Genus Artemisia Testing Model Proposal using Multiple Linear Regression
Rough Draft #1
The world is suffering through the greatest failure in the history of mankind: the “COVID-19” mass vaccination campaign. National government regulatory agencies, self-appointed world government organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, privately owned hospitals, and the largest media organizations in the world actively deny and censor information on the counter-effective and deadly nature of the vaccines. The result of the baseless mass vaccination campaign has been a net positive death total that is conservatively in the single-digit millions.
The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has suspicious and undetermined origins in government-funded research. Some hold that “COVID” is a collection of symptoms and that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated from human blood.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus contains a toxic spike protein that was created by government researchers and inserted into a coronavirus. The vaccines use mRNA to recreate an identical toxic spike protein with identical toxic effects. This much is certain.
The total ingredients list of the vaccines is unknown and forbidden knowledge. Pharmaceutical companies have the ability change the ingredients and the programming of their mRNA at will without regulatory oversight.
It has become mandatory in many instances to accept the toxic vaccine in order to travel or remain employed.
The counter-effective vaccination campaign is a culmination of decades of corruption in a government that has been purchased by the industries it is supposed to regulate.
All is not lost however. The potential to change medicine and cure large numbers of diseases exists. The approach to medical research can be dramatically improved. Medical theory can be rapidly advanced. True medicines and medical knowledge can make their way into the public.
It is well-known that plants, in their natural state, have medicinal value. The term “medicine” originated from the use of plants in ancient Greece. Hippocrates, for whom the Hippocratic oath is named, was an herbalist. Hippocrates probably knew more about true medicine than the doctors who are trained in chemotherapy know today.
I propose a method to systematically evaluate the medicinal applications of plants. It is a process that the public will understand as “data mining.”
In this proposed model, a statistical testing method called multiple linear regression will identify medicinal effects of every compound in the genus of Artemisia. Medical experts will apply their theories to the statistical results and guide future research.
Plants in the genus Artemisia are as good a place to start as any. Therapeutic Use of Artemisia annua establishes the medical potential of Artemisia annua. From this paper, I judge that malaria, SARS-CoV-2, HIV, and breast cancer are common and deadly diseases that multiple species in the genus Artemisia have a substantial potential to cure. I propose testing all of these diseases with every species and variant of Artemisia.
MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION
Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) models the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables.
The dependent variable is the amount of Artemisia necessary to be effective (EC50). The effective concentration depends on the disease. The amount required to stop the replication of a virus is called inhibitory concentration. The amount required to cause apoptosis in cancer cells is another measure.
The independent variables are all of the compounds in the plant such as artemisinin, and every other compound which can be identified and quantified.
Large numbers of independent variables do not “confound” the test model. In fact, the greater the number of independent variables, the more variance is explained in the dependent variables, and the greater the statistical significance of each independent variable becomes.
Econometricians are trained to test theories using “null” and a “test” hypotheses. If you do not test a theory, that is considered to be “data mining.”
In this case, the research will use a combination of theory and data mining. The model hypothesis is that something causes the therapeutic effects of Artemisia, but we don’t know exactly what it is, or how it works. By testing every compound of Artemisia in their natural state we first identify what those compounds are.
The second step will be to determine how they work.
It is almost certain that there is more than one therapeutic compound in Artemisia, but there is only one way to find out, and that is to test them all in their natural state against multiple diseases.
Medical theory is not settled. There is more to medial theory than chemotherapy, which has been described as the “magic bullet” theory, or treating one specific symptom or disease with one specific compound.
The monomorphism versus pleomorphism debate in virology has begun anew after COVID. I propose testing every species that is practical against HIV, malaria, and SARS-CoV-2 viruses.
Herbalists believe in theories of overall wellness that I do not have the knowledge to describe.
I propose having at least four doctors involved in the project- experts in monomorphism, pleomorphism, herbalism, and women’s cancer.
Medical experts can interpret data in different ways. For instance, Dr. Richard Urso recently reported that researchers in Germany had misinterpreted the results of a study on chloroquine and SARS-CoV-2 because they misunderstood the effects of chloroquine on cells with cancer in the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
I believe that medical theory can be advanced by having doctors with different backgrounds in theory. A model that tests all the compounds of genus Artemisia against multiple classes of diseases in vivo and in vitro should give doctors a wealth of data to interpret and discuss.
Compounds that work in vivo do not necessarily work in vitro and vice versa. The difference between in vivo and in vitro results must be explained by medical theory. Different medical schools of thought may have different explanations. Unsettled differences in theory should lead to future studies that are designed to settle the debate.
Synergy effects are very important in medicine. The late Dr. Zelenko highlighted the nature of synergy with his “gun and bullet” analogy of zinc and zinc ionophores to stop RNA viruses from replicating. In the process of refining plants down to single compounds, who knows how many synergies the pharmaceutical industry have eliminated from the medicine cabinets of doctors?
Unknown medicinal compounds and synergies are waiting to be identified. When you systematically test all possibilities, you don’t have to rely on theory or serendipity.
Between 1953-1977, the National Cancer Institute tested screened over 35,000 species of plants for anti-cancer properties. They found over 3,000 plants with anti-cancer properties. The program was shut down in the 1980s. The results are unavailable to the public. It is unclear what type of testing the NCI did, but I suspect they did something similar to what I am proposing. I suggest that a Freedom of Information request into this study could be very helpful in guiding future research.
FUTURE RESEARCH AND POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSION OF MODEL
Logically the model will continue until every species of plant in the world has been tested against every disease in the world. All the data can be entered into the same matrix. It would just take a large spreadsheet. Lots of columns; lots of rows.
The EC50 values of the diseases form the columns on the left (dependent variables), the compound concentrations form the columns on the right (independent variables), and the species identifiers form the rows (observations).
Put bluntly I would test every disease against every herb, put the data in the same matrix, sort the data with MLR, find what works, and let the doctors apply their theories.
Information gained from testing of Artemisia may guide testing into plants from other than the genus before testing of the entire genus of Artemisia is complete. The direction the study takes depends very much on the desires of whoever would fund such a study and the guidance of experts involved in it. Artemisia is a good starting point. If the medicinal effects can be understood before testing of the entire genus is complete, while other effective plants remain untested, I would suggest moving into other promising areas.
For instance, the quinine derivatives chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine are among the most used and effective antivirals in the history of mankind, alone with Artemisia. Although quinine and its derivatives have been used effectively for centuries, I would like to identify all the compounds in the bark of all the species in the genus Cinchona and test them against multiple diseases in the same manner as Artemisia.
There are too many plants with medicinal properties to mention of course. Another group that I would like to see tested quickly are those plants containing epifriedelanol, because this is a compound which the previously-mentioned National Cancer Institute plant screening program identified as having strong anti-cancer properties. A wide variety of plants that contain epifriedelanol have anti-cancer properties. Maytenus ilicifolia appears to have very strong anti-cancer effects against forms of women’s cancer.
Due to the fact that the vaccines cause genetic damage and inhibit the proper functioning of the BRCA1 repair protein, Dr. Mikolaj Rasjek warned last year that cancer rates could spike. They have. Problems with the BRCA1 protein greatly increase the risks of cancer in women.
IN VITRO TESTING MODEL
For simplicity, assume the following quantities are required for complete in vitro testing of the entire genus Artemisia.
200 Species and/or Variants of plants in the genus Artemisia. 3 Types of Extracts per Species (Ethyl Alcohol, Cold Water, and Lipid). So imagine a matrix with 600 rows of extract types. Below is an example of what the matrix would look like.
In this spreadsheet I used “malaria” as a title, but you retitle the spreadsheet and add separate columns for EC50 values for other diseases. The EC50 values are the dependent variable. EC50 is the amount of the extract required to have an “effective concentration.” For virus, it would be the amount of extract required to inhibit replication of the virus by 50%. For cancer, it would be the amount to cause apoptosis in 50% of the cells. The dependent variable (milliliters required to achieve EC50 against disease) depends on the values of the independent variables (artemisinin and other compounds in the Artemisia).
The effect that each independent variable produces on the dependent variable is determined by multiple linear regression (MLR) using ordinary least squares (OLS). You can only regress one disease at a time.
It is important to have variance in the data when using multiple linear regression for statistical purposes. You need statistical variance within the same species. MLR can sort every little compound, but you need variance.
I propose that three types of extracts of Artemisia be made: cold press, ethyl alcohol, and lipid solubility. These three types extracts should be compared to each other to identify any chemical differences between the extracts. The comparison should increase the chemical understanding of the compounds in the species that result from the differing processes. This knowledge will also be useful in bringing effective products to market, which could be any type of extract or whole leaf.
I must insist that cold press extracts be tested, in addition to the other types of extracts, because Tu Youyou, who won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of artemisinin, noted that she never would have discovered artemisinin if she had not switched from using hot water to cold water. She said that hot water degraded the delicate compounds in Artemisia. When I see test results today from researchers who use hot water and alcohol extracts alone to test Artemisia, I am skeptical of their results and their motives for testing Artemisia in this manner. Youyou stated very clearly that artemisinin was damaged by hot water. There is no telling at this point how many other compounds in Artemisia have been damaged by hot water and alcohol testing. I would like to see a comparison of the results between cold press extracts and alcohol extracts. Lipid testing is something I am not familiar with, but DoorlessCarp recommended it.
To demonstrate the value of variance of compounds in samples, I have made a little example. For instance, if we were testing what compounds made someone feel half drunk, we would see that a low value of ounces of pure grain alcohol is required to achieve an EC50 value, while it would take many more ounces of a weak beer to achieve the same effect. We would also identify that caffeine tends to counteract the effects of alcohol, at least for a little while.
Of course the public knows about the effects of alcohol and caffeine because we’ve done so much anecdotal testing already. When it comes to herbs and medicinal effects though, we don’t know nearly as much. If I were to give you two bottles of whole leaf pills of the same species of an herb, and one worked much better against an illness than another, how would you know why one worked better than the other if you didn’t know the identities and concentrations of the compounds??
You would of course know to look on the label of a bottle for the alcohol content.
It is my belief that if herbals suppliers voluntarily included a complete chemical analysis of every product they sold, this information would go a long way to helping the public anecdotally understand how to use herbal supplements. Although anecdotal evidence is not a scientific approach, in a great enough quantity it works all the same. The use of herbs is well-known to work, but their use is described as “unscientific” because you don’t know exactly how many of them work. It’s hard to be scientific if you don’t know exactly what you’re using, now isn’t it?
I pause to note here that the pharmaceutical industry has blocked the publication of the ingredients of the “vaccines” that are causing illness and death. We could use a scientific approach to break down the effects of the ingredients of the vaccines, if we had the data on the ingredients. Also note that they are likely varying their ingredients by lots, the same as I have proposed. In other words, they likely vary their ingredients and test the results on the public the same way that I am proposing to test Artemisia in petri dishes and on mice. The pharmaceutical industry should have a staggering amount of data by now on exactly how every little compound they promote causes disease and death. According to Dr. Robert Young, they have technology to control how their compounds travel to different parts of the body to achieve different mal-results.
Of course I also intend to use a scientific approach with the herbs and herbal medicine. We already know they work. We just need data on every little compound and result. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
Some of the statistical analysis, however, could potentially get complicated and would involve doctors discussing medical theory with the statistician to generate appropriate statistical testing methods. In any case, statistical analysis always has the same first step: get the data. All of it.
Test samples using leaf, flower, and root compounds should all be made at some point. Compounds vary substantially in plants depending on where the material came from in the plant. Other species outside of genus Artemisia can be added to the base model. Combinations of species can be tested. The beauty of multiple linear regression is that the more data is in the model, and the more varied the data is, the stronger the model becomes. The only limit on the expansion of the model is computational power, which is virtually unlimited today, and the rates at which test results can be determined and entered into data, which depends on the amount of funding and commitment.
The more information this type of model has, the stronger it becomes.
There is no reason that every compound of every herb cannot be tested against every disease in the world in a scientific manner, especially when researchers around the world begin collaborating and contributing to data in the same data set. All of this is of course in direct opposition to the FDA’s current clinical testing model that is imposed upon the public.
Once the first samples are collected, extracts created, and their chemical compositions recorded, it becomes increasingly easy to test these samples against multiple diseases in an assembly-line manner. The FDA will not approve any effective medicines until that agency is taken over by the public, but you’ll know the truth this way despite their best efforts to block that knowledge. We can deal with the FDA later.
The genus Artemisia project is just scratching the surface of herbal medicine and medical theory.
IN VIVO TESTING MODEL
Compounds that are effective against a disease in a petri dish may not work in the body of a human, with its numerous systems, or vice versa. A model similar to the in vitro test model could be constructed with infected mice instead of diseased cells in petri dishes. Hopefully the information gained from in vitro testing will limit the scope of animal testing that is necessary.
I do not propose a formal method of testing on humans at this point. Any positive results that are discovered in the project should be published as soon as possible, however. Individuals have the right to make their own free choice to take promising herbs if they choose to do so. As this is a philanthropic venture, this information should not be withheld from the public. The public’s feedback, if they choose to provide it, can help guide others in their decisions.
Note that in human testing, there are a host of other independent variables that influence results such as age, gender, body mass index, co-morbidities, and so forth, all of which should be identified.
The most important and simple step in understand the medicinal effects of herbs on human diseases is to have a complete chemical analysis done of the herb before taking it so that the effects can be properly analyzed with statistical methods.
It is important that any herbs tested be safe for use in humans, including safe for use in pregnant women or nursing mothers. Artemisia has a thousands-year long history of safe medicinal use by humans. Thorough testing is required to make sure that any plants tested have not absorbed any pesticides or other toxins, however. Also, Bill Gates has sponsored the genetic modification of Artemisia. The use of genetically modified plants should be banned, in my opinion. The fact that grains are modified to intentionally include a cancer-causing toxin, glyphosate, is evidence that the genetic modification of plants should be banned, and an investigation should be conducted to bring the criminals to Justice. I would recommend that we test the “Bill Gates Artemisia species” to understand what he really did to it, but I would certainly never use one.
If it is determined to be desirable to increase the quantity of a compound or compounds present in a species, I recommend using selective breeding.
Spokesperson and Fundraiser
Medical Doctors (4 classes)
The following leadership and responsibility roles need to be filled. I expect everyone to wear multiple hats, however, and participation in any area is encouraged. If this project ever moves to human testing, I will recommend a “double see” model as opposed to “double blind.” The point is to educate everyone.
Project Manager = Myself. I’ve performed this role for a general contractor before. The Project Manager coordinates subcontractors and makes sure everything is going to plan.
Chemist = This is a very important position. Not only does the chemist have to find ways to test every sample to determine the percentage of every known compound in the sample, there are probably many compounds that are unknown to the public at this point. It will require the expertise of an advanced chemist to identify them.
Botanist = The collection of the amount of plants required to test the entire genus of Artemisia is a huge task. This project will require acquiring hundreds of Artemisia samples from locations all over the world. The collection process in remote locations can be challenging. Practical considerations must be made. The line between “species” and “variant” is often blurred. A pre-selection of plants that includes plants with a wide variance of compounds due to evolutionary factors should be made. Quality control is critical. DoorlessCarp has expressed an interest in this role and is welcome to it. DoorlessCarp provided feedback on the plant collection scope.
Spokesperson and Fundraiser = Public relations are important. This person should have a high level of understanding of the project and be able to communicate the goals and methods of the project to the public in simple terms.
Statistician = The statistician will need to have a strong background in econometrics. I have some background in this but I’m rusty to say the least.
Clinical Researcher = This project will require testing contagious diseases in accordance with safety guidelines and applicable law.
Legal = There are potential legal issues associated with challenging the pharmaceutical industry and government agencies with a testing model that works in a superior manner to the one they force on the public.
Philanthropist = The philanthropist will need to be an answer to Bill Gates. Financing and organization of a competing model are necessary to challenge the malfunctioning medical establishment. Money rules when the opposition to the establishment has a budget of zero, and the establishment has a budget that is incredibly large. This person or group of persons must not be scared of controversy. I have said published many controversial things and have no intention of stopping, especially considering the sad and dangerous state of our Government today. I can only promise to be nonpartisan.
Medical Theory = I would like to have 4 doctors representing 4 different schools of thought: Monomorphism, Pleomorphism, Herbalism, and women’s cancer. One criticism I’ve had of this proposal so far is “do I really need four doctors?” If the goal is to advance medical theory, I do think it is necessary for doctors with different backgrounds to interpret the same results, especially when it comes to viruses. Otherwise, “data mining” alone does not require that number. I think it’s “more the merrier” here if the best minds in medicine can be attracted. I do want to have representatives of multiple and competing schools of thought.
Monomorphism holds that viruses are individual organisms that can be killed to stop disease from spreading. This represents the general accepted medical theory of today.
Pleomorphism holds that viruses are created by cells in response to stress or imbalance in the body, and that the underlying cause of the virus should be treated. Dr. Robert Young represents this field of thought. Under this theory, in vitro testing of the medicinal effects of Artemisia against a virus may not mean much, and in vivo testing would be better suited. The goal of medicine is to create healthy humans, not kill viruses in a petri dish.
Herbalism holds that herbs help the body stay balanced and function properly to achieve health. Herbalists have a wealth of knowledge passed down through centuries of herbs that work for multiple diseases. Most of these uses have been blocked by the FDA.
Fourth is a specialist for women’s cancer. Cancer is a diseases that you can make worse. Breast cancer is complicated by “stages” of the cancer. As I would like to test breast cancer, I would like to have a specialist in women’s cancer involved in this area of testing. Anna Greenshields, for instance, has already tested artesunate, a compound derived from Artemisia annua, for use against breast cancer with encouraging results. I hope she will like to see every compound of Artemisia tested in their natural state with all the other compounds in the plants.
By including multiple and (to an extent) competing backgrounds on medicine, this project has the potential to advance medical theory. This statistical testing model can say what works, but it is up to the doctors to tell us why something works. If they can’t agree why something works, they should debate medical theory, and perhaps design additional tests to settle any disagreements, thereby advancing medical theory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND ROUGH DRAFT STATEMENT
This proposal is not written to professional standards. It may still include typos and so forth. I expect that it will be rewritten and improved several times.
DoorlessCarp has provided feedback and guidance for this rough draft. DoorlessCarp also wrote the paper Therapeutic Use of Artemisia annua which forms the medical basis for testing this group of plants.
I suspect that it will be necessary for several reputable people to express an interest in the proposal and make contributions in thought before a philanthropist would consider funding it at the level required.
MISSION STATEMENT AND FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
This project is guided by philanthropy, described as “private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life." The primary goal of the genus Artemisia testing project model is to discover and publish medicinal applications of plants in the genus Artemisia using statistical theory. The public may do what they wish with the data.
There is nothing wrong with the study participants, or anyone in the world for that matter, bringing herbs or their derivatives to market. Profit is the invisible hand that Adam Smith spoke of that guides the development of natural resources to the needs of mankind. Another tenet of Smith, competition, has been destroyed by a regulatory system that is controlled by a tacit monopoly of corporations and government agencies that blocks the “approved use” of safe and effective herbal-based medicines which form a safer, more effective, and cheaper competition to them.
A typical business model could be constructed giving “shares” of any future profits to the team members. The project could become self-funding at a point. For the time being, however, I consider the testing effort to be a “project” of pure philanthropy.
The cost structure has not been estimated yet.
C’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for the cold water tip.
I just bought a big bag on Amazon and assumed I was going to make a hot tea with it. Sounds like soaking in cold water is better.
So interesting. Thanks!
Agree with Tom excellent initiative and achievable. Would be great to get the whole substack community buy in & get some key stakeholder engagement initiatives going on . Would be really awesome to get it off the ground and running. Wouldn't hurt to consider incorporating the User Centric Design approach to ensure it remains inherently growing from genuine needs. Did you consider reaching out to Dr Malone and the others for feedback ? It is really an excellent initiative Charles! Well done!