Raising Awareness About Health Choices

Preserving the Fundamental Human Right to Health Freedom

  • June 18, 2020 5:00 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Health Freedom Ohio Research Team

    The CDC recently released an analysis of excess deaths in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic [1].  In this review of the CDC report, we will describe the model used and communicate significant findings based on our analysis of the data.  

    Description of the model

    The purpose of this report by the CDC was to provide information about mortality potentially related to the COVID-19 pandemic.  According to the technical description provided, counts of all causes of death, including COVID-19 were presented.  “Excess deaths” were defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths in a specific time period and the expected number of deaths, the latter which was estimated using Bayesian methods, which allowed for some degree of uncertainty.  The number of excess deaths with and without COVID-19 were compared.  In the number of COVID-19 deaths that are reported by each state, “presumptive” deaths were included based on earlier CDC guidance [2].  The model estimates when a significant departure from 95% confidence intervals was observed, a standard practice in statistics.  It is noted in the report that the weighting methods used to account for uncertainty might over-adjust for underreporting.  However, the report also mentions that ICD10 code U07, which captures unknown but possible COVID deaths, were excluded.  It is unclear what the combination of exclusion of certain ICD10 codes and weighting schemes would have on generalizability of findings.  

    As stated by this report, the number of excess deaths “could represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths, or potentially could be indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., deaths from other causes occurring in the context of health care shortages or overburdened health care systems).” (emphasis ours).  Also noted in the report, “the pandemic may have changed mortality patterns for other causes of death. Upward trends in other causes of death (e.g., suicide, drug overdose, heart disease) may contribute to excess deaths in some jurisdictions.”


    Figure 1 below was generated [3] using the “Excess deaths with and without COVID-19” option.  Note that the CDC report excludes deaths in New York City from the analysis presented in Figure 1.  The points with red crosses indicate that the number of excess deaths was statistically significant, even after accounting for uncertainty parameters.  There are two major points in history with significant excess deaths.  The first peak of excess deaths occurs in early 2018, which coincides with a notably bad flu season [4].  The second peak starts at March 28, 2020, just a couple of weeks after states started shutting down.  

    Figure 1.

    Figure 2.

    A closer view of that peak is in Figure 2. Ithis second peak, the first date of statistically significant excess numbers of deaths occurs at March 28, which was a couple of weeks after the state-wide shutdowns of medical systems and “stay at home” orders.  Scrolling over the plot, one can obtain specific values (which cannot be captured with a screenshot).  On March 28, the estimated percentage excess was 6.3-10.1%.  The peak occurs on April 1, where the percent excess ranges between 34.8%-39.6%.

    There is also an option to plot the “total number above average by jurisdiction/cause”.  The initial plot generated appears below (Figure 3).  

    Figure 3.

    This plot can be generated for specific states/jurisdictions.  Not all states showed excess deaths.  Below we provide Ohio, neighboring states, as well as New York/New York city, Florida, California, and Washington, where there has been considerable coverage of the COVID-19 outbreaks (Figure 4).

    Figure 4.

    Figure 5 provides the figure legend, in a larger size, for ease of viewing.

    There are some very important observations that can be made from this figure.  First, one can observe the predominant cause of death in New York City is heart disease and heart issues.  This is interesting because much has been made about why New York City is such an “epicenter” for the COVID-19 epidemic, and many scientists and doctors have stated this is due to a high prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities, and the existence of those comorbidities is further demonstrated by this predominant cause of death.  Looking at Ohio, we see that heart disease and associated cardiovascular issues is also the predominant cause of death.  The second most common cause is Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.  This same pattern is seen in California, New York, and Pennsylvania. This is a striking finding, given the lockdowns in nursing homes and elder care settings, where COVID-19 is both highly prevalent with a high case fatality rate [5], but at the same time, families are unable to visit their relatives and supervise their care [6].

    It must be stressed that this qualitative analysis does not provide proof of causality.  In essence, this is an ecological analysis, where we are observing the timing of excess deaths and the cause of death after the COVID-19 shutdown.  Still, as seen in Figure 1, the number of excess deaths is statistically significant, even after accounting for uncertainty.  Moreover, these are likely an under-estimate.  The CDC report clearly states that COVID-19 as the cause of death was assigned even in “probable” circumstances, in accordance to their earlier guidance [2] and when cause of death was not known with certainty, the models even allow for this to be COVID-19.

    Still, this is noteworthy because of the impact of the shutdown on the healthcare system.  At the beginning of healthcare system shutdown, when only “essential” care would be provided with a priority on increasing capacity for COVID-19 response, many doctors stopped providing regular care.  There was considerable variability in this.  Stories were reported of individuals with cancer and significant chronic conditions that were denied surgery and clinical care during this time. In some instances, elected officials intervened, but is unclear how many citizens of Ohio successfully sought this additional intervention.  Hospital staff, and the impact on the healthcare system continues, evidenced by reported pay cuts for University Hospitals staff [6].  Also, because of the strong emphasis on “self-quarantine” and to “stay at home” / “shelter in place,” many individuals may have had chronic conditions or illnesses that they neglected because they were afraid to leave their homes or afraid to violate the orders.  Furthermore, nursing homes and other congregate living settings denied access to family members.  Often family members can detect health concerns because of their familiarity with their loved one, issues that might be missed by medical staff, and very commonly, family members are advocates for the patient.  This has been lost during this time, and continues to be.  Many such examples have been cited by the media [7].

    Implications for present-day legislative action

    The consequences of imposing statewide social, medical, and economic restrictions in exclusive consideration of a singular diagnosis has significant deleterious consequences on the population as other health and medical needs may not be able to be met under such restrictive circumstances.  There have been lasting economic effects on the healthcare system [6].  This is important when considering proposed legislation that might restrict the powers of the Director of the Ohio Department of Health.  If the restrictions hadn’t been so strict, much of this could have been avoided.  Regular care for individuals with chronic conditions should have been maintained.  Nursing homes should have allowed some level of access to patients’ loved ones.  

    There also continues to be speculation of a “second wave,” which is based on conjecture only and no actual data [8].  We must remain vigilant to prevent unwarranted panic, as we detailed in our previous white paper [9], to induce an unnecessary shutdown and potentially cause a second wave of excess deaths.  There are millions of viruses, bacteria and fungi that interface with the human body. Focus on a single virus and a single diagnosis can negatively affect other significant health outcomes, and this CDC report provides evidence of that.   

    Download PDF: Excess Deaths During COVID 6-17-20.pdf

    Cited references:

    1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm?fbclid=IwAR035yFGOZe5IaK0Xd7pOzq1-GVeMVgK81m1JJTwO7ulhQNzCinuhl-dU0Q

    2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html

    3. Figures accessed from [1] on June 13, 2020

    4. https://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/2018/02/2018_flu_update_death_toll_rea_1.html

    5. https://www.wmfd.com/article/governor-dewine-suppresses-data-disproving-covid-19-policies/3899

    6. https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2020/06/university-hospitals-to-cut-pay-of-all-doctors-including-those-working-on-coronavirus-frontlines.html?fbclid=IwAR3BprU-T-LYzB0FTnQztOwJYLDOxSo7OJ4cbMRtgXZ9mSf1qRqRuRMuQyI

    7. https://www.prageru.com/our-mother-did-not-die-of-covid-19-she-died-because-of-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR0mY6V4FKCaRMnPcUCoLwOPgLZneKIg1mPcS3ufgTLD-s_ETgcwMQ5KZnQ

    8. http://www.healthdata.org/covid/updates

    9. https://healthfreedomohio.org/News-Views/8962174?fbclid=IwAR1AvhIrOwHEWjy_nObbRGedr2b3-XSFmDby5-kHUzM0hOJBaF44yVihQ7s

  • May 11, 2020 6:51 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Health Freedom Ohio Research Team

    The objective of this paper is to review what is known about the epidemiology of COVID-19.  The various epidemic models that have been used to drive policy will be described, with particular note regarding their strengths and weaknesses.  Recent data from serologic surveys will be summarized, and the implications of these findings on meaningful epidemiologic parameters will be explained.  Finally, we will elaborate on what parameters are needed in order to understand the true public health burden.

    But first, we would like to start by saying that we do not downplay this virus.  We do not claim it is a “hoax” or “conspiracy” or anything of the sort.  Rather, we believe the proportions of this epidemic are being exaggerated.  While it is tragic that people have been affected by this virus or have even succumbed to it, there is morbidity and mortality due to respiratory illnesses every year. 

    The Importance of Case Definitions

    We have heard repeatedly that COVID-19 diagnosis kits are not widely available.  This is surprising, given a recent report of 10,000 kits being sent to Uganda as a humanitarian effort [1].  This is part of the reason that the CDC has issued official guidance [2] that counts of COVID-19 disease as well as COVID-associated death include “presumed” cases that are not laboratory confirmed.  Because of the similarity in presentation to other respiratory illnesses, this results in an over-report of cases, and therefore an overestimation of the public health burden.  This CDC guidance has also resulted in an over-reporting of deaths due to COVID.  It is important to re-iterate that there is a difference between determining deaths in individuals with disease versus deaths of the disease.  Many reports have been presented on social media of doctors having death certificates corrected to say COVID-19 was the cause of death, even when it was only a co-occurring condition (for example, [3]).  This inflation of death statistics has an adverse effect on reporting to the media and policy.  

    Epidemiologic Models

    In Ohio, there have been two epidemiologic models mentioned by Dr. Amy Acton and Governor Mike DeWine as the basis for policy.  A primary concern is that neither of these models has been peer reviewed.  This is important to mention because peer review is one of the hallmarks of science.  In peer review, other experts in the field can evaluate the assumptions and procedures in a scientific study.  Generally, broad changes to health policy are not made until a study is peer reviewed.  Admittedly, there is a push to release data in the interest of saving lives, but the lack of peer review must be kept in mind.  Second, neither of these analyses are easy to find for the public to evaluate them.  Indeed, these have only been obtained through direct contact with the modelers or through the media scouring the internet.  

    Both of the Ohio models use differential equations to characterize the epidemic curve.  This is generally standard procedure in mathematical modeling in infectious disease epidemiology, so in and of itself, this is not a problem. However, these types of models should utilize observed data as the basis for different parameters, and should also vary the values of those parameters as a sensitivity analysis.  

    The Ohio State model [4,5] was based on a survival density curve and claimed that it used the current case count data as its basis.  This is the model that projected that at some point, there would be 10,000 cases of COVID-19 per day in Ohio, and social distancing would only reduce that to 7,000 at the peak per day.  However, this model made a variety of assumptions that are not appropriate.  First, in the online seminar presenting this model, the scientist developing the model noted wide variations when there were slight changes in the assumptions.  He said that was “too early to tell” (exact quote) what the epidemic would actually look like.  And yet, this model was taken as the basis for the “stay at home” order.  The model was highly unstable.  Second, because there was no data available on recovery from COVID-19, this parameter was simply “zeroed out” (again, exact quote).  As we explain below regarding the IHME model from the University of Washington, that assumption is critical.  This model also assumes homogeneity across individuals, which is an oversimplification, and it assumes “spread on contact”.  

    The preprint version of this model [5] assumed there were no false positives in the number of reported cases, some vague modeling of recovery, and incorporated illness “onset dates”, which are subject to recall bias.  It is also concerning that the paper describing the model never actually showed a table of the parameter estimates and how they were varied.  This is standard practice in mathematical modeling. The preprint paper also estimates hospital bed usage and explicitly states that these parameter estimates cannot be shown because hospital bed numbers are considered a “trade secret” according to the Ohio Revised Code.  This seems strange, considering a simple internet search reveals a cleveland.com article with the number of beds in the state of Ohio [6].  

    Before we describe the model from the Cleveland Clinic, we wish to explain why some of these model limitations are truly significant.  First, we know that the tests for COVID-19 are not terribly accurate.  False positive tests would overestimate the morbidity of disease, and thus, over-estimate the “curve”.  Second, cases that are recovered are no longer infectious.  By not modeling this, the epidemic could “run away”; in other words, the number of infectious individuals in the population could accumulate, and we know that after treatment, people are no longer infectious.  Lastly, assuming homogeneity in the response to exposure assumes that everyone has the same risk profile.  We know that isn’t the case with COVID-19.  Many studies have reported that elderly individuals and individuals with comorbidities are much more susceptible.  

    The model from the Cleveland Clinic [7,8] is similar mathematically to the Ohio State model.  This mathematical model does not incorporate error terms, but the analyst did vary the parameter estimates, and thus did perform a sensitivity analysis.  While the paper says that infection rates (R0) are estimated from the data, the paper does not show how this was done.  It is unclear if the actual reported case counts were even incorporated into the model at all.  The resulting curve starts looking much like the existing data, then changes shape, and more concerning, it shifts, with a peak hospital usage in July.  That isn’t at all justified by the observed data that have been reported in Ohio.  The model even incorporates social distancing and other variable restrictions, but that doesn’t explain this sudden shift in the curve.  

    Now we contrast these models to the IHME model from the University of Washington [9].  The first noteworthy difference is that a preprint for this paper is available on medRxiv, a preprint server commonly used in biomedical science.  Second, this model has adapted with time.  As more data on the number of cases was recorded, the model changed, and this can be seen from the website [10].  Third, an advantage of this model is that it incorporates average length of stay as a proxy for recovery time, and put greater emphasis on deaths and hospitalizations than number of actual cases.  Of course, this model also assumed accurate case reporting, thereby having the same limitation due to “false positives” as the two Ohio models.  It also assumes that the cause of death was reported accurately, and we know that the CDC has issued guidance to report COVID-19 as the cause of death even if there were pre-existing conditions and/or other factors that ultimately led to death [2].  Another advantage of the IHME model is that it formally conducts age-adjustment, thereby adjusting the mortality rate for the age of the population.  Since we know that COVID-19 disproportionately affects the elderly, this is important, so that mortality rates are not over-estimated.  The model was also clear about the data it used as input.  This model had peak hospital bed usage occurring at April 19, 2020.  It is puzzling that, while the work that went into this model was so transparent, it was dismissed by the Governor and Dr. Acton.  

    It is true that modeling real time is a challenge.  Very little was known about COVID-19, and scientists continue to learn.  However, basic math would have revealed that the estimates from the Ohio State model were unreasonable, given those numbers were higher than those seen in more populated countries.  Regardless, the models would have benefited from more sensitivity analysis, and additional parameters to allow for the unknown rather than dropping those parameters from the model entirely.  Alternatively, rather than criticizing the IHME model, as the Ohio State paper did, they could have considered adopting aspects of it.  Ultimately, if a model is to be used for making policy, it needs to use actual observed data, not only parameter values.  This is clear from the fact that the model that did use actual data (IHME) projected the burden of disease and on the health care system with values that were much closer to what actually happened.  

    Our Understanding of Prevalence

    Two recent studies have been conducted in California, one by investigators at Stanford [11], and another at the University of Southern California (data only available from press releases and interviews with the media [12,13]).  These two surveys shed light on the actual prevalence of COVID-19 in the population.  Both studies sampled asymptomatic individuals.  Both studies made an attempt to sample randomly, and when their samples did not accurately represent the demographics of the county of interest, they used statistical methods to adjust the prevalence values estimated from their study.  The tests used had a sensitivity > 90% and specificity > 99%, which are quite accurate for detecting infection.  Sensitivity and specificity are quantities that describe the accuracy of screening tests, and these terms are often misapplied in the media.  Sensitivity is the ability of test to identify correctly all screened individuals who actually have the disease, and specificity is the ability of the test to identify only nondiseased individuals who actually do not have the disease.  The Stanford study, which sampled in Santa Clara County, estimated an adjusted prevalence ranging between 2.4-4.1%.  The USC study, which sampled in LA County, estimated a prevalence ~4%; this study released their data immediately to the public and additional analyses were ongoing.  

    Why are these values relevant?  First, it shows that a fair proportion of the population is asymptomatic.  Second, and more importantly, it gives a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of infection.  Now, in addition to confirmed symptomatic cases, we know the more accurate number of cases.  Cause-specific mortality is estimated as number of cases due to disease / number of individuals with the disease.  All previous estimates of cause-specific mortality were overestimates because the denominator was too small.  Now, we see that the cause-specific mortality may have been overestimated by as much as 50-85 times [11].  Said another way, for months, the reported cause-specific mortality rate for COVID-19 was 3-5%.  With this new knowledge of the seroprevalence, the mortality rate is 0.1-0.2%.  The Stanford study goes on to estimate seroprevalence for other populations, and report a prevalence of 10% in Italy.  This is significant for two reasons.  First, the mortality in Italy has been shocking to see, but the mortality rate may have been overestimated.  Second, we know that the cause of death due to COVID-19 was exceedingly overreported in Italy, amplifying this problem.

    Another recent study from Denmark [14] conducted a seroprevalence study of over 9000 healthy blood donors.  The sensitivity of the antibody assay they used was slightly lower than in the USC study (82.5%) but the specificity was as good (99.5%).  In this study, they estimated a seroprevalence of 1.7% after adjustment for sensitivity and specificity of the assay.  They also estimated the cause-specific fatality rate in individuals less than 70 years of age at 82 per 100,000.  That’s 0.082%.  While this was a sample of healthy individuals that passed an eligibility screen in order to donate blood, in many ways, this represents a typical healthy population.  

    There was a COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship [15].  This is an extreme situation of intense exposure, however among over 3700 passengers and crew, 712 were infected, 13 died, 645 recovered, and 54 are still recovering after 8 weeks.   This demonstrates the wide variability of individual response to the same intense exposure.  However, when one accounts for the age distribution of the passengers, the age-adjusted case fatality rate is 0.125% [16].  An article by a renowned epidemiologist goes on to extrapolate this case fatality rate to the US population demographics, estimated to be 0.05% [16].  According to the article, this is lower than seasonal influenza.  

    In Ohio, we simply do not have the resources to do broad testing to better estimate the cause-specific mortality.  The authors of the USC study even caution against broad testing, claiming that not all tests have the same accuracy.

    Other Important Metrics

    In the press conference on April 28, Dr. Acton mentioned that additional metrics would be followed soon.  Here, we would like to make some points about what these metrics should be, and why they are important.  

    Physicians (whom we choose to keep anonymous) have noted that the true burden on the healthcare system is noted by deaths and hospitalizations.  The entire purpose of social distancing was to ultimately reduce the burden on the hospital system, not prevent the entire state from getting sick.  Thus, to evaluate the impact of social distancing, we need to estimate the change in deaths and change in hospitalization rate.  As the governor pointed out on April 28, indeed, there are new hospitalizations and deaths every day.  That is how disease outbreaks work – events accumulate.  What is of interest is the rate of change in those metrics.  Is the number of new deaths per day (or per week) declining?  Is the number of new hospitalizations per day (per week) declining?  Then you know you are on the other side of the peak.  

    This is why transparency is important.  The inclusion of presumptive cases and deaths into the numbers presented to the media is misleading.  Currently, only the cumulative numbers in deaths and hospitalizations are being presented.  Length of stay is also important.  An overnight hospitalization is not as severe as several days in the hospital. These have been denied to the public claiming privacy and HIPAA. This is completely contradictory.  The number cases per county is being updated daily, often pinpointing where outbreaks occur, for example in nursing homes or prisons.  For lower populated counties, an increasing case count is nearly identifiable.  There have been instances where individuals have been double counted, and it has been plastered on social media.  Hospitalizations, discharges, and length of stay are no less private than these numbers, and are much more meaningful.  

    The Big Picture

    It is important to keep things in perspective.  As of April 28, 2020, COVID-19 has affected 16,128 Ohioans (confirmed numbers – “probable” cases are inappropriate to count).  This is an incidence of 0.137%, far below Dr. Acton’s infamous “guesstimate”.  There have been 757 confirmed deaths, which as stated above, is likely inflated because the CDC has ordered that cause of death always be reported as COVID-19 even if there was another cause of death.  The mortality rate cannot be estimated without an accurate estimate of the total seroprevalence in the state.  Supposing it is 1%, on the lower end of the Stanford confidence interval, the potential mortality rate is 0.075%, yes, less than 1%.  

    In 2018, there were 464 deaths due to influenza and 1961 due to pneumonia.  The data for 2019 and 2020 are not yet available.  Together, that is 3 times the number of COVID-19 deaths.  So both in terms of absolute counts and rates, COVID-19 mortality is not worse than that for seasonal respiratory illnesses.  

    This also sets a terrible precedent.  Much of the policy has been driven by this idea that asymptomatic individuals can spread COVID-19 infection.  The literature suggests this may be true of other viral infections as well, such as influenza and other respiratory illnesses.  Does this mean that we will be mandated to wear masks every flu season for the rest of our lives?  Will businesses always be forced to close?  We must ask ourselves what makes COVID-19 unique, and it certainly isn’t the epidemiology. 


    Download PDF file:

    Epidemiological Investigation of COVID-19.pdf

    Cited references

    1. https://www.cleveland19.com/2020/04/28/case-western-reserve-university-sends-coronavirus-test-kits-african-country-uganda/

    2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html

    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDALi8encs&fbclid=IwAR2WYKJIiqE92ch872O1b66Wnnkomg_f7lP1umdjrAJJ0fMg5UgkSqXN2Ww

    4. https://video.mbi.ohio-state.edu/video/player/?id=4888&title=Mathematical%20Models%20of%20Epidemics%3A%20Tracking%20Coronavirus%20using%20Dynamic%20Survival%20Analysis

    5. https://idi.osu.edu/assets/pdfs/covid_response_white_paper.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3QvE2H3hMUnSh7GJwocXgwaq9HTlXgkfah-lGYDJh5hJqbNaKxi679Gwc

    6. https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2020/03/how-many-hospital-beds-are-near-you-details-by-ohio-county.html

    7. https://github.com/sassoftware/covid-19-sas

    8. https://github.com/sassoftware/covid-19-sas/blob/master/CCF/docs/seir-modeling/SAS-ETS-COVID-19-SEIR-model.pdf

    9. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.27.20043752v1

    10. https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/ohio

    11. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v2

    12. https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-county-covid-19-study-released/

    13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_jXKcp4Zyg&feature=youtu.be

    14. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1.full.pdf

    15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109273/

    16. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

  • April 30, 2020 2:37 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Republished with permission from Dr. Paul A. Byrne, original publication at Renew America.

    By: Paul A. Byrne, M.D.

    We are in the midst of a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Early reports included multiple, now more than 40 deaths in a nursing home in the State of Washington. Twenty percent of the COVID-19 deaths in New York and New Jersey are residents of nursing homes. Many other nursing homes have increased deaths. Is this because the COVID-19 virus is so virulent or other factors?

    The Associated Press conducted its own survey in the U.S. and found there had been nearly 11,000 COVID-related nursing home deaths across the country as of April 24. However, just 23 states have been publicly reporting nursing home deaths.” https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-failure-covid-nursing-home-deaths.html (Accessed 4-28-20)

    This is not surprising considering that patients in nursing homes are older and have co-morbidities and therefore, are more susceptible to succumb to an infection.

    Most in nursing homes require assistance in living. A prerequisite for acceptance into most, if not all, nursing homes is an Advance Directive for Healthcare. It is common that the Advance Directive will include a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Order.

    In addition some may have already unwittingly been put into Palliative care (PC). Most residents of nursing homes and their relatives do not have full and complete information about PC.

    Triggers for PC are not limited to incurable diseases that are painful, but include declining ability to complete activities of daily living, weight loss, uncertainties regarding prognosis, limited social support and a serious illness (e.g., homeless, chronic mental illness), perceived psychological or spiritual distress of the patient or family. https://getpalliativecare.org/resources/clinicians/ (Accessed 4-28-20)

    PC sets the stage for more deaths for the most vulnerable. How? PC focuses on alleged relief of symptom-burden, not necessarily treatment of the cause, i.e., the underlying medical conditions, treatment of which could alleviate the symptoms. For example, an elderly patient with cancer is noted to have a change in mental status. This could be a result of medication, a urinary tract infection, dehydration, or a myriad of other treatable conditions, not related to the cancer. Yet, in PC the symptom-focus response may be to give Valium-like drugs or narcotics to sedate the patient, omit evaluation and simple tests to diagnose the actual problem, and not provide common medications or interventions that could successfully treat the medical condition causing the symptom(s).

    There are many concerns during this time of sheltering at home and social distancing. Separation of loved ones in nursing homes from family and visitors including clergy, done for their protection from COVID-19, was sudden and not predictable and raises other questions concerning care needs of these vulnerable persons.

    Doctors and Death – Redefinitions and Participation

    How did we get here? Medicine changed drastically and horrifically in 1968 with “brain death” when a Committee at Harvard published “A Definition of Irreversible Coma.” “Brain death” calls a person with a beating heart and circulation, “dead.” Everyone in coma is alive, nevertheless the Harvard Committee without any scientific or medical references, declared that someone unconscious in coma, on a ventilator without brainstem reflexes of the eye and ear, and unable to take a breath on their own, but many other signs of life including being warm with normal color, a beating heart, blood pressure, pulse, oxygen being taken in and carbon dioxide going out, can be considered “dead.” To call a person dead while there are many signs of life and then to participate in organ procurements by stopping the beating heart and removing it thereby making the person definitively dead was a major change in the direction of medicine. This change had and still has an impact on medical practice. Doctors were blinded to the most basic good of the presence of life itself and were now participating in causing deaths albeit with the intention of helping others live. Laws were passed to protect this new definition of death. In 1970 Kansas was the first state to pass a “brain death” statute. Judges and legislators from all 50 states became involved making it legal to call someone dead while the heart was beating with many other signs of life.

    Advance Directives and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Orders

    In 1990 Medicare and Medicaid were amended to require hospitals and skilled nursing facilities to inform patients of their rights to make decisions concerning their medical care and to periodically inquire as to whether a patient executed an Advance Directive and document the patient's wishes regarding their medical care. As a result, when entering any hospital or nursing home the patient and/or those who represent the patient are asked if the patient has a Living Will or Advance Directive. This is commonly done by an admission clerk, not a treating physician. If the patient does not have an Advance Directive, quite commonly a “sample” is provided for consideration.

    Every state had a “brain death” statute before a Living Will statute. A Living Will is a written statement detailing a person's desires under some future, hypothetical, circumstances not to be treated. Decisions about non-treatment in the future violate two basic principles of medicine. The first is that a physician gathers all timely, relevant information about the patient before a diagnosis and plan of treatment are made. The second is that a doctor is expected to provide the most up-to-date treatments that can be most beneficial to the patient. Neither of these are available when a Living Will is executed.

    Another form of Advance Directive is a Power of Attorney for Health Care. This allows one to designate someone to speak for him/her.

    POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatments) is a type of Advance Directive designed to have patients choose to get less treatment and care and once signed by a physician becomes a legal medical order binding future caregivers from providing the care refused. The future, including the onslaught of a coronavirus, cannot be known by the person completing an Advance Directive.

    Once society and medicine has accepted 1) calling people “dead” who are really alive, participating in their deaths, 2) advance directives that aim at refusing or limiting treatments and care, it is an easy step to 3) palliative care principles that further limit treatments with their focus on symptoms, not cures.

    Then enter coronavirus especially in nursing homes. Everything is in place for those with weak or absent immunity to acquire the virus. Those with underlying disease are more likely to get sicker. Almost everyone in a nursing home has an Advance Directive in place not to be treated and receive less care.

    People with disabilities and the elderly are considered to be more likely to die from COVID-19 and therefore they may be denied life-saving or life-sustaining treatments to enable a person who is viewed as more likely to survive to receive treatment.

    Nursing home residents, relatives and friends are affected by the involuntary mandated imposition of no visitors. If a person, labeled a “client,” in a nursing home has an acute illness, they are subject to whatever is provided. Their Advance Directive is in place for non-treatment, even for unspecified imaginable illnesses. Many are frail; they are without relatives; treatment depends on whatever personnel in the nursing home provide. Their Advance Directive indicates that the person has chosen not to receive some treatments; thus, it is so easy to translate this into no treatment.

    The palliative care movement, preceded by “brain death” and Living Will statutes, is another related change in medical care in our country. Palliative care involves a palliative care team (which can include physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains) that helps the family determine when the patient’s care should be shifted away from cure and toward death. Palliative care is less treatment and no care and is a major part of the System of Death that exists in Medicine, the Law and the Church.

    The person in the nursing home and their relatives did not appreciate this. This was done before COVID-19. Now, nursing home residents, relatives and friends are stuck with it.

    Shortly after the onset of COVID-19, the anticipated need for ventilators started the push to make more ventilators. However, patients in nursing homes with a DNR order will not get a ventilator, even if it might be a temporary treatment that would allow recovery from the virus. Is the death rate among the elderly higher because of their age and co-morbidities alone or because they will not be offered a chance to survive whether that be on a ventilator or possibly due to other innovative care strategies that may have a reasonable chance for even greater effectiveness and improved survival? The Advance Directive may be the mechanism to the ending of their life even if unintended by the patient.

    In general, many patients seem to have the idea that ventilator use would mean a comatose existence on a machine indefinitely. How many are informed that ventilator use can be temporary and a means to continued living? The use of ventilator guidelines is being questioned for COVID-19 patients. Are death rates from COVID-19 higher in nursing homes because in the face of advance directives that limit potentially curative therapy, treatments, whether with a life-saving ventilator or with other modalities, are being denied to the elderly?

    Palliative Care proponents want opioids to relieve breathlessness and pain. Opioids do not relieve breathlessness per se but make a patient sedated and breathe less because they decrease respiratory rate and volume. The patient too sedated to take hydration or nutrition, dies. They may appear more comfortable but if they are too sedated to respond, one does not really know how they feel inside. They could be motionless and still have nausea, itching, pain, constipation, dysphoria, feel unable to handle their secretions, and other undesired side-effects.

    While attention is drawn to their age and co-morbidities in discussing the increased death rates among nursing home residents and while these are valid considerations, what is not discussed is how healthcare has changed to a system of death that does not aim for protection and preservation of lives of those considered a drain on society’s resources.

    First came “brain death” with the goal to eliminate persons who needed ventilators. Next, came Living Wills and Advance Directives to discourage life-saving treatments, including ventilators, assisted nutrition and hydration, and even antibiotics. Then most nursing home residents have a “DNR – Do Not Resuscitate” order, which often results in, decreased treatments and care even if not directly related to resuscitation.

    Add taxpayer funds to the push for PC for all, even if not dying or in pain. Enter Coronavirus-19 with sudden, social isolation for all, even those not sick. It is no surprise that elderly persons are more vulnerable to disease, but are they getting the care that protects and preserves their life and health and gives them their best chance of recovery?

    A ventilator may or may not preserve the life of a person, especially when the person is older with co-morbidities and COVID 19, but denial of a needed ventilator associated with DNR in PC can shorten life and hasten death.

    Dr. Paul A. Byrne is a Board Certified Neonatologist and Pediatrician. He is the Founder of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, MO. He is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at University of Toledo, College of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.

    Dr. Byrne is past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), formerly Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University in St. Louis, MO and Creighton University in Omaha, NE. He was Professor of Pediatrics and Chairman of the Pediatric Department at Oral Roberts University School of Medicine and Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the City of Faith Medical and Research Center in Tulsa, OK. He is author and producer of the film "Continuum of Life" and author of the books "Life, Life Support and Death," "Beyond Brain Death," and "Is 'Brain Death' True Death?"

    Dr. Byrne has presented testimony on "life issues" to nine state legislatures beginning in 1967. He opposed Dr. Kevorkian on the television program "Cross-Fire." He has been interviewed on Good Morning America, public television in Japan and participated in the British Broadcasting Corporation Documentary "Are the Donors Really Dead?" Dr. Byrne has authored articles against euthanasia, abortion, and "brain death" in medical journals, law literature and lay press.

    Paul was married to Shirley for forty-eight years until she entered her eternal reward on Christmas 2005. They are the proud parents of twelve children and have thirty-five grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

  • April 29, 2020 8:25 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Op-ed by: Heather Groves

    Yesterday a local doctor made a public statement that those of us who do not support mandatory universal masking can not claim to support medical freedom, and that when we refuse to submit to noninvasive “protections” such as face coverings, we lose all credibility and public respect.  She refused to acknowledge my scientifically entrenched response to her statement, despite engaging (and many times belittling) almost every other person who responded to her question.

    It's easy to shut down open dialogue when you rely solely on emotionally charged generalizations and ad hominem attacks, which is what she, and so many others, have attempted to do from the beginning of this Covid19 situation.  By marginalizing those you disagree with and dismissing them as uncaring, negligent, and, as she put it, proponents of "oppositional behavior", you make it easy to ignore the fact that the scientific evidence and supporting data are simply not on your side.  It’s a play straight from Saul Alinksy’s famous far left manifesto, “Rules for Radicals.”

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

    Instead of having a conversation about the reasons why someone may or may not support universal masking, we hear the following:

    “You want old people to die!”

    “You care more about money than you do about keeping people alive!”

    “You are selfish!  How do you call yourself a Christian?”

    “You don’t support mandatory masking and social distancing?  How do you sleep at night!?”

    Despite leveling these attacks to anyone and everyone who disagree with them, most people, the good doctor included, don’t actually want to engage with those who offer a reasonable explanation for not supporting universal face coverings because, as I will lay out below, there are very valid reasons to oppose the practice. Acknowledging this fact undercuts the intended result of social and cultural intolerance directed towards any idea outside of the approved narrative.

    Those of us who are not duteous to the current universal masking policies and recommendations do not, in fact, want grandma to die.  Instead, we base our position on both the science behind these recommendations and the future implications of long term compliance.  For example, we know that cloth face coverings are completely ineffective in preventing viral transmission, and can actually increase your risk of bacterial respiratory infection.  We know that viral particles that are exhaled gather on the OUTSIDE of masks instead of the inside, enhancing the risk of cross contamination and viral transmission, especially considering that viruses live drastically longer on cloth than they do on skin.  We know that face coverings increase the instances that a person touches their face and/or covering due to readjustments, releasing increased moisture buildup and because face coverings increase nasal drainage which can be another mode of transmission all on its own.  We understand that cross contamination is a real danger when face coverings are not donned and doffed or laundered properly. We take into account the negative health effects of facial coverings on comorbidities (increases tachycardia, induces hypoxia, increases co2 reabsorption, may stimulate feelings of anxiety/claustrophobia due to inadequate gas exchange, ect).  The World Health Organization has spoken out against universal masking for these exact reasons, and OSHA has stated that only those employees deemed to be high risk or in high risk fields should be masked.  The science is very clear that universal masking is contraindicated, yet those of us who choose to rely on science are demonized and cast to the fringes of society as public enemy number one.

    Many of us are asking how, and more importantly, why, this happened in an otherwise seemingly reasonable society that respects an individual's right to bodily autonomy, especially considering that numerous studies have indicated that Covid19 has a similar if not slightly lower fatality rate than the seasonal flu and we don’t mask during flu season.

    As a lover of history, I am reminded of a formula for social coercion used by and discussed at length in Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.  Some of the key components of this formula were:

    1. Keep the dogma simple and make social changes slowly over a period of time - only 1 or 2 points at a time.
    2. Be forthright and powerfully direct.  Speak only in telling or ordering mode.
    3. Reduce concepts down to stereotypes which are black and white.
      1. This is for your safety.
      2. Masking and social distancing saves lives.
      3. We are in this together
      4. The virus is the common enemy
      5. We must sacrifice to defeat the enemy
    4. Speak to people’s emotions and stir them constantly.
      1. Ohians will do the right thing.
      2. If you don’t mask, you don’t love your neighbor.
      3. The devil prowls the earth looking for bodies.  So does this virus.
      4. Congregating in a church setting is not Christian like behavior right now.
      5. If you break the rules, you risk lives.
    5. Use lots of repetition; repeat your points over and over again.
    6. Forget scientific reasoning, balance or novelty.
      1. A higher prevalence rate with a decreased mortality rate means the virus is more dangerous.
      2. We don’t have that data, but we use that data to enforce emergency orders.
    7. Focus solely on convincing people and creating zealots.
      1. If you don’t mask, you don’t care about the health and safety of your neighbor.
      2. People will mask because it’s the socially responsible thing to do.
      3. If you see people breaking the rules, report them to the local police and health department.
      4. Masking will become culturally acceptable, and not wearing a mask will be considered socially irresponsible.
    8. Find slogans which can be used to drive the movement forward.
      1. Don Your Mask, Don Your Cape.
      2. Stay Home, Save Lives
      3. In This Together Ohio
      4. Let’s Save Lives Together
      5. Stay Safe Ohio

    I am in no way comparing Mike DeWine to Adolph Hiter, but rather highlighting the social coercion tactics that have been used to induce compliance and create social friction between the consenting and the non-consenting across the ages.  It is a matter of psychological manipulation laced with fear that can convince a society to shake off their freedom and embrace a fallacy that leads to chains. 

    For many, a mask symbolizes unity with one another and a weapon against the universal covid19 enemy.  But for those of us who understand that the face coverings do not protect us from this virus, we are left asking what their intended purpose could be.  Are they meant to be a visual trigger for a subconscious fear?  Are they meant to create an urgency and demand for a covid19 vaccine that would otherwise be rejected?  Are they meant to create an artificial barrier between a previously highly social society?  I don’t know.  But what I do know is that they will not protect me or protect you from Covid19, and therefore they’re useless.  And I simply can not comply with a recommendation or a mandate that doesn’t do what we’re being told it is intended to do, even if that stance turns the public ire on myself.  And I hope that, before you demand that I “Don my mask, don my cape”, you contemplate exactly why you’re willing to stand on the other side of science to do so.  For some, it’s virtue signaling, but for many, they truly believe they are contributing to the greater good, and I commend you for that.  I just hope that you remember that, I too, believe that I am fighting for the greater good when I stand in defiance of what I believe to be government overreach and manipulation by refusing to wear a mask.  We can both do what we feel is right in this situation and I promise you that if I see you in the store wearing a face covering, I will simply smile at you in passing without ever questioning your moral compass or social obligation.  I simply hope that you can do the same.


    A nurse who believes we can value life without sacrificing liberty


    "There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be "the man in the street." Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology." ~ Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda

    "Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." ~ Joseph Goebbels

    "It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise." ~ Joseph Goebbels

    "Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street." ~ Joseph Goebbels

    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Health Freedom Ohio. Any content provided by our bloggers or authors are of their opinion, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethic, group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

  • February 28, 2020 8:05 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Columbus, Ohio - On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 concerned Ohio citizens testified in opposition to Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 (SCR 10). 

    Concerns raised during the hearing included using financial incentives to increase vaccine product consumption, public posting of vaccine product consumption rates, and lack of informed consent related to vaccine consumption.

    Nadera Lopez-Garrity stated during her testimony “I particularly oppose the financial incentives to penalize county health departments whose citizens decline a pharmaceutical product and the intention of publicly posting the rates of consuming such biologics, which not only has no bearing on true immunity but such disclosure would be in violation of Ohioans’ constitutional rights.”

    According to the SCR 10:

    “The Director of Health's proposed revision of Chapter 3701-36 of the Administrative Code includes standards for protecting people from disease and injury, monitoring health status, assuring a safe and healthy environment, promoting healthy lifestyles, and addressing the need for personal health services, as well as procedures for payment of state subsidies for meeting those standards [emphasis added].”

    One of the public health quality indicators in the Director of Health’s proposed revision of Chapter 3701-36-05 includes:

    “Immunizations: measured by increasing the percentage of children entering kindergarten, seventh, and twelfth grades who are fully vaccinated in accordance with section 3313.671 of the Revised Code [emphasis added].”

    According to Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3313.671 a child is considered fully vaccinated if they have consumed a vaccine product for the following: mumps, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, rubeola, rubella, hepatitis B, chicken pox, and meningococcal disease (A, C, Y, and W). A child may be exempt from the vaccine consumption requirement if a parent or guardian submits a written statement declining based on medical, or reasons of conscience, including religious convictions.

    Chairman Dave Burke, R - Ohio Senate District 26, expressed concern over the prospect of counting those with legal exemptions like medical, religious, and personal in the percentage of people eligible to be vaccinated when considering the quality indicator measured by increasing vaccination rates.

    Michelle Cotterman, a registered nurse, testified in opposition to SCR10 based on the public posting of vaccination rates stating that the information is not indicative of true immunization rates. She explained “during a clinical trial for Menveo and Menactra, it was found that 21 months -- less than 2 years -- after receiving the vaccine product, up to 77% of recipients were no longer immune to various bacterial strain types contained in these vaccine products. This is one of the vaccine products listed in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3313.671 that would be a part of the quality indicators related to increasing consumption and subject to payment of state subsidies for meeting those standards.”

    Bill sponsor, Senator Peggy Lehner, R - Ohio Senate District 6, said "I don't think that there is language in the rules that have been promulgated to begin to tie, um, that concern that we are somehow paying people off to be vaccinated, I think that is a real leap.”

    Lehner also added "We are living in a time where there is a lot of distrust about a lot of institutions.”

    In 2019, Lehner was seeking to sponsor legislation that would remove the personal and religious vaccine exemptions. Dayton Daily News reported "Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, is pushing a bill to only allow Ohio children to skip vaccinations for medical reasons — a move that is expected to bring opposition from anti-vaccination groups as well as conservative lawmakers who place a premium on individual rights."

    Rishanne and Doug Golden, who lost their daughter Haleigh to vaccine-induced seizures, raised concerns about lack of proper informed consent prior to vaccine administration and cautioned the committee about having a County Health Department quality indicator including increasing the percentage of vaccination rates. "Health and Human Services commissioned a study which found that vaccine injury and death are not rare, but are rarely reported; finding less than 1% of injuries or deaths are ever reported," she said. They have a website in their daughter’s memory and honor, Haleigh's Heart.

    Lisa Griffin from the Ohio Department of Health testified that the changes only affect data reporting requirements and are not tied to the county health department funding. When questioned by Senator Kristina Roegner, R - Ohio Senate District 7, about specific language relating to minimal standards and subsidy payments, Griffin was unable to identify if optimal or minimal standards include increasing vaccination rates. Chairman Burke addressed the volume of concerns raised from the community on this issue and requested a statement in writing from the Ohio Department of Health that increasing vaccination rates is not tied to financial incentives from the state.

    After much discussion and an unsettled reasonable doubt raised by concerned Ohioans, the roll was opened and the bill was voted out of committee. Questions remain on what formula is used for distributing state subsidy funds and which standards are used to determine that distributionSCR 10 will be scheduled in the coming weeks on the Senate floor for a vote.

    If you would like to receive updates on this legislation, participate in future legislative action alerts and other initiatives involving health freedom in Ohio, please consider signing up for a membership with Health Freedom Ohio.

    View Full Hearing

  • January 15, 2020 10:41 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    By: Michelle McAllister Krinsky, RN

    5G became one of the biggest buzzwords for 2019. As we enter 2020, no doubt you have seen the many commercials by the various telecom companies advertising their latest technology. But what exactly is 5G?

    5G is the 5th Generation of wireless network technology.

    1G delivered mobile voice calls.

    2G introduced digital voice.

    3G brought mobile data and web browsing.

    4G ushered in the era of mobile internet and video.

    5G will elevate the mobile network to not only interconnect people, but also interconnect and control machines, objects, and devices. It will enhance today’s mobile broadband services and will also expand mobile networks to support a vast diversity of devices and services. It will connect new industries with improved performance and efficiency. Not only will 5G improve your cell phone connection and give you faster download times, it is also the technology that allows for driverless cars, SMART devices to “talk” to each other, and it is the technology that will control the operations of the SMART cities of the very near future. This new era will leap ahead of current wireless technology and many say it will be as transformative as the automobile and electricity. All this new technology sounds great... right? Unfortunately, there is a downside that the telecommunications industry doesn’t like to talk about.

    Let’s take a closer look...

    4G & 5G

    5G will be added to the current 4G infrastructure. They will work in tandem together. The main advantage that 5G offers over 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) is faster speeds. Primarily because there will be more spectrum available for 5G and it uses more advanced radio technology. It will also deliver much lower latency than 4G which enables new applications in the “Internet of Things” space. 5G requires millimeter wave high frequency bands. These mm wave frequencies travel short distances and can easily be blocked by such things as buildings and trees. While 4G LTE relies upon relatively few large masts that are built miles apart, 5G will require lots of “small cells” much closer together. These mini 5G base stations will be placed approximately every 500 feet in urban areas and neighborhoods. They will be placed on top of streetlights, utility poles, and on the sides & tops of buildings. They are being placed in front of homes, parks, and schools. Recently the FCC announced plans for a $19 billion dollar fund to help carriers deploy 5G services in rural America as well.

    Click Here: FCC Announces $9B Fund for Rural 5G Deployment

    Click Here: What You Need to Know About 5G Wireless & “Small” Cells

    What’s the Problem?

    Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technology of 2G, 3G, and 4G creates radio frequency exposures which pose a serious health risk to humans, animals, and the environment. Scientists are cautioning that before this 5G technology is rolled out that research on human health effects urgently needs to be completed to ensure the public and environment are protected. More than 240 scientists and doctors from 41 nations published an appeal to the United Nations to reduce public exposure and called for a moratorium on 5G; citing “established” adverse biological effects from RF radiation. The 5G standard is new and there are absolutely no studies that have looked at long term human exposure. However, the current body of research on wireless radiation provides enough data for scientists to call for the moratorium. Regulations to protect public health and safety are inadequate and outdated. Published science proves harmful health effects from exposure to RF microwave radiation. Studies show a wide range of biological effects at levels far below current FCC exposure guidelines that were established 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, an independent government agency created in 1934, has become a “captured” agency. The FCC is dominated by the wireless industry itself. The agency that has been given the responsibility and privilege of setting the standards and limits for wireless radiation exposure are the same people profiting from it. The agency is comprised of industry insiders, engineers, and businessmen. There are no scientists, no doctors, and no one with a biological background. These are the telecom executives that are responsible for setting the standards for our safety. The FCC has set a thermal standard only. What scientists already know and can prove is that wireless radiation can damage our cells and DNA below thermal levels. More than 10,000 studies show the effects of non-thermal radiation. The FCC standard only takes into account a thermal limit that causes acute burning. The RF exposure limits set for the United States are 100 times higher than other countries like Russia, China, Italy, and Switzerland. We basically have an agency that completely avoids the problem.

    Click Here: The Five Fallacies of Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure Limits

    This radiation will affect everyone, and with 4G/5G installations placed in every neighborhood, Americans will not be able to escape continuous involuntary exposure in their own homes and communities. The unborn child, small children, elderly, and people with chronic illness, microwave sickness, or compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable.

    Click Here: Scientific Research on 5G, 4G Small Cells, Wireless Radiation and Health

    Human health is already being compromised by wireless radiation. The recent $25 million NTP, National Toxicology Program, study provides conclusive evidence that exposure to wireless radiation causes cancer. Oxidative stress, a proven result of microwave exposure is a well-established factor that can lead to cancer, non-cancer conditions, and DNA damage. Microwave sickness is a recognized medical condition in the United States and many other parts of the world. 

    Click Here: NIH National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Study

    • The World Health Organization has already classified radio frequency radiation as a possible Class 2B carcinogen.
    • Telecoms admit they do not know if their wireless technology is safe and warn that their revenues could be negatively impacted by health claims. Insurance companies will not insure telecoms against liability for exposure related health claims or other damages.

    Taxpayers may be forced to bail out telecoms in the future class action lawsuits. The telecom industry and the commissioners of the FCC are rushing to deploy the next generation of wireless before these issues have been addressed. The “race” to be the first in 5G technology is one not worth winning if the cost exceeds the benefits. There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of RF radiation. 

    Click Here: Scientific Studies Showing the Biological Effects of RF Radiation

    Low level or non-ionizing wireless radio frequency exposure has been attributed to a long list of adverse biological effects:

    • DNA single and double stand breaks and mutations
    • Oxidative damage/Mitochondrial damage
    • Disruption of cell metabolism
    • Increased blood brain barrier permeability
    • Melatonin reduction
    • Disruption to brain glucose metabolism
    • Generation of stress proteins 

    Symptoms from exposure to low level non-ionizing radiation can include:

    • Sleep disturbances/insomnia
    • Headaches
    • Depression and mood disorders
    • Tiredness and fatigue
    • Lack of concentration/ADHD
    • Changes in memory and cognition
    • Heart arrythmias and palpitations
    • Dizziness 
    • Irritability
    • Anxiety and restlessness
    • Tinnitus
    • Nose bleeds
    • Loss of appetite/nausea
    • Skin burning, itching, and tingling
    • Sperm changes, infertility, and miscarriage

    These symptoms can be brought about by exposure to many wireless devices and the exposure is cumulative:

    • Microwave ovens
    • Smart meters
    • Bluetooth devices
    • Computers
    • Cell phones
    • MRIs
    • Cell towers in proximity to your environment

    Even with the myriad of documented adverse health effects and potential disastrous effects to our environment, the 5G deployment is moving ahead. Imagine living 24 hours a day in a full body back scanner at the airport. This is what our environment will be like when 5G small cells are placed every 500 feet in our neighborhoods. The back scanners use the same mm wave technology. It is also the same technology that is used for crowd control by the military. The Active Denial System uses mm wave frequencies to disperse crowds by causing a burning, stinging sensation to the skin. Along with these uses, 5G will also provide the technology to collect and share data and provide for 24 hours surveillance. Is this the type of technology we want in our communities? 

    Once these “small cells” are in place and turned on, there will be nowhere to escape. It will no longer be an option. You and your family will be exposed to radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any smart device you have will be connected and monitored. Along with the small cells that we can visualize in our environment, there have also been an estimated 20,000 5G satellites deployed into space so that every square inch of Earth is covered. Unlike other hazardous exposures, radiation cannot be seen, cannot be detected by smell, and often cannot be felt. But make no mistake, it is an ever-present danger that needs to be considered. Each and every exposure is cumulative and causing harm.

    “Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.” ~Dr. Martin Pall, Biochemist~

    The Schuman Resonance and our Magnetic Earth

    We must remember that we are “beings of frequency.” The Schuman Resonance or frequency, which is 7.83hz, is considered the heartbeat of the Earth. “The Pulse of Life Itself.”  Humans are tuned to the resonant vibration of Earth. We vibrate at a frequency that ranges from 5-10hz. Studies have shown that people emitting a frequency closer to 7.83hz are more at peace and healthier. When we are in sync with the Earth’s natural vibration the body is able to heal and have increased vitality. This pulse or frequency has been shown to be identical to the alpha waves of the human brain, which controls our creativity, our performance, our stress and anxiety levels, and affects our immune system. Humans are not the only ones affected by electromagnetic fields. A diverse array of animal life relies upon the Earth’s magnetic field for navigation, breeding, feeding, migration, and survival. Biologists have discovered that wireless electromagnetic radiation disturbs internal magneto-receptors used for navigation as well as disrupting other complex cellular and biological processes in mammals, birds, fish, insects, trees, plants, seeds, and bacteria with profound impacts on the natural environment. Researchers are now attributing Radio Frequency Radiation from cellular telecommunications to be a contributing cause of bee “colony collapse disorder,” insect disappearance, and a decrease in the bird population. Radiation from cell towers and SMART meters has also been shown to negatively impact trees and plant life.

     It is easy to become disconnected with the Earth’s natural vibration in today’s society. Many people rarely spend time outdoors in nature. We have become saturated with technological devices that emit electromagnetic fields that interfere with our natural resonance with the planet. Wireless radiation in the MHz, GHz, and THz is literally millions, billions, and trillions times the normal frequency of Earth. You can imagine the impact that this has on our health and consciousness. A recent study indicates that the Schuman Resonance frequency of 7.83Hz can inhibit the growth of cancer cells. It also showed inhibitory effects to decrease as frequencies increased.

    Click Here: Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Cancer Cells

    What can we do to protect ourselves?

    • Return to nature. Spend time outdoors. Use Grounding and Earthing techniques to reestablish your connection with the Schuman Resonance.
    • Raise your own frequency to a state of peace – using prayer and meditation.
    • Strengthen your immune system with a healthy diet, organic food, and exercise.
    • Plant trees in your yard to help block the 5G mm waves.
    • Reduce your exposure to wireless devices. Keep cell phones away from your head, out of pockets, and away from your body.
    • Use the speaker mode when talking on your phone. The greater the distance away from your body, the safer.
    • Place phones in airplane mode when not in use. Never sleep with your cell phone by your bedside.
    • Use wired connections and turn Wi-Fi off at night.
    • Purchase an EMF detector so you can measure and pinpoint areas of danger in your home and take action.
    • Get rid of cordless “deck” phones. They are more dangerous than cell phones.
    • Remove SMART meters from your home.
    • Use protective measures such as shields that can be placed on phones and computers to decrease radiation exposure.
    • Clothing and hats are available that are lined with a silver mesh to block the EMFs when in areas of increased exposure.
    • RF shielding paint is available for home use.
    • Do not allow children to spend unlimited amounts of time on wireless devices.
    • Infants and children are extremely sensitive to the risk of EMFs due to their developing brains and bodies. Even the AAP has issued a warning on this. Click Here: American Academy of Pediatrics Letter to the FCC
    • Pregnant women should take extra precautions due to the harmful effects of radiation to the developing fetus. Pregnant women in China wear protective aprons that shield the fetus all the way around.
    • Ultimately practice self-care and take control of your environment. Wireless radiation poses a real hazard to our health. We can expect 5G radiation to be more hazardous than 3G and 4G because of the higher more intense frequencies and vast amount of antennas.

    Taking Action

    Get involved!

    Be informed and educated on this issue. Hold your government officials responsible for protecting your safety and health. Go to your community councils, local societies, and community organizations. Educate them on this technology and let them know you do not want it in your community. Schedule meetings and send emails to your local, state, and federal representatives. Let them know that this technology violates our basic Civil Rights!

    • It violates our right to maintain the safety and security of our home.
    • It violates the right to protect our family.
    • It violates our basic human right to live safely and in a healthy manner in our own home.
    • It has taken away our choice and consent in being exposed to a technology that has serious health repercussions.

    Most states already have bills that allow for the 5G infrastructure to continue unimpeded. Ohio voted in favor of HB 478, “Small Cell Expansion Act.” This bill eliminated municipal control over small cell installation. Ohio HB 478 needs to be overturned!

    Click Here: 5G Small Cell Deployment: Every Current State Law

    The wireless telecom companies seem to be in control. Congress has formalized 5G deployment without public notification or consent. Local municipalities say their hands are tied in halting the small cell deployment. They cite the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which gave the FCC the power to regulate the environmental health and safety effects of wireless radiation. In Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act it specifically prohibits the discussion of environmental concerns or health concerns in the placement of cell towers. This is despite growing awareness and scientific confirmation of both environmental and health effects from exposure to cell tower radiation and all radio frequency wireless devices. Section 704 also specifically bans local and state governments from setting their own environmental standards for wireless radiation and human exposure. Section 704 must be overturned, and control given back to our local municipalities that can govern the health and safety of their residents. Cities in the United States and throughout the world are saying “No” to 5G deployment until further safety testing has been completed. Unfortunately, many people are completely unaware of this technology and the dangers it poses. We must continue to inform others and have a united voice in opposition. Recently American scientists, doctors, and healthcare practitioners sent a letter to President Trump asking for a moratorium on 5G.

    Click Here: Moratorium on 5G – Letter to President Trump

    If you are an Ohio resident, please sign this petition asking to halt 5G until further safety testing has been completed.

    *Sign the Ohio Petition*

    Click Here: Become Familiar with These Other Senate and House Bills

    Please join Southwest Ohio for Responsible Technology. This group provides information on 5G, highlights concerns in our community and ways to take action.

    Join SWORT

    Other Resources for 5G Information:

    Our Future

    We all like the convenience of our wireless devices, but at what cost?

    We seem to be a species with amnesia.

    When we sever our connection with Spirit and with Nature, where does it lead?

    The industries involved have shown a reckless disregard for our health and the health of our environment.

    Money always talks...

    We are the authors of our lives and the stewards of future generations.

    May we not forget.

  • January 08, 2020 6:00 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Community Supported Agriculture 

    A CSA which stands for Community Supported Agriculture, is a fundamentally different way of buying produce directly from a local farmer. Customers buy “shares” or memberships into a set time frame, typically weekly or bi-weekly. Then a box of locally grown, veggies, fruits, meats, cheese, eggs, herbs, flowers, bake goods etc (whatever the arrangement is for that particular farm) is provided at a set date for customer pick up. Sometimes farms deliver, or allow multiple places for weekly pick ups or will take shares to distribute at the farmer’s markets. 

    These funds collected upfront for a weekly share are an investment in the farm. Farmers will use the capitol to purchase seed, equipment, labor, livestock and other essential needs. Yes, there are risks that are involved in a CSA. Weather, and the unforeseen. That is part of a CSA. 

    Some CSAs will require a work period from their members. A set amount of hours to volunteer and gain skills which often evolve into their own gardens! 

    A few reasons to try a CSA: 

    1) Saves you money. You will spend less and cut the middle man by purchasing directly from a local farmer. 

    2) You can try new things. You may experiment with a food you’ve never had! Some CSAs will include a recipe card or plan the box around a specific meal.

    3) You eat veggies/fruit in season which also means you are consuming healthier foods!

    4) You can get your hands dirty and help grow your foods!

    5) You are supporting your community. 

    6) You know exactly where your food comes from! Shake your farmers hand! 

    CSAs will typically start a summer membership enrollments in February. Many of your farmers at the local farmers markets participate in CSAs. Take the time to ask them about the process, or refer you. You can always google “local CSA” or check out Local Harvest and can be connected to many in your area.

    Mandy Palmer is owner and operator of Barefoot Hippie Homestead, a farm in Lebanon, Ohio. Together with her husband, Rusty, and 6 beautiful girls, she runs the farm and offers a Community Supported Agriculture program. Mandy also has many other herbal and beeswax crafts for sale from her website. Check them out at: https://www.barefoothippiehomesteading.com/

  • December 30, 2019 2:35 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    By Ravi Kulasekere PhD, ND

    A recent USDA report shows that more than half of the food samples we consume and feed our children tested for pesticide residue and some tested above the FDA allowed limit. The article states:

    “. . . For the 10,545 samples analyzed, 47.8 percent of the samples had no detectable pesticides, 21.0 percent had one pesticide, and 31.2 percent of the samples had more than one pesticide.”

    They do not say so in the article but we can safely assume that the foods tested were conventionally grown and not organic. Some were also grown outside the USA.

    This revelation of pesticide residue in food should come as no surprise to anyone. When pesticides are being sprayed on our food, at times all the way up to harvest, it does not magically disappear when it comes from the field into your fridge. Some produce will not only have surface residue but will also absorb some of it. Consuming pesticides in any amount over an extended period of time is not healthy and can lead to many chronic and debilitating illnesses.

    The article goes on to say:

    "In addition, 642 samples were found to have pesticides for which no tolerance was established, including 444 fresh fruit and vegetable samples, 151 processed fruit/vegetable samples, 30 rice samples, and 17 wheat flour samples.

    508 samples contained 1 pesticide for which no tolerance was established;

    106 samples contained 2 pesticides for which no tolerance was established;

    13 samples contained 3 pesticides for which no tolerance was established;

    13 samples contained 4 pesticides for which no tolerance was established;

    2 samples contained 7 pesticides for which no tolerance was established; and

    20 samples also contained 1 pesticide each that exceeded an established tolerance".

    This is absolutely unacceptable. If no tolerances are established, we all know that the industry would do nothing to keep levels lower. Therefore, you are pretty much consuming poison through your food. Why does the FDA and USDA not do anything about it? As you probably guessed they are very careful not to antagonize the Big-Ag lobby and if you fall ill their bed-fellows in Pharma would then start to profit from your illness. The comment made by the industry lobby group makes it clear:

    "An industry group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, heralded the report as an all clear for consumers to eat as many fresh fruits and vegetables as possible."

    What should you do?

    • First of all, KNOW where your food is coming from. Shop at local farmers markets in the summer as the small farmers tend to use no pesticides or very little.
    • Buy ORGANIC whenever possible. The extra price you pay will bring you much better returns in health, which is cheaper in the long run. Find local and nationwide chains that carry organic food for less. There are many.
    • Go to a consumer advocacy page such as the Environmental Working Group and read up what foods that are grown conventionally are safe to consume and what foods are not. The EWG publishes a list of dirty foods and clean foods yearly. Carry that info in a note card when you go shopping.
    • Buy food that is grown in a greenhouse as these tend to not use pesticides as much if at all.
    • Most importantly GROW YOUR OWN FOOD in the summer. It is actually a great way to even teach your kids how to live in a sustainable way and it is fun. You don't need a lot of space or time to grow and if you have no space grow something in a container.
    • Finally, read up or take a class locally to understand native edible plants in your own backyard. Nature provides a plethora of highly nutritious plants that grow native to your area and we are often told that these plants are noxious weeds and should be killed using poison. They are not and in fact you SHOULD NOT be spraying poison in your own backyard anyway. If you want to kill something, undiluted vinegar works just as well as any pricey poison you can buy at the store.

    Dr Ravi Kulasekere PhD, ND BCHHP 

    Do No Pharm Naturopathy LLC  

    14900 Detroit Ave, Lakewood, OH 44107 

    (330) 285-3247 donopharmnaturopathy@gmail.com

  • November 27, 2019 2:32 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

     Columbus, Ohio - Recent local headlines have erupted warning of whooping cough (pertussis) outbreaks in Ohio school districts, but are they telling the whole truth?

    Whooping cough or pertussis is a respiratory infection caused by bacteria, Bordetella pertussis. It is spread to others (transmission) via tiny water droplets when an infected individual is talking, coughing or sneezing. It begins with cold-like symptoms but progresses to rapid uncontrollable coughing spells within several days. 

    The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical trade organizations, and medical professionals are quick to assert that getting vaccinated is the best course of action to prevent whooping cough (pertussis) and protect vulnerable members of the community. The whooping cough vaccine is DTaP or TDaP and is actually a combination of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. This vaccine is recommended to be given to a child 6 times by the time they are 12 years old.

    Dr. Nancy Pook with Kettering Health Network recently stated some issues with the DTaP/TDaP vaccine: “The problem is it doesn’t eliminate all. The vaccines wane off and maybe the Bordetella is evolving or mutating a little bit, we’re not sure 100 percent of the reason why that there’s more pertussis. But it’s still present worldwide.” 

    What Dr. Pook is describing is primary, secondary, and tertiary vaccine failure. Primary vaccine failure is when an individual is vaccinated but does not develop immunity. Secondary vaccine failure is when an individual is vaccinated, develops immunity but loses immunity over time. Tertiary vaccine failure is when the organism, bacteria or virus, mutates or changes so the vaccine is no longer effective.

    Can a toxin mediated vaccine, such as DTaP/TDaP, provide protection against infection and transmission? 

    In 2017 Christopher Gill, associate professor of global health at the Department of Global Health at Boston University School of Public Health, stated"this disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it. Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.”

    Despite sustained high pertussis vaccination rates of > 95%, the United States has experienced a resurgence of pertussis over the past 30 years. According to the CDC’s 2018 Provisional Pertussis Surveillance Report, 41% of all infections occurred in children age six months to six years who had received more than three doses of DTaP vaccine, compared to only 10% of disease cases involving unvaccinated children.  

    An alarming discovery from a Springboro, Ohio whooping cough outbreak reveals that of the 37 cases, 100% had received all or some of the recommended DTaP/TDaP doses:

    An important observation within the recent scientific literature is the phenomenon of asymptomatic carriers. When exposed to Bordatella pertussis, vaccinated individuals become infected but do not show the telltale signs of infection. Yet they are fully capable of spreading the bacteria to others, including infants and the immune compromised. 

    A U.S. Food and Drug Administration study reported:  

    “The observation that aP [acellular pertussis vaccine], which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis and suggests that optimal control of pertussis will require the development of improved vaccines.” (1)

    The scientific literature also includes studies of mutations and bacterial type replacement proposed as causes for increasing rates of pertussis disease.

    A study published in 2015 reported:

    “The significant association between vaccination and isolate pertactin production suggests that the likelihood of having reported disease caused by PRN– [Pertactin Negative] compared with PRN+ [Pertactin Positive] strains is greater in vaccinated persons. Additional studies are needed to assess whether vaccine effectiveness is diminished against PRN– strains.” (2)

    Unfortunately, public health agencies, medical trade organizations and media outlets fail to warn those who are vaccinated with DTaP/TDaP that regardless of vaccination status they need to be aware they are still at risk of infection and that vaccinated individuals are capable of unknowingly spreading pertussis to others. If you have been exposed to whooping cough, regardless of vaccination status, you should ask your doctor to perform a test that will determine if you are infected. This will ensure that treatment is started in a timely manner and will prevent unnecessary exposure to others.

    A recent news article reported:

    "Melissa Wervey Arnold, CEO, Ohio Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, said the best defense is vaccination, especially anyone who is going to be around infants who aren’t fully vaccinated.

    Immunity, whether from getting the vaccine or from having the disease, typically wears off within five years, leaving previously immune children susceptible again by adolescence. Individuals and families providing care to a new baby may need a pertussis booster shot to provide protection for infants who haven’t had a chance to get the full series of vaccinations yet."

    What is being described above is a theory called cocooning, a strategy to protect infants and other vulnerable individuals from infection by vaccinating those in close contact with them. According to this study, cocooning is ineffective when a vaccinated individual can be an asymptomatic carrier of Bordatella pertussis:

    “We find that: 1) the timing of changes in age-specific attack rates observed in the US and UK are consistent with asymptomatic transmission; 2) the phylodynamic analysis of the US sequences indicates more genetic diversity in the overall bacterial population than would be suggested by the observed number of infections, a pattern expected with asymptomatic transmission; 3) asymptomatic infections can bias assessments of vaccine efficacy based on observations of B. pertussis-free weeks; 4) asymptomatic transmission can account for the observed increase in B. pertussis incidence;  and 5) vaccinating individuals in close contact with infants too young to receive the vaccine (“cocooning” unvaccinated children) may be ineffective.” (3)

    Providing clear, concise, accurate and honest information is necessary to protect and improve the health of all Ohioans by preventing infection which includes the prevention of pertussis exposure to Ohio’s most vulnerable individuals via asymptomatic carriers, it is in Ohio’s best interest that:

    1. Public health departments, medical trade organizations, and medical professionals educate the public that in the event of a pertussis outbreak, all people exposed to pertussis should be tested for pertussis, whether or not they have symptoms and regardless of vaccination status;
    2. Track pertussis infection based on bacterial strain type to determine differences in attack rate between strains;
    3. Include the asymptomatic infections, strain types, and vaccination status of pertussis cases in the Annual Summaries of Infectious Disease report published by the Ohio Department of Health.


    1. Warfel J, et al. Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. PNAS 2014; 111(2):787-792. 
    2. Martin, S, et al. Pertactin-Negative Bordetella pertussis Strains: Evidence for a Possible Selective Advantage. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2015; 60(2):223-7.
    3. Althouse B, et al. Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis. BMC Medicine 2015; 13:146.

    Additional References (not cited):

    1. Hovingh E, et al. Emerging Bordetella pertussis Strains Induce Enhanced Signaling of Human Pattern Recognition Receptors TLR2, NOD2 and Secretion of IL-10 by Dendritic Cells. PLoS One 2017. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0170027 
    2. Sala-Farre M.R., et al. Pertussis epidemic despite high levels of vaccination coverage with acellular pertussis vaccine. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2015; 33(1):27-31. 
    3. Matthias J, et al. Sustained Transmission of Pertussis in Vaccinated, 1-5-Year-Old Children in a Preschool, Florida, USA. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2016; 22(2).
    4. Haifa I, et al. Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2000;(6)5.
  • October 23, 2019 2:21 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    by Maura Urchek BSN, RN, CCM

    Have you noticed advertisements in recent years promoting vaccination in Ohio? Perhaps you have seen a television commercial or heard an in-store advertisement soliciting you to undergo the medical procedure of vaccination and wondered, is it possible that there is more to the story that vaccine consumers might like to know beyond, “get vaccinated,” before rolling up their sleeves?  

    Consider the following information: 

    • As a result of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Congress granted vaccine manufacturers and vaccine administrators protection from liability for injury caused by select [1] vaccine products: “No person may bring a civil action … against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” [2]
    • Who pays for vaccine injury if manufacturers are not liable? The Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) states the following: “The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death petitions for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988. Funded by a $.75 excise tax on vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for routine administration to children, the excise tax is imposed on each dose … The Department of Treasury collects the excise taxes and manages the Fund’s investments and produces Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Monthly Reports.” [3]
    • According to the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) website:“The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions." [4]  The NVICP has paid out over $4.2 billion to date [5], as of the October 1, 2019 report. 
    • If an individual becomes injured by vaccination and wishes to file a petition with the NVICP, how much time do they have to file a claim? The US Department of Health & Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration’s publication booklet: “What You Need to Know About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” [6] states the following: “The general filing deadlines are:  For an injury, your claim must be filed within 3 years after the first symptom of the vaccine injury.  For a death, your claim must be filed within 2 years of the death and 4 years after the start of first symptom of the vaccine-related injury from which the death occurred. When a new vaccine is covered by the VICP or when a new injury/condition is added to the Vaccine Injury Table, claims that do not meet the general filing deadlines must be filed within 2 years from the date the vaccine or injury/condition is added to the Table for injuries or deaths that occurred up to 8 years before the Table change. The Table lists and explains injuries that are presumed to be caused by vaccines. For more details about the Table, visit www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation.” 
    • According to the HRSA website, “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - Frequently Asked Questions”: “The Vaccine Injury Table (Table) (PDF - 119 KB) is a listing of covered vaccines and associated injuries that makes it easier for some people to get compensation. The Table lists and explains injuries and/or conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines unless another cause is proven.” [7]
    • Vaccine injuries are to be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) [8]. According to the “Information for Healthcare Providers” section of the VAERS website:“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) requires healthcare providers to report: Any adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine; or Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination [PDF - 75KB] that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination. In addition, CDC encourages you to report any clinically significant adverse event that occurs in a patient following a vaccination, even if you are unsure whether a vaccine caused the event.” [9]
    • According to a Grant Report submitted to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [10]:“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.” [11]
    • The Vaccine Excipients Summary is accessible as a PDF file download here. According to the summary document, certain vaccines may contain: MRC-5 human diploid cells including DNA and protein (human fetus origin),  Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein (cocker spaniel dog origin), formaldehyde, Spodoptera frugiperda cell proteins (armyworm origin), thimerosal (a mercury derivative), aluminum hydroxide, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, among many other excipients with potentially serious ethical, scientific, and religious implications for consumers. The US FDA website, “Common Ingredients in U.S. Licensed Vaccines” reveals the following: “How does FDA evaluate adjuvants for safety and efficacy? When evaluating a vaccine for safety and efficacy, FDA considers adjuvants as a component of the vaccine; they are not licensed separately.” [12]
    • The CDC website, “Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) -- General Committee-Related Information” states:“The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) comprises medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in the civilian population of the United States. The recommendations stand as public health guidance for safe use of vaccines and related biological products.” [13] Consider the following excerpt from the 2009 article published in the New York Times titled, “Advisers on Vaccines Often Have Conflicts, Report Says”: “In the report, expected to be released Friday, Daniel R. Levinson, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, found that the centers failed nearly every time to ensure that the experts adequately filled out forms confirming they were not being paid by companies with an interest in their decisions. The report found that 64 percent of the advisers had potential conflicts of interest that were never identified or were left unresolved by the centers. Thirteen percent failed to have an appropriate conflicts form on file at the agency at all, which should have barred their participation in the meetings entirely, Mr. Levinson found. And 3 percent voted on matters that ethics officers had already barred them from considering.” [14]

    Awareness of the NVICP, VAERS, ACIP, and NCVIA is critical to understanding vaccine policy, vaccine manufacturer protections, and vaccine consumer risk in the United States.   

    A recent public records request revealed the following invoices from 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019:

    Are taxpayers funding these efforts? Will the citizens of Ohio allow this to continue?  

    Take Action!

    → Contact the Honorable Governor Mike DeWine's office (614) 644-4357, your State Representative, and your State Senator (Find your representatives here). Consider educating their offices on the following: 

    1. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shields vaccine manufacturers from liability for injury and death caused by their products.
    2. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid over $4.2 billion in compensation to date.
    3. Vaccines are a for-profit pharmaceutical product. 
    4. Inquire about the funding source(s) that paid for these invoices.

    → Inform others about the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Direct healthcare providers to the website, “VAERS Information for Healthcare Providers” [15] and the “VAERS Table of Reportable Events." [16]

    → Become familiar with the Ohio “State Checkbook” website and keep the state government accountable for its spending.


    [1] https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/covered-vaccines/index.html (accessed 10/19/19)

    [2]  42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11 

    [3] https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/about/index.html (accessed 10/19/19)

    [4] https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html (accessed 10/19/19)

    [5] https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-october-2019.pdf (accessed 10/19/19)

    [6]https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/resources/84521booklet.pdf (accessed 10/19/19)

    [7] https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/FAQ/index.html (accessed 10/19/19) 

    [8] https://vaers.hhs.gov/ (accessed 10/19/19)

    [9] https://vaers.hhs.gov/resources/infoproviders.html (accessed 10/19/19)

    [10] https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system?fbclid=IwAR2oOjCjfXdmtUQ_jCKwujlAWOhtYNHhbyVOLRio-Yv9DOvvGMS3H3HzUm8 (accessed 10/19/19) 

    [11] https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf (accessed 10/19/19)

    [12] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/common-ingredients-us-licensed-vaccines (accessed 10/19/19)

    [13]  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/index.html (accessed 10/19/19) 

    [14]  https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html (accessed 10/19/19)

    [15] https://vaers.hhs.gov/resources/infoproviders.html (accessed 10/18/19) 

    [16]https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf (accessed 10/19/19)

We are proud to feature our business members. These are companies who are directly supporting health freedom in Ohio and we encourage you to support them by seeking out their products and services. It is a great way to close the economic loop and bring even more power to "voting with our dollars". When we support each other, everyone wins!

If you are interested in supporting our efforts and becoming an HFO Business Member, please see:

Join Us

Featured Business

Get the App, Stay Connected!

We are happy to announce that Health Freedom Ohio now has a mobile app on Android and Apple platforms! The app brings you upcoming events, legislation, articles, videos, features a business directory and much more, direct to you and without the censorship of Google, Facebook or email ISPs. 

We now have a means to stay in constant communication, so download and explore today! If you'd like to see any functionality added let us know and we'll do it if we can. Click below and look for the... 



Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software