Analysis of the Covid-19 situation

(Note: translation of this article not complete)

The Vitality Council has in recent months received several calls to analyze the Covid-19 situation in Denmark in order to bring clarity to the overwhelming amount of information that seems to point in all directions.

This is illustrated very clearly with a current example from the Faroe Islands, where 2/3 of triple-vaccinated and thoroughly tested nurses were found to be infected with Covid-19’s Omicron variant a few days after their gathering.

  • 33 nurses held Christmas lunch on December 3rd.
  • All were fully vaccinated + booster (3rd jab).
  • All were tested negative, including a majority with PCR testing within the last 36 hours.
  • After 3 days, 21 of the 33 were infected with Omicron.

As an explanation for this, the authorities then say that the vaccines can prevent serious illness and death, but not infection and re-infection. And this is where the information goes in all directions and has led our readers to ask the Vitality Council to sort out the threads.

It is difficult to see the logic in the fact that we have to vaccinate our children when they do not get sick from Covid-19 themselves. But they must be vaccinated so as not to infect their grandparents – they say. But when the vaccine does not protect against infection and re-infection, then that argument is gone.

Another example where logic fails is the Corona Passport, which is solely to ensure that the holder does not infect others. But when the vaccine does not protect against infection and re-infection, then it should only be previously ill and recently tested who can get a green corona passport. The vaccinated can be contagious and should not have a corona passport without testing like everyone else.

Several of the restrictions that weigh on the Danish business community and the population are without any kind of logic, and the documentation on which these are based goes in all directions. Much of the information we receive from the authorities is directly contradictory. With this analysis, the Vitality Council will therefore seek to bring the reader clarity on three important questions in particular, when we look at Covid-19’s last 3 winter epidemics in the light of the usual influenza epidemics:

  1. How dangerous is the Delta variant?
  2. How dangerous is the Omicron variant?
  3. What is the cost / benefit of the vaccine?

We will also supplement with information about the immunological mechanisms, test methods as well as prevention and treatment options.

In terms of danger compared to the flu, there is not much difference. The Delta variant seems to be like a severe flu for a few percent where it settles in the lower respiratory tract. It does not infect such a large part of the population, but has roughly the same mortality rate as influenza.

The Omicron variant spreads significantly faster than the Delta variant and influenza with a doubling time of 1.2 days. On the other hand, it is significantly milder, settles mainly only in the upper respiratory tract and has brought about a large decrease in the need for hospitalization and intensive treatment, just as mortality is very low, almost insignificant.

There seems to be a fundamental biological misconception behind the development of vaccines if the idea was that they should be “a superweapon” to stop an epidemic, let alone a pandemic. The vaccines do not protect against infection or re-infection, but provide a declining protection against serious illness and death for just over 3 months. But after 3-4 months, the  effect of the vaccine is directly negative for Omicron, so that the risk of becoming infected is 76% greater than if you have not been vaccinated at all. In terms of infection, the vaccines have no effect on the Omicron variant, which removes any argument for vaccinating children.

Furthermore, the available data show that reinfection occurs mainly in vaccinated and not in persons with natural immunity after Covid-19.


The disease

There is a disease called Covid-19 (CV19). It is caused by a virus called SARS-CoV-2, which has a “spike protein” sitting on the surface of the virus particle. The spike protein mediates the virus’ passage across the cell membrane by linking to a receptor, ACE-2, which is widespread among the body’s cells. But the spike protein is also the pathogen that gives rise to symptoms, injuries and ultimate death.

SARS-CoV-2 is characterized in that, like influenza virus, it triggers a reaction with the release of a number of signaling molecules such as interleukins, interferons and lymphokines.

When this release is strong, it is called a “cytokine storm”. In Covid-19, it is so powerful that immune cells begin to damage the tissue where the process takes place, and here it is primarily the lung tissue that is damaged. The cytokine storm creates a violent inflammatory response and increased release of free oxygen radicals, which further damage the lung tissue due to the subsequent inflammatory microcoagulation seen in the pulmonary vessels. The lung tissue reacts by secreting a tough secretion that fills the lung alveoli, making it difficult to oxygenate the blood. Adding too much oxygen at this stage will only aggravate the situation, as several anesthesiologists have experienced when Covid-19 patients get their disease worsened if they are put on a respirator. The cytokine storm can then develop into a bradykinin storm with an effect on the renin-agiotensin ratio, so that the disease develops into a cardiovascular disease.

SARS-CoV-2 started as an alpha variant and has since been mutated several times, with the most widespread in 2021 being the Delta variant. It is now being supplanted by the Omicron variant. Most often, the virus mutates into a less pathogenic but more contagious type, which then becomes more or less endemic, which means that it joins the ranks of cold and flu viruses, which circulate in the population at intervals and which people therefore has an excellent defense against.

The vaccines

The new so-called mRNA vaccines program the body’s own cells to produce the spike protein, ie. doing exactly the same thing as the virus.

The AstraZeneca and JJ-Johnson vaccines provide the actual DNA code for the production of the spike protein. This is transported across the membrane by an empty adeno virus (in this case a modified chimpanzee virus). The DNA becomes part of the host cell’s DNA – presumably forever – and continues to produce spike protein according to the usual mechanism by which the code is transcribed into mRNA, which brings it from the nucleus to the ribosomes.

Pfizer / Moderna delivers the mRNA code directly – wrapped in synthetic liposomes (lipid nanoparticles). The plan was for the mRNA to go directly to the ribosomes and cause a modest, local production of spike protein and then (half a day) be neutralized by the nucleases present.

Two publications in the spring of 21 have changed this picture. First, the viral mRNA (introduced by SARS-CoV-2) can be reverse transcribed into the DNA of the host cell.1;2 As there is no qualitative difference in mRNA from the virus and from the vaccines, this implies that the mRNA code of the Pfizer / Moderna vaccine may also be latent in the DNA of the host cell and continue to produce spike protein. The injected person thus becomes a GMO. However, humans are excluded from the EU definition of GMOs and therefore also excluded from the 2001 environmental assessment assessment. 3

In July 2020, the EU also granted a temporary dispensation for the use of GMOs in medical treatment. 4 You could be tempted to assume that this was done to prepare for later authorizations for AstraZeneca’s and JJ ‑ Johnson’s vaccines that use a genetically modified adeno virus to bring the DNA across the host cell membrane. Furthermore, it was demonstrated in an animal model that the spike protein is pathogenic 5  and attacks cells with ACE-2 receptors. This, of course, is primarily the platelets and endothelium that are destroyed as the spike protein circulates in the bloodstream.

That the spike protein is the antigen that circulates throughout the body explains why home tests (antigen tests) can detect the spike protein in a nose scratch or in saliva.

In other words, you get Covid-19 from the injections, no matter what technology is used.

There is nothing speculative in this conclusion. It has been the official mechanism of action of vaccines since day one. In the near future, therefore, one can expect to see side effects from the vaccines, which are similar to the clinical symptoms now observed in the disease Covid-19. The long-term effects of the vaccines will be assessed below.

Composition of “today’s infection rates”

Today’s “infection rate” (positive RT-PCR test) can be composed of the following groupings:

  • Non-vaccinated, actually infected with resp. Delta or Omikron, registered with Ct <25 6 who are ill with symptoms. Should be treated early with hydroxychloroquine / zinc / azithromycin or ivermectin / azithromycin. 7
  • Non-vaccinated with positive PCR at Ct> 25 6 Weak or no symptoms. (Should have time to establish a T- and B-cell immune defense.)
  • Vaccinated who encounter Delta virus – and maybe even Omicron – for the first time. These individuals can have a violent, very unpleasant and ultimately fatal course. The explanation may lie in “Antibody Dependent Enhancement” (or “pathogenic priming”), which can end in a cytokine storm because the immune system overreacts in self-amplifying processes. This is especially true if they lack vitamin D, which moderates the cytokine storm.
  • Vaccinated who produce mRNA or encoded DNA fragments that are detected by PCR.
  • The conventional, dominant class of false positives, incl. common cases of influenza. WHO 8 and the CDC have publicly acknowledged that the RT-PCR test cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus. As of January 1, 2022, the RT-PCR test can not be used to diagnose CV-19 in the United States! 9

Statens Seruminstituts (SSI) definitions

If the official announcements are already grinding in the logical sense, then it will not help to read the Serum Institute’s definitions 10(page 3):

  • “A post-vaccination infection is hereinafter defined as a positive PCR test for Covid-19.”
  • “A Covid-19 related hospitalization is defined as a hospitalization in which the patient was admitted within 14 days of the sampling date for the first positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR sample.”
  • “Covid-19-related death is defined as a Covid-19-confirmed case that has passed away within 30 days of being diagnosed with Covid-19 infection. Covid-19 is not necessarily the underlying cause of death. “

It is these numbers that the authorities have used to keep the population in fear. And if you take into account that the PCR test has also included cases of influenza 9, then that will be big numbers.
The reader may rightly ask whether this is politics or health facts.

The disease COVID-19

Autopsies in connection with CV-19 have been remarkably absent.

Only in Hamburg were all CV19 deaths autopsied at the beginning of the “pandemic”. A publication of the first 80 of these autopsies is available. 11

In support of the narrative of a pandemic, all individuals with a positive RT-PCR test, obtained both 4 weeks before and after death occurred, were classified as “Covid-19 deaths”.

The most important qualitative result of this work was that in only 2 (two) of the 80 autopsied were there no co-morbidities (other diseases) that could be the cause of death. The mean age was 79.2 years.

Comparison CV-19 with influenza

Such a comparison is important, as long as the Danish Minister of Health’s authoritarian powers are based on CV-19’s classification as “a generally dangerous disease” (text in Danish)

A Comparative Systematic Review of COVID-19 and Influenza 12

This study provides a comprehensive comparison of adult patients in SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infections in terms of comorbidities, clinical and paraclinical features and outcome. Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 and influenza appear to be similar with some differences. Thus, neurological symptoms and diarrhea were more frequently observed among CV19 cases, while vomiting, ocular and otorhinolaryngological symptoms were more frequently observed in influenza infection. Both viruses reduce lymphocytes. NE (neutrophilic leukocytes) were significantly more elevated in influenza than COVID-19 patients, whereas elevated transaminases were significantly more elevated in COVID-19 than in influenza patients. Radiological findings showed that GGO (Ground-glass opacity) is usually peripherally localized in COVID-19 compared to influenza, which also had central and random locations. All of these findings can help clinicians when dealing with cases of flu-like illnesses during a period when both flu and SARS-CoV-2 are circulating.


There are three factors to consider when reading this review 12:

  1. The overview ends on November 25, 2020, ie. before the emergence of “variants” and before vaccination began.
  2. At no time is a criterion provided – clinical or analytical – for diagnosing the patients with resp. influenza or CV-19. It is implied. One must assume that the differentiation is based solely on RT-PCR technology (which cannot distinguish).
  3. In this context, it should be remembered that American hospitals and doctors receive a hefty fee (USD 3,000) for enrolling a CV-19 patient in the hospital or subsequently classifying the patient as CV-19 and putting them on a respirator. In addition, the hospital receives $ 39,000 for each patient who dies from CV-19, which is not exactly an incentive to keep the patient alive.

A large number of clinical and technical parameters are listed and compared for the two patient categories.

COVID-19 Influenza Comment


Lung diseases
Circulatory diseases
Diabetes Obesity
Lung diseases
Autoimmune diseases
Age distribution Median 68 years Median 57
Dominates < 18 years
Relatively increased observation of clinical symptoms Neurological disorders, headaches, fatigue, loss of sense of taste, taste disorders. Gastrointestinal problems, diarrhea etc. Pregnancy problems Ear-nose-throat infections, cough, mucus, fever, vomiting, shortness of breath, snot, sore throat, Eye problems and visual disturbances. Pregnancy problems

Relatively higher laboratory analyzes

White blood cells elevated
Procalcitonin elevated
Indicates bacterial infection / inflammation,
Thrombocytopenia (lower platelet count) Platelets are attacked by spike protein
Transaminases elevated Included in the amino acid synthesis.
Liver effects.

X-ray of the lungs

GGO, shadows on the lungs
in CT scan (X-ray).
Interlobular septum thickening The walls of the small lung alveoli thicken
Peripheral distribution Shadows outside the lungs
Solid shadows in lungs
Linear opacities

Table 1. Summary of review Osman et al. 12

Comments on Table 1:

1) It must be remembered that the comorbidities are not a consequence of the disease. Rather, it is a selection of the patient categories that are most susceptible to infection.
Thus, when it is observed that comorbidities such as circulatory diseases, lung diseases, diabetes and obesity occur significantly more frequently among CV-19 patients, while lung diseases and weakened immune systems are more frequent among influenza patients, this could also be due to these patient categories’ different tendencies to give resp. positive or negative PCR test.

The discussion in this review12 offers a very interesting discussion about the mechanism and pathogenesis of the two infections, i.a. in relation to the ACE-2 receptors.

How dangerous is the Delta variant?

Morbidity (or morbidity) is the ratio between the number of disease cases and the size of the population in which they occur. Morbidity can be stated as incidence, ie. the occurrence of new cases within a given time period, usually one year, and as prevalence, ie. the total occurrence at a given time.

By mortality is in demographically respect meant the number of deaths per 1000 inhabitants in one year.

No children have died in Sweden of CV19.

There were 1,951,905 children (1-16 years) in Sweden per. January 1, 2020. Ludvigsson et al. 13 followed hospitalizations from this age group from March 1 to June 30 of the same year. There were no children who died from Covid-19 during this period, when there were neither shutdowns nor the use of masks in Sweden.

Similarly, statistics were kept on 13.7 million children in Germany. Among the 9.8 million children estimated not to have other diseases, 751,233 children, 5-17 years of age, had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Of these, none but 3 of 305,044 infants (0.001%) died.

Tabel showing risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 and PIMS for children without comorbidity

Figure 1. Figures from Sorg et al. 14 on CV-19 treatments in Germany of children without other diseases.

Delta er mindre farlig end den oprindelige SARS-CoV-2 variant Massachusetts.

Iflg. denne rapport, 15 som blev udgivet af CDC, fra en lokalitet i Massachusetts med flere store, offentlige forsamlinger og begivenheder d. 30. juli, 2021, var der efterfølgende 26 % flere vaccinerede end ikke-vaccinerede personer, som blev diagnosticeret med COVID-19 (delta).

1% blandt udbruddet i Massachusetts blev indlagt. Det blev ikke rapporteret nogen dødsfald blandt 469 ”bekræftede” COVID-19 patienter.

Følgeligt er dødeligheden fra deltavarianten ikke specielt stor. Den er markant mindre end den dødelighed (næsten 6 %), der blev rapporteret i maj 2020 i USA. Skønt delta varianten er ret smitsom, synes den ikke at være specielt farlig i USA, hvor 1 ud af 9 personer allerede (sommeren 2021) har haft en bekræftet COVID-19, samtidigt med at dødstallet var 1.68 % (19. August, 2021, ), og flertallet af amerikanere havde været inficeret mindst én gang med SARS-CoV-2.

Figur 2. Data fra Massachusetts viser, at de vaccinerede er overrepræsenterede.

Tabel showing SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with large public gatherings

Tabel showing SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold values

Figur 3. Data fra Massachusetts. Udspænding af Ct6 og middelværdier af samme for PCR-positive hos hhv. uvaccinerede og vaccinerede. Bemærk det større spænd for de vaccinerede til Ct = 39.


Konklusioner:                                                 Delta varianten er ret smitsom. Men den er ikke særligt farlig.
Det er ligegyldigt, om man er vaccineret eller ej.

Hvor farlig er Omikron-varianten?

Fremkomsten af omikron


Den første sekventering af omikron varianten blev rapporteret i Botswana d. 11. november, 2021. 16 Det var den femte ”Variant Of Concern” (VOC) efter alfa, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, iota, kappa, lambda og mu, samt nye undervarianter af disse.

Figure showing SARS-CoV-2 cases in first, second, third, and fourth waves

Figur 4. Antallet af Omikron tilfælde fordobles hver 1,2 dag. 16

Iflg. sekventeringen er der 30 mutationer i genomet. De fleste mutationer sidder i spidsen af spike-proteinet, og dette gør, at det har vanskeligere ved at sætte sig fast i ACE-receptorerne i lungerne.


Straks i begyndelsen af december blev skrækscenariet projiceret op på verdensopinionen: Den nye variant kunne måske omgå den immunitet, som vaccinerne havde leveret.

Men indlæggelserne styrtdykker i Sydafrika (17. Dec. 2021)

Sydafrikas sundhedsminister: “Only 1,7 % of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the second week of the current fourth wave of the virus resulted in hospitalization. That’s compared with 19 % who were hospitalized in the same week of the third wave, which was driven by the Delta variant.”

Table showing Covid-19 in-hospital case fatality ratio in first 25 days of 2. 3. and 4. wave

Figur 5. Indlæggelser i Tshwane i Sydafrika, hvor Omikron varianten blev registreret første gang. Fra

Figur 5 viser, at fatalitets-raten for ”den fjerde bølge”(omicron) i Sydafrika er langt mindre end for de første varianter i alle aldersgrupper. Men Sydafrikanerne er jo ikke vaccinerede i samme grad som Nordeuropæerne. Så forløbet kan være mere dramatisk på hjemlige breddegrader, når omikron løber ind i ADE-muren.1 Afrikanerne er yngre og har muligvis et bedre immunforsvar.

Effektiviteten af injektionerne

Statens Serum Institut (SSI) offentliggjorde en rapport om forekomst af Delta/Omikron variant 22/11-15/12 – 202119. 17

I Figur 6 opgiver SSI det totale antal Omikron tilfælde. B.1.1.529 er Omikron-varianten. Deres data er baseret på variant-PCR og helgenom-sekventering.

Data fra Statens Serum Institut (SSI) der offentliggjorde en rapport om forekomst af Delta/Omikron variantFigur 6. Antal omikron tilfælde i DK uger 47-49,5 iflg. SSI.

1 Antibody Dependent Enhancement resp. pathogenic priming

Figur 7 gengiver SSI’s opgørelse af effektiviteten af vaccinen for alle tilfælde, inkl. Omikron.

Tabel med SSI’s opgørelse af effektiviteten af vaccinen for alle tilfælde, inkl. Omikron.

Figur 7. Vaccinationsstatus for personer >12 år med omikron infektion sammenlignet med andre varianter. Uger 47-49,5. Tabel 4 i Ref.19. Hvorfor søjle 3 ikke stemmer med Figur 6 vides ikke.

De ”revaccinated” har fået 3 injektioner, ”completed” har fået to. Når man skal opregne det totale antal injektioner i alle personer i Figur 7, bliver det derfor flg. regnestykke:

7.657×3 + 60.326×2 + 3.019 + 1.884×3 + 14.053×2 + 313 = 180.719 injektioner.

Det totale antal vaccinerede personer blandt alle PCR-positive er:

7.657 + 60.326 + 3.019 + 1.884 + 14.053 + 313 = 87.252 var vaccineret.
Den gennemsnitlige vaccinationsgrad bliver derfor =

180719/87252 = 2,07 injektioner/person.

Total antal PCR-positive personer (dvs. incl. uvaccinerede) er:

93.146 + 17.767 = 110.913 var PCR-positive

Procentdel vaccinerede af alle 110.913 PCR-positive:

87.252 x 100/110.913 = 79 % af de PCR-positive (smittede) var vaccineret.

Men de fordeler sig meget skævt mellem ”andre-varianter” og omikron.

I gruppen ”andre varianter” er det 100 – 23,8 = 76,2 %, der er vaccineret og testet positive.

I omikron gruppen er det 100 – 8,5 = 91,5 %, der er vaccineret og testet positive.

Man må notere, at vaccinerne stort set ikke beskytter mod infektion af de første varianter af SARS-CoV-2 og overhovedet ikke beskytter mod omikron-varianten.

I artiklen omtalt nedenstående fra SSI nås samme konklusion (Figur 8).

SSI studie af injektionernes beskyttelse mod infektion af omikron.

21.12.23 indsendte SSI et manuskript til JAMA betitlet:

”Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants.” 18

Man måler smittedes resistens mod infektion af omikron og delta i relation til vaccinering med Pfizer hhv. Moderna, idet en person betegnes som vaccineret i tredje uge efter den 2. injektion.

Infektion detekteres med specific PCR + sekventering af 5% af tilfældene. Det er altså ikke personer, der er syge. Det er blot ”smittetilfælde”.

Resultatet ses i Figur 8.

Data showing vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CiV-2 infection with the Delta and Omicron variants


Figur 8. Fra SSI preprint indsendt til JAMA. Resistens mod infektion af hhv delta og omikron som funktion af tid efter 14. dag efter 2. injektion.

Nulpunktet svarer til uvaccinerede. Det ses, at effektiviteten af injektionerne mod infektion falder med tid. Resistens mod delta falder mindre end mod omikron. Evnen til at modvirke infektion med omikron er derimod værre end katastrofal. Den bliver negativ. Tre-en-halv måned efter at have modtaget den anden injektion med Pfizer, har man 76 % større sandsynlighed for at blive inficeret (testet positiv), end hvis man var uvaccineret. Det er åbenlyst, at vaccinen svækker immunforsvaret, og at dette manifesterer sig blot måneder efter vaccinationen.

Som det ses af sidste linje i Figur 9, er man ved den tredje injektion (boosteren) tilbage til start, dvs. 55 % immunitet efter 30 dage.

Table showing estimated vaccine effectiveness for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against infection with the SARS-CiV-2 Omicron and delta variants

Figur 9. Samme data som Figur 8 i tabelform plus effekten af den tredje booster

SSI studie: SARS-CoV-2 Omicron VOC Transmission in Danish Households

Dansk studie udsendt 23. December, 2021. 19

Her er verdenspressens opsummering:

Omicron Spreads Faster Than Delta Within Vaccinated Individuals – Danish Study | 4 Jan 2022 |

A Danish study of nearly 12,000 households has discovered that Omicron spreads faster than Delta among those who are fully vaccinated, and even higher between those who have received booster shots, demonstrating strong evidence of the variant’s immune evasiveness. The Omicron variant was found to evade the immunity of vaccinated individuals at a much faster pace compared to Delta, and at a higher rate than the unvaccinated, according to the study conducted by researchers at the University of Copenhagen, Statistics Denmark, and Statens Serum Institut. “Comparing households infected with the Omicron to Delta VOC, we found an 1.17 times higher SAR (Secondary Attack Rate) for unvaccinated, 2.61 times higher for fully vaccinated and 3.66 times higher for booster-vaccinated individuals, demonstrating strong evidence of immune evasiveness of the Omicron VOC,” said the preprint of the study.”
Resultatet sammenfattes i artiklen i denne tabel:


Tabel der viser odds ratio estimater for effekten af at bo i husstande inficeret med Omikron sammen holdt med hussstande inficeret med Delta


Figur 10. Odds ratio er den relative sandsynlighed for smitte i én af de tre kategorier af husstande, hvor én person er testet positiv med Omikron, sammenholdt med husstande inficeret med Delta, hvor OR arbitrært er sat til 1 (ref.).Fra Lyngse et al.19

Man kan undre sig over forfatternes konklusion i abstract, nemlig at resultatet skulle ”demonstrere stærk evidens for omikron-variantens evne til at undvige immunsystemet.”

Det korrekte ville være at sige, at den viser omikrons evne til at undvige vaccine-immuniteten.

Med andre ord: Vaccinerne virker ikke på omikron varianten.

Men ikke nok med det. SSI beviser igen direkte, at vaccinerne svækker immunforsvaret:

Omikron smitter mere end delta. SAR2 er 31% i husstande med omikron, 21% i husstande med Delta, uanset aldersgruppe. Det kan skyldes flere ting.

Men hvis en vaccine ikke virker, skulle der ikke være nogen forskel mellem vaccinerede og ikke-vaccinerede, uanset hvilket patogen, vaccinen var rettet imod.

Men det er der. Vi læser vandret:

Omicron smitter 2,7 – 3,7 x mere blandt vaccinerede end blandt uvaccinerede.

Under forudsætning af, at den anvendte variant- RT-PCR analysemetode er pålidelig, må man dermed igen konkludere, at vaccinerne svækker immunforsvaret.

Andre data fra SSI-rapporten
Forfatterne er overraskede over, at de ikke finder nogen forskel i smitte af hhv. delta og omikron blandt de uvaccinerede (Figur 10 og 12). Dette resultat bruges til at retfærdiggøre ikke-farmaceutiske tiltag (masker, social afstandstagning etc.) blandt alle kategorier (når det nu er lige meget). Og når vaccinerne ikke virker, så må man udvikle nye vacciner…Det må undre læseren.


Kurver der viser antallet af dage fra sidste vaccination til forekomst af et sekundært tilfælde af de to virus-varianter

Figur 11. Viser, hvor mange dage der går fra sidste vaccination til forekomst af et sekundært tilfælde af de to varianter. Fra appendix. 19

Man ser, at forsinkelsen i smitte indenfor husstanden forventeligt er den samme 3,5 måned, som SSI rapporterer for svækkelsen af Pfizer/Moderna vaccinerne (Figur 8).

Det samme ses i Italien, hvor Direktøren for det italienske institut for infektionssygdomme, professor Anna Teresa Palamara udtaler til italiensk TV:

…”Årsagen er først og fremmest, at i Italien, som i andre europæiske lande, smitter varianten først og fremmest vaccinerede mennesker, og især de, der er vaccineret med tre doser.”

95% af nye omicron tilfælde i Tyskland er vaccinerede

Fraværet af visse tabeller i ugerapporten fra Robert Koch Instituttet d.30/12-2021 20 undskyldes med manglen på data.

Men på side 14 står:

”Zu den im Meldesystem vorliegenden Omikronfällen sind zum Teil Zusatzinformationen bekannt. Für 6.788 Fällewurden Angabenzu den Symptomen übermittelt, es wurden überwiegend keine oder milde Symptome angegeben. Am häufigsten wurde von Patientinnen und Patienten mit Symptomen Schnupfen (54 %), Husten (57 %) und Halsschmerzen (39 %) genannt. 124 Patientinnen und Patienten wurden hospitalisiert, vier Person sind verstorben. Für 543 (5 %) Fälle wurde eine Exposition im Aus-land angegeben. 186 Patientinnen und Patienten waren ungeimpft, 4.020 waren vollständig geimpft, von diesen wurde für 1.137 eine Auffrischimpfung angegeben. Auf Basis der übermittelten Daten wurden unter allen übermittelten Omikron-Infektionen 148 Reinfektionen ermittelt, zukeiner der von Reinfektion betroffenen Person wurden Vorerkrankungen übermittelt. Abbildung 9 zeigt die Verteilung der bisher übermittelten Omikronfälle in Deutschland. In allen Bundesländern wurden Omikronfälle nachgewiesen.”

Så for nogen af omikron-tilfældene foreligger der altså alligevel supplerende oplysninger.

I 4.206 af tilfældene forligger der oplysning om vaccinestatus. Heraf var 4.020 vaccineret. 186 var ikke. Hvis denne undergruppe var repræsentativ, betyder det, at 95 % af de registrerede omikron tilfælde er vaccineret.

Fra side 13: Mellem 21.11.21 og 21.12.27 registreredes 10.443 omikron tilfælde i Tyskland. Heraf blev kun 1.555 (15 %) sekventeret. Resten blev identificeret med en modificeret RT-PCR test.

Når 95 % er vaccinerede og dermed beskyttede mod infektion, kunne man forestille sig, at vaccinen giver falsk positive PCR test.

Stigningen i Covid-19 tilfælde har ingen sammenhæng med vaccinestatus i 68 lande og 2.947 amerikanske regioner.

Studie, 21 der undersøger en mulig korrelation mellem graden af vaccinering og forekomsten af CV19. Data er fra september, 2021, så det er ”delta-varianten”.

Graph showing relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of Sep. 3, 2021

Billedtekst: Relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of September 3, 2021. (See table S1 for the underlying data).

Figur 12. Antal registrerede ”tilfælde” i en uge i starten af september 2021 pr. million i forskellige lande som funktion af vaccinationsdækningen.

Der ses i Figur 12 ikke at være nogen klar relation mellem landenes vaccinationsgrad og nye Covid-19 (delta) tilfælde indenfor den observerede uge. Der synes kun at være en marginal positiv korrelation med højere tilfælde af CV-19 blandt de fuldt vaccinerede. Israel har f.eks. det højeste antal CV-19 tilfælde med en vaccinationsgrad på 70 %.

Det ses også i andre studier at reinfektion kun sker hos vaccinerede, og ikke hos personer med naturlig immunitet efter CV-19.

Figur der viser antal ”tilfælde” i 2947 regioner i USA som funktion af vaccinationsgraden

Figur 13. Antal ”tilfælde” i 2947 regioner i USA som funktion af vaccinationsgraden.

Blandt de næsten tre tusind regioner undersøgt i USA ses der heller ikke at være nogen klar tendens (Figur 13). De 40-45 % dækkede har f.eks. lige så mange tilfælde som de 0 – 5 %. Bemærk også, at spredningen i data varierer fuldstændigt usystematisk.

Tabel with percentage of 15 countries that experienced an increase of cases between 2 consecutive 7-day time periods

Figur 14. Procentvis af regioner indenfor hver enkelt af de forskellige kategorier af vaccinedækning, der oplevede en stigning. Eksempelvis, blandt den gruppe af regioner, der havde 45-50 % vaccinedækning, var der ca. 70 %, der oplevede en stigning i ”tilfælde”.

Stigningen – dvs. ikke det nominelle antal – ses også at variere ganske usystematisk blandt de amerikanske regioner (Figur 14) uafhængigt af vaccinationsgrad.

Tal fra UK Health Security Agency pr 21.11.05 viser ligeledes negativ effekt af vaccinerne

Tallene i tabellen i Figur 15 er hentet 22 fra Tabel 5 i UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 44. 23

Tabel fra UK Health Security Agency med data fra vaccinerede og uvaccinerede der viser negativ vaccine effektivitet

Figur 15. Tabel baseret på tal fra UKHSA viser negativ vaccine effektivitet. 22; 23

Tallene for vaccine effektiviteten er beregnet lidt på samme måde, som Pfizer benyttede for at kunne annoncere en 95 % effektivitet (mod ikke-specifikke symptomer) af deres injektion efter det korte fase 3-eksperiment i efteråret 2020. Pointen dér var, at man brugte de ”smittede” i kontrolgruppen som reference og beregnede reduktionen i ”smitte” fra deres absolutte tal.

Ikke helt det samme her – og lidt mere korrekt.

Der tales om ”confirmed cases” 23, hvilket betyder en positiv PCR-test.

I artiklen 22 antager man – ikke helt urimeligt – at antal ”smittede” blandt 100.000 af de uvaccinerede, ville være infektionsraten, hvis vaccinerne var fuldstændigt uvirksomme.

Tager man de 40-49-årige som eksempel, så betyder det, at 932,9 af de vaccinerede, der er blevet smittet, ville være smittet alligevel, hvis de ikke havde været vaccineret.

Det betyder, at (2.124,6 – 932,9) = 1191,7 er blevet smittet FORDI, de er vaccineret.

Det er (1.191,7 x 100)/932,9 = 128 % Altså 28 % EKSTRA af de 100 % (932,9), som er det ”normale” smittetal i denne aldersgruppe pr. 100.000.

Lægger man tallene sammen fås:

Totalt antal smittede blandt de vaccinerede: 7.588.8

Totalt antal smittede blandt de ikke-vaccinerede: 4.399,6

Overrepræsentation blandt vaccinerede: 3.189,2

Hvilket er (3.189,2 x100)/4.399,6 = 72,5 % FLERE, end der burde være blandt de vaccinerede, HVIS vaccinerne var totalt uvirksomme.

Vaccinerne er således 72,5 % værre end ingenting.

Indberetninger af vaccineskader

Aktuelle tal fra EudraVigilance 4. Dec., 2021

Figur fra European Medicine Agency der oplister antallet af bivirkninger og dødsfald fra Covid-19 vacciner frem til dec. 21.


Vaccineskader i EU bliver indberettet til EudraVigilance. I Figur 16 ses tallene pr. d. 4. december, 2021. Vi ved ikke, hvor stor indberetningsprocenten er i EU. Men det vides fra en undersøgelse udført af Harvard University i 2011 ( ) at indberetningsgraden til det tilsvarende amerikanske overvågningssystem VAERS kun er på 1%.

Så hvis vi er rigtigt flinke og skønner, at indberetningsgraden til EudraVigilance er ti gange højere, dvs. 10%, skal ovenstående tal ”kun” ganges med 10. Så når man frem til, at pr. 4. december-21 var 320.000 personer døde af vaccinerne i EU. Hertil kommer ca. 30 millioner skadede. Der er ikke tale om lidt kvalme eller ondt i skulderen. Ca. halvdelen heraf krævede hospitalsindlæggelse og er livsvarige.


Hvis man ser på totaldødeligheden i Danmark i årene til og med 2021 (se nf.), kan man ikke lade være med at studse over den bemærkelsesværdige overdødelighed, der er i 2021 fra maj og frem. Specielt undrer det, at der er så stor overdødelighed i sommermånederne, hvor der jo ikke var nogen coronatilfælde.

Selv om koincidens ikke er det samme som kausalitet, så er overdødeligheden sammenfaldende med vaccineudrulningen, som netop fra maj dækkede 90% af risikogruppen og næsten 80% af hele befolkningen. En stor del af disse er formentlig følger af nedlukninger og restriktioner året før, således at mange cancerpatienter og hjertepatienter er kommet for sent i behandling, ligesom de mange restriktioner har givet udslag på de psykiske parametre.

Vi må forvente, at denne overdødelighed har myndighedernes bevågenhed og bliver nøje undersøgt.

Graf over det samlede anta dødsfald per måned i Danmark 2007 - 21

Går vi til udlandet er der også her bemærkelsesværdige data:

Et studie fra Holland viser, hvordan reinfektion kun sker hos vaccinerede, og ikke hos personer med naturlig immunitet efter Covid-19.

Overdødelighed ses i de mest vaccinerede delstater i Tyskland.

Referat af rapport fremlagt for delstatsparlamentet i Thüringen d. 16. November, 2021

Figur der viser overdødelighed i forhold til gennemsnittet i Tyske delstater sammenholdt med vaccinationsgraden

Figur 17. Overdødelighed i forhold til gennemsnittet i Tyske delstater sammenholdt med vaccinationsgraden.
I Figur 17 ses en klar tendens: De delstater (Sachsen og Thüringen), der har den laveste vaccinationsgrad, har den laveste overdødelighed i 2021.

( Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer, Dr. Gregor Kappler, ”Jehöher die Impfquote, desto höher die Übersterblichkeit”, 16. November 2021, Analyse in Auftraggegeben von Dr. Ute Bergner und von Dr. Bergner am 17.11. vor dem Thüringer Landtag in einer Rede vorgestellt.)

Hvad er risikoen ved mRNA vaccinen?

Den forøgede infektionsrisiko blandt de vaccinerede kan have flere årsager, som kompromitterer immunforsvaret. Spike-proteinet er et aggressivt antigen, som fremmer inflammationsrespons generelt med hvad deraf følger.

Om myocarditis, ACE-2 receptoren og topidrætsfolk:

Børn og unge mennesker har færre ACE-2 receptorer end gamle, hvorfor de unge ikke får CV-19, i modsætning til den almindelige influenza, som børnene får langt hyppigere.

ACE-2 receptoren er lokaliseret i mange forskellige væv, primært lunger, hjerte, endothel, lever, nyrer om mave-tarmkanal.

Omikron varianten kan kun dårligt koble til ACE-2 receptoren, fordi der er 25 aminosyrer i S1-domænet, der er skiftet ud sammenlignet med delta. Og disse aminosyreændringer har især fundet sted i toppen af spike-proteinet, hvor det binder sig til ACE-2 receptoren (Figur 21).

Picture of Delta and Omicron spike proteins showning their respective number of mutations

Figur 18. Modeller af spike proteinet i hhv Delta- og Omikron-varianten.
(kopieret fra en artikel på

Derfor bliver folk ikke så syge af Omikron. Men den smitter, fordi den replikerer 20 x hurtigere end Delta.

Når ACE-2 receptoren blokeres af spike proteinet, forhindres dens normale funktion i angiotensin frigørelsen, hvorved den normale karkontraktion og –dilatation kompromitteres.

Via angiotensin produktionen er ACE-2 receptoren faktisk antiinflammatorisk, og hvis den blokeres af spike proteinet, vil inflammationen få ekstra fart under cytokinstormen. Også dette vil blive mindre udtalt ved smitte med omicron varianten, fordi denne ikke så godt kan hæfte sig til ACE-2 receptoren.

Hvis man f.eks. er sportsmand med et højt fysisk præstationsniveau, så har man brug for et effektivt ACE-2-angiotensin respons, som vil kunne kompromitteres af spike proteiner fra de tidligere typer eller den vaccine-inducerede egenproduktion.

Antallet af topidrætsfolk, der får hjerteproblemer er eksploderet. Opdateret (17/12-21) – men ikke udtømmende – liste kan findes her:

Graph showing increasing number of athlete collapses and deaths 2021-22.

Der opregnes 326 sygehistorier, incl. 183 dødsfald. Det er baseret på frivillige, personlige indberetninger, ikke nødvendigvis fra læger.

Anden opgørelse, Israel, pr. 15. Nov.: 183 top idrætsfolk. Most athletes are males (only 15 females). The vast majority are 17-40 years. Only 21 are older (5 aged 42-45, six aged 46-49, 7 aged 51-54, and 3 others aged 60-64). 23 are teenagers, aged 12-17, 16 died.

Brev fra Lægemiddelstyrelsen til læger og sundhedspersonale d. 19. juli 2021 advarer om risiko for:

”Myokarditis (hjertemuskelbetændelse) og perikarditis (hjertehindebetændelse) efter vaccination med mRNA-vaccinerne Comirnaty og Spikevax mod COVID-19. Tilfældene er hovedsageligt opstået inden for 14 dage efter anden vaccination og er oftest set hos yngre mænd.”


Brev fra Lægemiddelstyrelsen til læger og sundhedspersonale 26. august 2021 advarer om:

”Mulig risiko for udvikling af multisystem inflammatorisk syndrom hos børn (MIS-C) efter vaccination med Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine)”
Der henvises til dansk studie: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children occurred in one of four thousand children with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 – Holm – 2021 Acta Paediatrica: Det er altså fra Covid-19, ikke vaccinen.

Japans Sundhedsministerium advarer mod myocarditits/pericarditits på vaccinerne.

Pr. 14. november, 2021 havde man i Japan registreret 160 tilfælde af myocarditits hhv. pericarditits blandt en million drenge/mænd (10 – 30 år) vaccinerede med Moderna/Pfizer

Derfor advares der nu formelt mod ”alvorlige bivirkninger” af myocarditits på indlægssedlerne/pakningen, og klinikkerne i Japan pålægges skærpet indberetningspligt.

Her er en japansk rapport med mange vigtige oplysninger fra Japan: (s.32-38)

Vaccines Pose 7 Times Higher Death Risk than COVID for Young People, Japanese Experts Warn

“The death risk of the jabs (injections) may even be as high as 40 times greater for young people.”

Bemærk, at man i Japan ikke registrerer vaccineskader udover 30 dage efter injektionen.

Denne figur kan forstås umiddelbart:

Figure showing comparison of cause of death: vaccinated and general population

Figur 19. Fra side 32 – 38. ”COVID-19 vaccine: Strong association with cardiovascular death, especially hemorrhagic stroke and venous thrombosis.” (s.32-38)

Referencegruppen er fra 2019, da der ikke kan samles data fra ikke-vaccinerede i 2021.

Siderne 38 – 41 ”Causal link between vaccination and subsequent death”.

Figure showing distribution of days to death after vaccination and incubation period of Covid-19

Figur 20. Antal dage fra injektion til død, sml. med inkubationstiden for COVID-19.

Figur 20 understøtter igen den simple betragtning, at man får COVID-19 af injektionen, når dødeligheden for personer <65 topper på dag 4 ligesom inkubationstiden for en viral infektion.

“Therefore, the fact that the number of days to deaths after inoculation is similar to the incubation period of COVID-19 in the medical workers or people under the age of 65 is biologically plausible and this also supports the causality.”

Her bemærkes også, at børn og unge mennesker har langt færre ACE-2 receptorer end gamle. Derfor bliver de ikke syge af CV-19.

Siderne 41 – 43. Mortality risk of vaccination is 7 times higher than that of COVID-19 in 20s.

Figure showing mortality risk ratio of vaccinated medical workers to death from Covid-19

Figur 21. I kolonnen til højre har man ganget med alderen, hvorfor spredningen mellem unge og gamle bliver større. Der er ingen beregninger for personer under 20 af den simple grund, at der ikke var nogen døde af Covid-19. (Man kan ikke dividere med nul.)

“Harm of vaccination in children may be enormous. There were no deaths due to COVID-19 infection under the age of 20 until September 1, 2021. If children in this age group are vaccinated, it may cause death. Mortality risk from vaccination may be lower in children than people in their 20s. Even so, the mortality risk ratio cannot be calculated because the number of death from COVID-19 is “0” in Japan by September 1, 2021.”

Norge august 21. Flere end ventet får myocarditits.

”Vi nøjes med at give én injektion”.

VAERS September 21. 6x forøget sandsynlighed for myocarditits hos unge mænd

Original artikel 26, preprint:

Tallene er for Pfizer efter 2. dosis:

Drenge 12 – 15 år: 162 tilfælde pr. million. Det svarer til 1:6.000
Drenge 16 – 17 år: 94 tilfælde pr. million. Det svarer til 1:10.000
Pigerne er ikke så hårdt ramt.

Man regner med, at der bliver indlagt 44 unge pr. million med CV-19 i en 120 dages periode. Det svarer til 1: 23.000.

“Conclusion: According to a new pre-print study, boys between the ages of 12 and 15, with no underlying medical conditions, were four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than they were to be hospitalized with COVID.”


De forskellige vaccinebivirkninger og årsagssammenhænge har været vanskelige at forstå, da der har manglet resultater fra obduktioner af tilfældene. Dette hul har professorerne Bhakdi og Burkhardt fra Gutenberg universitetet i Mainz udfyldt med deres histopatologiske studie fra december 2021, hvor de dokumenterer, hvorfor vaccinerne ikke virker, og hvorledes vaccinerne kan forårsage dødsfald: ( )

Der citeres i oversættelse:

”En grundlæggende fejl bag udviklingen af Covid-19-vaccinerne var at negligere den funktionelle skelnen mellem de to hovedkategorier af antistoffer, som kroppen producerer for at beskytte sig selv mod patogene mikrober.

Den første kategori (sekretorisk IgA) produceres af immunceller (lymfocytter), som er placeret direkte under slimhinderne, der beklæder luftvejene og tarmkanalen. Antistofferne produceret af disse lymfocytter udskilles gennem og til overfladen af slimhinderne. Disse antistoffer er således på stedet for at møde luftbårne vira.

Den anden kategori af antistoffer (IgG og cirkulerende IgA) forekommer i blodbanen. Disse antistoffer beskytter kroppens indre organer mod smitsomme stoffer, der forsøger at sprede sig via blodbanen.

Vacciner, der sprøjtes ind i musklen – det vil sige det indre af kroppen – vil kun inducere IgG og cirkulerende IgA, ikke sekretorisk IgA.

Sådanne antistoffer kan og vil ikke effektivt beskytte slimhinderne mod infektion med SARS-CoV-2. Således bekræfter de aktuelt observerede “gennembrudsinfektioner” blandt vaccinerede individer blot denne grundlæggende designfejl ved vaccinerne. Målinger af antistoffer i blodet kan aldrig give nogen information om den sande status af immunitet mod infektion i luftvejene.”

Dette er deres forklaring på, hvorfor vaccinerne ikke forhindre smitte og videresmitte.

Men også dødsårsagerne har de analyseret og skriver:

”Histopatologiske fund af samme type blev påvist i organer fra 14 af de 15 afdøde. Hyppigst ramt var hjertet (14 ud af 15 tilfælde) og lungerne (13 ud af 15 tilfælde).”

Desuden finder de som dominerende fund i alle berørte væv hos alle døde:

  • Øget inflammation i de små blodkar, med en overflod af T-lymfocytter og døde endotelceller i karrene.
  • Omfattende ophobning af T-lymfocytter omkring karrene og i en række organer.

Når man smittes via luftvejene med en coronavirus, vil infektionen primært lokaliseres til åndedrætsorganernes slimhinder.

Men når der injiceres (ind i selve kroppen) en medicin, der programmerer cellerne til at generere det virale spike protein, så vil enhver celle, som udtrykker dette fremmede antigen, blive angrebet af immunsystemet, hvilket involverer både IgG antistoffer og cytotoksiske T-lymfocytter. Dette kan ske i alle organer. F.eks. ser vi nu, hvordan hjertet i mange unge mennesker bliver påvirket af pericarditis, myocarditits og endda akut hjerteanfald og død.

Hvorvidt disse tragedier kunne stå i en årsagssammenhæng med vaccinerne har hidtil været uafklaret, idet de afgørende undersøgelser baseret på obduktioner ikke har været til rådighed før nu.


Orthomolecular measures against Covid-19

The Vital Council has in newsletters available as articles on the Vital Council’s website since May 2020 written and documented the options available to prevent serious Covid-19 disease. So here we must confine ourselves to a quick summary:

The most important are daily exercise in fresh air, 7-8 hours of sleep and a good, varied diet without too much sugar. Next, supplement with extra Vitamin D, Selenium, Magnesium, Zinc and Vitamin C.

Vitamin D3: 75-100 mg, vitamin C: 2-3,000 mg, selenium: 100-200 mg, zinc: 20-30 mg and magnesium 2-300 mg. The small dose is for those weighing less than 70 Kg.
In addition, you can supplement with vitamin-A, -B6, -K2, and if you are a vegetarian, then also -B12.

And remember in the dark winter, when the flu is always raging: Vitamin D in the blood should rise to 100-150 nmol / l (40-60 ng/ml).

Right from the start of the pandemic, it was established that there was no treatment for Covid-19.

This statement has paved the way for the rollout of vaccines, and is not true either.

Often you see pseudo-science, where you use vitamins and minerals as treatment after disease outbreaks, and even often in relatively small doses. It is pointless and only suitable to show that it does not work. These nutrients are for prevention.

An exception, however, is Vitamin C in high doses given intravenously under medical supervision.

There are only sparse documentation here at the Covid-19 pandemic, but in the past there is ample evidence of an effect on viral infections.

Already early in the pandemic there have been numerous attempts with hydroxychloroquine, but with very varying results.

Hydrogen peroxide in ultra-weak solution has been tried as nasal or pulmonary inhalation with promising results. But a proper investigation is lacking.

Ivermectin is a remedy for scabies and certain parasites and has eventually got a well documented effect on Covid-19  ( ). Among others, the Indian health authorities have approved a treatment with Ivermectin, Doxycycline and zinc.

There are a number of other combined treatment regimens that also include IV Vitamin-C.

In addition, there are studies on several natural substances, such as. Melatonin, Quercetin, Glycyrrhizin as examples of some of the supplements that have potential as remedies against Covid-19.



(In the final addendum, reference is made to the Vitality Council’s articles, where further references can be found.)

(1) Thomas L. SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed to be part of chimeric viral-human genome. 2020.

(2) Zhang L, Richards A, Barrasa MI, Hughes SH, Young RA, Jaenisch R. Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues. PNAS 2021; 118.

(3) EU. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2001.

(4) EU. Vaccine mod covid-19: Rådet vedtager foranstaltninger for at fremme hurtig udvikling. 2022.

(5) Lei Y, Zhang J, He M, Schiavon CR, Chen L, Shen H et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2. Circulation Research 2021; 128:1323.

(6) Harrit N. Validiteten af RT-PCR testen vurderet på basis af dyrkningsdata. Newsvoice. 2022.

(7) American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. Physician List & Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment. 2021.

(8) WHO. WHO Information Notice for IVD Users. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. 2020.

(9) CDC. 07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing. CDC . 2021.

(10) Statens Serum Institut. Covid-19 Gennembruds-infektioner og vaccineeffektivitet. 2021.

(11) Edler C, Sperhake P, Et al. Dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection – an autopsy study of the first consecutive 80 cases in Hamburg, Germany. Int J Legal Med 2020; 134:1275-1284.

(12) Osman M, Klopfenstein Te, Belfeki N, Gendrin V, Zayet S. A Comparative Systematic Review of COVID-19 and Influenza. Viruses 2021; 13(3):452.

(13) Ludvigsson JF, Engerström L, Nordenhäll C, Larsson E. Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden. N Engl J Med 2021; 2021/01/06(7):669-671.

(14) Sorg AL, Hufnagel M, Doenhardt M, Diffloth N, Schroten H, Kries R et al. Risk of Hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality due to COVID-19 and PIMS-TS in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany.medRxiv 2021;2021.

(15) Brown.C.M., Et al. Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings —
Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2021.

(16) Karim SSA, Karim QA. Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: a new chapter in the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet 2021; 398(10317):2126-2128.

(17) Statens Serum Institut. Covid-19 Rapport om omikronvarianten. 2021.

(18) Hansen CH, Schelde AB, Moustsen-Helm IR, Emborg HD, Krause TG, Mølbak KÃ et al. Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study. medRxiv 2021;2021.

(19) Lyngse FP, Mortensen LH, Denwood MJ, Christiansen LE, Møller CH, Skov RL et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron VOC Transmission in Danish Households.medRxiv 2021;2021.

(20) Robert Koch Institut Tyskland.Wöchentlicher Lagebericht des RKI zur Coronavirus-Krankhei-2019 (COVID-19). 2022.

(21) Subramanian SV, Kumar A. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. European Journal of Epidemiology 2021; 36(12):1237-1240.

(22) The Exposé. Latest UKHSA report shows the Covid-19 Vaccines have an average real world effectiveness of MINUS 73%. The Exposé . 2021.

(23) UK Health Security Agency. COVID 19 vaccine surveillance report Week 44. 2021.

(24) UK Health Security Agency. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical briefing 31. 2022.

(25) Steyer R, Kappler G. Je höher die Impfquote, umso höher die Übersterblichkeit. 2021.

(26) Høeg TB, Krug A, Stevenson J, Mandrola J. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis. https://wwwmedrxiv org 2021.


Claus Hancke
Specialist in general medicine

Niels Harrit
Lecturer KU(retd.)

Sorgenfri January 20, 2022

A stool with one leg

February 21, 2021

As previously quoted, they wrote in the Lancet (1) December 20th that in the future everything should be done to prevent and vaccinate and find methods for the treatment of Covid-19, and the Vitality Council can’t agree more that this stool should rest on three legs.

But the Danish government has not agreed to that. Since March 2020, it has focused on vaccines and only vaccines. – A one-legged stool.

Not only has the Government and the state media focused unilaterally on vaccines, but they have also actively censored information on both prevention and treatment. The government media has also been obediently accompanied by microphone holders from the major social and print media. It has been irrelevant to the censorship whether this information was sufficiently well documented.


In the previous many newsletters, the Vitality Council has primarily advised on prevention in terms of keeping the immune system intact.

In our modern way of life with easy and fast industrial food of poor quality, improper preparation and overeating of carbohydrates, there is a great risk that our immune system will run out of essential nutrients. I have reviewed this topic again and again and will not bore you with this at this time.

But I will try to give a simple model for understanding the functioning of the immune system. This is because it is absolutely essential in prevention against Covid-19 and all sorts of other infections.

The immune system has a myriad of different cells to work with, and it’s pretty complicated, but let’s try a Pixie model; -a mousetrap:
There are two main systems, a so-called “innate” (non-specific) immune system, which works all the time, and an “adaptive” (specialized) immune system, which is adjusted by infection. The innate system attacks just about everything when, for example, a virus penetrates the body, but first the adaptive needs to get familiar with the new virus, adjust and activate the so-called T cells for attack, and teach the memory cells to remember for the next time how these virus are best attacked (antibodies).

Back to the mousetrap.

In the loft with all the mice (virus in the environment) we put a box (the body), with a small hole in the side (the innate immune system), and inside the box we put a couple of mousetraps (the adaptive immune system).

If we lack proper nutrition, vitamin D, selenium, vitamin C and magnesium, then the hole in the box is very large (the innate immune system fails). Then many mice can enter the box at once, and the traps (the adaptive immune system) do not have the capacity to snatch many mice. – Especially not if there is a lack of vitamin D, which is necessary to activate the T cells (2).

If, on the other hand, we get enough of the above nutrients, then we only have a small hole in the box (a good innate immune system), and then only a few mice enter the box (the body) at a time, and the adaptive immune system (the traps) can snatch them one by one.
Remember the Danish Minister of Health showing a graph with red and green curves some time ago.
If too many come too fast, then the hospital system would collapse.
The same way with our immune system.

If it is intact, the innate immune system will make sure to moderate the load so that the adaptive defense can have time to get to know the enemy and calibrate its cannons accordingly. Hereby we avoid the overload that results in the so-called cytokine storm, which is the start of all the accidents.

That is why it is so important to provide proper nutrition and supplement with vitamin D, vitamin C, selenium and magnesium.
And remember in the dark winter: Vitamin D in the blood should rise to 30-50 ng/ml (75-125 nmol /L.)
If you can’t get the blood sample taken locally, there are several excellent options for home testing i Denmark (3,4).


Often you see pseudo-science, where vitamins and minerals are used as treatment after disease outbreaks, and even often in relatively small doses. It is pointless and only suitable to show that it does not work. These nutrients are for prevention.
An exception, however, is Vitamin C in high doses given intravenously under medical supervision.

There is only scant evidence here at the Covid-19 pandemic (5), but previously there is ample evidence of an effect on viral infections, as mentioned in the newsletter May 20th 2020.

There have been numerous experiments with hydroxychloroquine, which, however, have yielded quite varying results, and research into it is unfortunately largely discontinued.

Ivermectin is a remedy against scabies and certain parasites, and reportedly also has an effect on Covid-19 (6). The Indian health authorities have approved a treatment with Ivermectin, Doxycycline and zinc.
Ivermectin costs about 100 times as much as hydroxychloroquine, so it will probably never be the big success.
One week ago, Israeli researchers published (7) a preliminary result of treatment with inhalation of CD24 exosomes in 30 hospitalized moderately to severely ill Covid-19 patients. The 29 recovered in 3-5 days, the last one also recovered, but after more than 5 days. It should be a cheap method without side effects, so it sounds promising. CD24 exosomes are proteins that, like vitamin D, control T cell activation and can attenuate the cytokine storm.
We are anxiously awaiting news from the Israeli researchers.

What now?

After all, health authorities and the government are on thin ice right now, unless they manage to be saved by the globally declining infection rates and death rates.
You vaccinate and vaccinate, but to no avail on the closure of the society. The function of the vaccine is primarily to alleviate the disease in the vaccinated person.
Even though we have been vaccinated, we can still be infected and pass it on to others, because the virus is still there. Therefore, even the vaccinated must continue with face masks, despite the poor evidence of the effect of the hated face masks.
On top of this, there are still new mutations. Currently the English with increased infection of children, which we see in Kolding these days, but on the horizon lurks the South African and two different Brazilian varieties, which are even less sensitive to the antibodies we have received from previous infection and from vaccination.
Well, then the vaccine just has to be adjusted, and then the population just has to be vaccinated again.
Okay. -How many times? So far, in 2 months we have only vaccinated 3% of the population. So good luck with the task if it all has to start all over again.
It seems like a Sisyphean task if the Government will continue to focus only on the one-legged stool.
As a solution to this chaos, the Government is now proposing a wild testing strategy, where we will be tested twice a week next year. This will cost just as much as the overall healthcare system, and one does not have to be a nuclear physicist to figure out that this will massively affect all other diagnoses in the healthcare system.
And the virus will not disappear either due to this.
It’s a bit like setting up photo traps to detect an army of soldiers invading the country. No defense, just registration while the invasion rumbles towards the defenseless population.
When the hopelessness of this strategy eventually dawns on the Government, there is hope that the one-legged stool will be given two more legs, namely prevention and treatment.
Then every single person can be informed about the possibility of defending themselves against Covid-19.
Only then will the disease become so mild that it resembles a common flu, by which we can drop the hated face masks and the lockdown of society.

May we ask for the three-stringed strategy as soon as possible thank you.

A stool with one leg is doomed to tip over.
A stool with three legs does not tip over.
No matter how uneven the surface is, it will not even tilt.

Take care of yourself and others.

Claus Hancke MD
Specialist in general medicine


  1. Comparison of the characteristics, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza: a nationwide, population-based retrospective cohort study. Piroth L et al, Dec.2020, Lancet.
  2. Geisler C, Ødum N et al. 2010, Vitamin D controls T cell antigen receptor signaling and activation of human T cells. Nature Immunology 2010;11:344-349.
  5. Alberto Boretti, Bimal Krishna Banik (2020) Intravenous vitamin C for reduction of cytokines storm in acute respiratory distress syndrome PharmaNutrition. 2020 Jun;12:100190.  Published online 2020 Apr 21.
  6. Caly L et al, 2020, Antiviral Research, 178, june 2020, 104787.

More is not always better

November 13, 2020

Dose response is diverse

Our body and cells react differently to the chemical substances we come into contact with. Our body’s reaction (response) to different concentrations (doses) is called dose-response. Small variations in the structure of substances can be decisive for the body’s reaction to the substances. For several groups of substances, it is known that they can be problematic, but theoretically it is not possible to predict how cells or organisms will react to a chemical substance.

As low doses of chemical substances are studied scientifically, more and more otherwise well-known substances are shown to have unexpected effects at low doses. Since the early 1990s, it has been clear that one cannot theoretically – based on a general dose-response formula – predict the response of cells to low concentrations of a substance.

In everyday life, we regularly experience that there is a linear relationship between dose and effect: Twice as much sugar tastes twice as sweet. Such is the case with the drugs and within the doses we normally use. The graph to the right shows 0-4 teaspoons of sugar in the coffee. It is the linear dose-response that we know best and that we often take for granted in daily life

From everyday life we also know of a decreasing effect on a larger dose. Double the dose of sugar in the coffee does not keep giving double effect. When the tongue’s sensation of sweetness is completely filled, an extra dose cannot be sensed. The body’s relationship to a variety of vitamins and minerals works in the same way. The graph to the right shows the experience of sweetness at 1-14 teaspoons of sugar in coffee.

Many substances first have a measurable effect above a certain threshold value as is known from e.g. alcohol. Below the threshold, no poisoning occurs – if you drink an alcoholic beverage with 7,5 ml or 6 grams of alcohol per hour, it has no effect, but if you drink an alcoholic beverage with 30 ml or 24 grams of alcohol per hour, you exceed the liver’s threshold value for continuously breaking down alcohol, after which alcohol continuously accumulates in the blood and you become drunk.

Some substances used as medicines inhibit processes in the body, so that higher doses inhibit the process more, but only within certain limits. With increasing dose, the inhibitory effect diminishes and eventually disappears. Well-known examples are statins, which lower the blood’s cholesterol content, and drugs that inhibit the stomach’s production of stomach acid.

Some drugs, including several hormones, have a bell-shaped dose-response curve. In addition to the fact that the substances are often active at very low doses, they are also only active within a “window”, so that they have a hormone-like or endocrine disrupting effect above a certain concentration, and then lose effect at higher concentrations. Several hormones and more proteins tested for cancer treatment have this type of dose-response (Reynolds, 2010; Diamond, 2004).

Some drugs have a U-shaped effect curve, so that the drug has a stimulating effect at low doses, but with decreasing effect at slightly higher doses, and then again has a stimulating effect at even higher doses. Several drugs with U-shaped dose-response curves are endocrine disruptors, or promote or inhibit cancer. (Almstrup et al., 2002; Davis & Svendsgaard 1990 and Vadenberg et al., 2012).

Living organisms – including humans – are extremely complex, and the “unexpected” types of non-linear toxic effects can e.g. is due to interactions where a chemical substance can affect sensors on or in the cells, immune reactions, enzymes in the liver, etc.,

In addition, the toxic effects of substances on humans can be determined by individual and often inherited genetic differences. For heavy metals such as mercury and copper, both individual differences and non-linear relationships are known (Andreoli & Sprovieri, 2017; O’Doherty et al., 2019).

In scientific research, organisms’ reactions to chemical substances are often assumed to be linear, so that researchers look for linear relationships without actually knowing if they are relevant. Non-linear contexts are also often overlooked in authorities’ risk assessments of substances. Overall, this means that researchers and authorities often disregard the toxic effects of substances on the basis of a rationale that when a clear toxic effect at low doses was not found at higher doses – well then one can simply ignore these results.

In the EU’s risk assessments of pesticides, GMOs, etc. one often disregards the concrete measurements or experiments that do not meet the requirement of linear and increasing toxicity at higher doses.

Not least Danish researchers such as Almstrup, Grandjean, Skakkebæk and Svendsgaard have helped to focus on non-linear dose response and toxic effects at low and extremely low doses. The same researchers are generally not impressed by the authorities’ ability or willingness to take this new knowledge seriously (Grandjean 2019, Hill et al 2018, Davis and Svendsgaard 1990); – neither is the Vitality Council.

Klaus Sall, cand.scient. in biology

References and further reading

Almstrup K; Fernández MF; Petersen JH; Olea N; Skakkebaek NE and Leffers H. (2002). Dual effects of phytoestro­gens result in u-shaped dose-response curves. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 August; 110(8): 743–748. LINK
Andreoli, V., Sprovieri, F., (2017). Genetic Aspects of Susceptibility to Mercury Toxicity: An Overview. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14. LINK
Davis JM og Svendsgaard DJ. 1990 U-shaped dose-response curves: their occurrence and implications for risk assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1990 Jun;30(2):71-83. LINK
Diamond, D. M. 2004. Enhancement of Cognitive and Electrophysiological Measures of Hippocampal Functioning in Rats by a Low, But Not High, Dose of Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate (DHEAS). Nonlin. Biol. Toxicol. Med. 2004 Oct.; 2(4): 371–377. LINK
Grandjean, P., Abdennebi-Najar, L., Barouki, R., Cranor, C. F., Etzel, R. A., Gee, D., Heindel, J. J., Hougaard, K. S., Hunt, P., Nawrot, T. S., Prins, G. S., Ritz, B., Soffritti, M., Sunyer, J., & Weihe, P. (2019). Time scales of developmental toxicity impacting on research and needs for intervention. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 125(Suppl. 3), 70-80. LINK
Hill C. E., Myers J. P., Vandenberg L. N. (2018). Nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur in dose ranges that are relevant to regulatory decision-making. Dose Res. 16, 155932581879828. 1559325818798282–82. LINK
Lagarde, F., Beausoleil, C., Belcher, S. M., Belzunces, L. P., Emond, C., Guerbet, M., & Rousselle, C. (2015). Non-monotonic dose-response relationships and endocrine disruptors: a qualitative method of assessment. Environmental health 14, 13 (2015), LINK
Montévil M, Acevedo N, Schaeberle CM, Bharadwaj M, Fenton SE, and Ana M. Soto AM. 2020. A Combined Morphometric and Statistical Approach to Assess Nonmonotonicity in the Developing Mammary Gland of Rats in the CLARITY-BPA Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2020 May; 128(5):57001. LINK
Reynolds, Andrew R. 2010. Potential Relevance of Bell-Shaped and U-Shaped Dose-Responses for the Therapeutic Targeting of Angiogenesis in Cancer. Dose Response. 2010; 8(3): 253–284. LINK
O’Doherty, C., Keenan, J., Horgan, K., Murphy, R., O’Sullivan, F., Clynes, M., 2019. Copper-induced non-monotonic dose response in Caco-2 cells. In Vitro Cell.Dev.Biol.-Animal 55, 221–225. LINK
Vandenberg et al. 2012. Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocrine Reviews March 14, 2012 er.2011-1050 LINK
Zoeller RT, Brown TR, Doan LL, Gore AC, Skakkebaek NE, Soto AM, Woodruff TJ, Vom Saal FS. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and public health protection: a statement of principles from The Endocrine Society. Endocrinology 2012; 153:4097 – 110; LINK

Mink panic in Denmark

November 5, 2020

As written in the first Covid-19 newsletter on May 6 (1):

”A vaccine may be excellent, but firstly, it takes at least a year before we have it, and secondly, a vaccine can never keep up with a virus in the many mutations that make its immune profile so varied that a vaccine quickly becomes obsolete as we have seen with the flu vaccine. The only thing that can keep up in response against a virus’ mutations is a well-functioning immune system in the individual.”

And now what has been expected has happened, namely a mutation that spreads a lot of panic, costs 17 million mink their lives, 1,100 mink farmers their livelihood and perhaps life’s work, 6,000 jobs, and Denmark 10 billion kroner in export revenue.

Many ask if this is now also necessary, and international researchers wonder about the Danish reaction, as they cannot see that this mutation is more dangerous than so many other mutations.

In the defense of the authorities, it can be said that 17 million mink do constitute a very serious pool of infection within the country’s borders, and, on mink farms, the virus can persist for years and can perhaps mutate into dangerous varieties.

The current “cluster-5 variant” found in mink is, according to authorities, no more dangerous than the “original Wuhan variant”, but is still considered dangerous by the Serum Institute.

Not more dangerous for humans, but dangerous for the vaccine.

It is feared that this variant will weaken the effect of a future coronary vaccine.
But there will be more mutations. It will continue. If not from domesticated mink, then from forest marten, ermine (stoats), otters, and ferrets. Or what about a variant of the dreaded bird flu that becomes contagious to humans? It is a far more dangerous situation.

If we continue with this eternal focus on vaccines and only vaccines, we can run in circles for decades and constantly have to jump from one position to another to escape new mutant variants.

At the EU level, however, hard work is underway to make human survival dependent on vaccines (2) so that the individual’s immune system can only be strengthened in this way and not by natural infection.

This is a dangerous path to take, and it can result in an inflicted immunological handicap that weakens humanity’s ability to counteract precisely the many mutations that microorganisms undergo in their own evolution.

One can imagine the situation that one day we will be exposed to a life-threatening pandemic like in 1918, which kills millions of people the year before we can get a vaccine. (The current pandemic has not increased overall mortality.)

We therefore need to ensure that the human population’s basic immune system is optimal. It may be possible to do so, but it requires openness to new thinking.

When we focus exclusively on the Covid-19 epidemic, there is an almost overwhelming number of studies that identify vitamin D deficiency as a significant risk factor for infection.

Most recently, three days ago (November 2), a new study (3) was published describing Covid-19 survival in the elderly as a function of their vitamin D intake.
There were 77 Covid-19 patients aged 78 – 100 years equally distributed between men and women. All were admitted to a geriatric emergency department at Angers University Hospital in France from March to May in 2020.

One could see the difference between the three groups: Group 1 (n=29) had taken vitamin D continuously for at least one year, group 2 (n=16) had not taken anything but had received a bolus dose of vitamin D on admission, and group 3 (n=32) had not received vitamin D.

The thrtee groups were comparable over a wide range of potentially confounding factors. The average age of the study participants was 88 years.

Researchers evaluated 14-day mortality and found that 93% survived in group 1, 81% in group 2, and 68% in group 3.

With group 3 as the reference group (Hazard Ratio: 1), group 1 thus had a hazard ratio of 0.07, and group 2 had a hazard ratio of 0.37.

Thus, group 1 with a history of solid vitamin D supplementation had significantly better survival than group 3, which had not taken vitamin D supplements.

Group 2, which received a bolus of 80,000 IU vitamin D at admission, had better survival, but the difference from group 3 survival was not statistically significant.

The conclusion of this study was thus that regular supplementation with vitamin D is associated with less severe COVID-19 disease and better survival in frail elderly individuals. The detailed figures can be seen in the reference below (3).

Study after study of vitamin D’s efficacy has been added to the basket over the last six months, and the studies are all identical. How many studies do we need?

When these studies are combined with the hundreds of previous studies on immune system weakening in the absence of vitamin D and with the even specific studies and a meta-analysis on lung infections like SARS, then one must again ask: How many studies does it take before the authorities will advise vulnerable groups to take vitamin D or at least to have their vitamin D levels in their blood measured?

Many studies (references 4-19) show that one can safely and effectively optimize the population’s resistance and survival of Covid-19 by taking sufficient vitamin D to reach a blood concentration of at least 75nmol / l.

This blood vitamin D concentration can most often be achieved with a daily dose of 80 – 100 micrograms.

If one also supplements with the other well-documented supplements, which have been mentioned in the previous newsletters, then we can get to the point that the general resistance of the population has increased. We need to increase the population’s resistance against the upcoming mutations of Covid-19 and also against other epidemics, which may even be dangerous.

But, for now, remember to wash your hands and keep your distance.

Take care of yourself and others.

Claus Hancke MD
Specialist in general medicine


  3. Annweiler G et al. Vitamin D Supplementation Associated to Better Survival in Hospitalized Frail Elderly COVID-19 Patients: The GERIA-COVID Quasi-Experimental Study. Nutrients. 2020 Nov;12: 3377 1-12.
  4. Hewison M. Vitamin D and innate and adaptive immunity. Vitam Horm, 2011; vol 86:23-62.
  5. Gombart AF, Pierre A, Maggini S. A Review of Micronutrients and the Immune System-Working in Harmony to Reduce the Risk of Infection. Nutrients. 2020 Jan 16;12(1).
  6. Schwalfenberg GK. A review of the critical role of vitamin D in the functioning of the immune system and the clinical implications of vitamin D deficiency. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2011 Jan;55(1):96-108.
  7. Dancer RC, Parekh D, Lax S, D’Souza V, Zheng S1, Bassford CR, et al. Vitamin D deficiency contributes directly to the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Thorax. 2015 Jul;70(7):617-24.
  8. Urashima M, Segawa T, Okazaki M, et al. Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1255-60.
  9. Sabetta JR, DePetrillo P, Cipriani RJ, Smardin J, Burns LA, Landry ML. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and the incidence of acute viral respiratory tract infections in healthy adults. PLoS One. 2010 Jun 14;5(6):e11088.
  10. Uwitonze AM, Razzaque MS. Role of Magnesium in Vitamin D Activation and Function. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2018 Mar 1;118(3):181-189.
  11. Valint S. Vitamin D and Obesity. Nutrients. 2013 Mar; 5(3): 949–956.
  12. McCartney DM, Byrne DG. Optimisation of Vitamin D Status for Enhanced Immuno-protection Against Covid-19. Ir Med J. 2020 Apr 3;113(4):58.
  13. Grant WB, Lahore H, McDonnell SL, Baggerly CA, French CB, Aliano JL, Bhattoa HP. Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. Nutrients. 2020 Apr 2;12(4). pii: E988.
  14. Aldridge RA, Lewer D, Beale S, et al. Seasonality and immunity to laboratory-confirmed seasonal coronaviruses (HCoV-NL63, HCoV-0C43, and HCoV-229E): results from the Flu Watch cohort study 30 March 2020.
  15. McCullough PJ, Lehrer DS, Amend J. Daily oral dosing of vitamin D3 using 5000 TO 50,000 international units a day in long-term hospitalized patients: Insights from a seven year experience. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2019 May;189:228-239.
  16. Ilie PC, Stefanescu S, Smith L. The role of Vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019, infection and mortality. Aging Clinical and Experimental research ( Springer Switzerland. 2020 May 6.
  17. Martineau A, Forouhi N (2020) Vitamin-D for Covid-19: a case to answer. Lancet 2020;8:735-6.
  18. Joliffe D, Martineau A, Damsgaard Camilla et al. (2020) Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials. medRxiv BMJ 17.juli 2020.
  19. Martineau A et al. (2017) Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.
    BMJ 2017;356:i6585.

Again, uneasiness regarding the pill

July 31, 2006

The pill (contraception in pill form) drains the body of the antioxidants, vitamin E and Q10. This could mean that a supplement would make it much safer to take the pill.

More than 100 million women worldwide use the pill as contraception. The pill is believed to be remarkably safe, and it is easy to forget that it can have serious side effects. According to a Dutch report from 2003, users of the pill have a 3-6 times higher risk of developing blood clots in the veins, which is a dangerous condition. In addition, they have a 2-5 times higher risk of developing blood clots in the heart or of suffering from stroke. These numbers are the same for the modern forms of the pill, which have few other few side effects.

If the risk of disease is low, (because of being young and otherwise healthy) than a low percentage increased in risk does not so important. But why is there any increase at all? Light has been thrown on this question by researchers of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. They have proven that users of the pill have lower vitamin E and Q10 levels in their blood than women who do not take the pill. Vitamin E and Q10 are well known antioxidants.

This is nothing new. Already 15 years ago, researchers believed that vitamin E could reduce the risks associated with the pill. It was also known that the pill drains the body of antioxidants, which can be directly linked to an increased risk of blood clot formation. When one lacks vitamin E, the fats in the blood become oxidized, thereby stimulating the platelets to stick together causing the formation of blood clots. Logically, it was suggested that vitamin E should be combined with use of the pill.

The pill uses up the body’s vitamin E and Q10 reserves. This has been proven again, this time in a study where 15 users of the pill in their forties were compared with women in the same age group who did not take the pill. The differences found were statistically valid, and although this was a small study there were no doubts regarding the results. These results were known before the study was completed; the problem was that nobody had been paying any attention to them.

Unsolved problems
Why does the pill strain the bloods vitamin E and Q10 contents? The pill raises the body’s oestrogen levels. This is why the ovaries go into hibernation so that ovulation is inhibited. The body registers a hormone level high enough that the ovaries can take a break. Even normal (physiologic) levels of oestrogen stimulate the formation of free radicals and therefore cause an increased use of antioxidants. This has been shown in an American study of the cells which compose the inner walls of the blood vessels (endothelium cells). They also showed that free radicals resulting from the presence of oestrogen caused the cells to grow, causing the blood vessels to thicken. It is believed that this increases the risk of blood clots. It also indicates that antioxidants could prevent such side effects.

For practical purposes, women with an increased risk for side effects are advised not to take the pill. This includes women over the age of 35, women with high blood pressure, and so on. All women with an increased risk of blood clots should refrain from using the pill. This causes some amount of contemplation. Who knows if they are in the high risk group? Is their risk so low that a five fold increase in risk is acceptable?

Aside from these problems it is important to know that if you use the pill, your defence against the formation of free radicals is weakened. Even though this is well known, no one has, until recently, thought to reduce this risk with the use of antioxidants.

An important question follows: What is the long term prognosis for women who took the pill for many years when they were young? During the many years they took the pill, they had reduced levels of vitamin E and Q10 in their blood. In the short term, this increased the oxidation of the blood’s fats which increased the risk of blood clots. But does it cause problems in the long term like smoking and high blood pressure? As yet, we can only guess.

By: Vitality Council

1. Palan PR Magneson AT, Castillo M, Dunne J, Mikhail MS. Effects of menstrual cycle and oral contraceptive use on serum levels of lipid soluble antioxidants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;194(5):e35-8. Epub 2006 Apr 21
2. Felty Q. Estrogen-induced DNA synthesis in vascular endothelial cells is mediated by ROS signaling. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2006 Apr 11;6:16
3. Ciavatti M, Renaud S. Oxidative status and oral contraceptive. Its relevance to platelet abnormalities and cardiovascular risk. Free Radic Biol Med. 1991;10(5):325-38
4. Saha A, Roy K, De K, Sengupta C. Effects of oral contraceptive norethindron on blood lipid and lipid peroxidation parameters. Acta Pol Pharm. 2000 Nov-Dec;57(6):441-7.
5. Tanis BC, Rosendaal FR. Venous and arterial thrombosis during oral contraceptive use: Risks and risk factors. Semin Vasc Med. 2003 Feb;3(1):69-84
6. Crook D, Godsland I. Safety evaluation of modern oral contraceptives. Effect on lipoprotein and carbohydrate metabolism. Contraception. 1998 Mar;57(3):189-201

Dietary Supplement Strengthens Immuno-Therapy Against Breast Cancer

November 7, 2005

An American study has shown that the pioneering cancer medicine against breast cancer, Herceptin, can be made 30-40 times more effective when used in conjunction with a harmless dietary supplement: gamma-linolenic acid (GLA). The study’s results are preliminary but calls for further investigation.

Every year, almost 3,500 Danish women get breast cancer. Approx. every fifth of them have a particularly aggressive form of cancer, which you may fear in particular, if you find cancer in the lymph nodes of the armpit during surgery. The aggressive cancer is due to a gene in the affected women which is particularly active and forms large amounts of HER2, a protein. When HER2 adheres to the surface of a breast cell, it reacts with growth agents in the blood that can transform the cell into a cancerous cell and stimulate it to growth.

However, since 1998, there have been medicine available that, in the same way as an antibody, have been able to block HER2 and thus weaken the growth stimulation. The name of the drug is Herceptin® (Trastuzumab) and so far only women have been offered this, who in addition to being “HER2 positive”, have had recurrence of breast cancer that has spread.


By: Vitality Council

1. Piccart-Gebhart et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1659-72.
2. Romond EH et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353: 1673-84.
3. Menendez JA et al. Effect of gamma-linolenic acid on the transcriptional activity of the Her2/neu (erbB-2) oncogene. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1611-15.

Breast Cancer Cannot Tolerate Iron Deficiency

September 21, 2005

Breast cancer is fought just as effectively by utilising the body’s iron deposits as by using chemotherapy. This has been shown in an American animal study.

TV and radio sometimes gives the impression that researchers have lost interest in antioxidants. Meanwhile, research in this field continues.

The following describes a study which has recently been published in the worlds leading journal for research in the field of free radicals. Free radicals are neutralised by antioxidants such as vitamins E and C etc.

The journal is called Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine. It comes out every 14 days with about 125 large pages which contain summary articles as well as 10-12 descriptions of new research. It has an editorial staff with nine members and an international review board with 73 members, all of whom are university-researchers. It is unfortunately written in such technical, biologic-biochemical, language that it is not understandable for normal nutrition experts and doctors. But the size and format of the journal is an expression of the intense international research which is still producing new information for the understanding of the roles of antioxidants and free radicals in disease.

The study in question has special interest for doctors who treat atherosclerosis with EDTA. EDTA is given intravenously and binds the bloods heavy metals as well as iron. Because both iron (excess) and heavy metals strain the organism with free radicals, EDTA works as an antioxidant.

In the study, mice were given a human form of breast cancer. The mice did not receive EDTA, but a related substance called desferal (desferoxamine) which is an old medication which removes iron from the blood. The question was whether the mice would be better off after, thanks to the desferal, they were drained of their iron deposits. They were!

Desferal halved the cancer growth and was just as effective as the much more poisonous chemotherapy (in this case, doxorubicin, which is commonly used against breast cancer). When the mice received both desferal and the chemotherapy, the cancer inhibiting effect was slightly larger than with each of the two treatments alone.

Antioxidants support chemotherapy
The method of action is unknown. It is known that an excess of iron can create free radicals and that desferal, like EDTA, can be regarded as an antioxidant. But some conditions of the study showed that that was not the determining factor. The explanation is more rather that the fast growing cancer cells need more iron than normal cells. Desferal starves them of iron which stops their growth.

Contrary to the expected, the study said nothing about the combination of chemotherapy and antioxidants. Cancer doctors in Denmark advise against this combination. They believe that chemotherapy works by creating free radicals and that the treatment therefore is ruined by antioxidants such as vitamins E and C, selenium, Q10, etc.

This is rejected by the article as an antiquated way of thinking. Typical chemotherapy (doxorubicin, cisplatin, etc.) does not work by creating free radicals, but by blocking vital enzymes with difficult names such as topoisomerase etc. This has been proven by a number of researchers (see ref.)

It is actually more probable that antioxidants support chemotherapy. In any case, studies have shown that chemotherapy can be weakened by adding free radicals (hydrogen peroxide). It therefore seems wise to get rid of them with antioxidants, and thereby both streamline chemotherapy and make it less poisonous.

The American researchers who published the study (and who, in addition, work for the American Food and Drug Administration) showed, sensationally, that breast cancer cells can be held in check if they are starved of iron. They also believe, based on their own research as well as the research of others, that cancer doctors should sooner ban free radicals than antioxidants.

This is just basic research. In the future there will be clinical trails which may show that this method works on humans.

By: Vitality Council

1. Hoke E.M et al. Desferal inhibits breast tumor growth and does not interfere with the tumoricidal activity of doxorubicin. Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2005;39:403-11.
2. Senturker S et al. Induction of apoptosis by chemotherapeutic drugs without generation of reactive oxygen species. Arch Biochem Biophys 2002;397:262-72.

Vitamin D Together With NSAID Medicine Fights Prostate Cancer

September 3, 2005

A world-famous Vitamin-D researcher has initiated a study with a very simple treatment of cancer of the prostate. If expectations are met, then it could result in a revolution in the treatment of the most frequent form of cancer in men.

Among men over 60 at least every other have cancer in the prostate, usually without knowing it. It has been discovered many years ago by investigating men who died for some other reason. Cancer in the prostate is typically a disease that you do not die from – but with! Nevertheless, it is the most frequent cause of cancer among men after lung cancer.

By: Vitality Council

Moreno J, Krishnan AV, Feldman D. Molecular mechanisms mediating the anti-proliferative effects of Vitamin D in prostate cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Nov;92(4):317-25

Cholesterol reducing pills: Do they have a downside?

August 3, 2005

Medications taken against cholesterol may prolong life in the event of arteriosclerosis and perhaps even heart failure. However, new figures seem to indicate that many patients get serious side effects from taking such medications, which side effects could have been avoided had they also taken Co-enzyme Q10.

Millions of people worldwide use cholesterol reducing medicine in the form of statins. These people most often have clogged coronary arteries and the statins are used to protect them against further atherosclerosis, blood clots, and strokes. They work, but to a lesser degree than many people think.

If they are given to one hundred 40-80 year old people who are at high risk due to atherosclerosis or diabetes, they prevent about one coronary blood clot or one stroke per year. In the course of five years, about two deaths are avoided.

Many of the treated meanwhile develop heart failure, which is reduced pump function of the heart, because atherosclerosis damages the heart muscle permanently. They begin to complain of tiredness and increasing shortness of breath.

Is it risky to take cholesterol lowering pills in this situation? There can be debated. The debate is due to the way that the medicine works. It blocks the livers production of mevalonic acid, which is necessary for the production of cholesterol, but it also blocks the production of vital Q10! Not only does the blood’s cholesterol level fall, but also the bloods Q10 level.

Because Q10 is necessary for the tissues to create energy it is easy to imagine that a heart muscle which is weakened by heart failure, is further weakened when Q10 is removed.

Apparently statins work anyway. Statins are believed to lengthen life in heart failure. Not because they lower cholesterol, which may actually be damaging when suffering from heart failure, but because statins have other effects than reducing cholesterol. They are antioxidants and counteract inflammation. In addition they promote the creation of new blood vessels in the heart. None of these effects have anything to do with cholesterol.

Maybe the positive effects of statins outweigh the dramatic Q10 loss that they cause. Nonetheless, it is hard to believe that this loss is completely harmless, especially with heart failure.

The American cardiologist P.H. Langsjoen is one of those who warn that we find ourselves in an epidemic of heart failure with unclear reasons and who believe that statins could be one of the reasons.

At a congress in Los Angeles he put forth data which indicates previously unrecognised side effects. Two thirds of 51 newly referred statin treated patients complained of muscle pain, more than 80% were abnormally tired, and almost 60% had shortness of breath. When they stopped using statins and instead received Q10 (240 mg/day), most became symptom free.

At the same congress a randomised trial showed that muscle pain and tiredness was present in one out of every ten on those treated with statins, but disappeared when they took Q10 (100 mg/day). Just as important, more than half experienced an improved quality of life and many showed improved heart function.

Pills against cholesterol lengthen life, but it is necessary to take Q10 if quality of life also increases so that a longer life is a life worth living.

By: Vitality Council

1. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20 536 high-risk individuals: A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:7-22.
2. Langsjoen PH et al. The clinical use of HMG CoA-reductase inhibitors and the associated depletion of coenzyme Q10. A review of animal and human publications. Biofactors. 2003;18(1-4):101-11.
3. Liao JK. Statin therapy for cardiac hypertrophy and heart failure. J Investig Med. 2004 May;52(4):248-53.
4. Bandolier. Statins in heart faikure.
5. Fourth Conference of the International Coenzyme Q10 Association. Los Angeles April 14-17 2005.

St. John’s Wort Outdoes Antidepressant Drugs

February 14, 2005

It is better to take St. John’s Wort than Anti-Depressant Drugs, even when suffering from a moderate to a severe depression. It not only works better but it has fewer side effects. But every second patient needs a double dose.”…

Taking St. John’s wort is better than taking antidepressant drugs, even in the case of moderate to severe depressions. The effect is better and it has fewer adverse effects. However, every other patients needs a double dose for the herb to be effective.

The fact that St. John’s wort can be used for other things than making schnapps has been known for some time. As early as in 1994 it turned out that the plant can be used for even serious depressions, and St. John’s wort has been an unlicenced herbal remedy for some time now.

On account of the usual hypocrisy of the authorities, the remedy is only approved for treating “melancholy, despondency, and sadness”; concepts that are not used in the scientific world of approved licensed medical drugs. It has been documented, however, that St. John’s wort is effective against depression; but the hyprocrisy forbids informing about this even though it is specifically the word of “depression” that is used in the scientific articles.

In Germany, the authorities are truthful and here, St. John’s wort has been officially approved for “mental disturbances, depressive conditions, anxiety, and nervous restlessness” since 1984.

For this reason, German doctors have used far more St. John’s wort than their British colleagues and have spared their patients of nausea, tiredness, impotence, oral dryness, dizziness, sleeplessness, and what else might come from using antidepressants – also called SSRI preparations. In Germany, St. John’s wort is prescribed twice as often as standard antidepressants.

So far, it has been known that St. John’s wort is just as effective against light depression as SSRI preparations and other antidepressants. When it comes to severe depressions, there has been more doubt about its effectiveness even though a study indicated that the effect was fully equal to prescription drugs. However, the study was too small for the results to be valid.

This uncertainty has now been removed. An unusually well accomplished German study performed with typical German thoroughness has documented that not only is St. John’s wort fully equal to the SSRI remedies; it actually outdoes them. In a study involving 244 severely depressed patients, St. John’s wort had both a better effect and caused fewer adverse effects than the widely used SSRI preparation paroxetine.

The study showed that adverse effects only appeared half as often in the group receiving St. John’s wort as in the group receiving paroxetine. After six weeks, the patients who had been treated with St. John’s wort noted a decrease in depression score of 57% while the patients who had been treated with paroxetine could only note a decrease of 45% – scored on the basis of the so-called Hamilton depression rating scale.

In all respects, this study lives up to the highest standards. There are therefore very strong reasons for preferring St. John’s wort to other remedies – in both mild and moderate to severe depression.

You should be aware of two things, however: First of all, the recommended dose in the over-the-counter drugs is generally too small: They advise you to take e.g. 3 – 6 tablets which gives you a total of 900 – 1800 mg of hypericin if the content of hypericin is 300 mg per tablet. The 900 mg is too small a dose.

In the German study, 900 mg was the starting dosage. Approximately every other patient had that dosage doubled after 14 days due to a lacking effect. This means that with Danish pills (450 milligrams hypericum / tablet) you either have to start with 2 and possibly increase to 4 tablets a day to get the same effect as the German trial subjects!

The second thing you should know is that St. John’s wort reduces the effect of several kinds of drugs, including prescription drugs such as contraceptive pills and anticoagulants. The reason for this is that St. John’s wort promotes the breakdown of the drugs in the liver. If you are taking any kind of medicine, you should consult your doctor before starting self-treatment with St. John’s wort!

By: Vitality Council

1. Szgedi A et al. Acute treatrment of moderate to severe depression with hypericum extract WS 5570 (St Johns Wort): randomised controlled double blind non-inferiority trial versus paroxetine. BMJ online 11.2.2005, page 1-6.
2. de Smet P.A.G. et al. St Johns wort as an antidepressant. BMJ 1996;313:241-2 (L).
3. Linde K et al. St Johns wort for depression – an overview and meta analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1996;313:253-7.