Healthy Alternatives For Life – My Personal Blog Writing Adventures
a refutation of sorts… five years later… you might find it interesting that to this day a virus is classified as a non living substance or a toxin. I’ll leave that debate to future technology. In the meantime I’ll just use Anthony Fauci’s definition and classify any virus as a ‘phenomena’…. somewhere out there between anti matter and dark matter.
The question remains why is a simple lay blogger being penalized for an authority conundrum?
Are Viruses Alive?
Microbiologists still disagree. Those who say viruses are alive offer these reasons:
They make copies of themselves to regenerate.
They acquire energy (from their hosts).
Reasons some say viruses are not alive:
They have no cells (only protein coatings surrounding genetic material).
They don’t reproduce by themselves; they need host cells.
And one thing still undecided—do viruses respond to their environment? It’s hard to say. Some argue that they do not, while others say they do. It may depend on a person’s own definition of “life.”
Source:
Setting the record straight.
It may depend on a person’s own definition of “life.”
medicinenet
NO. Without a distinction there can be no such thing as biology, the study of living organisms. Virology is a distinct field of study.
All cellular life has both DNA and RNA. Humans, animals, plants, bacteria, fungi and archaea. Viruses are the exception, as they contain either DNA or RNA, but not both. They are not considered living organisms because they are essentially just genetic material wrapped in a protein shell and cannot reproduce without hijacking a host cell’s machinery. There is no single, universally proven origin for the first viral DNA or RNA material. The majority of viruses are significantly smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. It required electron microscopy, advanced imaging, PCR and advanced PCR to detect them accurately from known genetic material in gene banks and the actual number of viruses is unknown.
My Letter From The FDA
This FDA adventure began with what I assumed was a logical approach to staying healthy during a ‘pandemic’. Little did I know I would still be on Google page one with a scarlet letter almost five years later. Rather than face another year of infamy at a cost to my critical publications about the importance of the proper development of the microbiome and immune system via breastfeeding I feel it is time to address the issue in the public arena as to how and why I was cited by the FDA.
Being a layperson I will proceed as I always do by using their own publications as sources.
In May 2020 I received a letter from the FDA citing several claims that were loosely associated with the following title “4 Proven Ways To Protect Yourself Against Coronavirus.” In the blog post aside from general health risks the only specifically proven claim was a recommendation for the use of an ozonator for sanitation purposes. I didn’t assign any particular credible impending threat without clear evidence showing cause and effect including ‘virus’ so a best defense (according to their assigned determination) is sanitation or an appropriate immune response. There wouldn’t be any other choice/s against a claimed ‘novel’ pathogen because no treatments or diagnostics were developed so the only proven method throughout history was a general health state and an ozonator or UV.
I think I think I can determine and distinguish the certainty of 99% but regardless, I complied immediately and I don’t think it warranted the loss of income which after quite a number of years was relatively substantial not to mention the damage against my entire body of work for five years and who knows how long with no redress available to me without the considerable cost of law fare. I get it, Amazon is a platform, privilege and a contract but they are also the greater beneficiary of my work by far and not only that ‘violations’ on commercial public platforms aren’t exactly enforced with equal measure.
The ozonator was not an associate link but the FDA used the title and the ozone claim to make a false association throughout the post. Regarding ozone and viruses the claim was generic and the source was from the industry that ozone does indeed ‘inactivate’ 99% of viruses among other contaminants.
There was no specific claim regarding CV19 as that will be included as a listed source below that they were indeed submitting research open access regarding the use of ozone against CV19 as potentially being effective in May 2020.
Received on May 20, 2020. Accepted on July 1, 2020. Published August 11, 2020.
Cristiano L. Could ozone be an effective disinfection measure against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)? J Prev Med Hyg 2020;61:E301-E303. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2020.61.3.1596
Marking any claim against my post as substantially invalid.
1. GSE
- “Grapefruit Seed Extract If you want a little extra daily protection GSE is a safe antibiotic . . . [Amazon associate link].”
- I used the term antibiotic because the manufacturer describes the product as a ‘Nutrabiotic’. I know full well the primary benefit of GSE is its superior effectiveness as an anti oxidant and coming in second would be its use as an anti fungal against Candida. It is an effective bacteriocide against a large number of bacteria. There was no statement claiming it was an anti-viral.
2. Colostrum
- “Colostrum is nature’s way of protection against any immune threat . . . [Amazon associate
links].” - I could cite dozens of sources regarding colostrum and viruses in particular but the actual statement was generic because being a first food for a particular mammal to a microbiome ecosystem it is intrinsically effective against a variety of immune threats in every mammal.
3. Cod Liver Oil
- “Clearance of cellular debris is also important after any viral infection, cod liver oil. Anti oxidants also help in this regard . . . Cod Liver Oil [Amazon associate link].”
- Again, it’s a generic statement with no actual claim regarding CV19 and my site is largely focused on autophagy and its relevance so anything that stimulates the clearance of cellular debris is beneficial otherwise you’d accumulate tons of cellular debris in a lifetime. Without getting into specifics Vitamin D is a precursor for the production of interferon. Cod liver oil is a natural source of Vitamin D.
Conclusion
So in conclusion I am going to direct you to an actual published paper from NIH regarding CV19 and ozone in particular as if memory serves that was the only actual direct association in the blog post that differentiated from general health advice that any person might take in winter to ensure their best chances of remaining naturally protected but nobody actually knows that including a vaccine maker or the NIH because they are smaller than a wavelength of light. I will also post a link to the actual letter from the FDA so you can make your own determination.
At this point I feel I have no alternative other than a public refutation as it appears this letter will continue to brand my site based on?????, as every manufacturer of ozonators make the claim that ozone KILLS 99.1% of viruses without distinguishing particular viruses except in the paper cited where they did. I complied immediately and trashed the post and at that moment I lost reference to it. I would not make a claim about a virus that wasn’t already established and my entire site is about the healthy immune system, nutrition and food based supplements only. I am also disciplined about including references and sources as practice so I am quite sure if write anything I have at least one if not more references from the NIH to back it up. Whatever a reader chooses to do with that information is their right. And as a nutrition food based supplement only site I take a lot more precautions than they do about food, health, water, sanitation and safety.
Ozone
COVID-19: coronavirus infectious disease 2019.
It was shown that after 30 seconds of in vitro
direct exposure to ozone, 99 percent of the viruses
are inactivated [13]. Although this evidence is of
considerable importance, outside of the laboratory
models, there are various parameters that influence the
time required to obtain the same result. First of all, it was
seen that the inactivation of 99% of viruses by ozonation
requires its spread at concentrations higher than those
necessary for the bacteria [9, 14]. A longer exposure
time, about 30 minutes, is necessary for the treatment of
the surfaces of the environment (surface viruses), while for any viral particles suspended in the air (airborne
viruses) 8-10 minutes are enough to remove 99.9% of
them [17]. Viruses in water are more susceptible to ozone
inactivation and short contact time, about 1 min or little
more, are sufficient to inactivate 99% of them [9, 18].
Virus inactivation is complicated by two factors. The first
is the presence or not of an envelope: in fact, it seems
that enveloped viruses are more sensitive to ozone than
naked viruses [1, 19]. The second factor is that highly
related viruses may exhibit different response kinetics
to the same biocide due to the variation of structural or
genomic components [16]. However, ozone has been
shown to cause the inactivation of viruses by affecting
various molecular targets. Ozone was shown to be highly effective to inactivate
the SARS virus, in fact, it shows an inactivation rate not
lesser than 99% [12]. The novel SARS-CoV2 (2019), an
enveloped virus like all other coronaviruses, shows 80%
of genome sequence similarity to SARS-CoV (2002)
Fig. 1. Disinfection and sanitization methods: differences between ozone, UV light and chemical disinfectants. The figure shows the main
differences between ozone and UV light sanitization [1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14-16].
Fig. 2. Effective ozone parameters on the microorganisms. The figure shows the ozone concentration (ppm) and time exposure (minutes)
necessary to reduce the microbial load by 99% [7, 14, 17].
COULD OZONE BE AN EFFECTIVE DISINFECTION MEASURE
AGAINST THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (SARS-COV-2)?
E303
and this suggests that ozone could be equally effective
also on the novel coronavirus [12, 18].
Could ozone be an effective disinfection measure against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)?
Video
For the sake of my site and channel I will not use the word FDA in the video title and I am keeping it generic.