Posted on

Regular Sinus Problems?

Blocked sinuses

If you regularly have blocked up sinuses I want to bring two factors to your attention:

  1. Vitamin A deficiency
  2. Allergies or Mould

Regarding mould, new groundbreaking research has shown that mould becomes many times more toxic in the presence of EMFs. Read on…

Vitamin A Deficiency

Dr. Berg says that a vitamin A deficiency, which can also/alternatively be a bile deficiency, can be an issue for the sinuses. Vitamin A is fat-soluble and bile is needed to break down fats. Hence the vitamin A deficiency could be a lack of bile rather than a lack of vitamin A.

Cod liver oil is a great source of vitamin A because it also contains omega fatty acids and natural occurring vitamin D.

Dr Berg also recommends a protein enzyme to dissolve build up of mucus.

Here are some links to these products:

Caveat: if the root problem is bio-toxic mould such as in house damp, then taking bile salts might make the symptoms worse. In which case you have more information and can confirm a mould/bio-toxin issue. See https://www.survivingmold.com/docs/UNDERSTANDING_CIRS_EDITV2A.PDF

Allergies and Mould

Blocked sinuses could an environmental bio-toxin such as mould, or an allergy such as a reaction to animals, or a food allergy. Some things to consider:

  • cutting out all grains and dairy for a month
  • kimchi or lactobacillus sakei supplement to address bacteria imbalance (for the science behind lactobacillus sakei see this page). Note – after further research it seems likely that the specific source of this beneficial bacteria might be the garlic that’s in the kimchi. So fermented garlic (at between 14 and 21 days) is particularly recommended for this condition.
  • remove mould from the home environment

Electromagnetic Fields

Mould issues can be aggravated by electromagnetic fields which have been shown to cause mould to be more ‘aggressive’. For a deeper look at this topic see Do EMFs-increase-mould-toxicity?, but here’s a few suggestions:

  • switch off the house AC power to the sleeping area at night, or
  • take action to deactivate live wires in floor space and wall space in the sleeping area

To thin down sinus mucus (doesn’t cure root cause) I would take fenugreek, and I would try acupressure of the 2nd vertebrae.

And …

Posted on

What does 95% effective really mean?

When you hear vaccine manufacturers say their “vaccines” are 95% effective you will be forgiven for thinking that, if 100 people are vaccinated then 95% will not get the virus.

But what does it actually mean?

If we look at Pfizer’s trial of 43,000 people (here) they report 162 cases of covid among the non-vaccinated control group of 21,500, while there were 8 cases of covid among those receiving the vaccine, also 21,500.

What they mean is this: 162 cases + 8 cases = 170 total cases of covid in both the vaccinated and the placebo groups.
As 162 cases is 95% of 170 (95.3% actually), the vaccine is 95% effective. Ta-daaa!

Wait, What? Did you think they meant 95% of vaccinated participants were protected from covid? Yes, that’s what you’re meant to think, but no, that’s not what they mean.

The percentage of the vaccinated group that caught covid was 0.037%, while the percentage of the un-vaccinated group that caught covid was 0.75%. So the actual effective rate for the vaccine is 0.75 minus 0.037 = 0.71% effective. The “protected group” is the difference between those not vaccinated who caught covid (162), and those vaccinated who caught covid (8). 162 minus 8 = 154. 154 expressed as a percentage of the vaccinated group (21,500) is 0.71%.

Now, 0.71% efficacy doesn’t really make for headline news does it? Knowing what you now know, do you think their claim of 95% efficiency is dishonest? Before you answer that, consider that Pfizer have been convicted 23 times in the last 20 years under the False Claims Act. And we do not know how many times they have settled out of court which are not included in this number.

This 0.71% protection actually translates to meaning that for 99.29% of the population this vaccine won’t give any advantage at all. For this 99.29%, all the jab can do is confer risk of adverse reactions.

So what about these reported adverse reactions? This is Pfizer’s statement: “no serious safety concerns observed; the only Grade 3 adverse event greater than 2% in frequency was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0%”. Pfizer’s published results are only in synopsis form – they have said they will not publish the actual data for 18 months. Convenient for them. Bear in mind this is a company that has been convicted and fined for lying every single year for the last 20 years. According to the British Medical Journal the fact that Pfizer have only published a synopsis is unacceptable: Where are the data?.

So while individual Grade 3 (severe) events which are less than 2% of the group are not detailed, there could be other severe reactions that we don’t know about because they are only reporting those with a frequency over 2%. Other Grade 3 events can include systemic (whole body) illness that “prevents daily activity and requires medical intervention” (FDA classifications of events – see the page 5). While these more serious events might happen less frequently they can also be more debilitating and permanent… and we won’t have access to the data for 18 months… we’re just being asked to trust Pfizer. I refer you back to their track record under the False Claims Act.

For example if there were 5 other types of Grade 3 reaction, and these averaged 0.5% for each events, that would equate to 2.5% of the participants. 2.5% of the vaccinated participants is 537 people. Compare that to the 154 people the jab apparently helped.

So for the sake of a disease that greater than 99.9% of those under the age of 60 will recover from; you can take a vaccine that confers 0.71% protection, while at the same time confers a documented incident rate of 5.8% for fatigue and headache (duration unknown, pathology unknown), and an un-disclosed percentage-risk of severe, possibly life-changing events.

Of the 93,000 participants of the trials done by Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZenica, zero died of Covid.

Additional considerations from the British Medical Journal:
1) There is no evidence the experimental injections will save any lives:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/covid-19-vaccine-trials-cannot-tell-us-if-they-will-save-lives/
2) Covid “science” is being corrupted for political and financial gain:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425