward endogenization—allowing lentiviruses to tangle themselves into our genomes, in the hopes that they’ll stay permanently, benignly put. “We could figure out a way to silence the virus, such that it’s there but we don’t care about it,” says Oliver Fregoso, a virologist at UCLA. One of the holy grails of HIV research has always been cooking up a vaccine that could prevent infection—an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. But if some sort of gentle armistice can be reached, Boston College’s Kirmaier told me, “maybe we don’t need to go that far.”
Cedric Feschotte and Sabrina Leddy, virologists at Cornell, are among those pushing for such an intervention. They’re capitalizing on HIV’s tendency to go dormant inside cells, where it can hide from some of our most powerful antiretroviral drugs. The virus essentially “plays dead,” Leddy told me, then reawakens when the coast is clear. But if HIV could be silenced stably, its rampage would end when it jammed itself into the genome. “We’re hoping to emulate this natural path that ERVs have taken,” where they’re effectively locked in place, Leddy said. The imprisoned viruses could then be excised from cells with gene editing.
The idea’s ambitious and still a way off from yielding usable treatments. But if it works, it could produce an additional perk. After setting up shop inside us, our viral tenants can start to offer their landlord benefits—such as fighting off their own active kin. In recent years, researchers have found that some animals, including cats, chickens, mice, primates, sheep, and even humans, have been able to co-opt proteins from certain endogenous retroviruses to create blockadesagainst incoming viruses of similar ilk. Blanco-Melo and Gifford were part of a team that made one such discovery in 2017, describing an ERV that ancient monkeys and apes might have used to strip viral entryways off the surfaces of their cells. When encountering an ERV-ed-up host, the infectious, still-pathogenic version of that ERV would no longer have been able to get in.
Eventually, the active retrovirus “just went extinct,” Blanco-Melo told me—an outcome that he thinks could be attributable to the antics of its endogenous counterpart. It’s a devious move, essentially a way to “turn the virus against itself,” Kirmaier said. This sort of friendly-fire tactic may already be at work among lentiviruses, duking it out inside and outside host genomes: Species with endogenous lentiviruses usually aren’t bedeviled by active lentiviruses, at least none that has been identified yet, Fregoso told me. With any luck, the same could someday be true for HIV, the virus little more than a memory—or an idle fragment in our cells.
Our skin performs many roles. It helps manage body temperature, keeps out bacteria and other bugs, and is key to our sense of touch.
Skin unites us all in these common functions, but our skin also varies in ways that show up cosmetically.
Your skin tone can affect how soon you’ll develop wrinkles and sunspots. It can also influence whether you’re more prone to hyperpigmentation, darkened areas on your skin.
Skin tone isn’t simply a matter of race, since people from the same background can have widely varying skin color. Race and ethnicity usually aren’t an accurate reflection of skin tone, says Anna Chien, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Doctors refer to “skin types” ranging from 1 to 6. Skin type 1 is the palest, which always burns and never tans. Mid-tones, such as type 4, are light brown, tan easily, and rarely burn. The darkest, Skin type 6, is deeply pigmented and never burns. This range of skin types is also called “Fitzpatrick skin typing,” named for the doctor who developed it. It’s based on how much pigment is in someone’s skin and how their skin reacts to sun exposure.
Learn from three dermatologists how skin tone can affect our skin care routines.
Sun Damage
Doctors call sun damage “photoaging,” which includes the wrinkles and sunspots that can come with sun exposure.
This tends to happen “a little more quickly” in people who have lighter skin types, Chien says. “And they are more prone to skin cancers.”
In contrast, people with darker skin tones “often do have delay in the signs of photoaging. And they also have a lower risk of skin cancer,” says Julia Mhlaba, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “That pigment actually provides sun protection.”
But it’s important to keep in mind that a lower risk of skin cancer doesn’t mean zero risk. “All skin can get skin cancer,” says Shani Francis, MD, a dermatologist in the Los Angeles area.
Misconceptions that people with darker skin don’t get skin cancer are dangerous because that can lead to a delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis. “We definitely can see skin cancer in darker-skinned individuals,” Chien says. “And unfortunately, because this isn’t often talked about … the skin cancer may be found later when it’s much more progressed.”
In people with darker skin, cancers can also occur in places “where patients typically don’t get exposed to sun, like the bottoms of the hands and the feet,” Mhlaba says.
Universal Need: Sunscreen
All skin tones require sunscreen with an SPF of at least 30 – every day, rain or shine – to help prevent skin cancer and slow photoaging.
“We always recommend sun protection because even in darker-skinned individuals [and in] folks who say, ‘I never burn; I always tan,’ they’re still getting the damage in the skin,” Chien says.
If you’re outdoors for long periods, use at least an SPF of 60, Chien says. Reapply often, especially if you’re active, sweating, swimming, or getting wet.
Physical blocker sunscreens with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide offer the best protection, according to the experts. But on darker skin, these products aren’t always cosmetically elegant.
“It can cause white film on the skin, which is challenging for individuals with darker skin tone,” Chien says. She recommends tinted sunscreens that might better match their skin tone.
Tinted sunscreen may offer further benefits. In darker-skinned people, longer wavelengths beyond UV rays can be more damaging than in people with lighter complexions, Chien says. “The tint can actually protect against a little bit of the longer wavelength that their skin could be more sensitive to,” she explains.
Beyond Sunscreen
Don’t rely on sunscreen alone. “I always tell my patients sunscreens aren’t perfect,” Chien says. “We need to reapply and combine [it] with other measures.”
That includes wearing sunglasses and long-sleeved shirts, avoiding peak sun, looking for shade, and wearing wide-brimmed hats. She calls it a “multi-modal approach to sun protection.”
And don’t count on SPF in makeup alone to give you enough protection, Chien says. “The SPF they achieve in a lab setting – usually they’re applying a fairly thick amount of that makeup, so it doesn’t really mimic day-to-day use.”
What to Know About Retinol and Retinoids
Regular use of sunscreen and moisturizer can help slow signs of aging. And so can using a retinoid or retinol on your skin.
“These are vitamin A derivatives that can either be purchased in over-the- counter versions or they can be prescribed by a dermatologist at higher strengths,” Mhlaba says. “They do a lot of things: They’re used to treat acne. They can help with pigmentation. But they can also help in terms of smoothing out fine lines and preventing wrinkle formation.”
People with darker skin tones can use higher-strength retinoids but must start slowly to avoid irritating their skin, Mhlaba says. “If they do develop irritation, it can cause hyperpigmentation more easily than in patients with lighter skin types,” she explains.
Her advice: When you start using a retinol or retinoid, apply only a small amount to your face, and do that every few days at first. Follow up with a moisturizer to help curb any skin irritation.
Hyperpigmentation
Wearing sunscreen on the face not only slows photoaging, Mhlaba says, but can also help stop hyperpigmentation from getting worse.
Hyperpigmentation can happen in all skin types, but it’s more common in people of color, Mhlaba says.
“It can occur from acne scars or eczema or at sites of trauma, and then there are other conditions that lead to hyperpigmentation, like melasma,” she says. Melasma appears as darker patches of pigmentation, especially on the face.
Sun exposure can worsen hyperpigmentation – another reason why sunscreen is key. Products that can treat hyperpigmentation include vitamin C serum or vitamin C-containing products, glycolic acid, azelaic acid, and niacinamide, Mhlaba notes.
For melasma, dermatologists can also prescribe hydroquinone-based compounds or oral medications.
Dryness
Dry skin can affect all skin tones. “But if your skin is darker, dry skin is light white, and so there’s more contrast. It’s much more noticeable,” Francis says. That dry appearance comes from the scales of shedding skin.
Darker skin that becomes dry could benefit from “a really good, thick moisturizer, something that could help to rebuild the [skin] barrier,” Chien says.
Don’t judge a product by how thick it looks in the container. What matters more is how thick it is on your skin, Francis says. She suggests looking for ingredients such as ceramides, glycerin, castor oil, petroleum jelly, and hempseed oil.
Smooth moisturizer over damp skin after showering or bathing. “It will keep the water in the skin,” she says.
Sensitivity
People of all skin tones can have problems with sensitivity. “Stick with really bland products,” Chien says. Choose unscented products, and stay away from those labeled antibacterial.
“Keep the skin care regimen pretty simple: just a gentle face wash, a bland moisturizer, something with an SPF built in for the daytime, and just a plain moisturizer in the evening,” she says.
People with sensitive skin can spot-test a product behind their ear or upper inner arm to make sure they don’t react to the product, Chien says.
She recommends “not adding in a lot of serums or anti-aging products. A lot of those can be irritants.”
If people with sensitive skin want to exfoliate, “It’s a little more patient-specific in terms of what their skin will tolerate,” Mhlaba says. Physical exfoliators can be too harsh. But “if you’re talking about a chemical exfoliator, I would definitely recommend starting slowly and working up to using it daily, if needed. Sometimes, even just … once a week, depending on the product, could be enough.”
“Look for things with salicylic acid, glycolic acid,” she says. “A lot of topical creams will have that. That is a good way to exfoliate.”
Did you know today we have completed 35 years of ozone layer protection? You must be surprised and thinking about whether it’s been that long since we protected our ozone layer; a molecule (strong antioxidant) that proves to be a safeguard for life on the planet.
September 16 is commemorated as ‘World Ozone Day’ every year to spread awareness among current and future generations for protecting the lower region of the earth’s atmosphere.
The theme for World Ozone Day 2022:
September 16 is marked to observe the completion of 35 years of the Montreal Protocol. ‘Montreal Protocol@35: global cooperation protecting life on earth‘ is the theme for the year 2022. It is the day that tells people why it is important to save the ozone layer, as it protects mankind from harmful radiation emitted by the sun.
World Ozone Day history
The Montreal Protocol Corporation was developed in 1987 to reduce the concentration of ozone-depleting compounds in the atmosphere and to halt their use, manufacturing, and import in order to safeguard the earth’s ozone layer. Then, in 1994, the UN General Assembly adopted September 16 to be observed as World Ozone Day.
You must have heard that the ozone layer is depleting day by day. There are so many reasons behind the ozone layer depletion and the ozone hole, including:
Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs
Natural gases
Nitrogenous compounds
Unregulated launch of Rockets
Let’s take a pledge on ‘World Ozone Day‘ to make as many possible attempts to preserve the ozone layer for ourselves and our future generations.
When was World Ozone Day first celebrated?
World Ozone Day was first celebrated on September 16, 1994, when the UN General Assembly declared it an important worldwide event. This is also the day when the Montreal Protocol Corporation was launched in 1987.
Did you know how World Ozone Day is celebrated? People all over the world hold talks and seminars to spread awareness about the ozone layer so that people can get as much information about the present situation as possible and start taking necessary steps.
What is the ozone layer?
The ozone layer is the lowest portion of the earth’s stratosphere that contains a large proportion of ozone. Ozone is a strong antioxidant that is made of three molecules of oxygen and is often referenced as O3 (far more so than oxygen).
Did you know the ozone layer has the potential to imbibe 97-99% of the harmful ultraviolet rays emitted by the sun that can affect the life of humankind on earth? Because of this fact, the ozone layer protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays.
If the ozone layer is depleted, the human population would develop a number of skin diseases as well as have a weakened immune system to fight against infections.
One must know how the ozone is formed. Heat and sunlight cause chemical reactions between hydrocarbons such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic substances resulting in the formation of the ozone layer. These reactions can develop near the surface or high in the atmosphere.
What is ozone layer depletion?
Ozone layer depletion is the thinning of the ozone layer in the earth’s upper atmosphere. This mainly happens when chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere come into contact with ozone and destroy this strong antioxidant (ozone molecules).
Did you know one chlorine atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules? Yes, it happens, and they destroy more easily and quickly than they create.
What are the major concerns about ozone layer depletion?
Scientists have identified a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. This has drawn their attention to numerous environmental problems and solutions as a result. Chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl bromide, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are the primary causes of the ozone hole.
A few of the well-known ozone-depleting substances and the sources from which they are released are:
Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs
Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, are the main concern for ozone layer depletion and the ozone hole. Chlorofluorocarbons are manufactured chemicals released by solvents, air conditioners, spray aerosols, dry cleaning agents, and refrigerators, to name a few.
All these chemicals release chlorine atoms and destroy ozone molecules.
Nitrogenous substances
The nitrogenous compounds NO2, NO, and N2O are largely to blame for the ozone layer’s thinning.
Unregulated rocket launches
According to studies, the ozone layer is destroyed considerably more quickly by uncontrolled rocket launches than it is by CFCs. By 2050, the ozone layer might have lost a significant amount of its thickness if this is not regulated.
Natural factors
It has been discovered that some natural processes, such as solar flares and stratospheric winds, degrade the ozone layer. However, it only contributes to 1 to 2% of the ozone layer loss.
The ozone layer is being destroyed due to volcanic eruptions as well.
What if there is no ozone layer?
The depletion of the ozone layer has ample adverse effects on the environment as well as human beings.
Impacts on human health
As the ozone layer thins, people will be directly exposed to the sun’s dangerous UV radiation. Humans may have severe health problems as a result, including skin conditions, cancer, sunburns, cataracts, rapid ageing, and weakened immune systems.
Impacts on animals
Animals that are directly exposed to UV light develop skin and eye cancer.
Impacts on the environment
Strong UV radiation may prevent plants from growing, blooming, or performing photosynthesis. The detrimental effects of UV light must also be endured by the woodlands.
Impacts on marine life
The impact of damaging UV light exposure on plankton is significant. Higher in the aquatic food chain are these. The species that are part of the food chain are also impacted by the destruction of plankton.
Possible solutions to ozone layer depletion
There are many programmes in place by the governments of many nations to stop the destruction of the ozone layer, which is a severe concern. To stop the ozone layer from being destroyed, however, action must also be taken on a personal level.
The following are some ideas that could aid in stopping this issue on a worldwide scale:
Don’t use ozone-depleting substances (ODSs)
The use of ozone-depleting chemicals should be decreased. For instance, replace halon-based fire extinguishers with alternatives, avoid using CFCs in refrigerators and air conditioners, etc.
Reduce the use of vehicles
Cars produce a lot of greenhouse gases, which contribute to ozone depletion and global warming. Therefore, it is best to limit the usage of automobiles as much as possible.
Utilize green cleaning supplies
The majority of cleaning solutions contain chemicals that release chlorine and bromine into the air and have an impact on the ozone layer. To conserve the environment, natural alternatives should be used in their place.
Nitrous oxide use ought to be prohibited
The usage of dangerous nitrous oxide, which is harming the ozone layer, should be outlawed by the government. To reduce its use, nitrous oxide’s negative consequences and the goods that emit the gas should be made known to the public.
Final thoughts
We have one earth and one ozone. We should “Act as a Whole to Protect the Hole”. The fear of its continuous depletion has propelled mankind to advance attempts to preserve our atmosphere and shield ourselves from the sun’s rays.
As it is said by Saint Rampal Ji – “The world looks at the scientists. Why not pray to the supreme God who made science”?
We should understand this and take as many possible steps in order to preserve the natural beauty: OZONE; a molecule that saves us from so many health and environmental consequences.
As the depletion of the ozone has been happening for a long time it can cause major health and skin setbacks, therefore it is advisable to go for genetic testing to know about any predispositions or you can go for a full body health checkup to keep track of your health and body vitals.
Carbohydrates have developed a negative reputation through time. Some trendy diets would have you believe that they are linked to type 2 diabetes, weight gain, and a number of other health issues.
It is true that refined grains and processed diets high in sugar frequently lack the necessary vitamins and minerals. Numerous nutrient-dense, fibre-rich meals, however, might really be highly beneficial for your health.
Although some people may benefit from low-carb diets, there is no need to completely exclude high-carb items.
What are high-carb foods?
Quinoa
Quinoa is often regarded as a superfood or a super grain or healthy carbs. It is a very healthy edible seed that has higher levels of numerous minerals and plant components than many cereals. Although cooked quinoa is a high-carb food containing 70% carbohydrates, it is also a fantastic source of important nutrients, including fibre, manganese, protein, folate, magnesium, fibre and protein.
Quinoa has been associated with a number of health advantages, including improved blood sugar management and heart health. It also doesn’t contain any gluten, making it a well-liked wheat substitute for individuals following a gluten-free diet. Due to its relatively high protein and fibre content, quinoa is also highly satisfying. It may therefore support good weight management and intestinal health.
Oats
Oats have been recognised as an extremely healthful and nutritious cereal. They are a terrific source of many beneficial nutrients, and they contain a high concentration of soluble fibre and dense nutrients. Raw oats contain 70% carbs. Oats are also a relatively good source of protein and the content of protein is much higher than most grains. Research also suggests that eating oats may have potential health benefits ranging from improved immune health to reduced risk of obesity, heart disease and cholesterol levels. Eating oats may also lower blood sugar levels and support healthy weight management.
Bananas
Bananas are a popular fruit that has astonishing health benefits. One large banana provides roughly 31 grammes of carbohydrates, either in the form of starches or sugars. Additionally rich in vitamins B6 and C, bananas also contain a number of advantageous plant components. Bananas may assist to control blood pressure and enhance heart health due to their high potassium content.
Resistant starch and pectin, which promote digestive health and feed the good bacteria in your gut, are also present in reasonable proportions in unripe and less-ripe bananas.
Sweet potatoes
Sweet potatoes are a delicious, nutritious vegetable. One-half cup of mashed, cooked sweet potatoes with their skin on contains about 20.7 grams of carbs, which consists of starch, sugar, and fibre. Sweet potatoes are loaded with vitamin A, vitamin C, and potassium. What’s more, they’re also packed with powerful antioxidants 9 like beta carotene and other important phytonutrients.
Blueberries
Blueberries are frequently regarded as a superfood due to their rich content of antioxidants. There are many science-backed benefits of blueberries, consisting of high amounts of many vitamins and minerals, including vitamin C, vitamin K, and manganese.
According to numerous studies, blueberries are a good source of antioxidant substances that can help shield your body from harmful free radicals.
Apples
Apples are renowned for their incredible health benefits. They are a wonderful source of fibre, antioxidants, and vitamin C. The phytochemicals and fibre in apples have antioxidant effects that help heart health and blood sugar control, among other health advantages.
Apples are a very significant source of antioxidants, plant components, vitamin C and several other nutrients. Eating apples may help you control your blood sugar, as well as lower your risk of heart disease. According to preliminary studies, apple consumption has also been found to lower your risk of developing some cancers.
Final thoughts
The notion that all carbohydrates are bad is untrue. However, not all carbohydrates are good for you either. A balanced diet should contain both simple and complex carbohydrates.
Just choose your carbohydrates wisely. Avoid low-nutrient desserts, think about the amounts of sugar and fibre, and concentrate on whole grains, fruits, and vegetables that are healthful. When you go shopping, try to look for the foods mentioned above as these are examples of healthy complex carbs. And one thing you should always be mindful of is to get your full body health checkup done regularly. There are a host of packages available here that you can choose to keep track of your health and be a step ahead of diseases.
Also, it is advised to have frequent preventive health check-ups to keep an eye on overall health, especially your cholesterol levels.
Alzheimer’s disease is the most common and progressive type of dementia. Dementia is a condition that negatively affects memory, thinking capacity, and the ability to communicate effectively. People suffering from Alzheimer’s may also experience language problems and impulsive or unpredictable behaviour.
According to a study conducted by the Alzheimer’s & Related Disorders Society of India (ARDSI), India had around 3.7 million cases of Alzheimer’s disease in 2010 and the number is expected to rise to 7.6 million by 2030. At present, approximately 5.3 million Indians live with dementia, and the most common cause is Alzheimer’s disease.
The condition usually affects people aged 65 years or above, but it can also impact the brain health of people in their 30s or 40s. When any person below the age of 65 years is affected by Alzheimer’s, the condition is termed early-onset (or younger-onset) Alzheimer’s disease.
The disease got its name from Dr. Alios Alzheimer who identified this condition in 1906. World Alzheimer’s Day is observed on 21st September every year, and the theme for 2021 is ‘Know Dementia, Know Alzheimer’s’.
In this article, we will reflect on the causes and symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and the measures you can take to manage the condition, once diagnosed.
Causes & risk factors of Alzheimer’s disease
Although the exact cause of Alzheimer’s disease is still unknown, experts have identified several risk factors which include:
People aged 65 years or above are more prone to get affected by Alzheimer’s disease.
There is a slightly higher risk of getting affected by Alzheimer’s disease if your parents or siblings are suffering from this condition.
Having one or both of these risk factors does not necessitate that you can get affected by the disease, but it increases the risk levels of being afflicted by Alzheimer’s
Symptoms of Alzheimer’s
Being a progressive condition, Alzheimer’s symptoms worsen over time. The symptoms do not occur at once and appear gradually over months or years. If the symptoms develop in hours or days, immediate medical attention is required as it can be a sign of stroke. These symptoms include:
Repeating questions or conversations
Losing track of everyday objects
Inability to remember appointments or events
Wandering or getting lost
Lessened understanding of safety and risks
Difficulty in making decisions
Difficulty in completing stage-based tasks, such as getting dressed
Problem with recognition
Problem with speaking, reading, or writing
Personality and behaviour, such as being compulsive, angry, upset, or loss of interest in activities
Stages of Alzheimer’s disease
Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive condition that includes three stages:
In this stage, Alzheimer-affected people develop memory problems and cognitive difficulties.
In this stage, the part of the brain responsible for language, senses, reasoning, and consciousness is damaged in affected people.
This last stage of Alzheimer’s is a condition in which plaques and tangles are present in the brain of affected people, causing the brain tissue to deteriorate. Plaques are clumps of a protein (beta-amyloid) found in the brain which disrupts the communication between nerve cells. Tangles are abnormal accumulations of a protein (tau) inside the neurons.
How best to manage Alzheimer’s
Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive ailment and unfortunately, it does not have any cure so far. Though, there are medicines available that can help delay the aggravation of dementia symptoms and manage behavioural issues. However, certain management techniques can also be practised to help manage the impact of Alzheimer’s
Here are some tips for caregivers/relatives of Alzheimer’s patients:
Keep things simple and ask or say one thing at a time
Maintain a daily routine to help the patient understand where certain things happen
Gain the trust of the patient that he/she is safe with you
Learn from their expressions about their feelings. For example- say, “you seem worried!” and wait for the answer
Don’t argue or try to reason with the patient
Don’t show frustration or anger towards the patient
Make the patient laugh whenever possible
If the patient has a habit to walk, take him/her to a safe place to walk
Give the patient some light snacks to eat while walking. This will help prevent weight loss
Try to distract or keep the patient occupied with light music, singing, dancing, or any other activity that makes him/her happy
Ask for the patient’s help in easy domestic works like folding clothes or setting table for a meal to keep their motor skills active
Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease
If a person has Alzheimer’s, he/she may experience personality and behavior changes that are primarily noticed by friends or family members. If the symptoms are similar to those mentioned above, the doctor may carry out the following diagnoses.
Cognitive and memory tests: This will help in understanding the patient’s ability to think and remember.
Neurological function test: To test the balance, senses, and reflexes of the patient
Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive condition that has no cure yet, and it can affect anyone aged 65 or above. If a person manifests the above-mentioned symptoms, it is recommended to seek immediate medical attention and initiate Alzheimer’s management to slow the worsening of the disease.
The aforesaid tips can also help in managing the condition effectively at home. To manage Alzheimer’s effectively, you need to keep a check on the patient’s overall health by opting for regular overall health screening.
The drugmaker Amylix is asking the FDA to approve a new medication for ALS, a fatal neurodegenerative disease. It’s possible the agency could greenlight the drug by the end of the month.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
The drugmaker Amylix is asking the FDA to approve a new medication for ALS, a fatal neurodegenerative disease. It’s possible the agency could greenlight the drug by the end of the month.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
The Food and Drug Administration is likely to approve a controversial new drug for ALS by the end of the month.
But it’s still not clear whether the drug, called AMX0035, truly helps people with ALS, a rare and fatal neurological disorder that eventually leaves a person unable to walk, talk, swallow and breathe.
Then in September, after prodding from FDA officials and an email campaign by patients and their families, the same committee reconvened, and this time recommended approving the drug.
The FDA, which usually follows advisory committee recommendations, has indicated it will make a decision by Sept. 29.
An approval is more likely now that it would have been decades ago, says Holly Fernandez Lynch, an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
“The trajectory at FDA has been increased willingness to accept weaker evidence,” she says.
Two old products, one new drug
AMX0035 is a combination of two existing products. One is a dietary supplement called taurursodiol, which can be purchased online.The other is a prescription drug called sodium phenylbutyrate, which is used to treat a rare type of metabolic disorder.
The combination is meant to slow down ALS, which gradually destroys cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement.
AMX0035 was developed by Amylix— a company based in Cambridge, Mass. that was founded in 2013 by two graduates of Brown University.
Amylix sought FDA approval of its drug based on a single study of 137 patients with ALS. The results suggested that AMX0035 could extend patients’ lives by several months.
But at a public meeting in March, most experts on the FDA’s advisory committee said they were unconvinced by the study, called Centaur.
“There are many features of Centaur that limit its persuasiveness,” said Dr. G. Caleb Alexander, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.
“The applicant hasn’t provided robust evidence,” said Dr. Bryan Traynor, a neurologist at the National Institute on Aging.
“The data isn’t as strong as we would hope,” said Dr. Liana Apostolova, an Alzheimer’s expert at Indiana University.
The study was “problematic,” said Dr. Kenneth H. Fischbeck, a neurogenetics researcher at the National Institutes of Health.
It “did not meet the threshold,” said Dr. Thomas J. Montine, a pathologist at Stanford University.
“This study, on its own, doesn’t establish that this drug is effective in the treatment of ALS,” said Dr. Robert C. Alexander, chief scientific officer at the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute.
All six of those committee members voted no, when asked whether the evidence showed the drug was effective. Four other committee members voted yes.
Advice to the advisors
Typically, that kind of response would have been the end of it, at least until Amylix was ready to present data from a much larger study, which is already underway.
But after the March meeting, ALS patients and family members took to the Internet.
“There were thousands of emails that went to the [FDA] commissioner’s office,” says Neil Thakur, chief mission officer at the ALS Association, which helped fund the Amylix study. “There were over 1,100 comments that went to the advisory committee themselves, and also there was a sustained effort from ALS clinical scientific leaders.”
The small clinical trial does have flaws, Thakur said, but the advisory committee should have been willing to overlook those when it first reviewed the evidence in the spring.
“They were asking to hold that drug to the same standard they would hold any drug for any disease that wasn’t fatal and had lots of effective treatments,” he says.
Right now, ALS patients are offered variants of just two drugs: edaravone and riluzole. And even with these drug treatments, they typically die within two to five years after a diagnosis.
From no to yes
The email campaign by ALS patients seemed to have an effect on some FDA officials.
Early this month, the agency took the unusual step of reconvening its advisory committee to reconsider the Amylix drug. And this time, the FDA encouraged committee members to take a different perspective, Thakur says.
“This committee, it was clear that they were being asked to make a decision taking into account the available treatments and the needs of the ALS community,” he says.
The committee also received some additional data on patients in the Amylix study, and data from a study of Alzheimer’s patients who took AMX0035.
When the committee held its second public meeting on the drug, they were offered guidance from Dr. Billy Dunn, who directs the FDA’s Office of Neuroscience. He urged them to consider the plight of patients with ALS, and suggested his agency was open to approving the drug.
“For these serious diseases, like ALS and so many other neurological diseases, the maximum degree of regulatory flexibility is operational,” he said.
The FDA even revised its question to the committee. Instead of asking whether the drug was effective, they asked simply whether it should be approved.
After listening — instead of six no votes, seven of nine committee members decided to vote yes.
Echos of Aduhelm?
The process leading to the yes vote was “fishy,” says Fernandez Lynch, the bioethicist at UPenn.
“The very cynical version of this is that there was some kind of goal of manipulating the advisory committee to vote in a different way,” she says.
“They were swayed by this concern that they might be making the wrong judgment if they recommended FDA not to approve this product,” she says. “But nobody, as far as I heard, said this drug meets the substantial evidence standard.”
The substantial evidence standard was also in question when the FDA was considering the controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. The FDA approved that drug last year despite an overwhelming vote from the advisory committee that the standard had not been met.
If AMX0035 is approved, that could send troubling message to pharmaceutical companies, Lynch says.
“The message to companies is that you don’t have to show that your drug works,” she says. “You have to do the bare minimum to show that it might work.”
A 10K race is one of the harder races on your body. Typical times for non-professional runners range from 30 to 60 minutes and are close to your individual anaerobic threshold, or the pace at which you can run for 60 minutes without a loss in performance.
Since you will be putting a lot of stress on your body by running at the limit of your capabilities, it can be helpful to know what running pace you can sustain for 10K.
New to longer runs?
Preparing for a 10K doesn’t need to be hard or take a long time. In fact, it’s possible to prepare for it in as little as two weeks! Get all the info in our article >> How to Prepare for a 10K Run <<.
.
Running at the Limit of Your Capabilities? A Lactate Test Helps
One way of determining this limit is to do a lactate test in a lab. This not only defines your training zones but also includes a sports medical exam. Unfortunately, the values achieved on the treadmill don’t always transfer to running outdoors. Plus, the test – if performed regularly – is rather expensive.
All you need to estimate your individual anaerobic threshold is a stopwatch, a flat place to run, and some motivation.
Here’s How to Estimate Your Anaerobic Threshold:
Warm up for 10 to 15 minutes. Start slow and finish at a faster pace.
Begin jogging in 5 X 100-m strides – jog back to where you started as a break between strides.
Graduate by running 1,000 meters as fast as possible and jot down the time. This step should get your body up to speed and your legs ready to run fast.
Rest for 10 minutes but don’t stand or sit while you wait. Move around and stay loose.
Now it’s time to run 5,000 meters as fast as you can – and don’t forget to jot down the time.
Finally, jog for 10 minutes to cool down. Depending on the weather and the ground, you can also run barefoot on the grass for five minutes.
Good to know:
If you divide your 5K time by five, you will find your individual anaerobic threshold pace. And your 10K race pace, too!
Of course, you can also wear a heart rate monitor during the test to determine your working heart rate on that day. But remember that your heart rate can fluctuate significantly for the same activity based on the time of day. Therefore, it should only be used as a training tool when there is no other option for monitoring your performance (e.g., for running hills).
This test does not require much time; you can do it almost anywhere, and it provides you with all the information you need for your next race. But, generally, getting a medical checkup before you start training for a race is a good idea. That way, you can rule out any risk factors. A 10K race – as well as the test described above – is only suitable for healthy runners.
The table below (for download and printing!) shows you that your test results can tell you a lot more than just your 10K pace.
10K Run: Download the Running Pace Chart
Get HelpfulTips and Training Plans to Work on Your Running Performance
Now you know the running pace for your 10K.
But if you want to bring your performance to the next level, you should actively work on it.
The following blog posts will support you in reaching your fitness goals:
And if you want to go even further, this training plan in the adidas Training app is for you:
“Running Strong”: Did you know that strength training is a great way to take your running performance to the next level, prevent injuries, and add variety to your fitness routine? Get your >> 4-week training in the adidas Training app << today!
***
if(!isRussia){
//check Cookie Opt out and User consent
if(!run_getCookie(“tp-opt-out”)){
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;
n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,
document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘1594940627485550’); // Insert your pixel ID here.
fbq(‘track’, ‘ViewContent’);
}
}
August 17, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky even publicly admitted the agency’s failures, stating, “we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes from testing, to data, to communications.”1,2,3
To save face, Walensky is reorganizing the agency, but considering the extent to which CDC officials have lied, obfuscated and broken laws intended to protect public health, it is highly unlikely that the CDC will ever be able to recover their credibility.
Abolish the CDC
The CDC is corrupted beyond salvage, and as noted by Brownstone Institute founder and president Jeffrey Tucker,4 the only way to fix a captured bureaucracy is to get rid of it:
“Any serious effort to end the crisis must deal with the problem of the administrative state and the bureaucratic power thereof. Without that focus, no reform effort can get anywhere …
The reason is simple: a free and functioning society cannot coexist with an undemocratic beast like this on the loose, making its own laws and running roughshod over rights and liberties with zero oversight from elected leaders. Until the administrative state is defanged and disempowered, there will be no representative government and no hope for change.
It’s obvious that the bureaucracies will not reform themselves … The reform will be … cosmetic without reality. It will not deal with the central problem as plainly stated by Harvey Risch:5 ‘industry subservience and epidemiologic incompetence’ …
After Betsy DeVos left the Department of Education, and observing from the inside what a disaster it truly was, she said what needed to be said. Abolish it. Shut it down. Defund it completely. Forget about it. It does nothing useful. Everything it does can be performed better at the state level or private markets. All true.
What she says about the Department of Education is equally true of another hundred-plus agencies of the administrative state. People have been talking lately about abolishing the FBI. Great, do it. Same goes for the CDC. It’s time. Right now. Pull the plug on the whole thing and sell the real estate.
Truly there is no other option except continuing to do what we are doing now. The status quo is intolerable. If a serious reform-minded Congress comes to power, abolition and not reform and not cuts, needs to be the starting point of discussion …
There needs to be a to-be-abolished list and any federal government institution with the word agency, department, or bureau needs to be on it … Society itself, which is smarter than bureaucracy, can manage the rest.”
The Rise of the American Biosecurity State
To understand how and why the CDC has morphed into an agency that works against, instead of for, the public good, we need to take a look at the history of American biodefense. Two journalists have recently dedicated articles to this issue.
In an August 29, 2022, Unherd article,6 Ashley Rindsberg reviewed how Dr. Anthony Fauci rose to power as the highest paid federal employee, sitting at the “very top of America’s biodefense infrastructure,” with near-unlimited authority, at least as it pertains to science; what gets funded and what doesn’t.
“To understand the rise of Fauci … we must return to the first months of the 2000s, when a hawkish new administration was settling into power,” Rindsberg writes. George W. Bush came into office with Dick Cheney as vice president. Cheney had already served as defense secretary under George H.W. Bush.
According to Rindsberg, the Bush administration “came to power with biological weapons and infectious disease very much top of mind, with Cheney seeking to address the gaping hole in America’s national security left by the country’s lack of a coherent biodefense strategy.”
Biodefense became an even more prominent concern in the aftermath of 9/11, when letters containing anthrax were sent out to members of media and two U.S. senators. Of the 22 people infected with anthrax, five died. According to Rindsberg, Cheney “served as the political engine behind a paradigm shift that would soon take place in America’s biodefense strategy.”
Biodefense for the 21st Century
Just six days before 9/11, Joe Biden, then-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had led a hearing on the threat of bioterrorism and the spread of infectious diseases.
Subsequent to that hearing, in June 2002, president Bush signed the “Biodefense for the 21st Century”7 directive, the aim of which was to advance a “comprehensive framework” for U.S. biodefense, based on the assumption that America could be devastated by a bioweapons attack.
The directive outlined “essential pillars” of the U.S. biodefense program, including threat awareness and vulnerability assessment, prevention and protection, surveillance and detection, response and recovery. The year before, in June 2001, senior policymakers had also performed a two-day tabletop simulation of a smallpox attack called Dark Winter.
“Intended … to expose vulnerabilities, the operation showed how quickly a public health disaster could lead to widespread chaos and social collapse. This was the stuff nightmares are made of — and, by all accounts, those were the nightmares that Dick Cheney was having,” Rindsberg writes. He continues:8
“Significant as it was, [Cheney’s] transformation of America’s biodefence framework was part of a much larger repositioning of long-term geopolitical strategy, an effort also led by Cheney.
In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in the early Nineties, Cheney, then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush, along with Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, began formulating a grand strategy for the post-Cold War era.
This plan, revealed in an infamous leaked memo,9 was rooted in a single strategic objective: America should permanently remain the world’s superpower. Its architects argued the US would do so only by preserving ‘strategic depth’ to ‘shape the security environment.’
The initial leaked memo was later reworked by Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who broadened the concept10 of ‘strategic depth’ to cover not only geographic reach but also an ability to wage war with weapons that could not only cripple an enemy’s military capabilities but disrupt its political, economic and social stability.”
How Biodefense Became Fauci’s Domain
In 2002, the Bush administration quintupled biodefense spending to $317 million. That same year, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), broke out in China, and in 2003, just as SARS was being contained, H5N1 avian influenza emerged.
The back-to-back outbreaks acted as fuel for the erection of a biosecurity state, and in 2003, the Bush administration increased the annual biodefense budget to $2 billion — a staggering sum at the time. Bush also earmarked another $6 billion for the development and stockpiling of vaccines over the next decade.
But funding was only part of the challenge. To truly prepare for a bioweapons attack, research had to be conducted and coordinated, and to that end, Cheney brought all biodefense research programs under the purview of a single entity — the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Fauci.
So, since 2003, Fauci has been responsible for “civilian biodefense research with a focus on research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infectious diseases and radiation exposures.”11
What’s more, as explained by Rindsberg, “as far as NIAID was concerned, there was no meaningful administrative distinction between biodefense and scientific research. With the stroke of Cheney’s pen, all United States biodefense efforts, classified or unclassified, were placed under the aegis of Anthony Fauci.”
This, in a nutshell, explains Fauci’s power. As the head of the biodefense infrastructure, Fauci has, for decades, had an open channel straight into the top office of the White House. He’s also exempt from oversight. For all these years, he’s had carte blanche to approve and run whatever biodefense research he wanted, without anyone telling him otherwise.
It also explains why he’s the highest paid employee in the federal government, making more than the president himself. A significant portion of Fauci’s $417,600 annual salary12 is compensation for his biodefense research leadership.
COVID-19 Is Fauci’s Grandest Failure
As top dog of biodefense research, it was Fauci’s job to prevent COVID-19 from devastating the U.S. Instead, in 2017, he confidently announced that then-president Trump would “no doubt” have to face a “surprise infectious disease outbreak,”13 and then went on to issue a never-ending series of conflicting recommendations as head of the White House Coronavirus Response team.
In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released National Institutes of Health emails showing Fauci and now-former NIH director Francis Collins spearheaded the effort to bury the lab leak theory, even though the consensus in early February 2020 was that the virus likely leaked from the Wuhan lab — and that it appeared to have been genetically engineered.
February 4, 2020, Fauci and Collins received a draft of the article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” later published in Nature Medicine.14 The original draft has never been released to the public, but we do have an email reply from Fauci, in which he objected to the inclusion of serial passaging through humanized mice.
In its final form, the Nature Medicine article roundly dismissed the idea that the virus originated in a lab, proposing instead that it must have evolved naturally, even though no actual evidence for that existed.
The Dangers of Biodefense Research Are Obvious
For years, a number of critics have warned that biodefense research could result in the very thing we’re trying to avoid, namely an infectious disease outbreak, as even the highest-security laboratories are prone to leaks and accidents.
One such critic is Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University. In 2003, he warned that the burgeoning biodefense endeavor, while well-intentioned, “may perversely have exactly the opposite effect.”15
Fauci, ever the defender of risky research (and as we now understand, for selfish reasons), dismissed Ebright’s concerns as “spurious.” Today, Fauci’s dismissal rings hollow, as documents obtained through various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show he and Collins appear to have been more than a little nervous about people discovering they funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.16 As reported by U.S. Right To Know (USRTK):17
“In the earliest days of the pandemic, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins emailed about coronaviruses under study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and about whether they had steered money to the lab, an email obtained by U.S. Right to Know shows.
Collins … and Fauci … exchanged emails on February 1, 2020, about a preprint18 authored by Zhengli Shi, director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. The preprint described bat coronaviruses under study at the lab, including a coronavirus 96% genetically similar to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
The emails show that Collins and Fauci were concerned about links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and NIH. ‘In case you haven’t seen this preprint from one week ago,’ Collins said in a February 1, 2020, email to Fauci. ‘No evidence this work was supported by NIH’ …
About two hours after the email exchange, Collins and Fauci would join a secret teleconference with a group of virologists who were closely examining the novel coronavirus. The teleconference touched off a high-profile push to discredit the lab leak hypothesis.
The revelation that Collins and Fauci were discussing whether NIH had funded work on coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 at the Wuhan lab in the hours before suggests that politics may have been at play.”
How Cheney Tricked Us Into War
The second article19 to take a deep dive into the links between Cheney and Fauci was published by Sam Husseini, September 7, 2022. Husseini, however, throws his searchlight on the way both of these characters have used lies to further the biosecurity agenda:
“Twenty years ago, the ‘Cheney-Bush junta’ … launched its propaganda campaign to invade Iraq … Sept. 8, 2002, The New York Times ran on its front page the story ‘U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts’ …
That same day, then Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press … hyping the New York Times story as evidence that Hussein was attempting to acquire ‘the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.’ Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice followed Cheney’s lead on other shows.”
The problem, we now know, is that the “anonymous source” quoted by The New York Times lied. Worse, Cheney himself appears to have been that source. In other words, Cheney leaked the false story to the press, and then used that news coverage to support his recommendation to invade Iraq.
“Even the mainstream Bob Simon of CBS would later remark to Bill Moyers about Cheney: ‘You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that’s a remarkable thing to do,’” Husseini writes,20 adding: “Remarkable is actually an understatement. It’s engaging in a de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war.”
Fauci Caught Employing the Same Trick
Taking a page straight out of Cheney’s handbook, Fauci used the exact same trick when, in April 2020, he was asked to address the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade.
Fauci went on to cite “a study … where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
That paper was “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”21 that I just discussed above — the paper that Fauci and Collins edited prior to its publication in Nature Medicine. So, Fauci edited the paper22 and then he used that paper as “evidence” to support his irrational stance that the virus occurred naturally.
Just as Cheney engaged in a “de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war,” Fauci engaged in a de facto conspiracy to trick the public into giving up our freedoms and livelihoods in the name of biosecurity. So, as noted by Husseini,23 “One thing that should be kept in mind as one parses through the claims and ‘exposés’ is that some are de facto cover stories.”
‘Biodefense’ Has Become a War Machine Against the Public
Now, nearly three years into the COVID debacle, it’s clear that this is indeed a war. It’s a war against the American public, for the purpose of forcing us into a New World Order, a One World Government run by a globalist cabal, where “biosecurity” is the justification for the removal of Constitutional rights and freedoms.
The same war is being waged by governments across the globe, against their own citizens, for the same reason and with the same aim. Fauci like Cheney before him, is responsible for getting us into this war, and for keeping us in it, using lies and propaganda.
The Iraq war — launched under false pretenses — lasted for eight years. No doubt, COVID could be strung out for that long as well, unless the truth is finally recognized by the masses.
And, to circle back to where we started, the institutions that facilitated this war on the American public must be abolished and dismantled, and the individuals responsible within them held to account for their roles. This includes not only Fauci and Walensky, but a host of others as well.
