O ALERTA DE SAÚDE PÚBLICA ERA OBRIGATÓRIO ANTES DO CARNAVAL
No Brasil, Passou o Carnaval sem antes haver alertas imperativos das autoridades da saúde de risco à saúde pública.
Médicos que alertaram sobre esse risco foram censurados.
O óbvio aconteceu, e somente começou a ser noticiado, assim que, não casualmente, terminou o Carnaval. O Coronavírus chegara no Brasil. Dentro do contexto negligente de controle de informações, apenas se noticiou pessoas infectadas que “teriam viajado para o exterior”, não se noticiou o óbvio: milhares de pessoas que viajaram do exterior para o Brasil para participar do Carnaval.
Impossível não ter sido essa a enorme “porta de entrada” desse vírus no Brasil. Total negligência do Poder Público, que somente pensou em seus interesses políticos de forma inquestionável neste País.
Agora, é imperativo que esse Poder Público forneça gratuitamente para a população o único restaurador natural da imunidade inata da pessoa, que é o Hormônio Vitamina D3, especialmente diante do fato que o comando de quarentena imposta a todo o Brasil está privando a população de se expor ao Sol, que em contato com a pele humana por 10 a 30 minutos diários, é sua fonte de produção por excelência para a manutenção da vida e da saúde normais.
A junção desses aspectos, coloca as autoridades responsáveis pela saúde pública federal diante de exame do Código Penal, pela ausência de alertas sobre os riscos apresentados pelo Carnaval, somados a convocações para manifestações públicas de interesse político privado, mas que afeta todos os demais que sequer compareceram a essas manifestações, e anterior Carnaval.
A questão envolve nos casos não letais o Artigo 132, por colocar em risco direto e imediato a saúde de terceiros.
Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352
Parte da notícia veiculada no link:
Assista o vídeo:
As we race to develop effective treatments and a vaccine against COVID-19, people are looking to reduce their risk of getting sick. One thing that might help is as obvious as the sun in the sky and as close as your medicine cabinet – Vitamin D.
Higher COVID-19 mortality rates among older people and those with chronic conditions suggest that a weakened immune system contributes to poor outcomes. There are many crackpot claims about miracle cures floating around, but the science supports the possibility – although not the proof – that Vitamin D may strengthen the immune system, particularly of people whose Vitamin D levels are low.
Vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of respiratory infection, regulates cytokine production and can limit the risk of other viruses such as influenza. A respiratory infection can result in cytokine storms – a vicious cycle in which our inflammatory cells damage organs throughout the body – which increase mortality for those with COVID-19. Adequate Vitamin D may potentially provide some modest protection for vulnerable populations.
This is especially important for people who are Vitamin D deficient – and, surprisingly, that might include more than 40 percent of US adults. People who live in the northern part of the U.S. are at greater risk of deficiency.
There is evidence of seasonality in some respiratory illnesses, including influenza and tuberculosis. A leading hypothesis is that seasonality is due to the reduction in Vitamin D because of decreased exposure to sunlight in winter months. There is no seasonality of influenza or tuberculosis in some tropical climates (such as south India), where weather – and sunlight exposure – remains more constant throughout the year.
When I worked in India, from 1996-2002, I requested that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) send an epidemic intelligence officer in to investigate, and Dr. Lorna Thorpe, the lead author on the resulting study, found that there was more seasonality in the northern climates, which have a cool or cold winter season, and little or none in the southern areas of the country, which are hot all year around.
Right now, we don’t know if Vitamin D deficiency plays any role in the severity of COVID-19. But given the high prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency in this country, it is safe to recommend that people get the proper daily dosage of Vitamin D.
Most people’s bodies manufacture Vitamin D in the skin when exposed to the sun. About 15 minutes a day of direct sunlight is sufficient for many people’s bodies to manufacture enough Vitamin D; people with darker skin need longer exposure to sunlight to manufacture the same amount. In winter, people in northern latitudes may not be able to make any Vitamin D from sunlight. Sunscreen lengthens the exposure time needed
Para prevenir ou tratar a infecção pelo coronavírus, administrando uma dose única de 600.000 UIs, para pessoas com 50 kg ou mais, o que corrige a deficiência de imunidade imediatamente e mantém a pessoa com níveis séricos no intervalo recomendado pela Endocrine Society (Estados Unidos) por 1 mês, após o qual a pessoa deve manter 10.000 UI por dia, artigo publicado:
For immediate normalization of vitamin D levels (so that levels remain within the reference range proposed by Endocrine Society in USA) for 1 month, an adult who has not been supplemented should take a single dose of 600,000 IU (six thousand international unities). This loading dose would be immediately absorbed by the subcutaneous fat tissue and will be slowly released into circulation throughout 30 days. Another loading dose may be repeated after 30 days If you start with 10,000 IU per day it will take as long as 60-90 days to achieve the normal range. Coronavirus is a public health emergency (!!!!!). Starting with 10,000 IU per day or giving a loading dose of 600,000 IU will certainly be the difference between death or life (respectively) por many thousands of people who are already infected (with initial symptoms or not) and will or will not progress into respiratory failure and death (respectively). Obese people may require more than 600.000 IU as a loading dose because they may have much fat tissue to absorb vitamin D and then release into circulation.
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract
infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual
Adrian R Martineau,1,2 David A Jolliffe,1 Richard L Hooper,1 Lauren Greenberg,1 John F Aloia,3 Peter Bergman,4 Gal Dubnov-Raz,5 Susanna Esposito,6 Davaasambuu Ganmaa,7
Adit A Ginde,8 Emma C Goodall,9 Cameron C Grant,10 Christopher J Griffiths,1,2,11 Wim Janssens,12 Ilkka Laaksi,13 Semira Manaseki-Holland,14 David Mauger,15 David R Murdoch,16 Rachel Neale,17 Judy R Rees,18m Steve Simpson,Jr19 Iwona Stelmach,20 Geeta Trilok Kumar,21 Mitsuyoshi Urashima,22 Carlos A Camargo Jr23
Faça download da publicação aqui:
Escuridão e depressão
A falta de luz solar está ligada à redução de funções cognitivas entre pessoas com depressão, aponta um novo estudo publicado na revista Environmental Health.
O trabalho foi feito por pesquisadores da Universidade do Alabama e da Nasa, a agência espacial dos Estados Unidos, que usaram dados de satélites para medir a exposição à luz do Sol pelo território do país e relacionar as informações com a prevalência de problemas cognitivos em indivíduos com depressão.
Foram utilizados dados de 14.474 pessoas, avaliadas em um levantamento feito com apoio dos Institutos Nacionais de Saúde (NIH, na sigla em inglês) do país. “Observamos que entre os participantes com depressão a baixa exposição à luz estava associada com uma probabilidade mais elevada de prejuízo cognitivo”, disse Shia Kent, da Universidade do Alabama, primeiro autor do estudo.
Clima afeta a saúde
A associação não foi verificada entre os participantes do estudo que não tinham depressão.
“Essa relação continuou significativa após os ajustes feitos para as diferentes estações do ano. Essa descoberta de que o clima pode não apenas afetar o humor, mas também a cognição tem implicações importantes para o tratamento da depressão, particularmente para os distúrbios afetivos sazonais”, destacou.
Segundo os autores do estudo, os mecanismos psicológicos ligados à depressão sazonal também podem estar envolvidos no efeito da luz solar na função cognitiva no contexto dos sintomas depressivos.
Teste das funções cognitivas
Na pesquisa, a função cognitiva foi avaliada por meio de testes de memória de curto prazo e da orientação temporal. Assim com atua na regulação dos hormônios serotonina e melatonina, a luz também afeta o fluxo de sangue no cérebro, que, por sua vez, está relacionado a funções cognitivas.
Quem não gosta de ser enganado criminosamente, pagando por isto como preço a perda de sua saúde, e mesmo de sua vida, tanto quanto a de seus familiares e amigos, SAIBA que o mesmo que é denunciado nos EUA pelo Dr. John Cannell, também alcança o Brasil com mais força ainda e com muito mais prejuízos.
Pelos formidáveis interesses da Indústria Farmacêutica, os governos tudo fazem. Vocês somente poderão se opor a isto SE buscarem e examinarem as informações que de fato lhes interessem sobre preservação e recuperação da saúde. Leia com atenção o trecho de sua entrevista abaixo, considerando que o que está entre colchetes foi colocados por nós.
Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352 – email@example.com
(…) “Nos dias atuais, a Internet é um campo fértil para se manter informado sobre este assunto [HORMÔNIO-VITAMINA D E SUA FUNÇA VITAL PARA A SAÚDE HUMANA], embora não esteja à disposição de todos. Há centenas de artigos a respeito [HOJE, JÁ É DEZENAS DE MILHARES] mas, infelizmente, muitos deles estão disponíveis somente em inglês. É o caso do texto do neuropsiquiatra John Cannell (http://goo.gl/LlQOK). Ele acusa pesquisadores da indústria farmacêutica norte-americana de estarem tentando alterar a molécula da vitamina D, para transformá-la em uma substância patenteável, ou seja, em remédio. A influência deles é tamanha, a ponto de se manterem unidos em comitês que “aconselham” o governo dos Estados Unidos a estabelecer a dose recomendável, entre 200 e no máximo 400 unidades por dia, bem aquém do necessário [SER, HOJE, EM DOSE PREVENTIVA 10.000 UI – NÃO MENOS].
Além de prescrever doses mínimas, a maioria dos médicos sequer solicita dosagem da vitamina D no sangue.
Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra ressalta que muitos especialistas, que acompanham pacientes com osteoporose e recomendam essa quantidade de suplementação, ficariam surpresos ao constatar o quão baixo é o nível dessa substância no sangue.
Cannell denuncia exatamente isso. “Só deixando a pele dos braços e das pernas expostas, uma pessoa de pele clara e jovem produz 10 mil unidades de vitamina D. Essa quantidade é 50 vezes maior do que aquela colocada à disposição do público como suplemento de vitamina D, com o título da dose recomendada. Caso fosse prescrito metade disso (5 mil) para toda a população adulta, haveria redução em 40% da ocorrência de novos casos de câncer.
Isso representaria para a indústria farmacêutica uma perda de 40% de uma receita de trilhões de dólares”, completa.
(NaturalNews) Dr. Anne Looker and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently made vitamin D legend, Professor Hector DeLuca of University of Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_DeLuca), and certain folks at big pharma very happy with her widely-reported analysis of the vitamin D status of Americans. Using definitions of deficiency straight from the November 2010 Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) Vitamin D Report – definitions that no vitamin D scientist I know agrees with, except perhaps Professor DeLuca – Dr. Looker reassured Americans their vitamin D levels were sufficient. Instead of a lower limit of 40, 30, or even 20 ng/ml, Dr. Looker and her CDC colleagues actually said any American with vitamin D levels below 12 ng/ml were “at risk of vitamin D deficiency.” That’s right, she wouldn’t say “deficient” for a person less than 12 ng/ml, all she said is they are “at risk” of being deficient! Why?
Dr. Looker falsely reassured Americans that everything is pretty much OK because around 80% of white Americans have levels higher than 20 ng/ml (although only 30% of African Americans do). I carefully read her entire paper; why didn’t I see a “CDC Action Plan for African Americans” for the 70% of Blacks with levels less than 20 ng/ml? Probably for the same reason I didn’t see any “FNB action plan for African Americans” in their recent vitamin D report.
Where did Dr. Looker get the idea that 20 ng/ml was OK? From the FNB. Where did the FNB get that idea? Professor Hector DeLuca and the vitamin D analogue scientists, that’s where. What I am about to tell you is a failure of a system, not a person. The National Academy is responsible, as scientists to the USA, to see that the processes that occur in its name are fair, above the appearance of impropriety, and free from avoidable conflicts of interest.
I have been to enough vitamin D conferences to know that about half of the scientists who attend these conferences are looking for the new patent that will secure or extend their financial fortune. They do not need America alarmed right now about the fact more than 80% of Americans are actually vitamin D deficient; no, the government might need to do something now, an action that would threaten the value of something that I have just learned about: an imminent river of new vitamin D knockoff commercial patents.
Vitamin D knockoff scientists want the government to say that 20 ng/ml is fine, at least until all the phase 2 and phase 3 FDA trials are finished on their newly patented vitamin D “analogue” drugs. In a few years it won’t matter because dozens of knockoff analogues will have been approved for treating vitamin D deficiency, yes prescription-only vitamin D knockoff drugs to treat vitamin D deficiency, instead of vitamin D, I kid you not. After these scientists get their analogues past the FDA, I predict the same scientists will change their tune and start crying for 40 ng/ml as the desirable lower limit, ensuring a vast market for their knockoffs.
The creation of vitamin D knockoff patent prescription-only drugs goes something like this: take the cholecalciferol or 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol molecule, change its structure enough – without changing its actions – and Ola, you can patent it. It must be structurally different enough from natural cholecalciferol to be a unique drug but it must retain its vitamin D efficacy.
Ergocalciferol (Drisdol) – the only prescription drug available to treat vitamin D deficiency in the USA – is an example of an analogue, although the path to its discovery and its patent was quite different. The patent on ergocalciferol made the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Chemistry the richest chemistry department in the world. In some countries, ergocalciferol is still the only vitamin D available. For a detailed discussion of how these patents put the National Academies in a very difficult position, read the following blog: Conflict of Interest at National Academy of Science? (http://pandemicsurvivor.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/conflict-of-interest…)
As I write this, I understand additional vitamin D patent applications are being prepared (I actually know of one application by a member of the recent FNB committee member). These analogue scientists need time; the nutrient, vitamin D, needs to take a back seat for a while. Vitamin D was getting too hot, too many good things being said about it, and too many press stories about too many Americans being deficient. The analogue scientists want a big market when they finish with the FDA.
Anyway, after you have your new vitamin D molecule and your patent, you approach the FDA, who will require that you do randomized controlled trials, pitting your new vitamin D analogue drug against . . . what? Vitamin D, right? No: placebo. That’s right, placebo. As I understand the process, and I hope I am wrong, the vitamin D knockoffs only have to prove they are better than placebo, which, if they keep their efficacy, will be a cinch.
I even know of a patent application for a drug to treat vitamin D deficiency by inhibiting the 24-hydroxylase (the enzyme that gets rid of vitamin D in the body). If you inhibit the 24-hydroxylase, you will raise 25(OH)D levels and thus treat vitamin D deficiency; this is what big pharma is up to (I kid you not). Can you imagine taking a drug that interferes with a natural enzyme that metabolizes vitamin D in order to increase the amount of vitamin D in your blood, instead of just taking vitamin D? Is this the best that American medicine can do?
Very few people seem to know that the recent FNB committee had an unusual guest, an overseer, an official vitamin D advisor, Professor Hector DeLuca (http://host.madison.com/news/article_1b2e3719-0a5f-57d8-b87d-ba89b38d…), one of the true giants in the field of vitamin D, both academically and financially. Talk about mother-load analogue patents, he wrote the book. He has created so many activated vitamin D knockoffs that he named one after himself, “Hectorol.”
Another fact often gets lost; Dr. DeLuca is the only member of the vitamin D community who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, an extremely difficult membership to achieve, a shadowy process requiring inside advocates and secret votes. I’m told, but could not confirm by calling the National Academies, that blackballing is still used; if so, one negative vote and, “I’m sorry Dr. Holick,” “I’m sorry Dr. Heaney,” and “I’m sorry Dr. Norman.”
Anyway, Professor DeLuca and his Department of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin are experts in making knockoff analogue vitamin D drugs. To be fair, his analogues of activated vitamin D have saved thousands of lives, mainly patients with kidney failure, although activated vitamin D itself works in kidney failure. If the new analogues of cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxy-vitamin D effectively treat vitamin D deficiency, they too will save millions of lives. However, there is just a much easier and cost effective way of treating vitamin D deficiency: plain old, cheap old, nutrient old, vitamin D.
As far as the recent FNB report on vitamin D, can you visualize all the scientists on the FNB hard at work, under the watchful eye of their “Special Advisor,” National Academy of Sciences member, Professor Hector DeLuca. I would venture a guess that more than one member of the FNB vitamin D panel dreamt about being in the National Academy himself or herself one day. Then they pondered which lower limit to vote for, the 40 ng/ml opined by most vitamin D scientists or the 20 ng/ml opined by “Special Advisor” DeLuca. Let us see, what will get me into the National Academy of Sciences the quickest?
I can’t really complain. First, this is America and I suspect the quickest way to treat the massive vitamin D deficiency pandemic is going to be through private industry, like it or not. Second, it is possible one of the vitamin D knockoff drugs will actually work better than vitamin D; “possible” I said. Third, I get royalties on my own brand of vitamin D so I have my own conflicts of interest. Fourth, before you get too high on your horse about Dr. DeLuca, ask yourself how many lives have you saved in your lifetime? He discovered activated vitamin D, trained dozens of the top vitamin D researchers, and saved thousands of lives.
Also, I have no way of knowing how exceptional was the FNB’s decision to make secret the critiques of the 12 top vitamin D experts, experts who were asked to review the FNB’s work. Does the FNB invoke such secrecy frequently? When did it do so last? Did the final FNB report change, based on the opinions of the 12 vitamin D experts, or did the FNB Board (most who admit to not being vitamin D experts) simply comply with Professor DeLuca’s judgment?
If the final FNB report did change, what did the report look like before the vitamin D experts’ opinions were weighed? I understand at least one vitamin D expert charged the FNB with racism for its failure to consider the vitamin D plight of African Americans. Is that true? Most members of the Vitamin D Council would like to read all 12 critiques by the 12 top vitamin D experts in the world but – unlike Professor DeLuca or the vitamin D-knockoff pharmaceutical companies – we don’t have the money to legally fight the FNB’s proclamation that the 12 expert critiques by the top vitamin D experts in the world are – and will remain – secret, beyond the reach of Federal Freedom of Information Laws.
Sources for this article include:
About the author:
John Cannell MD is Founder and Executive Director of the Vitamin D Council, a nonprofit working to end the world-wide epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.
10 January 2013
Non-migraine headache is associated with vitamin D deficiency, according to researchers in Norway.
Marie Kjaergaard, MD, and colleagues of the University Hospital of North Norway found that incidence of headache was 20% higher in participants with lower vitamin D blood levels than in those with the highest levels.
“High prevalence of headache has been associated with high latitude, thus suggesting a relation with vitamin D,” The authors explain. Before the study, no research had looked at a possible link between vitamin D status and headache.
The researchers performed a cross-sectional study based on questionnaires from 11,614 participants. They found that non-migraine headache was associated with low vitamin D blood levels as compared to participants with the highest serum vitamin D. The authors found no association between vitamin D and migraine headache. They conclude,
“Although adjustments were done for possible confounders, this finding may still reflect lifestyle rather than causality, and further studies are needed to investigate this.”