Covid-19 and Airnergy+ Active Oxygen

Covid-19 is presenting challenges to healthcare, the most significant of which is the supply of ventilators to help people for whom coronavirus has attacked their lungs making it difficult for them to breath. We now hear that Imperial College, London are working with Mercedes Formula1 racing in Northampton to produce a device that can attach to a source of medical oxygen and deliver the required oxygen through a facemask. But Mercedes Forumula1 can only produce 1,000 units per day and you still need 1,000 hospital beds with an oxygen supply, and the care staff.

But there is an established German technology, only known to the astute few in the UK, but widely used throughout Europe by the like of elite sports people and Formula1 racing drivers that can extract this valuable active oxygen, the life support system of every major organ in the body, from the air we breath and without the need to be attached to it for more than one hour each day if Covid-19 positive. For general preventative maintenance no more than 2-sessions of 20-minutes per day. Which means a family can use one device in the comfort of their own home without any medical supervision.

As you would expect the medical grade version of this technology is not cheap, but significantly cheaper than the alternatives. And it is easy to use. So, what is the science that makes this so valuable at this time?

All cellular metabolic processes in the human body are dependent on oxygen. As every child knows no human being can live for more than a few minutes without oxygen before taking another breath – or dying. Life begins with our first breath and ends with our last. But, as was found with the space program in the 1960s, pure oxygen can make you sick. The Americans used pure oxygen for the atmosphere within space vehicles which made astronauts sick after just a few days whereas the Russians secretly realised that they needed to emulate an atmosphere corresponding to the ideal atmosphere on earth. So, what is the difference?

We do not breathe air, we breath atmosphere which consists of air and at least one variable, the water content – the very essence of life. This water content is measured as relative humidity and temperature. The combination of these two variables determines how comfortable we feel but, more importantly, how healthy we feel.

Water defies all universal laws of physics on earth, but there is no life without it. Years of research, and no less than 3 Nobel prizes has taught us that the water in the air we breathe is fundamental to our well-being. However, mankind has noted that the more industrialised we become, the more pollution in the air we breathe, the more respiratory illnesses. As the elementary presence of water in the atmosphere becomes contaminated the mucous membranes in the nose dry out slowly losing their natural filtering function allowing fine dust, pollen, viruses and bacteria to penetrate our bodies. As a result, the bronchi clog, reducing their capacity to cough fine dust. The lack of elemental water in the air we breathe and the fine dust invading our lungs, the alveoli, whose natural purpose is gas exchange, lose their membrane function. Gas exchange in the lungs decreases, vital oxygen required by all organs of the body is not transferred to the blood, and CO2 is not adequately disposed. The dysfunctional oxygen transportation via our lungs into the blood results in illness and ageing, and the primary responsibility for this is the lack of elemental water in the air we breathe and the indispensable catalyst in the alveoli.

The respiratory epithelium is a layer of specialised epithelial cells that line most of the respiratory tract but is not required for gas exchange but for cleansing the respiratory tract and is dependent upon the water content of the respiratory air. Gas exchange occurs in the alveoli. So, the function of our lungs drives our well-being but is not solely reliant upon oxygen, but also upon the water in the air we breathe with its energetic qualities.

This energised water is created in nature by turbulence in water such as streams and rivers and by infrared radiation of the sun in connection with chlorophyll, the green pigment of leaves and plants in nature. Scientists have proven the existence of a special form of water molecule in the atmosphere under natural conditions which plays a dominant role as energy sources in all known biological processes including the driving force behind gas exchange in the lungs. This energy source is called Active Oxygen.

Today technology can convert the low-energy, polluted ambient atmosphere in which most of us live into clean, high-energy breathing air that will re-energise our lungs and provide the natural organs of our body with the Active Oxygen they need to function well. One such patented technology is Airnergy+ and which has been used now for some years, primarily in elite sports, and is referred to as Spirovital Therapy. I found the need for this technology after recent heart surgery where an over-zealous surgeon tightly sutured so much of my soft tissue that my left lung was barely functional for some 7-months. Amongst the numerous resulting health issues, I noticed my eyesight had significantly deteriorated so, in December 2019, went for my annual eye test. My regular optometrist was shocked at the deterioration, especially the presence of intermediate macular degeneration. I went to Moorfields Eye Hospital in London only to be told there was no known treatment (in the UK) for AMD. As a former scientist, I scanned the world looking for answers. I came across much work on Active Oxygen, including the Nobel prizes for the detection of this special Active Oxygen in our atmosphere and its fundament relevance to human well-being. I quickly realised that I had suffered oxygen starvation throughout my body because of the significant reduction in my lung capacity. I eventually managed to tear the scar tissue to rid me of this impediment but needed to turbocharge the Active Oxygen in my blood to see if I could reverse any of the damage.

I was surprised to find that the eyes are the most significant user of Active Oxygen of any organ in the body. Optometrists now tell me that they have long suspected that degradation of eyesight, and especially macular degeneration (AMD), has something to do with oxygen supply in the blood. After much research of clinical trials over some years I opted to try the medical grade Airnergy+ Pro Plus which at some £4,600 is no mean investment for a retired individual (lesser active models available). After just five weeks of two session of 20 minutes per day I went to a specialist optometrist in Harley Street, armed with the data from Moorfields Eye Hospital and my pre-surgery eye test, to be told that my sight had almost restored to pre-surgery levels. Her word was ‘remarkable’ and wanted to know more.

Unfortunately, that trip into London exposed me to Covid-19. I increased my use of Airnergy+ to 3 x 20 minutes per day preventing coronavirus any ability to attach itself to my lungs. Eight days later and 5kg lighter I am now through Covid-19. I encouraged a very special medical friend in Switzerland who suffers from asthma to try this therapy to protect him. After just two weeks his asthma, and general well-being has significantly improved. The evidence of the efficacy of this technology is clear and should be deployed in the fight against Covid-19 as a relatively cheap and most certainly effective protection.

Airnergy+ info at:

UK: www.biolifesolutions.co.uk

Other: www.airnergy.com

Should you use the Airnergy equipment I would be really interested in your feedback why you used it and the impact you feel attributed to this technology.

Corbynism -Attack on the Wealthy

Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell have announced their brave new world of far-left socialism. What will be the impact of trying to tax the rich and business to engage in unaffordable social engineering and to destroy the UK economy? Let us illustrate this in terms that Labour supporters should understand. It’s a sobering message.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the Corbyn expects to collect our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest; out of work, zero hours, etc) would pay nothing
  • The fifth (labourer) would pay £1
  • The sixth (skilled worker) would pay £3
  • The seventh (professional) would pay £7
  • The eighth (management) would pay £12
  • The ninth (executive) would pay £18
  • And the tenth man (richest) would pay £59

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a dilemma. “Since minimum wage, corporate and income taxes have been increased” he said, “I have to increase the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost £120.

They realised that £20 divided by five is £4 but if added to everybody’s share then not only would the first five men be drinking for free, but the sixth man would have his contribution increased by 133%!

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men – the paying customers? The fifth member was employed by a small business which could not cope with the increases so was made redundant thus joined the first four and paid nothing. How could the remaining five divide the £20 increase so that everyone would pay his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to increase each man’s bill according to the principle of the new tax system and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

The result was that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

  • The sixth man now paid £4 instead of £3 (a 33% rise)
  • The seventh man now paid £9 instead of £7 (a 28% rise)
  • The eighth man now paid £15 instead of £12 (a 25% rise)
  • The ninth man now paid £22 instead of £18 (a 22% rise)
  • And the tenth man now paid £70 instead of £59 (a 16% rise)

Each of the last five was worse off than before with the first five now drinking for free.

But, once outside the bar, the paying men began to compare their rises.

“I paid 33% extra; double the tenth man,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “his share was much less than mine!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he only pay 16% when I paid 28%? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first five men in unison, “we can’t get a job because of this new system. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up demanding a greater contribution from him.

The following week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Corbyn/McDonnell tax system will work. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally consider their position. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, and take their business with them. This happened in the late 1970s when higher rate tax rates were 83%. Didn’t work then; won’t work now.

Lest we forget when Labour lost the General Election to the Conservatives in 2010. Liam Bryne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor stating, ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ This has been the case with every Labour Government since the war.

Any political promises more than 5 years away are pure fantasy because they exceed the term of a Government and thus why spades of such promises are put out there to woo the gullible. As for free broadband (re-nationalise BT with 5G driving future internet access??  – whoops), there is no such thing as a free lunch. Even the air you breath leaves you exposed to pay taxes. Anything for free will be abused, as we see in the NHS. Someone has to pay at the end of the day.

There is also an assumption by Corbyn/McDonnell that the financial community will agree to fund an additional £55 billion p.a. for 10 years – not likely, not least because much of this funding is not directly linked to increased productivity. A more likely consequence of a Corbyn Government would be a downgrade in the UK credit rating which would increase the cost of any available borrowing thus negating the McDonnell argument that borrowing will be cheap. The more modest extra £20 billion p.a. for 5 years spending pledged by the Conservatives will raise eyebrows in the financial markets; even with a majority Conservative Government.

It is only possible to spend if you have a strong underlying economy. Without the rich, and wealthy businesses to provide jobs and generate profits upon which the Government depends to accumulate tax revenues, there is no money to spend.

Is the NHS using BREXIT to hide its own Social Engineering in the limiting of drugs to save costs?

We are currently facing a constant barrage by the NHS through the media regarding the supply of drugs. But for those already experiencing the scarcity of prescription drugs they know that this has been occurring for some time. I have experienced the lack of supply of a particular brand of Omeprazole for some months now. My partner has also experienced the lack of supply of her HRT drugs and, indeed the supply issue is likely to get worse – but not because of BREXIT in any type of exit deal or no deal.

Any self-respecting biochemist will tell you that all drugs with the same name, but different manufacturer, are not the same as small differences in the manufacture process can lead to significant differences in the way the body metabolises the drug. And I’m not suggesting that generics are worse than the original. What matters is that a patient finds the version of a drug which best suits them. Thus, when I found myself needing Omeprazole as a result of the impact on my stomach of an over-prescription of analgesics a few years back, I tested the available versions to see which left me with the least aftereffects. When I changed surgery there was an attempt to wean me onto a generic form which I already knew had uncomfortable aftereffects, but I resisted and stayed with my preferred brand.

Some months ago, when in need of further supply, I was told that there were manufacturing difficulties and thus my brand was in short supply. This situation persists to this day. However, in April this year I underwent heart surgery in a private hospital in London. They wanted to ensure that my gastric acid was kept under control so put me on Omeprazole – the same brand I preferred. I asked the pharmacist if she was aware of any supply difficulties – none.

My partner is on HRT and was told that her preferred version was again experiencing supply difficulties. She has travelled far and wide around pharmacies to fill her prescription with modest success. It was suggested to her that she should come off HRT because of the increased possibility of cancer, using antidepressants as an alternative should the need arise. The NHS have stormed the media with fear propaganda for the past few months to deflect people away from HRT. But why?

My partner is Swiss, and still consults with her gynaecologist in Zurich, who happens to be the top gynaecologist in Switzerland. He provides her prescriptions. She consulted with him regarding the shortage of these drugs. No such shortage; and sent her a supply arriving a few days later.

Coincidence, or social engineering by the NHS purely on a cost basis. Whereas I agree there is a liberal wastage of drugs in the UK, not least in hospitals whose banal pharmacy procedures must waste considerable sums of money every day issuing drugs before need is established. I was in hospital a few years back where I witnessed the wastage of some £3,600 of drugs prescribed for me over just 8 days because of ridiculous pharmacy process.

So what has this lack of supply got to do with BREXIT – NOTHING. It is social engineering in an attempt to curb NHS costs.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – A Social State

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – A Social State

As part of economic liberty there is a need to ensure for a minimum of material security for the people. When someone without resources is hungry, sick, or freezing, freedom is not their first priority. Thus the need for a constitutional principle of a Social State in our modern and relevant democratic United States of Europe. Although I am not advocating a welfare state, as such, I am concerned that the nation states, either by themselves, or through international organisations, are continually unwilling, or unable to regulate the gap between the excessively rich, and the poor. Everyone should have the right to care and assistance in the case of inability of self-care, i.e. the care and means which are indispensable for the maintenance of human dignity. This is the extreme of the social state and there should be no need for debate regarding such provisions, albeit there are nation states within the EU that have no such provisions.

However the dimensions of a social state are far wider, e.g. in which the government undertakes the chief responsibility for providing for the social and economic security of its population, usually through unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, and other social-security measures. Provisions also include healthcare and education. But how do our nation states within the EU fair against some of the pillars of social justice?

It is not possible to analyse the existing structures of all the nation states in a blog, but our news reports show that there is widespread disparity, so I would like to examine what would be needed in our United States of Europe for the dominant issues, being healthcare and pensions.

Healthcare

The current EU/Eurozone member states have a variety of healthcare systems ranging from the UK NHS which provides healthcare free at source to everyone, to systems that are partially funded, or require health insurance in one form or another. Whilst the UK NHS is praised throughout the world recent years have demonstrated that such an all-inclusive welfare provision can become an excessive burden to the State finances. This is blamed primarily on an increasingly aged population. However the truth may be elsewhere as drug companies seek to ever increase their revenues in the name of more advanced research, and medical advances provide ever more complex treatment possibilities to keep people alive who would otherwise die from their ailment.

There have been some well recorded cases of people looking for assisted suicide without recourse to their assistance. I am of the firm belief that the people of Europe should have the right of self-determination regarding the termination of their life when all hope is lost in self-sufficiency. I am confident that I would not want my dignity and self-respect as a human being removed by some sanctimonious idea that I have no right to determine my own end. Thus a counterbalance should be included to enable people the right of assisted suicide without the need, time, energy and cost of high court consent. Any law can be abused but the rights of the majority should take precedence in this situation in order to preserve the rights of individuals. The resulting economic advantage both in State pension and healthcare cost is likely to be significant, and better spent on people who do want to live.

However this is only a small part of the problem. The health of a nation is a fundamental part of the nation’s GDP. Therefore the choice is realistic National Insurance contributions by all people and companies that adequately cover the provision of healthcare, or limit the type of healthcare that is free at the point of delivery.

My belief is that healthcare for children from conception to end of school age, and for people beyond State pension age should be free at the point of delivery in order to ensure reasonable health, and equality for all. But what happens throughout working age?

The health of the workforce of a nation is fundamental to maximise GDP per capita. So does the State ensure that medical treatment is available free at the point of delivery to maximise the contribution of the workforce, or does the state rely on the sensibility of people to save for sickness eventualities? Does the State take part payment for potential sickness through taxation and seek any excess over agreed limits should treatment exceed such limits from the person requiring treatment?

The next consideration is whether or not providing healthcare to all free at the point of delivery encourages abuse of the system and thus increase the burden of cost to the State? The lifestyle of many people today could be considered as self-abuse, so should such people be penalised as a means to encourage a change in behaviour?

My thought go back to a discussion with the then Health Minister in China in 2004 when I was trying to convince him that providing necessary free drugs to workers with AIDS, and thus keeping them productive, was beneficial to the economy. At that time the GDP per capita was around $3,600. The drugs needed would cost around $600 per year. Average wages were just $265 per month, or $3,180 p.a. thus putting the drugs out of reach of the worker. Assuming that the worker had a wife and one child of school age the inability of the father to earn would push all 3 members of the family into poverty (no social welfare), and the child would likely have no schooling. This would have a current negative impact on GDP per capita, and a detrimental impact on the future for the child, a potential future GDP generator. My argument was that, by the Government providing the drugs the GDP per capita of the worker reduced to $3,000, but at least it was positive, and it would improve the future GDP per capita of the child if healthy and having had an education.

Many drugs are not cheap, and are out of reach of many workers in Europe. Therefore the economic benefit of healthcare free at point of delivery for all is compelling. The focus of government is to ensure that the delivery of healthcare is managed in a cost effective way, and that any social behaviour issues are robustly addressed. One positive is the economies of scale of a United States of Europe negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies on the price of drugs.

Pension Provisions

In a modern democracy there has to be an assumption that everyone contributes to society whether working, mothers who stay at home to rear the next generation, carers, jobless who work with charities or teach soccer at the local youth club, etc. Under our baseline premise of a Social State principle the disadvantaged and the unfortunate losers will qualify for financial assistance in any event. Today, in the UK, people of pensionable age might not qualify for a state pension but they will receive a similar sum of money through various welfare support packages. It is unquestionable that the UK welfare system is overly complicated, and thus difficult to ensure that the correct level of support is given, where needed.

My view is that every able-bodied person (disabled will require a different structure) should have a basis state pension when they reach pensionable age (say 65 years old) – enough to subside. If people chose to continue to work past this age they would still receive their State pension (see ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – Intro’ in this series). People who enjoy gainful employment for a number of years (say 30 years, which allows women to take time out to have children) should receive an incremental state pension to reflect a recognised contribution, having had deductions from their salary to cover this additional payment. This additional pension will allow a better lifestyle, and is geared around the concept that if you do not work in gainful employment then the state will only support you to a minimum level. Anyone who makes additional pension provision for themselves will still receive whatever State pension they have earned. The State pension would be exempt from taxation, nor be included in income for tax purposes. Tax would, however, be payable on income, including investment income, above the standard tax-free income thresholds to capture tax revenues from wealthier pensioners.

By instituting both of these provisions into every member state of our United States of Europe we would greatly satisfy a fundamental pillar of democracy, being ‘equality for all’, and prevent unnecessary economic and health migration across member states.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

This blog is part of a series of blogs called ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?’ and which examine the framework for a truly United States of Europe, and what would be needed to achieve it. Look at the archive index to find other blogs in this series.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the Like It ‘thumbs up’ below, and/or become a follower so that you receive notice of further essays in this series.

You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.