Alternative approaches to combat respiratory viruses – freedom from the failing corporate-induced orthodoxy of the early 2020s

Faced with ongoing risks from Covid-19, as well as future pathogens, all responsible citizens have an interest in what actions might combat respiratory viruses in future. That is whether actions are in addition to, or instead of, the approaches that have largely failed since 2020, despite the hiding of that fact by government authorities and mass media. Low levels of awareness about complementary or alternative approaches to combatting respiratory viruses has meant that many people assume that anyone critiquing the orthodoxy on Covid-19 must have less concern for public health, rather than being more concerned about it. Such lack of awareness is due to the corporate takeover of medicine, government, media and the digital sphere, which is hiding relevant expertise while promoting false moral narratives to elicit disdain towards people with heterodox views. Despite the resultant vilification, some experts have been so concerned about public health that they have been assessing whether other approaches might work better, as well as having fewer negative impacts on health and wellbeing. As I am often asked what I suggest would be a smarter response to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as future epidemics, I am summarising some of my understanding in this essay.  

Subscribe / Support / Study / Essays / Covid

I have previously shared thoughts on how the data on long-term damage from Covid reinfections and ‘Long Covid’ is becoming more concerning. The growing evidence on the damage to our cognitive function is particularly worrisome. Perhaps like you, I wonder if my short-term memory loss is something more than just a bit of ageing, poor sleep and overwork! Unfortunately, the orthodox response to Covid-19 so far offers us few bright ideas on either reinfections or Long Covid. Worse, there is growing concern that certain kinds of novel vaccination may have even been counterproductive. One recent peer-reviewed study found that with “the higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting Covid-19.” In addition, a peer-reviewed statistical analysis of world data concluded the Covid-19 vaccinated part of the global population had an increased mortality rate by about 14.5% with respect to the non-vaccinated population. Such studies contrast with the claims that mass vaccination for Covid-19, rather than their targeted use, saved millions of lives. Those bold claims assumed that the mortality rate would have stayed the same as during the early phase of the pandemic, if not for vaccines; claims debunked by studies currently under peer review (here and here).

Many governments have changed their policies in a way that tacitly admits the failure of their past approach. For instance, most countries have dropped the recommendation for Covid-19 vaccination of children. This reflects the relative risk-reward ratio for young people. It is unacceptable that most governments took so long to recognise that. Because already back in 2021, a peer-reviewed study found the incidence of vaccine injury for children “exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence.” Various peer reviewed studies have since confirmed vaccine-induced deaths of young people that were going unreported at the time. The wider dropping of Covid-19 vaccination programmes might also reflect awareness of the worrying data on increased all-cause mortality in highly vaccinated countries. For instance, one peer-reviewed study has reported a correlation between recent excess deaths and rates of Covid-19 vaccination. At the time of writing, I know of no government authorities that are stating publicly their concerns about the failure and potential counter-productiveness of their recent policies. Worse, by being entirely aligned with commercial objectives of the pharmaceutical and digital technology sectors, medical bureaucrats are negotiating agreements at international levels that would enshrine this failed orthodoxy as the standard – and even required – approach from governments worldwide. Because of the failure of the orthodox response in combatting the ongoing problem of Covid-19, alongside the lack of official introspection and, therefore, a lack of readiness for future pandemics, it falls to ordinary people like you and me to call for more action on this matter.

Because I have a day job in other fields, and I am not a medical professional, I have not done extensive research on the complementary and alternative approaches to combat respiratory viruses. However, the following are some headlines on approaches that already have some evidence on their benefit. They are approaches that should have either been used immediately in 2020, or had some swift government-funded research done on them that year, the fact that was not done constitutes a “pandemic tragedy” according to many health experts. I list them here as societies need to improve how we respond to pandemics, rather than the currently insane idea of intensifying the authoritarian, profiteering, ineffective and counterproductive approaches of the early 2020s whenever there is another public health emergency. These complementary and alternative approaches include:

1. Targeted nutritional advice and supplements, such as vitamin D3;
2. Repurposed medicines, such as the previously uncontroversial Ivermectin, as part of an early treatment protocol (e.g. from the FLCCC);
3. Herbal supplements, with proven antiviral effects, such as Sambiloto;
4. Ventilation and air filtration, which is obviously more important than washing hands for an airborne virus;
5. Fever temperature screening at the entrance to public buildings and public transportation;
6. Health and safety legislation, and associated funding, to enable staff to stay home at the earliest onset of symptoms, rather than spread viruses during both commuting and working; 
7. Exploration of the potential of natural inoculations, from similar but less worrisome viruses;
8. Exploration of potential of nasally-administered vaccinations with proven old technologies (not the novel MRNA or adenovirus delivery methods) to train the immune response to the respiratory tract;
9. Additional targeted protections for the vulnerable, with necessary state funding.  

I explain each of these approaches and link to relevant scientific studies, in the endnotes to this essay (see below).

Corporate-induced medical myopia

If the nine approaches I just listed are mostly new to you, or you have thought to dismiss or ridicule them before, then I recommend consulting those endnotes now. Because they are not stupid at all. Instead, if you think they are, then you may have been suffering from a corporate-induced medical myopia. That is where your ability to see potential responses to public health challenges has been limited by the power of corporations. The good news is there is a cure for sufferers of such a condition. The first step is to realise that we are being manipulated by corporations and their lackeys in government and media, so as to think in narrow ways about public health. The next step is to realise that such manipulation means we might risk our own health and that of other people. The third step requires an action – to change the information sources in our lives. Which means we must not let habit, pride or fear prevent us from learning more, so we can avoid being so short-sighted in future.

I know from corresponding with friends who support the orthodox approach, that this invitation to see how we have been duped is not much liked. It is far easier to dismiss people like me as conspiracy theorists, rather than people being a bit more attentive to science, health and human rights. To put this discussion in context, I will briefly summarise some of the misinformation we have been told – and who by.

The censored experts on social media were not the ones lying to you that asymptomatic transmission significantly mattered to the spread of the disease. They were not the ones lying to you that the vaccine stopped transmission of the virus. They were not the ones lying to you that you only needed two jabs, but then three, then more, to avoid hospitalisation. They were not the ones lying to you that the novel jab technologies were entirely safe. They were not the ones lying to you that there was no evidence that existing medications had a useful effect (for scientific papers on all these matters, see the endnotes to a previous essay). All of those lies encouraged mass vaccination and draconian policies. Because if any of those lies were known widely to be untrue at the time, then few of the policies on lockdowns, masking and vaccines made much sense.

The censored experts were not the ones who were lying to you that paper or cloth masks and general lockdowns definitely worked. There was no evidence prior to the pandemic that such measures would work. Even now, the evidence from analysis of these measures is inconclusive. Instead, there is as much evidence that they caused harm. For instance, a good synthesis of the many damaging effects of vaccine mandates, lockdowns and other measures is provided in a new article in the British Medical Journal.  

What I find truly tragic is that the official misinformation was even counterproductive to controlling the spread of the disease. People thought they were safe to others due to their jabs and masks. For example, the Glasgow Climate conference in 2021 became a superspreader event. I know of someone who was sick but as he was vaccinated and wore a mask, he entered the conference centre thinking that meant he was ‘safe enough’ to others. Many environmentalists have said we should learn from the Covid-19 response. I agree, but am making quite the opposite conclusions to those calling for forms of authoritarian action.

There was a reason for the official misinformation. It drove a public desire for a vax-enabled return to normal. That explains why politicians falsely claimed that the Omicron variant was dangerous in the near term, despite the scientists who had discovered it finding that it was far less virulent. The misinformation from politicians enabled government-funded booster drives in many countries. Which mainly boosted profits for pharmaceutical firms.

Subscribe / Support / Study

So much money was wasted that could have been spent on some of the complementary and alternative approaches mentioned above. Tens of billions were wasted on often useless protective equipment, almost useless jabs, the cash handouts to rich people and big businesses, as well as the fraudulent monetary policies that used the pandemic as an excuse (described in detail in Chapter 2 of Breaking Together).

Instead, of the manipulative messaging from governments, mass media and BigTech during the early 2020s, the following approaches should have been undertaken by governments around the world:

• Public service broadcasting on responsible behaviours, and state-funded mechanisms to enable that behaviour, avoiding lies intended to drive compliance through fear and that might generate misplaced confidence (e.g. in jabs and masks).
• Maintaining legal liability for the decisions and actions of officials in companies, governments, and professional bodies, to avoid them making decisions that made public health secondary to personal professional interests. For instance, India did not provide immunity to the MRNA manufacturers.
• Requiring digital monopolies not to reduce the visibility of information from qualified scientists and experts, and regarding such censorship as a form of cyberwarfare i.e. an attack by foreign BigTech corporations on national sovereignty through distorting national sensemaking on public issues.

Recovering our sovereignty

For Western societies in particular, a previous enthusiasm for rationality and deliberation has been replaced by a combative mindset of habitually looking for an ‘us v them’ and a ‘good v evil’ dichotomy on many issues. In my book, I explain the many reasons for this, including a general anxiety about bleak futures, pervasive corporate public relations, entirely captured political parties and regulators, the weaponisation of moral psychology in public communication, fear-focused communications during the pandemic, and a digital displacement of face-to-face dialogue. We should therefore seek out and champion those public commentators who stand unbowed for truth, freedom, justice, learning and healing.

As part of a personal ‘awareness recovery plan’, I recommend people tune into the following alternative sources of information and analysis on health topics (this is not an exhaustive list). To hear from scientists, medics and nurses, I recommend the substack blogs from Trust the Evidence (Oxford Academics) and Dr Robert Malone* and the video channels of DrBeen, Vejon Health, Dr Suneel Dhand and Dr John Campbell (although not before September 2022 when he was too aligned with the failing orthodoxy). If you have time for engaging deeper with what the newly heterodox medical professionals are advising, then you could visit the homepages of the World Council for Health, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), or the Health Advisory and Recovery Team. A lighter approach is to tune into some independent journalists, and I recommend the video channels or blogs of Dark Horse Podcast, Chris Martensen, Kim Iverson,* Glenn Greenwald, Unherd and The Defender of Children’s Health Defence.

Just as someone does not endorse every line of argument from a TV station they watch, my mentioning of these sources does not mean I believe in all their content. If we suspend our own thinking to simply become a fanboy of anything that one of those people/outlets might say, that would be lazy. For instance, those content producers I just put an * next to are not always providing intelligent commentary on climate issues. The problem occurs when people illogically equate any bold action on climate change with the agendas of globalist bureaucrats and corporate executives. Instead, I hope more commentators recognise the benefit of promoting a freedom-loving environmental agenda on the climate and environment, as I outline in my book Breaking Together.  

Due to the draconian policies and censorship during the early 2020s, many people are reconsidering their political affiliations. Many commentators in alternative media are encouraging us to think that the centre and left of the political spectrum are to blame for the Big Pharma fiasco. It is certainly true that many internationally famous liberal-centrist politicians used the most abhorrent rhetoric against informed dissent during the pandemic. However, it is factually incorrect to think that the right-wing led on dissent to the pandemic orthodoxy. Instead, the dissent in early 2020 came from top scientists of a variety of political leanings, as well as natural health proponents who were quite liberal, and the anti-corporate critics who were sceptical of any claims by big business. Such commentators were either ignored or vilified by the authoritarian centrist mass media, and so did not often reach a mass audience. Right-wing commentators in the alternative media became more outspoken about a year after the declaration of the pandemic and played an key role in raising awareness, even if we might not agree with their broader ideology. Some of the current dissenters with the largest social media followings, like Jordan Peterson, were still promoting well into 2021 the idea that the novel vaccines were necessary, even after prior infection, and did not publicly rebel until 2022. I mention this not to judge such commentators but to correct the misperception that dissent on the Covid-19 orthodoxy has been a right-wing preoccupation. Still today, in mid 2023, many publishers of content on social and environmental issues wrongly assume that their audiences and stakeholders would be hostile to any heterodox ideas on the pandemic due to an assumed association with either right wing or conspiracy theories (rather than there likely being just a few vocal and aggressive critics).

The experience with Covid-19 helps us to recognise that on any public issue, the mass media, BigTech and state will likely take an approach that boosts profits of some big corporations, while also empowering or excusing the government. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a public issue of grave concern, it just means that the establishment is pretending to prioritise that issue, when actually they are more concerned with their own power. In my book I describe this well-known pattern, known in sociology as ‘elite panic.’

Although we might like to think that the Covid-19 situation is behind us, that would be a mistake for at least four reasons. First, Covid-19 remains a serious concern due to its long term damage, and so effective responses are still necessary. Second, the known and possible harms from some types of vaccines require investigation, medical attention and official accountability. Third, it is clear that from environmental degradation, we have entered an era of epidemics (see Chapter 4 of my new book) and so we need to develop far better responses than the corporate-induced orthodoxy during Covid-19. Fourth, the profiteering and authoritarian intentions behind that orthodoxy are being further developed at the intergovernmental level, through the World Health Organisation (WHO), thereby posing grave risks for our human rights (this includes health regulation amendments, a new pandemic accord and global digital health certificate systems to regulate mobility). As someone who worked for the WHO in 2005, to help them develop guidelines on how to engage business and receive limited private funds without losing their independence, I am appalled at the direction it has taken to become a facilitator of dangerous corporate profiteering from disease. I am also appalled at my former friends and colleagues prioritising their own sweet salaries and lifestyles over resisting this hijacking of a key agency of the UN system.

Despite the tiresome and slanderous criticism directed at people asking for reasonable discussion of what might work better than the failed orthodoxy, I see it as our duty as responsible citizens to not be bowed. It is never too late to stop being a tool of oppression. Therefore, please share this essay with colleagues, friends and family. Better still, write to that politician who is meant to represent you and ask them to:

ENDNOTES ON SOME COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

I am not a public health expert and so am listing these as examples of approaches that deserved rapid research since 2020 to assess how they might suppress a pandemic. I provide links for you to further investigate.  

1. Targeted nutritional advice and supplements, such as vitamin D3;

Zinc is key for fighting viral infections:

Scott A. Read, Stephanie Obeid, Chantelle Ahlenstiel & Golo Ahlenstiel, ‘The role of zinc in antiviral immunity’, Advances in Nutrition, 10 (4), July 2019: 696–710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz013; available at https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/10/4/696/5476413?login=true

Marcin P. Joachimiak, ‘Zinc against COVID-19? Symptom surveillance and deficiency risk groups’, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 4 January 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008895.

Vitamin D3 is key for fighting viral infections including Covid:

Jan Alexander, Alexey Tinkov, Tor A. Strand et al, ‘Early nutritional interventions with zinc, selenium and vitamin D for raising anti-viral resistance against progressive COVID-19’, Nutrients,12 (8): 10.3390/nu12082358. Available at  https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/8/2358

Hyoung Im, Young Soo, Jihyeon Baek et al, ‘Nutritional status of patients with COVID-19’, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 100, November 2020: 390–3; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.018

Nicole Paiz, Paula Alonso & Ana Luisa Portillo, ‘Vitamin D status: can it affect the risk of infection and the severity of COVID-19 symptoms?’, Current Tropical Medicine Reports, 8, 2021: 204–11; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40475-021-00236-3

Vitamin C is helpful for immune function:

Anitra C. Carr & Silvia Maggini, ‘Vitamin C and immune function’, Nutrients,  9 (11), 2017: 1211; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9111211

Taylor Patterson, Carlos M Isales & Sadanand Fulzele, ‘Low level of Vitamin C and dysregulation of Vitamin C transporter might be involved in the severity of COVID-19 infection’, Ageing and Disease, 12 (1), February 2021: 14–26; DOI: 10.14336/AD.2020.0918. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7801272/

Harri Hemilä, Anitra Carr & Elizabeth Chalker, ‘Vitamin C may increase the recovery rate of outpatient cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection by 70%: reanalysis of the COVID A to Z randomized clinical trial’, Frontiers in Immunology, 10 May 2021; DOI: | https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.674681.

• Repurposed medicines, such as the previously uncontroversial Ivermectin, , as part of an early treatment protocol (e.g. from the FLCCC);

Some doctors who were treating patients for Covid-19 developed early treatment protocols after experimenting with medicines and supplements that they thought might help, based on experience with previous coronavirus diseases. The FLCCC has been a key initiative in that effort. The suppression of information about, and access to, a very safe medicine with known anti-viral properties, is one of the biggest scandals of the Covid years. The following studies indicate that it has been useful in combatting Covid. Other repurposed medicines should be better looked at as well.

Andrew Bryant, Theresa A. Lawrie, Therese Dowswell et al, ‘Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines’, American Journal of Therapeutics, 28 (4), July/August 2021: e434–e460; DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402. Available at https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

Asiya Kamber Zaidi & Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki, ‘The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: an evidence-based clinical review article; Journal of Antibiotics (Tokyo), 15 June 2021: 1–13; DOI: 10.1038/s41429-021-00430-5 [Epub ahead of print]. Available at  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

• Herbal supplements, with proven antiviral effects, such as Sambiloto;

The herb Sambiloto is even used in hospitals against Covid-19 in some South East Asian countries. The imperialist medical industrial complex ignores such practices. Decolonize the World Health Organisation (WHO) – Professor Jem Bendell

Rodrigo Arreola, Saray Quintero-Fabián, Rocío Ivette López-Roa et al, ‘Immunomodulation and anti-inflammatory effects of garlic compounds’, Journal of Immunology Research, 19 April 2021; DOI: 10.1155/2015/401630. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4417560/

Agbonlahor Okhuarobo, Joyce Ehizogie Falodun, Osayemwenre Erharuyi et al, ‘Harnessing the medicinal properties of Andrographis paniculata for diseases and beyond: a review of its phytochemistry and pharmacology’, Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Diseases, 4 (3), 2014: 213–22; DOI: 10.1016/S2222-1808(14)60509-0. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032030/

• Ventilation and air filtration, which is obviously more important than washing hands for an airborne virus;

A lot of research is now being done on various aspects of how to reduce infection rates inside public buildings:

Airborne transmission of COVID‐19 virus in enclosed spaces: An overview of research methods – Zhao – 2022 – Indoor Air – Wiley Online Library

Ventilation strategies and design impacts on indoor airborne transmission: A review – ScienceDirect

• Fever temperature screening at the entrance to public buildings and public transportation;

In some countries, fever screening before entering public facilities was a key response. This needs further assessment to determine if it was a significant factor in some countries lower rates of Covid infection.

Full article: Reliability of Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Fever Screening Under COVID-19 (tandfonline.com)

Fever screening methods in public places during the COVID-19 pandemic – Journal of Hospital Infection

Feasibility and effectiveness of daily temperature screening to detect COVID-19 in a prospective cohort at a large public university | SpringerLink

• Health and safety legislation, and associated funding, to enable staff to stay home at the earliest onset of symptoms, rather than spread viruses during both commuting and working; 

There is strong evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not significant to the reproduction rate of the Covid pandemic. That means policies should be focused on how to help people avoid contact with other people at the earliest onset of symptoms, rather than waiting for tests. That means people’s livelihoods need protecting, as well as their employment status, and employers need to be recompensed for expense or disruption incurred. I wrote about this in October 2021: It’s time for more of a citizen’s response to the pandemic – for a real #PlanB – Professor Jem Bendell

• Exploration of the potential of natural inoculations, from similar but less worrisome viruses;

This is a complicated issue but one that was not ever discussed by the medical establishment during the pandemic (to my knowledge). One paper on cross immunity from T cells, is:

Cross-reactive memory T cells associate with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in COVID-19 contacts | Nature Communications

• Exploration of potential of nasally-administered vaccinations with proven old technologies (not the novel MRNA or adenovirus delivery methods) to train the immune response to the respiratory tract;

The intramuscular jabs don’t stimulate aspects of the immune system that operate in the nasal passages. Therefore, arguably, they are not as effective as vaccinations that would be administered by nose.

Nasal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: Synergistic or alternative to intramuscular vaccines? – ScienceDirect

Nasally inhaled therapeutics and vaccination for COVID‐19: Developments and challenges – Xi – 2021 – MedComm – Wiley Online Library

Nasal sprays for treating COVID-19: a scientific note | SpringerLink

• Additional targeted protections for the vulnerable, with necessary state funding.  

The Great Barrington Declaration was misrepresented in many ways. It was written by leading epidemiologists and advised an active response that targeted the vulnerable with support. Read it for yourself and then wonder why you were lied to about it, by whom, and how to avoid such manipulations in future. Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org)