(Natural News) Preliminary data from a clinical trial involving more than 100 covid-19 patients in Ecuador has resulted in a claimed 100 cure rate within four days, according to Andreas Kalcker who is closely following the results of the effort. The tests were carried out by the Asociacion Ecuatoriana de Medicos Expertos en Medicina Integrativa, a group of integrative medicine practitioners.
Ecuador has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus, and the current “standard of care” promoted by Western medicine — largely based on the use of ventilators — has been killing the vast majority of critical patients while utterly failing to address the real root of the problem.
Covid-19 isn’t an Acute Respiratory Disease (ARD), it turns out. Rather, it often presents as an inflammation and blood clotting condition (see The Lancet research, below) which causes the blood to be unable to carry oxygen, resulting in patient hypoxia and eventual asphyxiation.
This is why intravenous chlorine dioxide — which immediately delivers a high dose of oxygen to blood cells — is believed to work so effectively against covid-19. It reportedly restores the oxygen-carrying capacity of hemoglobin and clears the clotting in the lungs, all while destroying pathogens.
Chlorine dioxide researcher and advocate Andreas Kalcker has posted a video (in Spanish) where he explains the findings. That video, entitled, “Mas de 100 Casos de Covid-19 recuperados con CDS por medicos de Aememi,” is found at this link on Lbry.tv.
A video embed is offered here:
In the video, Andreas explains that researchers were able to achieve a complete cure in just four days through the use of intravenous chlorine dioxide (ClO2). Here’s a photo of some of the researchers holding syringes of chlorine dioxide, which is then infused into the patients’ blood, where it releases a wave of oxygen that researchers believe saturates the blood with O2 while killing pathogens:
Another clinical trial involving chlorine dioxide is currently under way, documented by the US National Library of Medicine at ClinicalTrials.gov. The study uses oral chlorine dioxide (rather than intravenous) and is entitled, “Determination of the Effectiveness of Oral Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID 19.” The trial is being conducted by the Genesis Foundation and involves 20 patients.
The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier for that trial is NCT04343742.
Andreas Kalcker explains in his video that chlorine dioxide is a powerful disinfectant that destroys viruses and bacteria. The substance has long been used in water purification processes and is approved by various US government agencies for as a water treatment and purification agent.
This video frame shows blood cells being flooded with oxygen from ClO2, instantly reducing clotting / coagulation:
Covid-19 is not an acute respiratory disease
In another bombshell science paper published May 7, 2020, in The Lancet, researchers Dennis McGonagle and others determined that covid-19 is not a respiratory disease but rather “diffuse pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy,” a kind of blood clotting that presents in lung tissue.
This explains why patients with covid-19 are dying from hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and are frequently killed by the use of ventilators. As an ICU doctor from New York warned months ago, doctors are treating the wrong disease. (That doctor’s YouTube channel was deleted and all his videos were censored, of course. No one is allowed to question medical orthodoxy in the medical police state known as the United States of America.)
Study authors also found the inflammation triggers a worsening of the condition, which implies that anti-inflammatory interventions might be the key to saving lives and ending the pandemic. From the study:
The immune mechanism underlying diffuse alveolar and pulmonary interstitial inflammation in COVID-19 involves a MAS-like state that triggers extensive immunothrombosis…
MAS stands for Macrophage Activation Syndrome, and it is an inflammatory response stemming from an over-reactive immune response, similar to the “cytokine storm” that’s being widely discussed (which vitamin C helps prevent, according to published research). As the study explains:
The severity of systemic inflammation in response to human coronavirus family members has features reminiscent of a cytokine storm or macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), also known as secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistocytosis (sHLH).
Figure 1 from the study:
To simplify these findings, covid-19 is not acute viral pneumonia impacting the respiratory system but rather an inflammation-based immunological response that leads to thrombosis (clotting in the lungs) which kills the patient. The use of ventilators only makes the problem worse, which is why previous observational studies have found that 88% of patients put on ventilators end up dying. They are dying because the ventilator treatment is the wrong treatment.
Chlorine dioxide is reportedly saving 100 percent of the patients studied so far because chlorine dioxide floods the blood with instantly usable oxygen while killing the pathogens responsible for clotting. There is also anecdotal evidence that some people are beating covid-19 infections with high doses of aspirin, a blood thinner, although this information should not be taken as advice for treatment, and far more research is needed on blood thinners and anti-inflammatory interventions.
This may also help explain why turmeric and vitamin D are associated with strong reductions in inflammation in the body, which may prove useful in balancing the immune response and preventing the kind of imbalance that can lead to immune system overreactions.
FOR Steven, 28 and Chinozo, 26—both sons of late Eze Solomon— Sunday, May 10 will forever remain a dark day in their memories.
- Nancy Duarte, May 06, 2020
In an ongoing crisis, clear communication is more important and more difficult than when things seem normal. Employees and customers are hungry for information, so we’re tempted to pull together presentations and communicate with urgency instead of with careful planning. But if we present without addressing our audience’s core questions of what, how, and why, we’ll sow more confusion than we bring clarity.
At my company, we rework thousands of talks each year for large brands and high-powered executives. When their communications are high-stakes, most of our clients come to us prepared with what needs to happen and how, but they’ve rarely answered the question why.
So, why answer why?
Let’s put it this way: If your boss comes to you and says, “I need you take on this additional project on top of your current work load,” what is your first question going to be? It probably has nothing to do with setting your alarm, re-arranging your schedule, or any other version of how you’re going to get the extra work done. When someone asks you to alter a current behavior, your first question is usually why? Because you’re not going to try something new or hard unless you’re motivated to do so.
Your audience is no different. If they don’t know why a new action is necessary, they won’t be motivated to help you. They’ll continue with their current comfortable behaviors, thank you very much.
Communicators often overlook answering why for two key reasons:
- They assume explaining what and how is the fastest way to influence their audience.
- They think the answer to why is so self-evident it doesn’t need unpacking.
Think about a difficult situation where it’s critical for people to rally and align. Something as simple as a team-defining internal initiative or something as grand as pulling out of the economic crisis we’re in right now. Let’s say you are confident that if your audience executes your plan, your company will pull out unscathed. You know how to do it. You pour all those insights into a passionate presentation. You get a smattering of applause and then…nothing happens.
Have you been there? You’ve worked through your scenarios, planning, research, validation and poured energy into communicating “what” needs to happen and “how” to do it. You’ve walked away disappointed by the lack of response from the very people whose lives will be improved if they would simply do “what” you said “how” you said to do it.
Leaders explain the what of their insights and the how of applying the findings. This is how most leaders approach their talks, especially professionals who are deep subject matter experts. They focus on the content they want to share. Many leaders don’t even consider the why from the audience perspective because it seems so self-evident to them, they think it’s obvious to everyone.
On the other hand, let’s say you inject your talk with a compelling why — “We can reduce secondary infection rates by 40%, saving thousands of lives” or “We can reach more people and help them advance their careers if we release our content for free.” Answering “why” often leads to a human, who will benefit from the action you’re asking people to take. It suddenly matters.
There’s a good chance your why won’t be as clear cut as the example above. So here are three strategies to help you get to the heart of the why in your next presentation.
Ask some good what questions.
The answers to why often hide in our subconscious, and you may have to coax them out. Sometimes, you can get to why by asking yourself a few good “what” questions such as: What is at stake if we do or do not do this? What will the future look like if we get this done? What would the state of the human condition be if we did or didn’t do this? Another way to get to why is to have someone else ask you “so what” until you can’t answer it anymore. That’ll get you to the root of “why.”
Follow up with because.
Just considering the why isn’t enough — you have to clearly articulate the why. Think about what action you’re asking your audience to take, and then follow it with “because.”
For example, “We need to improve our process, because ____.” Whatever reason follows a “we need to ______, because _______ .” Whatever that second blank is, will answer the question of “why.”
State alternate perspectives.
Address skeptics and resistance by addressing potential perspectives you’ve eliminated. It might sound counterintuitive to reveal anything other than the action you’re influencing them to take, but you can better persuade an audience by sharing ideas you abandoned and, you guessed it, “why” you’ve eliminated them. By sharing the ideas that you considered, explored, tested, and then abandoned, you’ll demonstrate that you’ve thought through all the possibilities.
Answering why is an act of empathy and adds a layer of persuasion to your communications. When people know why they’re being asked to do something, they’re much more likely to do it.
In times like these, your customers and your employees need your wisdom and leadership more than ever, and you have a unique opportunity to move them forward in the midst of uncertainty. As you seek to inspire and motivate them to do the next right thing, don’t forget to include the why.
US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar speaks on protecting Americas seniors from the COVID-19 pandemic in the East Room of the White House on April 30, 2020. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)
By Cathy He May 18, 2020 The Epoch Times
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, at the virtual meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 18, denounced an “apparent attempt to conceal this outbreak by at least one member state,” without directly naming China. The WHA is the WHO’s decision-making body.
He also called out the WHO’s complicity in the virus’s spread, by repeating Chinese talking points.
“We must be frank about one of the primary reasons this outbreak spun out of control,” Azar said. “There was a failure by this organization to obtain the information that the world needed, and that failure cost many lives.”
Trump, told reporters later on Monday, that he chose not to speak at the meeting, saying that the WHO had done “a very sad job” in handling the crisis, adding that it was “a puppet of China.”
Earlier in the meeting, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus vowed to begin an “independent evaluation” into how the organization responded to the outbreak “at the earliest appropriate moment.”
Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in a video speech at the opening of the meeting, said the Chinese regime would support a “comprehensive review” of the global response to the pandemic, provided it was led by the WHO.
Azar said the United States supports “an independent review of every aspect of WHO’s response” and China’s conduct also should be “on the table” for review.
Separate from talks of the independent review, a resolution drafted by the European Union that calls for an independent evaluation of the WHO’s performance appeared to have won consensus backing among the WHO’s 194 states. It was expected to be debated and adopted on May 19. The draft motion doesn’t specifically refer to China or Wuhan, the outbreak epicenter, but does call on the body to work with the World Organization for Animal Health to investigate the source of the virus, according to Australian media outlet ABC.
Xi, in his remarks, sought to emphasize the regime’s efforts in combating the pandemic, and pledged $2 billion to the United Nations to help the global response. He also defended the regime’s handling of the outbreak, saying, “All along, we have acted with openness and transparency and responsibility.”
Speaking hours after Xi, Azar said the United States had allocated $9 billion to virus containment efforts around the world. The United States, WHO’s largest contributor, last month halted funds to the WHO pending a review, slamming the body as being too deferential to Beijing.
Beijing’s pledged contribution forms part of its campaign “to shift the narrative from China being the source of the novel coronavirus towards leading global assistance,” I-wei Jennifer Chang, research fellow at Washington-based think tank Global Taiwan Institute told The Epoch Times in an email.
“China seeks to play a key role in facilitating and coordinating global responses to the pandemic, one-upping Washington on the most pressing global governance issue at the present time,” Chang said.
The body has come under intense scrutiny for repeating the Chinese regime’s official statements that there was little or no risk of human-to-human transmission of the virus during the early stages of the outbreak in China. Mounting evidence, including from leaked internal documents, however, shows that the regime knew about the outbreak’s severity and hid it from the public.
Top WHO officials have also repeatedly praised Chinese officials and claimed China’s response set an example for other countries to follow.
Ghebreyesus defended the body’s response, saying, “We sounded the alarm early, and we sounded it often.”
Earlier on May 18, the WHO’s seven-member internal oversight body published a report examining the group’s response to COVID-19, saying the WHO “demonstrated leadership” in handling the pandemic between January and April.
“Initial information on case fatality rate, severity, and transmissibility furnished by China in early January reflected an incomplete picture of the virus, but were updated by the WHO Secretariat following a country office mission to Wuhan from 20 to 21 January,” it said.
“An imperfect and evolving understanding is not unusual during the early phase of a novel disease emergence.”
Committee members said an independent assessment of WHO’s performance “may be useful” but warned that conducting a review “during the heat of the response, even in a limited manner, could disrupt WHO’s ability to respond effectively.”
Chang said the regime is likely to “reject, or seek to complicate, a potential WHO investigation to the virus origins in order to deflect global criticism over the pandemic’s outbreak within its borders.”
At the start of the WHA meeting, member states unanimously agreed to defer a decision on granting observer status to Taiwan until later this year to avoid diverting attention from the pandemic.
The United States, along with a group of countries, started a campaign ahead of the meeting to push for the self-ruled island’s inclusion, saying its exclusion hampered global efforts to fight the disease. The Chinese regime, which views Taiwan as part of its territory, has blocked the island’s participation in the WHA since President Tsai Ing-wen was elected in Taiwan in 2016.
“WHO barred Taiwan from participation in 2016, just a few months after Taiwan’s free and fair elections,” Azar said at the meeting. “The 23 million Taiwanese people should never be sacrificed to send a political message.”
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a statement on May 18, said Ghebreyesus “had every legal power and precedent” to include Taiwan in the conference.
“Yet, he instead chose not to invite Taiwan, under pressure from the People’s Republic of China,” he said.
“The director-general’s lack of independence deprives the Assembly of Taiwan’s renowned scientific expertise on pandemic disease, and further damages the WHO’s credibility and effectiveness at a time when the world needs it the most.”
A man wearing protective gear walks past shops in Wuhan, in China’s central Hubei Province on May 18, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images) INSIDE CHINA
By Eva Fu May 18, 2020
Chinese authorities imposed the “strictest control measures” on the northeastern city of Shulan on May 18 amid a growing number of infections in a second-wave outbreak of the CCP virus.
The city of 703,000 in Jilin Province, which borders Russia, is the location of the latest outbreak, and one of only two places in China currently designated as “high-risk” for an outbreak. On May 17, the Fengman district in the province’s Jilin city had been labeled as a “high-risk” area.
Under a lockdown similar to that of Wuhan, where the virus first emerged, only one member of each household is allowed to leave his or her apartment building, only every other day for grocery shopping, according to a May 18 notice from the city government. Each time, the person can only spend a maximum of two hours outside.
In residential compounds with reported confirmed or suspected cases, no one is allowed to leave their apartments. All supplies are delivered by local stores, provided that residents supply a grocery list a day ahead.
Similar measures have also gone into effect in the Fengman district. Officials on May 17 called for a “blanket search” to identify all those who might be exposed to the virus, while all dine-in services and entertainment venues have been closed. Schools in the district, which recently reopened, will be suspended even for ninth-graders, who have their annual high school entrance examination just a month away (high school starts in 10th grade in China).
Shulan has “made a name for itself because of the outbreak,” local resident Wen (an alias) told The Epoch Times. “It’s become the second Wuhan.”
Local residents describe a sense of exasperation as more communities have been sealed off and food prices skyrocket.
“Take a stroll on the street, you never know if you will bump into someone who has the virus,” a woman surnamed Yang, who owns a small business in Jilin city, southwest of Shulan, said in an interview. She has been burning through her savings to survive.
About 500 medical experts from across China have been dispatched to Jilin city to direct outbreak control efforts, according to the city’s health committee director, Liu Zhiqi. He said Jilin has collected 40,101 test samples over a three-day period. The city has also mobilized more than 3,400 volunteers to stand by 24/7 in its 95 local neighborhoods.
Zhong Nanshan, a Chinese respiratory expert who rose to prominence during the pandemic, has warned of a grim situation ahead.
“The majority of … Chinese at the moment are still susceptible of the COVID-19 infection because [of] a lack of immunity,” Zhong said in a CNN interview on May 16. “We are facing [a] big challenge; it’s not better than the foreign countries I think at the moment.”
Wuhan recently ordered diagnostic testing for all 11 million residents. The process, which often involves hours of waiting, has drawn sharp criticism among residents.
In a video filmed by locals and obtained by The Epoch Times, people living in the Shengshi Dongfang residential compound said their throat swabs were casually tossed into the same box or bottle without labeling—sometimes dozens at a time. While about 6,000 residents live in the neighborhood, medical officers brought only about 600 testing kits, according to the residents.
“What do you think they are doing here?” a woman can be heard from the video. She added that she just completed the test.
“You can’t even tell which belongs to whom, so what’s the use in doing this?” she said.
One white-shirted woman also held up two bottles filled with swab samples to show the people around her.
“Chaotic,” Sun Tao, a local resident from Wuhan’s Qingshan district, told Radio Free Asia, adding that he has raised concerns at a separate testing site on Sunday.
Meanwhile, people living in the Rongke Tiancheng compound in Wuhan’s Jiang’an district also raised privacy concerns after residents were asked to be photographed holding their identification cards during testing.
On May 17, Jiang’an district officials said on Chinese social media platform Weibo that they have deleted the photos to “ensure residents’ information won’t be leaked and their interests won’t be harmed.”
A notice circulating on the internet showed that photographs were also taken at least eight communities where testing took place.
1884 – Ringling Bros. Circus formed. The Ringling brothers opened a small circus in Baraboo, Wisconsin, on this day in 1884 and by the early 20th century had transformed it into the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, the leading American circus.
Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired (Art. 26.1) and that the exercise of these rights shall be free from discrimination of any kind (Art. 2)
The irony of a courageous culture is that it takes less daily courage to be successful. If you want to build teams of micro-innovators, problem solvers, and customer advocates, eliminate the toxic courage crushers intimidating your people.
Eliminate the Courage Crushers
A doctor was trying to do an experimental procedure I knew could hurt a child
(and was also against the parent’s consent), so I blocked the door.
Jane, a committed nurse in one of our high-potential programs, shared the exhausting list of daily stupidity she faced from a bullying, narcissistic doctor—just to get her job done. She felt like every day was a courageous battle to advocate for her patients’ needs. Her requests were met with sarcasm and micro-retaliation.
She said that the administration knew of his antics but looked the other way because he was renowned in his field. The other participants in the session corroborated her story with frustrated nods. “That’s why we have Fear of Speaking Up (FOSU)—you can’t change a guy like him. And he’s just one of many courage crushers around here.”
“Why do you stay?” Karin asked.
Jane’s eyes welled up (as did Karin’s and pretty much everyone else’s in the room). “I just care so deeply about the patients. They’re just very sick kids who need someone paying attention who cares.”
Jane eventually left for another role where her passion and commitment were appreciated. That department lost a remarkable nurse. You can’t possibly build a Courageous Culture if you tolerate even one guy like that—word spreads fast. Your Janes will go elsewhere.
And Jane’s not alone. When people hear of our research, many share their stories of difficult situations where they had to overcome a toxic situation.
A few quotes from our research.
- “My boss was exaggerating the numbers to our leadership team. I held fast to the truth.”
- “I stood up to a boss who was trying to bully me.”
- “I called ethics because I was tired of all the screaming. And then I got retaliated against for calling ethics.”
- “They asked me to tell the truth about the CEO’s behavior. I did and he was fired.”
- “My integrity clashed with the executive team’s direction, so I quit.”
Zero Tolerance: Stop the Courage Crushers
Sobering answers, aren’t they? When people spend their courage reserves just getting past the bad stuff, there’s no energy left for the courage your business needs most—creative problem solving and micro-innovation.
For most people, innovation takes energy and courage—the courage to be vulnerable, to risk rejection from their peers, or to invite uncertainty.
Your people can make that effort only a limited number of times before they’re done. The more courage they use to address injustice, toxic leadership, needless politics, or poor decision-making, the less energy they’ll have to spend on what really matters. You won’t get any of the courage you need to serve your customers or build your business if it takes a heroic effort just to fight against an existing caustic culture. To build a culture that leverages and amplifies every act of courage from every team member, start with a foundation of safety and clarity.
If you’re serious about building a Courageous Culture, you can’t tolerate even an ounce of harassment or bullying—from anyone, but especially from anyone in a management or leadership role (even if they are otherwise rockstar performers). If it takes a week’s supply of courage for an employee just to show up for another day, you’re wasting money and talent.
Beyond “Me Too” and Other Injustice
It’s interesting: when we are interviewed about our Courageous Cultures research, one of the first topics reporters ask about is sexual harassment and bullying. “Oh, FOSU, you mean like in the ‘Me Too’ movement? Yeah, let’s talk about that!”
Actually no. If you’ve got a culture rampant with sexual harassment and bullying, you’re not ready for any of the techniques in this book. You can’t possibly encourage innovation and problem solving when you haven’t solved the most fundamental problems: when people don’t feel safe and don’t know unequivocally that you value them at the most basic human level.
Before you start any of this, carefully examine your systems and infrastructure for injustice or unintended consequences that prevent people from focusing on the work that matters most.
Spend time with your frontline employees and really listen to what they experience every day. Ask courageous questions that give them an opportunity to tell you what really happens. Take the comments in your employee surveys seriously. For every employee that spoke up, there’s likely another who blew it off or stayed silent.
The Behavior of EVERY Leader Matters
When you’re looking to build a Courageous Culture, the behavior of every leader matters. We talk to so many senior leaders who convince themselves that they must tolerate the bullying or demeaning and intimidating behavior of an executive or middle manager because of “all the other things they bring to the table” (such as innovation, deep customer relationships, the biggest sales funnel). And then they tell us “they’re too valuable to fire.”
If this sounds familiar, think about the messages leaving a toxic leader in place is sending to your team. First, you’ve told your team that you lack courage. You’re not a strong enough leader to create a Courageous Culture. Next, you’ve told your team members that you don’t value them. If you did value them, you would ensure they were treated humanely. Finally, you’ve told everyone that this kind of abuse, harassment, and bullying is okay.
You’ve planted seeds for even more chaos and disruption. We’ve had countless managers raise their hands in our training sessions and say, “Well this all sounds great, but they’re not serious about that here. Otherwise would not be so successful. It’s sad but that’s what it takes to get ahead around here.”
There is much research that shows that people tend to remember a bad emotional experience more than a good one. Even one courage crusher will be enough for many employees to see that this is the way “people like us”—or the people we aspire to be like—are encouraged to act. And they will see this even if they’re surrounded by a dozen other leaders proactively working to build the culture they want.
The Big Three Toxic Behaviors
The three most toxic behaviors we hear being tolerated (and even rewarded) are shaming, blaming, and intimidation. It’s the chief operating officer who projects a list of all her senior leaders in stack-ranked order on the screen at the company off-site meeting and then works her way through the list from the bottom up, sarcastically criticizing them in front of their peers and handing them a microphone to respond, while all their peers laugh nervously while silently praying they’ll be spared next time.
Or the vice president who berates his direct reports for a strategic choice “they made” that didn’t pan out, even though the VP was the one who made the final call despite the team’s concerns and objections. Or the executive who flies around on the corporate jet and delivers fix-it-or-else ultimatums, overlooks all the great results and leaves a wake of intimidation-induced frenzy—all to show how serious she is to make things better.
Shame, blame, and intimidation have no place in a Courageous Culture—and yet you might be surprised how frequently we encounter these counter-productive activities, even in organizations that invest in resources and systems to foster courage and innovation. Don’t let one or two bullies undermine your Courageous Culture strategy.
Courage Enabling Questions to Consider
If you are interested in building a courageous culture, we encourage you and your team to discuss these questions:
- Why Build a Courageous Culture?
- Why do you want a Courageous Culture?
- What specific outcomes are you looking to achieve?
- How will you know you are successful?
- What scares you? Why?
- What hard choices must you be prepared to make?
- Who’s with you? Who’s not? What support do you have? Why?