Is the jab the only answer to better your health through pandemics such as (SARS-CoV-2)?

In 1918, the globe was overwhelmed as one of the most devastating pandemics ever recorded with the H1N1 influenza virus. This virus killed millions of people across the globe (1,2) Called “Spanish influenza”, the virus transmitted rapidly in a world that had no antibiotics or medicines to fight this virus. Furthermore, there was no benefit of modern technology as there is today to help reduce morbidity/mortality rates.

Since 1918 we have had, H2N2 “Asian influenza 1957, H3N2 “Hong Kong influenza 1968, and more recently, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) pandemic of 2002 and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) of 2012 (4,5).

Some 100 years later after the Spanish Flu, we see the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19, where researchers have been frantically trying to find a way to curb the spread. Although to date they have not developed a vaccine that protects the vulnerable from death, early reports although not conclusive, seem to show some decline in transmission rates amongst the general population. One thing that is extremely apparent is the omission from all governments to focus on anything other than vaccination. We have not had any narrative on healthy eating, exercise of natural treatments other than getting jabbed, and propaganda backed by big pharmaceutical companies.

If we look at previous pandemic tools used, phototherapy is one of the most effective treatments ever used. In fact, it was used to reduce the impact of morbidity/mortality rates in the 1918 Spanish Flu (6). Additionally, there are several studies demonstrating that phototherapy has an enormous capacity to decrease the effect of coronavirus diseases, and advocate ways that the healthcare industry can integrate modern light technologies in the fight against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases (6).

Enwemeka et al (2020) presents evidence that demonstrates that violet/blue (400–470 nm) light is antimicrobial against numerous bacteria and was used by Niels Ryberg Finsen's Nobel-winning treatment for tuberculosis (6). Furthermore, research indicates that blue light inactivates several viruses, including the common flu and coronavirus. Additionally, red and near-infrared light was found to reduce respiratory disorders, comparable to those difficulties linked with the coronavirus disease (6). With infrared therapy being used and shown to alleviate chronic obstructive lung disease and bronchial asthma in patients resulting in better health outcomes, why isn’t this used as another tool towards treating or preventing morbidity/mortality?

I believe these findings call for governments to invest in more critical efforts to further explore the clinical value of other therapies such as light and infrared therapy, and not just reliant on big pharmaceutical companies to dictate what “may” or “could” reduce morbidity/ mortality rates. Why not invest and promote what research has already shown works, and why not promote these adjunct or alternative treatments to the big pharmaceutical push of only Jab, Jab, Jab?

Let’s look at the research on adjunct therapies such as Sun Light Therapy

Sunlight therapy has been used for 1000s of years with its earliest finding dating back to the time of Egyptian Pharaohs—more than 5000 BCE (7,8,9) Research Articles clearly show that sunlight was effective in reducing flu-related mortality and morbidity, and person-to-person infection related to the H1N1 flu pandemic (10, 11, 12). Furthermore, these studies found that patients suffering from these severe infections who were exposed to outdoor sunlight therapy, improved better than patients treated indoors (10, 11, 12). An important factor to note was that this outdoor sunlight treatment found that death rates among patients and infections among the healthcare workers were prevented (10). Like the 1918 pandemic, Enwemeka et al (6) states that most people dying as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic today, die from disease-related complications, such as pulmonary inflammation/edema, pneumonia, and acute respiratory disorder syndrome (ARDS) and not COVID-19 itself. Furthermore, research indicates that red and near-infrared light, with wavelengths approximately in the range of 600–700 nm and 700–1000 nm respectively, have the probability to reduce lung inflammation and fibrosis. Therefore, reducing acute respiratory disorder syndrome which is a major cause of death in every coronavirus pandemic we have witnessed, including the current COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, why are governments not making every effort to utilize every clinical tool that has the potential to alleviate this disease and minimize its spread and death rates, other than following the big pharmaceutical narrative of taking the jab as the only tool to safety? (13-35).

With sunlight therapy clearly resulting in less morbidity/mortality rates, the introduction of Infrared Therapy has been implemented. This allows patients to have the same benefits from sun therapy but in an indoor environment and as a 24/7 tool. Furthermore, emerging data is showing that the light emitted from near-infrared light therapy is resulting in the reduction of lung inflammation, lung fibrosis, pneumonia, acute respiratory disorders, and other severe complications of coronavirus infections (32).

These latest findings and research offer undeniable evidence to suggest governments should be further investigating the probable effects of using both infrared and light therapies for reducing secondary bacterial infections associated with the covid 19 disease, and the possibility of suppressing COVID-19 and other viral infections. So why aren’t we hearing about these adjunct therapies and why is there no narrative other than the push to use big pharmaceutical companies that historically have a track record of putting profit before the health and wellbeing of people?

1. Morens D.M., Fauci A.S. The 1918 influenza pandemic: insights for the 21st century. J. Infect. Dis. 2007;195:1018–1028.

2. Johnson N.P., Mueller J. Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918–1920 “Spanish” influenza pandemic. Bull. Hist. Med. 2002;76:105–115.

3. Patterson K.D., Pyle G.F. The geography of mortality of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Bull. Hist. Med. 1991;65:4–21

4. Jester B.J., Uyeki T.M., Patel A., Koonin L., Jernigan D.B. 100 years of medical countermeasures and pandemic influenza preparedness. Am. J. Public Health. 2018;108:1469–1472.

5. Centers for Disease Control . January 13, 2004. Basic information about SARS; pp. 1–2.

6. Enwemeka, C. S., Bumah, V. V., & Masson-Meyers, D. S. (2020). Light as a potential treatment for pandemic coronavirus infections: A perspective. Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. B, Biology, 207, 111891.

7. Editors Encyclopaedia Britannica: Sun Worship Updated March 19, 2020.

8. Solar Deities Available at. accessed March 31, 2020.

9. Alpert J.S. Jeremiah Metzger and the era of heliotherapy. Trans. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 2015;126:123–191.

10. Hobday R. Coronavirus and the Sun: a lesson from the 1918 influenza pandemic.

11. Hobday R.A., Cason J.W. The open-air treatment of pandemic influenza. Am. J. Public Health. 2009;99:S236–S242. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.134627.

12. Editorial: weapons against influenza. Am. J. Public Health. 1918;10:787–788. doi: 10.2105/ajph.8.10.787.

13. Brooks W.A. The open air treatment of influenza. Am. J. Public Health (N Y) 1918;8:746–750.

14. Alpert J.S. Jeremiah Metzger and the era of heliotherapy. Trans. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 2015;126:123–191.

15. Mcdonagh A.F. Phototherapy: from ancient Egypt to the new millennium. J. Perinatol. 2001;21:S7–S12.

16. Fitzpatrick T.B., Pathak M.A. Historical aspects of methoxsalen and other furocoumarins. J. Invest. Dermatol. 1959;31:229–331.

17. Needham J., Gwei-Djen L. Science and civilization in China, Vol 5, Part 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983:12181–12184.

18. Palm T.A. The Practitioner; October–November, 1890. The Geographical Distribution and Aetiology of Rickets.

19. Enwemeka C.S. Antimicrobial blue light: an emerging alternative to antibiotics. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2013;31:509–511.

20. Enwemeka C.S., Williams D., Enwemeka S.K., Hollosi S., Yens D. 470 nm blue Light kills methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vitro. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2009;27:221–226.

21. Enwemeka C.S., Williams D., Hollosi S., Yens D., Enwemeka S.K. Visible 405 nm SLD photo-destroys methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vitro. Lasers Surg. Med. 2008;40:734–737.

22. Enwemeka C.S., Williams D., Hollosi S., Yens D. Blue light photo-destroys methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vitro. In: Waynant R., Tata D., editors. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Vol. 12. Springer Publishers; New York: 2008. pp. 33–37.

23. Masson-Meyers D.S., Bumah V.V., Castel C., Castel D., Enwemeka C.S. Pulsed 450 nm blue light significantly inactivates Propionibacterium acnes more than continuous wave blue light. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2020;202:111719. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.111719. [

24. Bumah V.V., Masson-Meyers D.S., Enwemeka C.S. Pulsed 450 nm blue light suppresses MRSA and Propionibacterium acnes in planktonic cultures and bacterial biofilms. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2020;202:111702. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.111702.

25. Bumah V.V., Masson-Meyers D.S., Tong W., Castel C., Enwemeka C.S. Optimizing the bactericidal effect of pulsed blue light on Propionibacterium acnes - a correlative fluorescence spectroscopy study. Photochem. Photobiol. B. 2020;2020:111701. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.111701.

26. Bumah V.V., Masson-Meyers D.S., Enwemeka C.S. Blue 470 nm light suppresses the growth of Salmonella enterica and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vitro. Lasers Surg. Med. 2015;47:595–601.

27. De Sous N.T.A., Santos M.F., Gomes R.C., Brandino H.E., Martinez R., de Jesus Guirro R.R. Blue laser inhibits bacterial growth of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2015;33:278–282.

28. Hamblin M.R., Viveiros J., Yang C., Ahmadi A., Ganz R.A., Tolkoff M.J. Helicobacter pylori accumulates photoactive porphyrins and is killed by visible light. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005;49:2822–2827.

29. McKenzie K., Maclean M., Timoshkin I.V., MacGregor S.J., Anderson J.G. Enhanced inactivation of Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes by exposure to 405 nm light under sub-lethal temperature, salt and acid stress conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013;170:91–98.

30. Mussi M.A., Gaddy J.A., Cabruja M., Arivett B.A., Viale A.M., Rasia R., Actis L.A. The opportunistic human pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii senses and responds to light. J. Bacteriol. 2010;192(24):6336–6345.

31. Maclean M., MacGregor S.J., Anderson J.G., Woolsey G. High-intensity narrow-spectrum light inactivation and wavelength sensitivity of Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2008;285:227–232.

32. Maclean M., MacGregor S.J., Anderson J.G., Woolsey G. Inactivation of bacterial pathogens following exposure to light from a 405 nanometer light-emitting diode array. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009;75:1932–1937.

33. Dai T., Tegos G.P., Zhiyentayev T., Mylonakis E., Hamblin M.R. Photodynamic therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in a mouse skin abrasion model. Lasers Surg. Med. 2010;42:1–14.

34. Dai T., Gupta A., Huang Y.Y., Yin R., Murray C.K., Vrahas M.S., Sherwood M.E., Tegos G.P., Hamblin M.R. Blue light rescues mice from potentially fatal pseudomonas aeruginosa burn infection: efficacy, safety, and mechanism of action. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013;57:1238–1245

35. Guo Y.R., Cao Q.D., Hong Z.S., Tan Y.Y., Chen S.D., Jin H.J., Tan K.S., Wang D.Y., Yan Y. The origin, transmission and clinical therapies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak – an update on the status. Mil. Med. Res. 2020;7(11):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00240-0.

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All