It's been a few years since I researched Bart (see side panel post). What a tragic death. WW1 was hard enough, but to survive the hostilities only to succumb to H1N1 as they say... so very sad.
COVID - 19 is a very different type of flu, however we should not be so blinded by money so as to ignore something that happened BEFORE the H1N1 took its toll on so many young people...
Lost to history, or omitted because of the unpleasant details was that fact that then as now a large vaccination campaign was conducted -only in 1918 it was ahead of the outbreak. Reading the reports from Taubenberger and his PCR tests still leave us, all these years later, with a partial picture. Then there's the Kolata book chronicling the effort to define a direct transmission of the flu in human testing and how it completely failed... completely - reading the book is fascinating.
Then let us recall where medicine was back then... you could be given pain killers with opium, medicines with chloroform as a preservative (turns to phosgene in the liver...) and throat sprays and swabs "preventative" with silver (formalin) and vaccines themselves often contained toxic heavy metals. All weaken an immune system that could also be stressed by malnutrition and fatigue.
Stuff not so good for the immune system. Eleanore McBean writes in her book that people had as many as 20 vaccinations per person leading up to the great outbreak. We can all agree with the advantage of time on our side that the state of the art in medicine was pretty ignorant back then - maybe as now by the way. What role do prescribed immunosuppresive pharmacological prescriptions play?
Anybody know? What does the research say?
Are there other medicines and food that can act against immunosuppressants?
So what of this common but never propagated knowledge? Make any difference? Is this why the CDC cautioned about sensitivity to COVID of folks with high blood pressure? Investigative journalism doesn't seem to be so investigative the$e days.
One common denominator then as now, is that medicine makes a lot of people wealthy regardless of the outcome and what was peddled, hyped and dispensed.
McBean and her advocacy is now arrogantly labeled, but let's not forget her opinions are based on her life experience. It's dangerous - even reckless to disregard voices because they don't fit a narrative. That's not good science that's more like a religion. Lost in today's media spin and recited by the largely ignorant but well paid talking heads are serious reviews of any data. So you have to do that. Data, not opinions trotted out by those in the employ of anointed manufactures, or citations that when reviewed, although they look like supporting "science" are empty of data - just more opinions. That is not science, that is manipulation of a narrative.
Be careful out there! We are still learning from Bart.
AML NLO, JRO and SEO AML
