Philadelphia, February 24, 2020
In a compelling article in Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, published by Elsevier, Mark McCarty of the Catalytic Longevity Foundation, San Diego, CA, USA, and James DiNicolantonio, PharmD, a cardiovascular research scientist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, USA, propose that certain nutraceuticals may help provide relief to people infected with encapsulated RNA viruses such as influenza and coronavirus.
In the United States, influenza infects around 30 million people every year causing around 30,000 deaths. While there are medications approved for the treatment of influenza, they typically are costly, have side effects, and are not very effective. Additionally, vaccinations against influenza may only be effective in around 50 percent of those vaccinated. Thus, there is a need for safer and effective alternatives in those infected with influenza.
Over the past few months, a novel RNA coronavirus, now called COVID-19, has broken out in China and has spread to over two dozen countries and infected more than 76,000 people causing more than 2,000 deaths. This novel coronavirus is much more lethal than the typical flu, with a current mortality rate of about 2.92 percent. In other words, around 1 in 33 people who are infected with this novel coronavirus will die. Whereas the annual flu has a mortality rate of just 0.05 to 0.1 percent. This means that around 1 in 1,000 to 2,000 people infected with the annual flu will die. In other words, COVID-19 is around 30 to 60 times more lethal than the typical annual flu. Continue reading Recent research on nutraceutical remedies for RNA virus infections including influenza and coronavirus
The childhood vaccine schedule in the U.S. features numerous combination vaccines—formulations that bundle multiple antigens for multiple diseases into one injection. Examples of combination vaccines currently given to American children include Merck’s four-component ProQuad vaccine against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella and Sanofi’s five-in-one Pentacel vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b.
Now, the U.S. is preparing to up the combination vaccine ante still further. At the close of 2018, the FDA approved the nation’s first six-in-one (hexavalent) vaccine—a Merck and Sanofi joint effort called Vaxelis intended for infants at ages two, four and six months. Like hexavalent vaccines given to infants in other countries, Vaxelis combines the five components featured in Pentacel along with Merck’s genetically engineered Recombivax vaccine against hepatitis B (HepB).
The inclusion of Recombivax raises an instant red flag, given that it contains a problematic proprietary aluminum adjuvant possibly linked to serious autoimmune conditions. In fact, when a Merck cyberattack in the summer of 2017 temporarily forced Recombivax out of the U.S. pediatric market and American children received GlaxoSmithKline’s HepB vaccine instead, annual reports of HepB vaccine-related deaths to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) dropped by roughly 75% and injury reports halved.
GlobalData cited the FDA’s approval of Vaxelis as “a major regulatory breakthrough,” noting that a CDC endorsement would “help to bolster vaccination rates across the US,” given that “shot burden” is a “key reason for parents’ failing to adhere to national recommendations.” Right on cue, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) took the initial step, in June 2019, of recommending Vaxelis for the low-income families who receive vaccines free of charge through the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program. Manufacturers estimate that Vaxelis will become available in the U.S. sometime in 2020.
What about hexavalent vaccine risks, publicized in other countries for decades? On that topic, the CDC and FDA have been largely silent, perhaps because of the next-to-useless design of the U.S. Vaxelis clinical trials, which compared one heavily vaccinated group against another—rather than comparing Vaxelis against an inert placebo. Unsurprisingly, this bogus procedure allowed researchers to conclude that adverse reactions to the vaccines were similar across groups. In other words, “nothing to see here.” …