I just finished watching a video documentary that connected a lot of depressing dots between Hollywood, the news media, the giant corporations that censor free speech, a global cult of powerful religious pedophiles, and the apparent partial takeover of the CIA by Nazis who were brought into the US after WWII via “Project Paperclip.”
There’s no end to real (as best I can tell) conspiracies where powerful people hurt the rest of us through brainwashing, legalized theft, child trafficking, etc., etc.
And seriously, kudos to the brave people who offer us the red-pill. It’s a valuable perspective. But…
Do I really want to focus on evil right now? Do you?
Maybe it’s time to think about something astonishingly wonderful.
Consider this energetic young man, Paul Rosolie, who’s living big in Peru, doing something of epic value for humanity in the Amazon Rainforest. His life-and-death encounters are spellbinding and should rattle the cages of us complacent US citizens.
While I was watching this, I had to remind myself that nobody’s right about everything. Sure this busy kid briefly disrespects the great Gram Handcock at one point in the video. I can forgive him for a lot more than that. If only Paul were a bit older and wiser, though, he’d realize that Gram Handcock is on his side in his planet-saving work and would promote Paul’s story to Gram’s huge audience of independent thinkers with no hesitation. If only.
But nobody’s perfect. People like me have to remind ourselves of this because…
Please find the time to listen to Paul Rosolie’s whole video interview and see if it doesn’t help you find your way home to your tribe. You’ll probably feel inspired and hopeful. And maybe you could check out his website here and join him. Or at least forward his video (or this post) to three of your truest friends. One of them will probably thank you profusely.
In a recent analysis of COVID origins, Dr. Campbell regrets his previous trust in the two most authoritative and prestigious scientific journals on Earth: Nature and Lancet.
You can sense the shame he feels in the video linked here as he first explains the 2020 version of mainstream science and then compares that mess to what has come out now and can no longer be completely blocked by the woke kids at Google’s Ministry of Censorship.
Bottom line: The lack of intermediate COVID-19 viral forms, the lack of multiple independent breakouts of initial viral illness, and several other scientific data points combine to force the conclusion that the Wuhan COVID-19 virus did, despite mainstream denials in the past, truly originate in the Wuhan Lab. There’s no longer room for rational doubt, as best I can tell.
But wait! That’s not what I’m writing to you about.
Yes, John Campbell, PhD believes that the big lesson for him in this ugly fiasco is he needs to learn to think for himself more, rather than always trusting the highest scientific authorities to be honest, transparent, unbiased, and accurate in their peer-reviewed journal articles.
I agree with John, but that’s not why I’m writing. And yes, I suspect that all of us will learn the same lesson eventually, but that’s not my point either.
Nothing is perfect. The failures of mainstream science don’t justify throwing it out and adopting the view that each person’s version of reality will bend to his or her own beliefs, demands and expectations. Sure, your energy will cause people to either like you and treat you favorably or reject you, and this may feel as if the universe bends to your will, but beneath and beyond the huge benefits of being an energetically (“vibrationally”) attractive person, the laws of this universe rarely bend for anyone. Miracles can happen, yes. But they’re rare. Even though, from a scientific and spiritual perspective, I think we live in a universe that should be conceptualized as a quasi-material replica of an underlying truer Reality (a semi-physical simulation), I don’t think our natural laws such as gravity are likely to reverse for me or you if we can just “truly believe.” Genuine miracles (i.e. the suspension of natural laws) are probably just as rare as they seem.
The laws of this replica we call the Universe were derived from intelligently selected cosmic constants that operate in a cause-and-effect framework with rare exceptions. These natural conditions bring outcomes that sometimes seem fair and politically correct but quite often feel unfair and outrageous. As best I can tell, the benevolent Being(s) who designed this place continue to “allow” horrible suffering because we asked for it as part of a learning experience and/or because our collective free will must be allowed to play out in pure cause-and-effect without interference from the designer(s) and code writer(s) living in Reality.
Whatever our spiritual or scientific theories project, the natural scientific rules underlying a disaster here on Earth cannot be changed much by wishful thinking. Therefore, in the future, many lives will depend upon how wisely, honestly, and openly our scientists are allowed to debate the data and “conspiracy theories” surrounding the next global catastrophe whether it turns out to be a nuclear accident, another viral “accident,” a natural weather disaster, a volcanic winter, a rogue AI, or something like the 1859 Carrington Event (solar flare/ storm) that’s thought to be periodic and overdue to hit Earth again while the geomagnetic shield is weak.
Will scientists and politicians pursue the truth however unpleasant or unpopular?
Or will they once again put political ambition above the hunt for valuable truths? Will scientists openly debated and come to a rational consensus or will they shrink into silent compliance with the censorship that modern society and corporate power favored during the COVID fiasco?
We’ll have to wait and see.
But either way, you and I should learn to question mainstream “settled science” in a balanced way that avoids our bivalent human tendency to swing like a pendulum from one extreme to the other…
“Scientists ain’t one iota different from them stinking, lying politicians.”
Sure, we’ve been brutally let down by medicine’s anti-science COVID response of censorship and zero informed consent when administering poorly studied experimental mRNA vaccines. But I doubt anyone reading this feels like some young lover in a break up. Yeah, science has cheated on us and must now gradually admit it despite the silence of the mainstream media. (See the 2020 text messages from key scientists, released under the Freedom of Information Act as detailed in Dr. Campbell’s video.)
But this is not a breakup with science. We’re adults, most of us. Even some of us Crybaby Boomers are growing up a little, I want to think. We’re learning to wrestle with our own biases and sacred-cow fundamentalisms both scientific and spiritual. We’re learning to see the U-shaped curve of political truth within this simulation: The extremes on both sides are valuable for perspective but toxic to human life without the voices of the opposite toxic extreme for balance. Both extremes are needed to find non-toxic conclusions, rules and behaviors. This is why Democrats and Republicans need each other desperately. This is why the anti-spiritual “scientific” materialists and all of us spiritual people on Earth need each other desperately. Left alone to dominate, we’re all toxic to human life, even though most of us are convinced that we have the corner on THE truth.
And let’s just admit it, humans require an unquestionable (if untestable) worldview of some sort. It’s in our nature.
For 2/3’s of scientists, it’s the anti-spiritual foundation of “scientific” materialism: a mindless universe.
For spiritual people, it’s usually a rejection of materialism that’s replaced by a worldview that allows something or Someone somewhere to be literally composed of something other than (or in addition to) mindless, meaningless matter and energy.
Spiritual worldviews tend to boil down to this: “consciousness is fundamental, not matter and energy” or “our universe is a simulation of an actual Reality” or “God transcends time and space but remains in personal contact with us.” My own spiritual fundamentalism encompasses all of these theories, and like you, I feel confident I’m right.
But the fact remains that, like you, I’m often wrong about important things. Can we both admit it?
At the worldview level we’re all pretty much doomed to being fundamentalists whether we’re “scientific” materialists or some version of spiritual or religious folk.
But whatever side we’re currently on, we tend to remain there. And virtually no one is a lifelong worldview fence-sitter. We decide if the Cosmos is spiritual or non-spiritual, then we dig in to that position and hang on like ticks on a dog.
This truth about human nature limits us as scientists because the ideal scientist would be someone who is always ready, willing and able to follow the data wherever it leads and report it with transparency even when it contradicts a “known” scientific, political, or spiritually established “fact.”
Since we’re all hampered by this biased human nature we share, we should each strive to avoid dogmatism and superficial rejection of new ideas and outlying data points. We should avoid blocking or silencing “pseudoscientists” or non-scientists or scientists working outside of their own specialties. When these people claim to have shocking new data and opinions that look like conspiracy theories and fabrications, we should pride ourselves in listening carefully to them with open-minded hope rather than ego-driven, angry, rude skepticism. Only after listening and weighing things thoroughly should we allow ourselves to make an initial tentative judgement against a new or unpopular scientific idea.
And we must base our judgments on careful analysis of the details, and express those details in written arguments rather than following the anti-scientific modern movement of attacking the individual with angry negative references to his or her educational background, sanity, political stance, or other forms of lazy, unscientific, and scientifically irrelevant political tactics that avoid substantive debate.
Total rejection of new ideas within five to ten minutes of hearing them is a pretty good sign that you’re acting as an enemy of science, not a friend. This is true for materialist scientists as well as for spiritual people, including the minority of scientists with spiritual worldviews because…
Breakthroughs routinely come from fresh minds thinking about unexpected outlying data points, and from brilliant rogues who cross the boundaries of specialization to find an unexpected, disturbing synthesis. Established authorities tend to reject everything these box-free thinkers put in front of them (in less than five minutes because they “can tell” at a glance it’s all rubbish).
An ideal scientist would welcome anything that doesn’t fit his or her “known” truths. The history of science makes this clear.
The same holds true, in my humble and yet infallible opinion, for spiritual people who place actual truth above their desire to corner “the truth” as revealed in the sacred literature of their culture. Christians like me, for example, would do well to absorb a broad and conflicting array of near-death experiences, asking ourselves why God would provide humanity with these life-changing, usually love-filled experiences where the worldview details of religion are usually specific to the person’s religious culture.
And there seems to be no “evolutionary advantage” to having a near-death experience. Instead, the NDE speaks to us of the benevolence of the Being(s) beyond who must have been motivated to give each individual a tailor-made “exit protocol” from this simulated life and into the next life.
Just as all humans, including scientists, are fundamentalists at the worldview level, all humanity are scientists at the worldview level in the sense that we all want the ultimate truth, especially if it agrees with what we already think we know to be true.
So here’s my point:
Spiritual and/or religious people would do well to emulate Dr. Campbell in his crisis of (scientific) faith and trust. For most scientists, their “Bible” (or “Koran” or “Mahabharata” or “Book of Mormon,” etc.) is the collective peer-reviewed scientific literature. That’s the “word of God” to scientists. When this Literature proved to be dangerously inaccurate on an important issue, Dr. Campbell didn’t throw all scientific literature out the window and become anti-science, he simply became more determined to think for himself and grow beyond his (now embarrassingly naive) total trust of scientific authorities.
As spiritual/ religious people, there will come a time when our sacred literature will prove to be grossly inaccurate about something important to us. It will be something that disrupts our smug worldviews.
For example, the existence of non-human, non-angelic, non-demonic, non-jinn beings with various motivations, some benevolent, some not, will almost certainly become obvious and undeniable to us all eventually. If you don’t already suspect that these beings are here now, then try to imagine it becoming undeniably real for you next Friday afternoon. For many, especially for those of us who are Christians, this new data point about the Universe will contradict what we’ve learned (at the worldview level) from our sacred scriptures. For example, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
If and when people from another planet come here with the recorded histories of thousands, perhaps billions of other planets, each with a history going back for millions if not billions of years, and yet none of them has ever heard the story or the name of Jesus of Nazareth, what then?
The logical, scientific, and truly spiritual thing to do will be to follow John Campbell’s example and strive to think more for ourselves while becoming less naively trusting of Earth’s top church authorities and their claims to the one and only infallible, inerrant scripture, applicable throughout the universe.
Our bivalent human tendency for simple heuristic thinking will try to kick in and cause us to reject the Bible entirely and become some new form of “scientific” materialist living in a universe without personhood at its foundation.
An example of this happening now is the likeable and courageous Paul Wallis, a former mainstream Christian Church pastor and expert in ancient Biblical languages who has followed truth no matter where it might lead.
Rather than avoiding or denying the problems he had discovered over the years in the translation of key Biblical words like “Elohim” in the Old Testament (OT), he pursued the truth and uncovered the apparent re-writing of the Old Testament in ancient times (about 600 BC).
In short, he became convinced that the Old Testament was rewritten from older documents about Extraterrestrials visiting Earth to the monotheistic narrative we have today.
Personally, I like this idea because it solves problems I’ve had for decades about some of the violence ascribed to the OT “God” who supposedly ordered Israel to attack neighboring cities and kill all their people.
For me, the New Testament Jesus gives a largely opposite and much more accurate view of God’s character and personality than the OT. Now I have a logical explanation. No problem.
But for Mr. Wallis, the shock of his discovery has taken him from a non-materialist worldview in which the universe was created by a Being who is a Divine Person to the opposite pole of “scientific” materialism in which the universe was “created” by a zero-point field or “Source” that’s without personhood.
Remarkably, while making this shift, he has maintained much of the language and feel of a spiritual worldview.
I’m still supporting Paul with my small donations, even though I disagree with the direction he’s heading in his view of God, which, as best I can tell, is a non-being sort of energy field with no personality, no power of choice, no wants or desires, and no ability to hear anyone’s prayers.
To me, the core of the spiritual journey is talking to a Supreme Being who hears what I’m saying, understands my language, and cares about me personally. I’m not worried about the question of miracles or whether our free will causes God to limit his actions within the Universe. And I don’t need God to be Santa Claus, to have a gender, or to be one, two, or three Divine Persons.
All I need is a Personal Supreme Being(s) who’s overflowing with love and trustworthiness.
But I continue to listen to people who want a non-being in charge of a meaningless universe because the broader my perspective becomes, the more likely I’ll derive an accurate worldview. (Assuming truth actually does come to us in a U-shaped dose-response curve. I’m betting it does.)
As Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein (1918) wrote (in the introduction to the 1831 edition): “I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw — with shut eyes, but acute mental vision — I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be, for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.”
So far the virus has NOT escaped the lab to infect the human population. But the science behind the humanization of lab mice tells us that if this fine young chimera should ever escape, it will likely make the COVID-19 pandemic look like a dress rehearsal for a pandemic with a truly high kill rate, a kill rate that’s high from a historic perspective.
Here’s a PhD medical educator from across the pond, a guy who has been 100% pro-vaccine forever and has only recently had a few science-based, calm, and rational second thoughts on that topic after a bit of stunning Pfizer data finally came out. Those second thoughts earned him the gentle censorship of YouTube’s Woke AI who was overhead saying, “Ya gotta sing with the choir, dude.”
Of course Wikipedia, a cult of nuance-blind splitters who see everything in black-and-white, has dismissed John Campbell as “misinformation.” If their blatant idiocy sways you even slightly nowadays, you need a brain transplant as badly as I do. But whatever…
Here’s John inadvertently telling us exactly how bold and undeterred the gain-of-function labs of our dear Global Overseers have remained, even after the evidence now arguably favors an interpretation of a Wuhan gain-of-function laboratory accident starting the whole COVID pandemic.
If you’re like me and care more about your loved ones than your reputation, send this post (or a link to John Campbell’s video) to the ones you love via email and ask them to send it to all their friends and loved ones. Perhaps if enough people hear of this, someone will start a movement to wake congress up to their primary purpose for existing: protecting citizens through reasonable laws (as opposed to spending our money and trading against us with insider information.)
And if you ever pray, pray that this new virus, invented right here in the good old USA, never escapes the lab.
And pray that no psychotic lab worker, living under the stress of publish-or-perish, ever snaps and deliberately releases this monster into the environment. Trying to feed a family from within the system of academic research is probably one of the most stressful jobs available. It puts a person into survival mode where fear of failure can cause a person without solid moral values (like a scientific materialist, which most of them are) to work on an immoral project involving viral gain-of-function.
By the way, when I was young I read that “prayer is talking to God as to a friend.” As a (retired) scientist now, this definition and mindset still makes total and complete sense to me.
Not only have billions of dollars gone down the toilet in failed Big Pharma pills that target the amyloid of Alzheimer’s disease, but now we know fraudulent data photos were published in one of the most seminal rat studies of this disease. The fraud, at the time, convinced most researchers (and all NIH grant controllers) that amyloid CAUSES Alzheimer’s dementia.
BAMP! Wrong answer.
All of Big Pharma’s Alzheimer’s anti-amyloid pills have failed miserably for many years, yet this failed paradigm of amyloid-as-cause of the disease continues to suck every dollar of grant money away from researchers like Dale Bredesen who has actually published peer-reviewed studies of his success in REVERSING mild to moderate Alzheimer’s dementia.
The situation reminds me of how impossible it would be for a fiscal conservative like myself to convince a congresswoman/man (Democrat or Republican) that the FED’s power to print money is destroying the middle class and will lead to a central-bank digital currency that kills democracy, replacing it with a totalitarian oligarchy like the one promoted by the World Economic Forum and the CCP of China.
In the video linked here, Megyn Kelly interviews the whistleblowing scientist who discovered fraud in the rat study that pivoted mainstream researchers from doubting “amyloid-as-cause” to swallowing it whole without chewing.
As best I can tell, a bench tech slipped the fraud pictures into the paper without the lead scientist’s knowledge. This tech guy has a reputation of producing work that other labs cannot reproduce.
But far more important for my precious readers is this: at about 1:08:42 on the video, Kelly interviews Dale Bredesen, MD, the research scientist who has already reversed Alzheimer’s Disease in a fairly large number of patients.
They estimate that 45 million US Americans will soon have this unimaginably horrible disease. That means every single one of us needs to know about Dale Bredesen’s success because someone we know, if not we ourselves, will almost certainly be taken down by this cruel killer.
The number of Alzheimer’s deaths eclipses the COVID-19 pandemic, but beyond numbers, it’s difficult to imagine a more unbearable way to die than watching your mind, personality and memory slowly deteriorate until you cannot for the life of you recognize your spouse or kids.
Please take this disease seriously.
So mainstream medicine is clueless about Bredesen’s breakthrough work after they’ve wasted billions on failed monotherapy pills. And if an MD knows about Bredesen, odd are he/she criticizes him.
But how could any intelligent person be so rigidly devoted to denying the truth?
It’s somewhat simple. They demand to see an experimental design with double-blinded controls geared to test “one thing at a time,” (the Big Pharma monotherapy dogma).
By definition, the monotherapy approach cannot work when you’re dealing with a chronic disease that has dozens of mini-causes working together in synergistic combinations.
Alzheimer’s is an E pluribus unum disease — “from many, one.”
Modern monotherapy medicine is clueless to deal with such complexity. Instead it demands to live in the past and block progress with outdated standards of monotherapy experimental design.
But can’t Dr. Bredesen produce blinded controls and satisfy the mainstream?
No, not at all. Think about what he’s up against.
When altering lifestyle, diet, heavy exercise, carbohydrate toxicity ( for “type 2 diabetes of the brain”), fighting specific chronic infections like Herpes Simplex Virus, eliminating neurotoxins, and running large-spectrum blood analyses to discover and target each patient’s specific causes of Alz dementia, it is impossible to design a study with double-blinded controls, because…
For instance, how can Bredesen blind (hide from) a patient the fact that she is on a low carb diet testing her ketone levels daily and exercising heavily three or four times a week? And conversely, how do you hide from the controls the fact that they are not doing these things?
The test cohort and the control patients will know exactly which category they’re in. This makes all studies that are aimed against multi-factorial diseases such as Alzheimer’s, absolutely predestined by Big Pharma to fail and be viewed as worthless by mainstream doctors and their journal gatekeepers who have been educated for generations by Big Pharma reps, you know, those gregarious extroverts giving away free pens, free gadgets, and free lunch during their lectures on journal articles supporting their company’s big-hitting pills.
Meanwhile, to any rational mind not brainwashed for generations by Big Pharma, the controls they demand are actually present in the general populations of the world. They consist of vast numbers of people who are dying of (and with) Alzheimer’s disease. Not one of these “common-sense control” patients has had a reversal (or even a slowing) of symptoms once a well documented diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease has been made.
So hey, if you’re having mental fog at all, even in you mid 40’s, ask your doc if you’re OK to experiment with a ketogenic diet for a month or two. And maybe do some vigorous cardio with it, if you’re able.
The keto diet alone will show you what a clear mind (burning ketones rather than just glucose) feels like. If you have chronic free-floating anxiety or mild depression, I predict it will largely vanish along with the brain fog.
Then you’ll have personal evidence (n=1) on the amazing Bredesen Protocol.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS. Send this article to someone with a brilliant mind that you appreciate, perhaps someone who’s 40 years old or better.
In the image above you can see the weakest to the strongest information categories with the strongest, most logically reliable type of study at the top (called Meta Analysis) and the weakest at the bottom (called Expert Opinion / Background Information). Of course meta analysis articles like the one linked here brought a swift response from the powerful gatekeepers who tried to push meta studies down the trustworthiness pyramid and raise the individual randomized controlled trials up to the top.
It’s true that a meta-study is only as good as the original studies that comprise it, but that principle of quality also applies to any single study, so neither category can claim an innate higher quality without the same level of critical, logical evaluation. Perhaps more time is required to go through a meta analysis, but once that job is done, you’ve got a more valuable source of information than a single randomized, controlled trial. The same careful, critical analysis is required at both levels.
Yet some will use quality claims as a reason to push single trials above the meta analysis of many single trials on the value pyramid above. This claim is pushed as Expert Opinion (the bottom level of the information quality pyramid) here in Nature, where we are warned of the supposed inherent dangers of meta studies, as if there were something inherently deceptive about the statistical analyses of multiple blinded, controlled, randomized, and statistically evaluated studies that is somehow inherently absent from a single trial.
It’s not logical to me, but I see their argument and the hard work that went into making it. Kudos for that.
“Expert opinion” rightly belongs at the bottom of the scientific strength pyramid, largely because breakthrough science must always fight an uphill battle against entrenched experts who “know beyond a shadow of doubt” in their unbasted wisdom, that any “new-fangled idea” must be wrong and should be zealously squelched.
Scientists are only human.
Another reason for keeping “expert opinion” at the bottom of the scientific evidence pyramid is the ever-changing decrees of Anthony Fauci throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Since the bean-counting lawyers and administrators who run clinical medicine and the US government don’t know just how horribly unreliable “expert opinion” has always been in science, they went ahead and reversed the entire process of scientific medical discovery.
It has always involved hundreds and thousands of MD’s and PhD’s arguing in open literature and meetings. Instead, medical science was replaced by the tyrannical dictates of an 80-something-year-old MD who avoids treating any category of patients, let alone the COVID patients over whom he wielded life-and-death decrees in harmony with Big Pharma’s financial motives.
Inertia against any potential scientific breakthrough happens in every field of science, modern medicine being typical throughout its brief history.
Many medical people and mainstream reporters now believe that a single randomized controlled study (third from the top) is the strongest form of evidence. These good folk are extremely busy doing stressful, difficult work and can’t help it that they often seem brain-dead. They have barely the time to skim through an abstract of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. They look only for a one-sentence synopsis of the conclusion while scanning for the holy words: “blinded, controlled, randomized.”
When they see these words and note that a few thousand patients were involved in reaching a “significant” p-value of 0.05 or less, they “know” they’ve got “infallible” information, about the way a fundamentalist believer of any Western religion feels confident they’ve got the truth when reading an ancient text from a holy book.
But what’s really going on here?
A p-value of 0.05 means that someone wearing thick glasses who can crunch statistical odds in a way that hardly anyone else can has determined from naked numerical data alone that the mathematical odds show a 95% probability that the study’s conclusion is valid (i.e. NOT due to random chance). Which is to say, there’s a 5% chance that the study’s conclusion is due to random chance alone, not due to the drug being effective, but this 5% chance is probably small enough to ignore. (It’s an arbitrary cutoff point, not a natural phenomenon.)
When the stars align and these nice words and numbers appear in the abstract (the only part of the paper that’s freely available to the public who funded the research) these busy medical professionals and the public’s busy mainstream reporters who have no medical education whatsoever rush off and spread yet another “final medical truth” to the patients and public respectively.
It’s useful, however, to realize that a failure to reach a significant p-value can come entirely from having too few patients in the study. (The fewer patients involved in a trial, the more the results look like anecdotal stories to a statistician. The effectiveness of the drug cannot be measured without a large number of patients in the trial. The more the merrier. )
For example, you canNOT do a truly scientific study to determine whether or not a cheap generic “antibiotic X” cures bacterial pneumonia if you only have 30 patients in your trial. Every clinician using this “antibiotic X” may swear that it’s worked well on thousands of their own patients (anecdotally). But the “scientific” study with too few subjects will necessarily fail to show statistical significance no matter how good the drug is.
In our hypothetical example, the p-value isn’t small enough for significance. Let’s say it’s “p = 0.09” (meaning that there’s only a 90% probability that “antibiotic X” really saves lives).
OK, p-values are complex to calculate, have an arbitrary cut-off point, and are steeped in the sort of simple binary thinking that appeals to busy medical doctors in the cook-book practices forced upon them by dollar bean-counters, insurance companies, and ambulance-chasing lawyers. But understanding p-values is not beyond a reporter’s ability, at least in binary terms and a tad beyond. Let’s go there now…
It would be downright life-saving if the reporters who decide medical truth for the public nowadays would try to understood a little about the connection between treating infections early and p-values.
If you suffer recurring viral “fever blisters,” for example, you know to take your acyclovir (or whatever) as soon as possible after the first symptoms appear, or else you’ll have a big ugly sore on you lip for a week. “No it’s not Herpes, I was mugged again.”
Or if you have a migraine headache coming on, you know you’ve got to do your Wim Hof breath holding (to get your adrenalin and your heart rate up) and/or take whatever medication works for you as soon as possible to avoid a painful, nauseating misery that could last for days.
It’s the same with any viral infection, with any type of cancer, and with many other harmful biological phenomena.
The later you treat a disease, the less likely the treatment will work, no matter how great it is when used early.
There’s a natural cut-off deadline, or tipping point where time has run out, you’ve waited too long and the treatment that would have worked will no longer have much effect.
So in our example of an inexpensive generic “antibiotic X,” lets say there were 3,000 patients (n=3,000) in the trial. We should expect a significant p-value, right?
Well, not if “antibiotic X” is given (on average) too late in the course of infection.
Suppose the study was deliberately set up to allow many of the patients into the study who had been sick with bacterial pneumonia for a week before getting “antibiotic X.”
Your study would have a mix of patients who were treated early enough to be saved along with a large number whose pneumonia was treated after the condition was too advanced and couldn’t be stopped by anything short of a miracle.
Let’s say the study came out with a p-value that was too high for the typical binary, arbitrary interpretation of statistical significance. The p-value crunched out at “p = 0.09” (meaning there is only a 91 % likelihood that the antibiotic was effective, rather than the arbitrary cut-off of 95%).
Would you think that MDs and the media would be totally convinced that “antibiotic X” is worthless?
Yes they would.
We know this from a real-world example coming to us from a study of Ivermectin reported in JAMA, (Journal of the American Medical Association), a widely respected medical journal despite accusations of an “anti-Ivermectin for COVID” bias fueled by Big Pharma shenanigans.
The average time from first COVID symptoms to Ivermectin treatment was 5.1 days in this deliberately botched clinical trial reported in JAMA. The reported “confidence interval” for the 5.1 days was 1.3. This tells us that few patients were treatment within 3 days of their first COVID symptoms. This is a huge design error that appears deliberate.
Those docs who have treated thousands of COVID patients with Ivermectin will tell you that it’s crucial to begin the drug within 3 days or less of the patient’s first flu-like symptoms: runny nose, chills, fever, loss of smell, headache, weakness, sore throat, etc.
The gatekeepers at JAMA know this full well. They are extreme outliers in intelligence (IQ) and in their personal reading time of the medical literature. They understand the pathophysiology of early treatment of infectious diseases. They’re likely all “scientific” materialists with a worldview that excludes the existence of anything approaching non-relative morality. If so, they believe that dishonesty and cheating are fine if you “win” for some greater cause, such as avoiding the spread of “vaccine hesitancy” around the globe.
So IF Big Pharma scratches the backs of the JAMA editors, or perhaps threatens their careers, they might tend to do what they’re told and believe what they’ve been taught to believe.
IF Big Pharma advised them to discredit a cheap generic drug like Ivermectin and push a brand-new expensive drug with fresh patents, they might go along for the ride, hoping to retire early and keep their jobs, while doing the “right thing” for humanity.
But even the slightest degree of dishonesty and cheating stops genuine science in its tracks. This is the strongest secular air-tight reason for total honesty, at least in science if not in everything else humans do.
As you’ve probably noticed, corporations tend to behave like “scientific” materialists and tyrants such as Putin who believe that “survival of the fittest” is true morality, “natural selection” is virtuous, and there is no objective good or evil, only changeable notions of right and wrong with no rock-solid reason for honesty in a laboratory.
So it might be expected that JAMA’s gatekeepers and Big Pharma would publish an Ivermectin study where most of the patients received Ivermectin long after the first 3 days of symptom onset. And that’s exactly what they did.
Another thing that’s helpful in avoiding p-value deceptions is this: a study’s measured outcomes (like death) can be selected in a way that’s destined to fail the p-value analysis.
For example, if you’re studying a treatment for a disease like COVID that kills roughly four people out of 1000 these days (the approximate current COVID death rate in Mississippi now, as I understand it), you would probably need several hundred thousand people in the study to “achieve significance” no matter how good your drug is.
Any such study with only a thousand patients would be expected to have about four deaths total in the controls. If the drug worked well and there were only one death in the treated patient cohort, the number crunchers would say there are not enough instances of death to give a significant p-value to the avoidance of death in the drug cohort.
But the headlines would say the drug is worthless…
Unless, of course, the drug is an expensive new one with patents. Then Big Pharma would send out reps to help the journalists’ and MD’s understand the subtleties of p-values. Plus there would be a big section in the published paper explaining how this wonderful is likely going to save lives because it achieved “near statistical efficacy.”
Like a study with too few patients overall, a study that measures too rare of an outcome will fail to achieve p-value significance. Intelligent Designers of a study would know this in the planning stage and avoid it if they were being honest.
This is what went wrong in the study that “proved” the ineffectiveness of Ivermectin to the public. The study only measured two outcomes, death and being placed on a ventilator.
But despite that, try to imagine how JAMA hid this glaring revelation about Ivermectin, forcing people to dig it out of the paper if they have a few hours and know what to look for…
Even with these dishonest biases baked into the trial ahead of time, the study in JAMA that supposedly “proved” Ivermectin was ineffective, actually showed that the patients who were not treated with Ivermectin (the controls) were about 300% (3 times) more likely to die of COVID-19 than the patients who were treated with Ivermectin. And the p-value for this was 0.09 which means that the number crunchers of naked statistics showed that the odds are 91% that this study’s death-defying outcome was not due to random chance, but was almost certainly due to the generic, cheap drug, Ivermectin alone. Which is to say that the odds are only 9 out of 100 (9%) that the life-saving outcomes in this deliberately flawed study of Ivermectin were due to chance alone.
Medical science is like learning a complex computer app for trading the financial markets, it’s easy to understand, but it takes patience, a lot of persistence, and above all, repetition of super-boring information to get things burned into long-term memory. From there you can step back and make a logical, informed analysis.
Hope I didn’t bore you with this article.
So far, it seems that Omicron is providing humanity with herd immunity as hoped. The new Omicron subvariant BA.2 is definitely more easily spread from person to person than the original Omicron. And BA.2 might also be somewhat more dangerous, but I think the jury is still out on this question. Time will tell fairly soon.
Anyway, ask yourself this: if and when you get COVID-19 (experts say everyone will get it), will you take Ivermectin? It’s a medication that’s cheap, has a long track record of safety in humans, and has a 90% chance of actually being the cause-and-effect agent that kept three times as many patients alive compared to controls in a clinical trial that appears to have been obviously designed to fail at the arbitrary p-value cutoff level, missing by only 4%.
Or is it more logical to go along with mainstream headlines and refuse Ivermectin treatment? After all, it has been emotionally associated with the “wrong” political party, with cancelled “anti-vaxxer” physicians, and in my humble case, with a retired surgical pathologist and cytopathologist who thinks UFOs are unquestionably real and the Ancient Astronaut Theory is not as nuts as Giorgio’s hair.
Whatever you decide, especially if you’re a person of color, please make sure your vitamin D levels are well up into the upper “normal” reference range. If not, ask your doc if you can safely take over-the-counter D3 supplements. The science on adequate vitamin D levels helping to prevent COVID deaths is rock-solid. And yet people of color around the world don’t seem to be getting enough of it, as best I can infer from global COVID death stats.
One agenda of the powerful who own the mainstream media (both sides) is to keep Republicans and Democrats feeling outraged and hateful. With mutual outrage and hatred properly maintained, we citizens can never join forces and vote in a non-career Congress that might actually end the mainstream “news” monopoly.
The most essential and vulnerable part of democracy is the freedom of the press. Without the free exchange of “facts,” voters cannot evaluate opinions intelligently or differentiate truth from error.
Our human brains are a bit like computers, like it or not. Free will is real, as are consciousness and personal identity, but let’s face it, whatever we fill our heads with will eventually become what we believe, trust, want, and “know” is right.
If, for instance, you’re an atheist who’s facing death and you really wish you could believe that your life will go on after this one ends, I guarantee you that listening to every near-death experience on YouTube will at least make you doubt the “scientific” materialist dogma you swallowed years ago along with its infectiously depressing worldview. You might even develop a spiritual faith of some sort. On the other hand, if you limit yourself to “scientific” materialist information, you will take your anti-faith worldview to the grave.
Or let’s say you doubt the reality of UFOs. I can virtually guarantee you that if you listen to the hundreds of personal testimonies of UFO/UAP experiencers available online, you will eventually believe in the undeniable reality of UFOs. If, on the other hand, you avoid those videos of personal testimony and expose your mind only to UFO skeptics (a shrinking breed), you will believe UFOs are somehow unreal, even if one lands in your backyard.
But here’s the thing: if you force yourself to watch the mainstream “news” outlet you hate most for a year or two, eventually, no matter your political bias, you will realize that all mainstream “news” outlets cannot be trusted to give a balanced view of anything, not even the weather.
And if you’d like a quicker rout to this valuable conclusion, here’s a video from a guy who’s trying his best to cut through the mainstream bias on both sides of politics. I think he’s doing a good job…
You can’t judge a book by its hair. Listen to Russell Brand, please.
I watched this Rumble video, NOT as a decision point for or against vaccination (I’m vaccinated).
To me, the importance of this video is that it shows how medical science has been suppressed by the owners of the media, big tech, and big pharma. These global owners have been enabled by academic fraud and financial corruption within the CDC, FDA, and NIH.
As best I can tell, the termination of objective science is part of a global “reset” agenda to control the free world. I suspect the leaders of this reset are the billionaires behind the Vanguard and BlackRock funds.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.” — Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder
If there is hope for science and US democracy’s survival against the super-wealthy, it’s at the polls with liberals and conservatives uniting to expel 99.9% of the House and Senate on BOTH sides of the aisle. These fear-driven DC puppets must be replaced by non-career people who run for office specifically to end Vanguard and BlackRock’s monopoly of information and political outcome control.
If you want to increase your odds of surviving COVID and its future variants through early COVID treatment, this book reveals a wealth of suppressed peer-reviewed medical literature that explains why and how to proceed intelligently. I’d advice you and your loved ones to buy the digital version ($2.99 at Amazon), read it and click on the footnotes to the shocking number of linked peer-reviewed scientific articles. This book is a jaw-dropping read and will save many lives, perhaps your own, but there’s a bigger problem we also need to face…
I’ll admit it would be nearly impossible to reveal all details present in The Real Anthony Fauci without evoking outrage, but I wish the author, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., had tried to soften the rage a bit because…
Hatred and outrage destroy objectivity by blinding everyone on both sides of every political discussion, and medical science has been highjacked by COVID politics. The shallow, binary, hateful “thinking” of outrage-politics is killing both science and democracy.
Kennedy recognizes the global forces that are using COVID to destroy democracy today, but as best I can tell, he doesn’t understand that their strategy is to “divide and conquer” us all through mutual hatred.
Hating Fauci and wanting to cancel him would play right into the hands of those super-wealthy folk pulling the strings of Western society.
Sure, Dr. Fauci has big problems with his medical judgement, and he has financial conflicts of interest that make him appear as corrupt as a DC politician, but he’s an 80-years-old human being. At this age, it’s probably safe to assume that, like any other similarly aged public figure in DC (present or past), he’s on the short leash of powerful handlers.
As a rule, the global powers of the West don’t show their faces on TV. To be effective they must be as close to unknown as possible because, in their worst nightmare, the voters on both sides see what “the Cabal” is doing and gang up against them at the polls, rendering them toothless. When this nightmare happens, the FDA is no longer controlled by Big Pharma. Objective journalism rises from the dead to replace the corporate media’s control of both political parties. The “above-the-law” global powers within the US military and intelligence services lose power. The fragility of the US democracy now divided by hatred is brought back to emotional health by respectful debates pursuing something greater than a win: the innate wisdom of compromise in a world where conservatives and liberals take turns functioning as the best cure and the worst disease.
Before democracy swept the West, grandiose megalomaniacs needed only one thing, a military capable of beating (or aligning with) other militaries. Nowadays, the world’s deadliest military insists on defending the crumbling remnant of US democracy, so anyone else hell-bent on global conquest needs a sophisticated plan to acquire our military rather than defeat it…
They must first gain control of the media (both sides), divide and blind the people with outrage and hatred, let us duke it out until one side is poised to win, then swoop in with censorship that favors the winners, promising to halt all global catastrophes, grant the winners their dream of safety, and make the promise of easy money to become available only after the political losers have been depicted as subhuman and punished for their evil ways.
After being voted into power, the new world-conquerors will control the US military and the police. Finally they’ll feel safe to rid society of its selfish craving for freedom. With AI’s monitoring speech on all devices and the FED as everyone’s new personal bank, anyone caught discussing freedom or democracy will become electronically defunded and homeless. Standard historical practice at this juncture has been the execution of millions, but this gentler defunding approach will work better in the US where remnants of Christian charity might hamper the traditional Darwinian-materialist slaughter of men, women and children.
If the new leaders have done a credible job infiltrating school systems, no one will doubt their textbook’s historical conclusion that the 18th-century experiment of democracy was a tragic failure. Page turned until the next solar micronova sends our species back into caves.
It makes absolutely NO difference to totalitarian minds which side of US politics takes control. They literally own 99% of the media (on both sides) today and use it expertly to manipulate public opinion through outrage and hatred, maintaining two nearly opposite sets of “facts” along with two entirely opposite spins. With the mind-cancelling magic of group hatred, they can win a war on democracy in one sweeping victory of any party, Republican, Democrat, Independent, whatever. Those details are irrelevant to them.
At the moment, despite the Cabal’s media grip, an occasional bolus of truth can still slip through censorship. Kennedy’s book is a vitally important example.
The only problem with it is that Kennedy still swallows the Cabal’s most useful lie: that political fights in the US are good guys against bad guys.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Each major political party desperately needs the others to achieve anything approaching a wise decision, moreover each party needs the others to prevent the death of democracy itself. If you think about it and maybe meditate on it, you’ll notice that…
The one-party “democracy” that both sides seem to relish is actually totalitarianism disguised as a sweeping victory for the good guys who have finally defeated the evil idiots. If we can all wrap our heads and hearts around this insight, freedom and democracy might survive. Otherwise, one side will “win” the political war, allowing the Cabal to use our military forces to conquer the world and micromanage it with the traditional cruelty of Earthly tyrants throughout the ages.
So for starters, let’s try to interpret Anthony Fauci’s actions in a way that doesn’t encourage us to hate him.
“‘For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . .’ — U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities, (Jan 2017).” — Kennedy Jr., Robert F., The Real Anthony Fauci (pp. 225-226 Kindle Edition).
In view of this, we know that if Fauci holds the common medical opinion (drummed into our heads in medical school) that vaccines are humanity’s greatest medical achievement, then Fauci must think that anything besides vaccines that might diminish COVID-19 is detrimental to humanity because it would cancel the FDA’s historic Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines.
To Fauchi, anything threatening vaccine use, including open scientific debates, reliable official statistics, early successful COVID treatments, or even natural herd immunity when viewed as a vaccine alternative, would cost human lives. To him, vaccines are obviously far superior to everything else, so nothing can be allowed to interfere with their availability.
Sure, Fauci also has financial conflicts of interests, but I doubt those could be the primary motivations of an 80-year-old MD making over $400,000 a year in salary alone.
We don’t need to painting him as evil.
Fauci made what he “knew” was the only logical choice: to save human lives by obstructing everything that might block the vaccines’ tenuous FDA Emergency Use Authorization. After all, his most trusted mentors and all his MD associates agreed that nothing on Earth comes close to the effectiveness of vaccines. That’s the dogma.
For the sake of the non-hateful, objective rescue of democracy, let’s assume that Fauci continues to this day blocking early COVID treatments mainly because he thinks he’s doing what’s right. Sure he doesn’t mind if he makes a lot of money for doing what he thinks is right, but who does? Let’s not hate him and cancel him. That’s what the people who set him up want from us. The more intolerant and hateful we are, the less we can come together to defend ourselves against the Cabal (the Deep State, global elites, super-wealthy, etc.).
In medical science, opposing views always exist, and for good reason: Sometimes the “stupid” minority is right. When they are, it’s called a scientific breakthrough and represents the fondest hope of every genuine scientist.
Censorship kills science and democracy. If we’re smart, we’ll resist it by rejecting the media’s hatred and outrage, intelligently designed to make us want to silence and destroy the “bad” people.
Buy the book, glimpse the Cabal’s deadly reach, increase your COVID survival odds through peer-reviewed scientific literature that’s been heavily suppressed by people far younger, richer and more powerful than Dr. Fauci.
Gettr.com is a Twitter alternative that claims to be “a brand new social media platform founded on the principles of free speech, independent thought and rejecting political censorship and ‘cancel culture.'”
Dr. Robert Malone is either protecting lives by providing the public with lawful informed consent for COVID mRNA vaccines, or else he’s encouraging dangerous “vaccine hesitancy” by giving lawful informed consent to the public.
Either way, this man’s highly informed message is not merely about health and COVID survival.
It’s also about a few anonymous wealthy folk with controlling interests in big Pharma, big Media, and big Tech (BlackRock and Vanguard funds) who are trampling democracy.
None of us knows the long-term risks of mRNA vaccines. By taking the vaccine, I’ve personally made a bet that its long-term risks will be less than the great risks of catching COVID-19 at my age (66 years) with my kidney disease (polycystic). But I could lose this bet because I’m often wrong about important things. So are you, if you’re honest.
Those who claim to know the long-term relative risks of mRNA COVID vaccines must have a time machine. If not, they’re just expressing irrational confidence in badly gathered short-term data produced by corporations with a conflict of financial interest. I wish this weren’t the case, but some FDA leaders appear to share financial incentives with Big Pharma.
Time will reveal the long-term risks of mRNA vaccines, assuming the data is eventually collected and published–a brave assumption.
I hope I win my vaccine gamble because my life may depend on it. But silencing qualified physicians on Twitter and YouTube won’t help me find early treatment, make informed decisions on multiple additional vaccinations, or help me give good informed vaccine advice to my kids and grandkids. We need both sides of the argument in detail to make these decisions. Mainstream soundbites won’t do.
For now, this video gives a clear picture of how global totalitarian forces are using COVID-19 to kill democracy, replace the rule of law with the dictates of power, and eliminate rational thought from the discussion.
My advice? Leave Twitter. Send them the only message a corporation understands. Vote with your feet. Now.
This is no longer a conspiracy theory, it’s either a genuine conspiracy or a “conspiracy” of stupidity within the medical sciences.
If you don’t have time, below is the YouTube extract relevant to the anti-democracy discussion. It touches upon “mass formation psychosis,” an unfortunate term that gives debunkers an easy target, allowing them to avoid specifics while dismissing the whole discussion in broad emotional strokes. This is the way mainstream pseudoscience dismisses people like Stephen Meyer, PhD without facing anything specific he says about Intelligent Design. I hope we won’t fall for this lazy non-argument tactic in COVID-related debates.
What if someone were to connect all the available dots?
Despite the public’s sand-buried heads on the UFO issue, we now have official statements that UFOs/UAPs are physical craft using technology that defies the mainstream’s “known” laws of physics. For the moment, let’s imagine that the DOD, the US Navy, and the New York Times have told us the truth about UFOs. They’re advanced physical craft. Someone currently on Earth operates a remarkably advanced transportation technology.
Ordinary mainstream scientists can take a virus and alter it in ways that make it more dangerous to humans. This practice is called “gain of function” research and has been justified by some as a means of anticipating future viral pandemics and preparing vaccines ahead of time. Nobody would ever be interested in making viral bioweapons, right? (Swampland in Florida, please.)
Since mainstream human science can do this, it would seem likely that those who design, build and operate the world’s UFOs today are probably also able to manipulate viruses in remarkably advanced ways.
The Omicron variant has rapidly and invisibly undergone a mutation rate of 3.3 times the natural mutation rate within its human hosts. Omicron will likely benefit the human population by giving us a virus that is rarely if ever lethal, but is far more easily spread from one person to the next. This means that a “lucky” selection of 27 spike-protein coding mutations over 18 months seems poised now to provide herd immunity to the entire population of Earth. This will likely end the pandemic.
As with the silenced arguments of Intelligent Design scientists by the materialist mainstream gatekeepers, the public is expected to believe that all 27 of Omicron’s brilliantly beneficial mutations were random. No intelligent guidance could possibly have been involved. Certainly not God’s kindness. The quasi-religious pseudoscience called “scientific materialism” has ruled God out as a public explanation of anything these days. It’s as if a meaningful universe disgusts them.
But what do these materialists think about UFOs and the mysterious operators behind them? Are such mainstream DOD realities still “spaghetti monsters” to scientific materialists?
Why would they doubt the mainstream’s declaration that UFOs are physical craft when they follow the same mainstream’s dogmas to the letter on each and every COVID argument they help to squelch?
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction because it doesn’t have to seem believable or follow preconceived worldviews.
Here’s hoping that aliens have landed and love us dearly.
It’s a medical miracle, discussed in the video above.
It boils down to this…
Twelve days after the drug Ivermectin was “OK’d for use” in Japan by Dr. Haruo Ozaki, Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Japan’s sharp spike in COVID-19 cases began a striking decline toward zero as seen in the graph below. The blue arrow points out the day when Doctor Ozaki approved Ivermectin’s use against COVID-19.
For a broader time perspective, here’s that same peak (below on the right). Dr. Ozaki made his announcement at the tip of the yellow pointer.
Note that Ivermectin was not made the “official COVID treatment” in Japan, it was rather OK’d for prescriptive use against COVID for the first time by an official, Dr. Ozaki. Google seems to hide the truth here by deliberately confusing terms and burying all searchers in layers of articles “debunking” the strawman claim that Japan has made Ivermectin their “official COVID treatment.”
Don’t fall for Google’s banana-in-the-tailpipe trick this time.
A cheap and effective COVID drug is the nightmare of major drug companies now. The pandemic has become their cash cow, hence their puppet media suppresses Ivermectin, allowing them time to milk the pandemic at the public’s expense. Sad, but pretty obviously happening.
With a straight face, Doctor John Campbell (a nurse, if I remember right) calls this temporal association “a strange coincidence” in his video and presents a few weak alternative explanations, one of which is not as weak as the others.
I sense Campbell must protect his video from the censors by using the term “strange coincidence” rather than the more appropriate phrase: “a probable cause-and-effect relationship.”
Here’s a current look at the COVID death rates in Japan compared to a few other countries:
The video goes on to offer some alternative explanations for the so-called “coincidence.” One idea not mentioned is the possibility that Ivermectin might somehow be responsible for the mutation discussed that destroys the error-correcting functions of the virus, rendering it impotent. It’s probably a weak idea because Ivermectin most likely has no mutagenic capacity, but who knows? Maybe for this virus it does.
As I’ve said before, the zombie-woke media’s suppression of Ivermectin is idiotic. Someone in power in the US needs to wake up and support the use of this drug. There is growing evidence supporting its effectiveness and an established long track record of its safety within the human population. (No, it’s not “a horse drug” as CNN’s Dr. Gupta had to admit to Joe Rogan. Try finding that video on Google.)
Unfortunately, the brief and increasingly questioned safety record of mRNA vaccines doesn’t compare to that of Ivermectin.
So here’s a perfectly safe, cheap drug that, as best we can tell now, appears to have abruptly stopped the worst peak of COVID-19 in Japan. Shouldn’t we encourage its use in the USA while our universities study its effectiveness? What’s the downside here?
Back in the early 1980’s when I was in pathology residency and HIV / AIDS had begun to burst upon the scene of Western medicine, one of my mentors told me essentially, “This is the first time we face a politically protected disease. There will be many deaths because we didn’t confront this contagion the way we normally would.”
Today it’s hard to imagine that for most gay people back then, their professional careers and social lives would almost certainly be destroyed if they “came out of the closet.”
People of compassion knew this and did everything they could to prevent such cruelty. With the best of intentions they turned a deadly contagious disease into a political affair to protect the gay populations’ valuable privacy.
The medical system decided against using tried-and-true public health measures to protect everyone. Instead they chose to keep the infected victims’ identities secret, to not trace their contacts, and to forget about quarantining the infected individuals.
Traditional public health measures, though logical, seemed cruel and insensitive to many at the time. “Only a hard-nosed conservative homophobe would be so callous and mean-spirited.”
Protected by political emotion, HIV/AIDS spread throughout the world killing millions and millions who might have been spared if the medical community had remained objective and refused to turn an infectious disease into a political issue.
Today the medical community has learned nothing from their tragic emotional response to the HIV epidemic. Again our medical system (in the US) has allowed political emotion to guide them, probably from compassion for the many as yet unvaccinated older adults who are, as far as we know now, statistically much more likely to suffer prolonged illness or death from COVID-19 than from the known side effects of the vaccines.
Sure, this time we underwent extensive public health measures including isolation, politically-motivated mask mandates, and whatnot, but the politically protected disease is now an “uncommon” complication of the vaccine(s).
Since political thinking is black-and-white by nature and has again come to dominate the medical conversation, the vaccines’ negative side effects will not be brought before the public. In politics it always seems better to sweep unwanted things under the rug for the greater political good.
And I almost sort of get it. I personally hesitate to bring vaccine problems to anyone’s attention because:
1. I strongly suspect that the long-term negative effects of the vaccines will be much milder than the overall damage done by COVID-19 itself, after all the facts are known, which won’t be for decades.
2. I share the human tendency for “all-or-none” thinking, so I know that when someone reveals an important flaw in something that’s otherwise quite helpful, regular people like me may view the helpful thing as totally unhelpful. This is an example of using political neurons (rather than our few objective neurons) in allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good, as for example when our academics’ ideal Bolshevik utopia casts a dark shadow over humanity’s imperfect democracies, and they act to eliminate democracy through the indoctrination of children. Rookie mistake, but so very human.
3. Since the possibility of long-term catastrophically negative side effects of the COVID vaccines cannot be completely ruled out for several decades, I may be sadly mistaken in my assumption that the goodness of COVID vaccines will outweigh all negatives in the final analysis. I’ve made an optimistic but quite reasonable decision in taking the COVID vaccine, specifically at my age (66 now).
But as I say, I’m often wrong about important things, so think for yourself about all sides of this discussion, please, as you consider the “uncommon” but significantly negative early COVID vaccine reactions… exactly how “uncommon,” I don’t know.
But I do know these reactions should be recognized and treated appropriately by the healthcare community.
Unless it’s been taken down by our medically uneducated but well-woke overlords at YouTube, here’s a fascinating (anecdotal) interview of a healthy young athlete who became chronically ill after a second injection of a COVID vaccine that appears to have likely reached his venous circulation directly upon injection…
1. The vaccine reaction symptoms, we are told, include postural hypotension, tachycardia, chest pain, weakness, exhaustion after mental or physical exertion, joint pain in areas of old injuries, headache, at least one apparent case of blindness in a young girl, and a number of suicides.
2. Some of these symptoms can last up to 18 months, as far as we now know.
3. The reaction may likely be caused by accidental injection of the vaccine fluid into the (currently ignored) medium-caliber blood vessels that exist somewhat randomly scattered throughout skeletal muscle. (Many MD’s have not cut through a piece of human skeletal muscle since anatomy lab in the first year of med school and have no doubt forgotten, if they ever noticed, the presence of numerous veins and some small arteries within skeletal muscle. These blood vessels have a caliber greater than that of a needle, so injecting directly into them is a physical possibility that would be expected to occur randomly during vaccinations. As a pathologist (retired), I have routinely seen these vessels in the gross room and under the microscope. Someone should do a quantitative study to characterize them in a broad and diverse human population. These small to medium-sized veins and arteries are especially prominent, it seems to me, in the arms of young athletes whose vessels appear to have increased in caliber after years of resistance training.)
4. Healthcare workers need to ALWAYS pull back on the end of the syringe to see if any blood comes back (the “red flash”) from a larger vessel before they inject any intramuscular vaccine or other medication. Please folks, forget the brain-dead dogma that you don’t need this precaution when doing intramuscular vaccine injections! Incidentally, this random, accidental intravenous injection pathway could possibly account for many of the “rare” negative side effects of any other intramuscular vaccines, not merely the COVID vaccines. Think about this, healthcare professional, without listening to your political neurons for once.
5. These vaccine-associated symptoms appear to be lessened by black seed oil, Ivermectin (at least temporarily), and several other over-the-counter items as mentioned in the video above.
6. This vaccine reaction is officially recognized and treated in Singapore, we are told, but still remains largely denied and/or unrecognized in the medical system of the US.
7. In view of the relatively low rate of serious COVID-19 infections in children, it seems reasonable to “allow” parents the right to study the data for themselves and decide whether or not to have their children vaccinated. This seems especially appropriate in the US where addicts (widely considered people with a disease) are free to kill themselves with cigarettes and to donate their life savings to casinos one paycheck at a time.
8. The vaccine reaction is real, but remains politically protected at this time by powerful corporate interests who exert remarkable control over the flow of information in the US.
I was probably about 7 when my dad who would have been 66 years old told me about medicine’s Holy Grail for the fist time.
When I reached medical school it was common sense to me and probably to many of my classmates. Still the professors promoted their brilliant holy grail with enthusiasm and force. It was not merely the best tool for discovering medical truth, it was the foundational tool.
When you hear it as a med student, the Holy Grail sounds about like this: “Ya gotta hold everything constant except that one variable you’re trying to test, otherwise you’ll never figure out what’s causing what.”
In the minds of the gatekeepers today, this one-at-a-time dogma has long been an assumption they wouldn’t think to question, something like the tyranny of macro-evolution arising from random mutations… a bad joke that a growing number of scientists see through and question at great expense to their careers.
Fortunately, a few medical gatekeepers seem to be re-thinking the holy grail now as the concepts of synergy arise within complex living systems as well as within complex disease-causing systems such as our modern milieu of pollution, fast food, sedentary lifestyles and multiple chronic legal addictions.
To see how the medical grail has overlooked the obvious for years, consider the thought model of an imaginary deficiency disease that causes chronic giggling.
Our imaginary people with this problem ingest only three nutrients: A, B, and C. These three work together synergistically for optimal health and the suppression of the endless giggling syndrome (EGS).
Synergy in this case means:
1. A and B don’t do their job so well without C.
2. A and C don’t work well without B.
3. B and C don’t work well without A.
4. The combined effects of A, B, and C together are greater than what you would expect if you could measure the effect of each alone and add them together. It’s effectively like this: 1+1+1 is greater than 3 because of synergy within a hyper-complex biological system.
But here’s the old-school approach to our Endless Giggling Syndrome (EGS) with a typical experimental design that’s blind to synergy…
Cohort 1: The MD’s take a group of gigglers and give them an excess of nutrient A while holding B and C constant at the recommended daily adult level.
Results? Giggling persists.
Cohort 2: They take a second group of gigglers and give them a boatload of B while holding A and C constant.
Results: Nobody stops laughing.
Cohort 3: They take a group of gigglers and give them a large dose of C while holding A and B constant.
You got it: the sniggering remains statistically unchanged when compared to the control group (which was Cohort 4, a group eating a “normal” diet that was decided upon, incidentally, by a political committee in the 1950’s).
So naturally the mainstream sour-faced MD’s conclude that A, B, and C are ineffective against chronic giggling.
The study is easily published in a top journal, and later another academic institution replicates it at great cost.
Finally it reaches the public and becomes the scientific dogma that enables the infliction of CGS upon countless generations. “Don’t listen to internet sources, only the trusted news outlets,” they tell us. “Taking A, B, and C supplements just gives you expensive urine.”
By now you see the Holy Grail’s experimental design flaw, right? How would you have designed the study?
Yes, with common sense, the disinfectant needed now in multiple ongoing academic misadventures and dogmas across various disciplines.
Common sense would add a fifth cohort of chronic gigglers to the design and give them a high dose of all three nutrients at the same time: A, B, and C.
Suddenly you’re one of the few people who understands this particular flaw in the academic approach to clinical medicine, so unlike typical academic gatekeepers, you can now understand why Dale Bredesen, MD, PhD, a man who has literally reversed Alzheimer’s disease in hundreds of patients using his complex protocol, deserves a Nobel Prize and a mega-sized research grant.
Like you, Dr. Bredesen understands synergy and knows how to design a meaningful experiment around it…
Alzheimer’s disease is not a simple deficiency disease like the imagined outbreak of chronic giggling syndrome.
Alzheimer’s has multiple possible causes which usually work together synergistically to reduce the number of living neurons in the temporal and parietal lobes.
The physiologic complexity of the systems and the overlapping effects of the neuron killers make it tough to categorize the known, though not yet widely accepted, causes of Alzheimer’s disease.
Here’s a grouping of etiologies that may help you see what’s going on and remember some of them…
Toxins such as heavy metals, a few specific and extremely common mold toxins, many industrial chemical toxins, insecticides and the herbicides like glyphosate found in Beyer’s (formally Monsanto’s) Roundup that is used on GMO crops which were Intelligently Designed by humans to survive high doses of the Roundup poison (a binder of iron, manganese, zinc, and boron) so the plants can bring the toxin to your dinner table in copious quantities, sometimes having been sprayed after harvest to prolong shelf life. Ugly, but TRUE.
Metabolic issues like early insulin resistance (prediabetes) due to chronic carbohydrate overload (the rule in North America, not the exception), type 2 diabetes, and obesity.
Smoldering chronic infections like Lyme disease, Herpes simplex, chronic sinusitis, oral infestations by certain bacteria, and various microorganisms involved in the “leaky gut” syndrome (aka small intestinal bacterial overgrowth or SIBO).
Chronic inflammatory imbalances (not just lymphocyte infiltration, pathologists) that overlap with all the other categories and also include a few odd things such as gluten sensitivity, (both in the duodenum and systemically apart from any gut symptoms of “sprue”).
Deficiencies such as low oxygen saturation at night due to sleep apnea, COPD, and even subclinical pulmonary conditions (get a cheap device to check your oxygen saturation at night, this is a common and unrecognized problem!), vitamin D deficiency due to low sun exposure relative to the color of your skin (us white devils need less sun, people of color need a lot more), lack of omega 3 fatty acids (DHA and especially EPA, a powerful natural platelet inhibitor found in cold-water fish oil and produced by healthy human endothelial cells), a lack of type-4 sleep (these are the precious moments when the glymphatic system of the brain opens up and allows the toxic cellular metabolic wastes to flow out of the neurons and glial cells and travel to be cleared from your body by the liver and kidneys), low amounts of the hormetic stress upon skeletal and cardiac muscle by physical exercise (couch potato syndrome), low amounts of blood glucose during the night due to over-doing a vegan ketogenic diet without adequate protein and fat intake (my own personal super-stupid mistake several years ago), low levels of hormones such as testosterone (the golden hormone that has suddenly become pure evil in Western schools), estrogen (usually after menopause), and sometimes melatonin in older folks (if you take it, try for a low physiologic dosage of melatonin because the common higher dosages may reduce your dopamine and serotonin baselines and ruin your motivation to do things, a symptom of depression).
Vascular problems like atherosclerosis of the carotid arteries and the Circle of Willis (caused mainly in the US by chronic carbohydrate toxicity, aka the average American diet) and defects in the blood-brain barrier (with many causes and several associated diseases involving neurotoxins and inflammation entering the brain from the blood).
Genetic predilections, such as homozygous ApoE4 and multiple other single mononucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The effects of a single ApoE4 gene seem to be readily avoidable. Even two copies (homozygous) have been effectively dealt with, we’re told by Dr. Bredesen.
Despite the entrenchment of medicine’s useful but fatally flawed habit of setting up experimental designs around the Holy one-at-a-time Grail, Dr. Dale Bredesen continues to make steady headway in his journey toward saving the human race from Alzheimer’s disease.
This monster disease begins at least 20 years before symptoms bring a person to the doctor. That’s why it’s a good thing that a young person like you has read this boring post to the end. Kudos.
And that’s why you need to get started in your 30’s or 40’s changing your lifestyle while it can make the greatest difference for you in your later years when you will be able to spend some of that Bitcoin you bought while you were young and uncharacteristically wise. (Yes, I own Bitcoin, but I’m older so I won’t be a billionaire like you may possibly become if you’re young and buy the dips, then hold.)
Dementia of various types as well as Alzheimer’s dementia are extremely common today. If you’re a US American, you’re at risk just because of our pollution, the way we build our homes with mold food (dry wall), and our carbohydrate-heavy lifestyles.
Dementia is one of the most horrible paths to what we call “death.” Don’t take the wide road.
But if you’re young and can’t help yourself, or you’re old and it’s too late to change, I have to say, death here is almost certainly the beginning of a life somewhere else, either within or beyond this amazing wonder we call our Universe. So don’t despair. Life goes on and takes us each with it. It’s a virtual certainty.
Here are two videos that could literally save your life if you catch COVID-19 this time around. Please watch them both, especially the second one.
(I have no conflict of interest to declare.)
It turns out there’s a great deal that can be done medically for a symptomatic COVID victim before they require hospitalization. The mainstream “news” has suppressed this information, along with big tech and their precious Dr. Fauci, an MD with apparent funding ties to the Wuhan lab and NO EXPERIENCE in treating COVID patients.
If you thought that was a little shocking, here’s a world authority bucking the mainstream “news” filter on science, implying that huge blind spots or perhaps a real conspiracy exists in modern medicine’s response to COVID-19.
No one can write this man off as scientifically uninformed, especially not some TV talking head or a website of self-appointed truth fairies.
Peter McCullough, MD is a rare individual: a highly publishing scientist, a physician treating COVOID patients, and an earnest soul powered by scientifically informed objectivity.
Please forward these two videos to anyone who appreciates the fact that you care about them.
Every anchor and talking head on TV “news” uses the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit the people and ideas of the one genuinely stupid political party…
That party is always the Democrats if you’re watching Fox “News,” and it’s always the Republicans if you’re watching any other TV “news” outlet. Of course, we each are fortunate enough to have landed in the political party of truth and goodness, probably since birth.
Talk about blind luck.
The two parties agree on very little, but they hold two fundamental truths in common: 1. the other party is flat wrong about everything. 2. the other party is a conspiracy of idiots.
Beyond that socially acceptable conspiracy theory (made kosher by Hilary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric) we’ve all been conditioned to feel embarrassment and shame if we find ourselves believing or even exploring a conspiracy theory.
Once a theory has been tarred and feathered with the voodoo adjective “conspiracy,” most intelligent people assume it’s a false theory. They make this leap of faith with absolute emotional certainty, knowing that only weak-minded, gullible people believe conspiracy theories.
Smart people don’t waste time looking at the bogus data behind a theoretical explanation that includes more than one person trying to do the same naughty, secretive thing at the same time. Naughty, secretive people always act independently and alone in the real world. Obviously.
This heuristic is so useful, efficient, and socially acceptable, we carry it around like a cell phone. “Conspiracy theory? Don’t insult my intelligence.”
Unfortunately, those intellectually uninformed PhD’s at Nature, the world’s top scientific journal, must have missed the memo.
Here they are with the audacity to expect us to believe that a theoretical conspiracy exists on the part of those government organizations who provide money to scientific researchers. We know this kind of stuff is impossible, but these gullible geeks at Nature think the research funders are censoring things and forcing researchers to change their results for reasons that are political and unscientific…
A survey of public-health researchers has found numerous instances of trial results being suppressed on topics such as nutrition, sexual health, physical activity and substance use….
The survey, published in PLoS One1, involved 104 researchers from regions including North America, Europe and Oceania….
…the findings bolster those [findings] of previous studies, such as a 2006 survey of government-funded health research that also found many instances of requests to ‘sanitize’ results and block or delay their publication.
A 2016 inquiry into the delayed publication of research commissioned by UK government agencies identified cases in which publication was “manipulated to fit with political concerns”. More recently, the British Medical Journal reported four instances of politicization and suppression of science in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It’s all a bunch of conspiracy-theory hogwash, right? But I wonder if the CIA really did have anything to do with making the term “conspiracy theory” popular. Here’s how it really went down:
Imagine it’s 1964 and you’re 19, living in the USSR and working for the SVR, the Soviet’s equivalent of the CIA.
In colloquial English training class your eyes land on a strange new term, “conspiracy theory.” You look it up. An idea pops into your head.
You feel brilliant and powerful rushing to tell your boss.
“Comrade, I am thinking we must make the Westerners feel all the shame in this ‘conspiracy theory’ thing of theirs.”
“What you want, Boris? You see I’m buried here.”
After explaining yourself to the whiskered gnome, he loves your idea.
“Boris, you most brilliant monkey of everyone!” He brings out a shot glass, pours himself a finger of Vodka. “Our existence will be taboos for no discussion. The Americans will no dare thinking we are here — what you said — a real thing.” An iniquitous mirth comes over him. He chuckles and you beam at the floor between your feet.
The Spring brings your fifth field assignment, a big one. You jump a freighter, shiver in wet, cold darkness for almost 4 seasick weeks, then emerge squinting into the morning sunrise to jump the rail and swim past the Statue of Liberty toward your mission. You must infiltrate the CIA.
The ice in your young veins can do this. You can do anything for the great cause of the Motherland.
But it turns out that life is not so bad in the US. Thin-crusted Pizza. Ice cream. A person need not fear hunger in such an oddly selfish world.
You decide you must become a double agent. It’s the one way to be sure you will always have food… fit for a king!
During the second week of routine interrogation for the lowest security clearance, you spill the kidney beans and tell your new American Comrade, Nate, all about the Soviet’s nefarious plans to attach emotional disgrace and shame to the term “conspiracy theory.”
“They think it will help them remain invisible in the West,” you explain to the interrogator who must have cut himself shaving this morning and now has a piece of white toilet paper stuck to his pointy chin. The thinnest, softest paper imaginable. Everyone has it. No such paper ever wiped a bottom in the Motherla… in the USSR.
The door bursts open and the head of the CIA marches in, his eyes fixed on you. You look at Nate who seems frozen.
“You came up with that, did you, kid? What is it… Boris?”
“Yes, Sir,” Nate says, then looks across the table at you with a brand new expression on his narrow face. Respect.
Lumping all conspiracy theories together in a trash can will obstruct your search for truth because no such binary heuristic can guide you accurately through a complex system like this world, a place where symbiosis dances with predation to a tune by Yin and Yang.
Remember the Mothers of Invention? Probably not, unless you’re my age and happened to have loved Frank Zappa’s music when you were 11 years old.
Frank Zappa called out the Hippie culture, the (then) conservative establishment, and sometimes himself. He was a great man who died of prostate cancer, a cancer variety which, incidentally, may have a causal relationship to cow’s milk according to a heavily “debunked,” but fascinating and unique correlation study called “The China Study.”
What will you do if the people you knew
Were the plastic that melted,
And the chromium too?
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?
Last night I listened to Richard Dolan’s modern answer. You should probably listen to Richard while you can. He will be cancelled from YouTube when he gains too many subs for Google’s comfort.
Bottom line: Conspiracy Theory (otherwise known as common-sense analysis) has always been essential to informed, critical, independent thinking.
Imagine a criminal on trial for “conspiracy to commit fraud.” The evidence is clear against him, but the judge throws the case out because “conspiracy theories” are false by definition. This is what Google’s “JIGSAW” group and the RAND Corporation are conspiring to make us all believe.
It’s brainwashing for a “higher” purpose…
Our new brain police, following in the footsteps of every revolutionary totalitarian regime, must eradicate independent thinking in the name of protecting us from harm before they can take full control and ownership of a nation.
But this time the Brain Police want global control, one world government, perhaps with the continued existence of “nations” as window dressing, like in the European Union.
One law of simulation that has brought our world’s flawed democracies a better outcome for the poor than the popular forms of totalitarianism is this: Truth must be challenged to survive from generation to generation.
Truth is antifragile. It grows stronger when exposed to rational opposition. Truth is like the memory B cells of the immune system, those nanofactories that produce specific antibodies against antigenic foci on the microscopic predators we encounter. Without repeated exposure, B cells can forget what they’ve learned.
Likewise, without rational challenge and debate, truth fades from humanity’s collective memory.
Falsehood is fragile like some of the dangerous bacteria lurking in hospitals. Clostridium difficile, for example, is a bug that thrives when antibiotics have silenced the balanced competition of the normal gut microbiome. I’ll never forget the horror on my infectious disease doctor’s face when I had C. diff colitis and his first round of IV antibiotics had failed (targeting Clostridium difficile with antibiotics, fighting fire with fire). People sometimes die from the pseudomembranous colitis caused by this opportunistic infection.
My doc’s second round of IV antibiotics worked. Now I’m swallowing probiotics and prebiotics regularly for prevention.
Meanwhile, most MD’s aren’t even sure the microbiome is worth their attention. The drug companies have less than zero motivation to do large blinded, controlled clinical trials on probiotics. And without reports of such trials in the “infallible scriptures” of big-pharma medicine, the faithful congregation of mainstream MD’s must continue to ignore the human gut microbiome. Everyone loses.
Just as broad-spectrum antibiotics kill the gut’s healthy bacteria, censorship kills the truth. Especially censorship of genuinely dangerous, hurtful, triggering, bigoted lies and misinformation. This is counterintuitive, but all human judgement is a matter of perspective. Always and forever.
An easy example of truth vanishing due to censorship is the megalithic evidence of humanity’s prehistoric high-tolerance stonework technology seen in massive ancient stone structures around the world, some weighing hundreds to over a thousand tons. The academics refuse to allow discussion of this evidence in their sacred literature (science journals). As a result, the truth of advanced human technology in ancient history has become invisible to archeology and academia.
Perhaps it’s not invisible to you?
Another example of vanishing data is the entire history of unidentified flying objects. This topic has been denied, shamed and shunned for so many generations that now, even after the US Department of Defense has admitted that UFOs/UAPs are real, many people continue to deny their existence, clinging to “explanations” that betray a lack of reading.
It turns out that we have a simple rule of thumb to help us differentiate falsehood from truth: Just ask, “Do the experts allow published debate on the data or do they dismiss the topic and attack the credibility of those who try to discuss it?” If debate is encouraged, the experts are probably defending a truth. If not, they’re usually defending lies or honest mistakes.
Truth tends to inspire a calm, logical discussion based on evidence rather than personal attack. Truth seems to be antifragile and never ever sides with censorship, name calling, or angry shouts of “shame on you.”
Our culture is forgetting the value of two-sided arguments. More and more we’re forced to accept censorship, cancellation and the personal destruction of all who challenge the amoral, anti-spiritual agendas of Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, mainstream TV Inc., the entrenched academics and all the other mind-police.
For example, as you probably recall, any video with evidence that COVID-19 came from a laboratory in China was deleted by Google’s Nazi AI. This happened because those who created the AI “knew” that any two-sided discussion of COVID origin would give voice to “a political party of racists” and their outrageously evil leader. To Google, the Chinese lab origin theory was an infectious lie that required a broad-spectrum antibiotic — censorship. They honestly believe to this day that the feeble-minded public needs Google’s benevolent protection from liars and the misinformed.
A more destructive example of our culture banning two-sided arguments is the “woke community’s” effort to change the definition of racism.
Originally racism meant treating anyone unfairly because of their skin color.
Now, under a woke delusion of outrage, racists can only have white skin. People of color cannot, by definition, be racists anymore. How convenient. Any questioning of the fairness of this doubletalk, or its irrational and illogical construction, or the obvious insanity of embracing an evil that you claim to oppose, is halted with the following judgmental sentiment: “If you even ask those questions, you’re a racist and you don’t get it.” No debate, just attack the opponent personally.
It reminds me of the way the “New Atheists” deal with Intelligent Design: attack the people, not the evidence or their logic. Like any one-sided weak argument, the “woke” paradigm requires censorship of rational thought and the skill of shaming.
Wokeness is a mind-virus pandemic that has infected education at all levels and has largely taken over corporate culture. As much as I hate genuine racism, I think “wokeness” is even worse because it justifies one brand of racism, promotes racial hatred, and bans rational discussion of the topic. It looks to me like a blatant example of totalitarian mind control disguised as moral righteousness. It’s like a mood pill that makes you feel morally uplifted when you’re actually participating in evil and violence.
Like the CIA who fights international dishonesty with their own brand of dishonesty, and like the Darwinian Nazi medical doctors of WWII who believed that survival of the fittest was nature’s truest morality, allowing them to systematically torture and kill their human “patients” for a “higher cause,” the woke community of today will occasionally admit that “the value of fairness is overrated” and winning at all costs is an acceptable strategy, at least for now.
Fortunately, the “woke-ban” on thinking rationally about racism is a fragile thing and survives only as long as they can ban debate through shaming, censorship and ruining the careers of their opponents. It’s like a holy war, it can’t last forever.
Another treacherous censorship on the COVID front comes to us now from the binary thinking of Silicon Valley. Google’s Nazi-like AI is banning information on what may actually turn out to be the most highly effective anti-COVID drug so far, Ivermectin. The drug is cheap, so naturally Google/YouTube can’t allow people to hear about its effectiveness. Instead, the G-monopoly silently deletes Ivermectin videos.
Here’s Alison Morrow, a reporter who left the mainstream’s 90-second “news” machine. She interviews Matt Orfalea and discusses parts of his “dangerous” video, highlighting the facts on Ivermectin and noting the irrational behavior of Google’s Nazi censorship monopoly.
At the moment I can’t claim to know whether the current scientific data on Ivermectin should be considered conclusive evidence of its effectiveness. The Big Pharma experts monopolize healthcare in the US and stand to lose billions if a cheap and effective alternative to their drugs-in-testing should arise. They tell us that the data on Ivermectin is “inconclusive.” They don’t have a negative word to say about it as far as I know. It’s just that the holy grail of infallibility has not been achieved yet for this drug’s use against COVID.
Big Pharma has hammered that holy grail message of infallibility into the mainstream MD’s head to the point where almost no one questions the dogma that double-blinded, randomized, placebo controlled, prospective trials of huge size are the only route to medical truth. All other facts, including epidemiologic studies and basic science research, fall into the category of “there is no evidence that treatment A does anything to alleviate disease B.”
Of course, Big Pharma has no intention to study Ivermectin or any other cheap drug. Money is to Big Pharma as air is to a person. The CEO risks corporate death without lots of money coming in. And besides, he works for a higher cause, just like the good folks pushing woke values down our throats.
Nevertheless, Ivermectin has a history of safety, and its current international data shows with overwhelming clarity that it deserves a large clinical trial with open discussions on TV and YouTube.
No, Ivermectin doesn’t deserve this, humanity does. At the very least, COVID patients should be allowed to see the data, discuss it with their doctor, and decide whether to take it or not, along with everything else Big Pharma is pushing on us in their wise benevolence.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS: I just want to say, like the “New Atheist” movement that shouts down and ruins the careers of Intelligent Design scientists, the brittle and brutal “woke” movement is composed of good, extremely well-meaning people who are struggling to do what’s right, trying to promote the truth as they understand it, and trying to improve the world. Everyone should respect them for those intentions. If you don’t sense the centrality of this point at the level of the heart, then you miss what I’m struggling to say here. Your opponents in any field are not the real enemy. Censorship via monopoly is the enemy. Whether we are atheistic believers in scientific journals or religious believers in old books, whether we’re woke bigots, sleeping bigots, or just deplorably colorblind bigots, we in the free world are all on the same side of an underlying battle against our own elites who seek totalitarian rule. Politics, race, religion, gender, socio-economic class distinctions, tax wars, all these sorts of things don’t matter to the elites except as they are useful as tools to divide, conquer and control us while bringing in money.
As much as we all may love the way Google’s Nazi AI helps us find fascinating stuff, we should force ourselves to abandon YouTube and the Google search engine. We should support democratic, censorship-free alternative sources of information before it’s too late, before the G-monopoly owns and controls the minds of the entire human race.
If you still trust your favorite political TV flavor, you’re making a mistake. The amoral “news” machine will do its best to control and own you by myelinating the neuronal pathways of outrage in your central nervous system, outrage towards the very people whom you should be meditating upon so you can deepen your capacity to love. (“Neurons that fire together wire together,” and so repetition of the feeling of outrage makes you more and more of an “expert” at feeling that way. Avoid TV “news” and stay loving and lovable.)
Ivor Cummins is the genius engineer who uses his expertise in complex systems analysis to save lives by advocating coronary artery calcium scans while he educates the brain-dead portion of mainstream medicine on the science of type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction (heart attack), and obesity.
Here is Ivor’s YouTube channel and here is his podcast. This man is well worth your time if the mainstream “news” emanating from the outlets on both sides of the political spectrum ever begins to sound dubious to you.
In the video below, Ivor Cummins and Gabor Erdosi go over the scientific data surrounding the question of whether the virus behind COVID-19 came from a laboratory rather than from nature.
Of course, focusing on this data is taboo at Google/YouTube and FaRcebook, so the video below may be deleted before you watch it. If so, you’ll find the audio here on Ivor’s podcast, episode # 110 (Ep110).
Quoting the video’s comment section…
“Fortunately the Truth checkers at Gutube can’t understand [what] these chaps are saying.”
Yes, the discussion is, at times, obscured by technical language, but please hang in for the best part, the evidence that the COVID-19 virus has spent significant time inside a specific lineage of laboratory mouse. (All other lab mice, we’re told, are invulnerable to COVID-19 and cannot be infected by it.)
I found limited information on Gabor Erdosi. He apparently has a Master of Molecular Biology degree, a background in genetics, and is touted as “King of Root-Cause investigation” in the context of genetics. I wish I knew more about him.
Although these data indicate conclusively (to me) that the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) was produced in a laboratory, one cannot be sure that the virus was made in China. There are other possibilities. For instance, the Wuhan lab in China might have been “framed,” set up by a foreign country to look guilty and take the blame for the pandemic. Who knows? You and I don’t. If one accepts the currently untestable assumption that the virus did come from China, then there would still be uncertainty as to whether the bug escaped the lab accidentally or deliberately. (Of course, why any morally sane individual(s) would concoct this virus in the first place is beyond me.)
The math applied in this video to cast colossal doubt on the possibility that all these rare mutations came from random processes (outside of a lab) can also be used to show the flaw in thinking that random mutations in nature can conceivably generate complex biological systems, that is in a Universe that’s only 13.8 billion years old. (Don’t get angry now. Relax, read Stephen Meyer’s, Signature in the Cell, enjoy the math and draw your own private conclusions. Maybe the Universe is infinitely old, unlimited in volume, or accompanied by an infinite number of “parallel universes.” Any of these options would allow all seemingly impossible chains of interacting natural random coincidence to become reality… but not just neo-Darwinian evolution, also we would have to include the existence of a benevolent being or beings whom we might logically deem worthy of the title, God(s).
Even if everyone decides that the Chinese Communist Party is behind the pandemic, we would be foolish to allow ourselves to hate China or to seek revenge. Without hating anyone, humanity must stop following leaders with limited conscience (sociopaths). We must rise above hatred and violence or we’ll soon conspire together to bring our species down into the fossil record with countless other extinct species. With all the WMD technology today, including pandemics, our options have shrunken: love each other or die fighting. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” It’s too late for hate.
For most MD’s, LDL (low density lipoprotein) is “bad cholesterol” because elevated LDL has been associated with atherosclerosis and heart attack (myocardial infarction or MI). As we’ve all heard a million times, “association doesn’t mean causation,” but forgetting this is the mainstream dogma for LDL.
Here’s an important interview that discusses LDL and heart attack (myocardial infarction or MI) in deep but understandable terms.
A few high points:
Doctors who are interested in preventing and reversing type 2 diabetes (not just treating it symptomatically) should measure insulin levels, not glucose levels, because insulin levels become increased many years before glucose levels do, allowing prevention and frequent reversal of type 2 diabetes.
Elevated LDL cholesterol is NOT the cause of atherosclerosis and heart attack. Excess dietary carbohydrate is.
Eating too many dietary carbohydrates over a period of years will chronically elevate insulin until it can no longer get glucose into the cells (insulin resistance). This ultimately causes chronic blood glucose elevation (prediabetes and type 2 diabetes), coronary atherosclerosis and heart attack.
Type 2 diabetics and obese patients are transforming their lives with carbohydrate restriction, intermittent fasting, basic nutrients, and exercise, without counting calories, going hungry or reducing dietary fat.
Mainstream medicine and the drug companies cannot monetize a strategy of fighting diabetes and myocardial infarction at the causal level, so MD’s rarely hear about it or read the literature that explains it.
A coronary artery calcium scan (CAC scan) grades the amount of calcium in arteries of the heart. This tells you how likely you are to drop over dead from a heart attack. None of the other available tests such as lipid panels do this. Some people with normal LDLs have coronary calcification and die of heart attacks while some people with extremely high LDLs have normal coronary arteries and don’t die of heart attacks.
Chronic carbohydrate restriction elevates LDLs (so-called “bad” cholesterol), but does NOT cause coronary atherosclerosis or heart attack.
This man, Dr. John Campbell, is a clinical nurse who is apparently using the title “Doctor” appropriately for modern times. I mention this because I mistakenly assumed he was an M.D. in a previous post. Sorry, this just shows my age.
Anyway, in the first part of this video, which is an excellent deep-dive into the groundbreaking paper I spoke of in the last post, Dr. Campbell suggests that there’s something sinister going on at the highest levels of healthcare…
It’s something that could be interpreted as racism with genocidal intent on the part of the international healthcare authorities.
In essence, Dr. Campbell senses conspiracy in the quite apparent reluctance of mainstream medicine to run definitive vitamin D trials on COVID-19 patients, despite the evidence in its favor. Dr. Campbell doesn’t mention racism directly, but points out the disproportionate numbers of deaths in the Black and Hispanic communities. Then he focuses on the inexpensive nature of vitamin D, leaving the listener to connect the dots to Big Pharma and the money they stand to make with a patentable drug cure, vaccine, etc.
This left me thinking about corporate elites, racism, and a conspiracy to commit genocide.
Is it just me? Probably.
Dr. Campbell has been talking on YouTube for many months about the logic and the literature evidence favoring the use of vitamin D for COVID-19 patients, especially those patients with darker skin who are at greater risk of vitamin D deficiency, and at much greater risk of dieing of COVID-19 (not by coincidence, it turns out). In light of the first small clinical trial of Vitamin D, there appears to be a cause-and-effect link here.
Ordinarily, I don’t put the brakes on a perfectly healthy conspiracy theory. To me, genuine conspiracies are common. Unless I’m mistaken, the CIA’s official job is to conspire against all perceived and potential enemies of the US. They didn’t invented the term “conspiracy theory” but there’s an internal CIA memo that uses the pleural form “conspiracy theories” in explaining how to prop up the mainstream version of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As far as I know, their official job isn’t to influence public opinion, though they seem to believe it is. We’re told that conspiracy theories were considered a normal part of analytical thinking until the late 1950s, when delving deeper than a sports reporter became stigmatised.
But in the case of the missing Vitamin D research, I think we might NOT be dealing with an elite’s racism or genocidal intent. I think there’s a simpler explanation.
One of the first things they drilled into our heads in med school was “supplemental vitamins are hogwash.” There was one exception: pregnant woman needed extra folate to prevent neural tube defects in their babies. It probably pained the professors to admit this, but it was the exception that proved the rule for them.
“Taking vitamins just gives you expensive urine,” they said. The frightened, exhausted students laughed politely, but all such jokes have a powerful indoctrination value.
Remember the shame of letting anyone know you thought UFOs were real five to 15 years ago? That feeling came from jokes at the expense of the “crazy people.” You didn’t want to be one of them.
In the medical community, the vast majority of doctors don’t have time, curiosity or energy enough to read. Big Pharma comes by the office (with food and gifts in the old days) and presents their own funded, peer-reviewed literature about their own drugs. This is the real “continuing medical education” for many doctors in the US.
This is how many, if not most, MD’s have maintained an ignorant certainty about the uselessness of vitamin supplementation. To solidify that certainty, most of us have lectured family and friends on the subject many times, glad to be seen as an authority capable of debunking the entire over-the-counter pill industry.
In the old days at LLUMC, there was one doctor on campus who bravely bucked the anti-vitamin dogma and lectured med students on the benefits of vitamin supplementation. What an unsung hero!
He was the common brunt of jokes among the faculty, residents, and medical students.
Years later, when I was an attending pathologist, I said something positive about vitamin C. A young pathology resident across the scope looked at me incredulously. “You don’t believe in vitamins, do you? You don’t agree with Dr. ____?”
I asked him if he had read a single article of basic research showing the effects of vitamin supplementation on laboratory animals. He admitted he hadn’t. I told him he should read before making up his mind.
“But you don’t think Dr. ____ is right, do you?” he asked.
“He’s more right than the rest of us,” I said.
The resident shook his head in disbelief. What a disappointment I’d become.
And so it goes. The carefully ingrained prejudice against vitamin supplementation, drilled in by Big Pharma for decades, still exists around the world.
This is the true cause of the reluctance of those in authority to run large, so-called “definitive” clinical trials of Vitamin D on COVID-19 patients. Or am I wrong?
The “deep state/cabal/military-congressional-industrial complex” will probably never admit that they’ve been lying to us about UFOs since the 1940s.
Similarly, mainstream medicine couldn’t possibly relish the thought of demonstrating to the world just how fatally wrong they’ve been in their crusade against vitamin supplements.
Why not send a link of Dr. Campbell’s video to anyone you know who might not be taking vitamin D yet? You might save their life.
“Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%)… p < 0.001.”
“Our pilot study demonstrated that administration of a high dose of Calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a main metabolite of vitamin D endocrine system, significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment of patients requiring hospitalization due to proven COVID-19. Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease….”
The stuff they gave the trial patients in this experiment was Calcifediol (also called “Calcidiol” and 25-hydroxyvitamin D). It is not vitamin D2 or D3. Instead, calcifediol is the hormonal form of vitamin D that the liver makes from vitamin D2 and D3. This hormonal form is then converted in the kidneys to the active form, calcitriol (25-hydroxyvitamin D).
Ordinarily, vitamin D2 and D3 come from the diet and the sun, but the mainstream is now beginning to admit that many, if not most of us, are NOT getting enough vitamin D without supplementation, whether D2 or D3.
So which is better, D3 or D2 supplements?
There are conflicting studies. The mainstream now says it probably doesn’t matter, but this could change next week.
A possible example of this ubiquitous error might be evident in my experience with ginkgo biloba.
Out there somewhere in the ether there’s a randomized clinical trial that has “proven” (to the mainstream medical community of overworked, under-appreciated drones) that ginkgo biloba doesn’t help anyone’s memory. Don’t waste your money, right?
And yet with my unique list of genetic SNPs, when I took Ginkgo back in the 1990s, I was astonished that I could, for the first time, remember where I had parked my car in the VA’s vast parking lot. I could visualize my parked car and its location effortlessly when I walked out into the darkness after a day’s work.
Anecdotal evidence is not rubbish. They call it “evidence” for a reason.
For what it’s worth, Dr. Amen (of the Amen Clinics) says that in all of his (broad) anecdotal clinical experience, the most normal looking spect brain scans he sees tend to come from patients who have been taking ginkgo biloba.
Rubbish? Not in my book.
Fortunately, the vitamin D clinical trial mentioned above showed strong statistical significance. If it had not, it would have been widely quoted by the mainstream as “proof” that taking vitamin D supplements for COVID-19 is a waste of time.
Since the future studies of Vitamin D and COVID-19 will involve larger numbers of randomized patients whose genetic differences (SNPS and epigenetic markers) will be ignored as usual, as if non-existent, it is likely that the statistical significance of the benefits of taking vitamin D for COVID-19 will be lower (a higher p-value) than we see in this small study with its strikingly significant (low) p-value of less than 0.001. (The higher the p-value, the more likely the results are due to coincidence, of course.)
But if significance disappears in larger trials, don’t let it convince you that Vitamin D supplementation “is now known to be of no clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients.” That would be rubbish.
The more they homogenize the genetic differences of populations by including larger and larger numbers of random individuals in clinical trials, the less likely something that helped a few genetic outliers in a small study will show up as statistically significant. And the thing is, many of us are “genetic outliers” in one way or another, because there are so MANY genes.
Here’s an analogy: in surgical pathology practice it’s common to see rare tumors. But isn’t this a contradiction? If you see them a lot, how could they be rare?
A pathologist sees rare tumors fairly often because there are a huge number or different varieties of rare tumors. You may see only one case of bilateral pheochromocytoma in your lifetime, but the next day you will probably see some other rare tumor that you’ll never see again.
The current black-and-white world (of mainstream clinical trials) that foolishly ignores genetic diversity to everyone’s detriment will someday change and become a joke for first-year medical students.
Not a joke, a grim anecdote.
Like the one about…
How we used to go from the morgue to the maternity ward in the 1840s without handwashing. Mainstream doctors did this, literally killing countless women by inoculating them with bacteria that caused “childbed fever.” All this, while ignoring the fringe voice of Ignaz Semmelweis and doing everything in science’s dark tradition to ruin the careers of the fringe, in this case, the Father of Handwashing.
How dare anyone challenge the settled science of miasmas with this fringy bacterial nonsense?
My calm, loving Labrador Retriever, Halo, gets up and runs for a few seconds like a mad dog at full speed around the backyard several times a week with no encouragement or prompting. Seeing her glowing example a few years ago, I suspected there must be some strange health benefit to mad-dog sprinting. I took it up.
Then I came across a woman’s blog who said that her life transformed dramatically after doing high-intensity interval training. So I doubled my efforts on my treadmill. But I didn’t run at full capacity. Rookie mistake.
And I sprinted on my toes, intending to conserve my knees. It turns out that sprinting on your toes for a year or two gives you Morton’s neuromas. Live and learn.
Here’s a spell-binding, science-based video that shows how to do this entire thing right, and why it’s magic for your mitochondria and brain health.
Professor David Bishop (Victoria University) took muscle biopsies of a test group (high intensity) and a control group (endurance aerobic exercise) and found up to a 30% increase in the test groups’s muscle fiber’s ability to use oxygen to produce energy after 4 weeks of high-intensity interval training. The control group’s muscle biopsies showed NO improvement.
I wonder if this has any relevance to Eliud Kipchoge’s phenomenal running career: The first (and only) man to run the marathon distance in less than two hours was a sprinter in the early years of his career. (Did he increase his mitochondria’s ability to use oxygen more than the endurance runners who likely spent their entire careers in distance training?)
Reading the comments below the video, I noticed that it disappointed several people to learn that the workout Anja Taylor did took “30 minutes” instead of the six minutes set forth in the video’s title. So I left a comment to this effect:
If you rest 4.5 minutes between sprints, as Anja Taylor did, it takes 20 minutes per workout session (not 30).
She did four 30-second sprints with four 4.5 minute rests after each sprint, totaling a workout time of 20 minutes per session. She did three sessions per week for four months.
So each session took 20 minutes. But you don’t have to rest as long as she did. If you rest 1.5 minutes between 30 second sprints, the total workout time per session is 6 minutes, as advertised. To me, resting a minute and a half after sprinting 30 seconds is more than adequate.
The question from a scientific perspective would be whether the resting time between sprints would change the outcome for the mitochondria. Intuitively, I suspect a shorter resting time adds work stress to the mitochondria, causing greater positive adaptation and a more favorable outcome in terms of mitochondrial capacity to use oxygen. But that’s a guess. I could be wrong.
Anyway, you will really enjoy this video. Especially if you’re a writer working at a desk all day.
Summertime love to you and yours,
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
PS. Please check with your doctor before starting this workout routine. But give it a go if she/he says it’s OK for you.
The first video below is Dr. John Campbell showing data in which people with darker skin are dying of COVID-19 at a higher rate than people with lighter skin. The stats are shocking, to say the least.
He suggests that since darker skin is less efficient in producing vitamin D3 than lighter skin (because melanin pigment in all races blocks the energy of the sun that drives the chemical conversion of Vitamin D), the higher risk of COVID-19 death for darker-skinned people may be partly due to lower vitamin D3 levels.
He suggests that in the interest of saving the lives of people with darker skin, doctors should check vitamin D levels in COVID-19 patients and “consider” vitamin D3 supplementation for those with low vitamin D levels. Nothing could be more reasonable.
Yet, astonishingly, this doctor has been called a racist for this suggestion. Here’s why:
The malignant and permanently angry religion of Political Correctness dictates that skin color could not possibly affect anyone’s vitamin D3 levels, and low vitamin D3 levels arising from skin color differences could not conceivably reduce a person’s odds of surviving COVID-19. Such unspeakable heresy would suggest that Nature herself is politically incorrect, which would mean the PC worldview itself is fatally flawed. Much better to ignore science and all the non-PC life-saving advantages she offers than to change your worldview.
Below, my favorite research scientist, Rhonda Patrick, PhD, answers various questions about COVID-19, including the Vitamin D question (at position 25:06 on the video). She delves into the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature.
I should also mention that certain individuals have a condition, probably a genetic SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism), that lowers their vitamin D levels, making it difficult for them to achieve a normal vitamin D level even with D3 supplementation. I know this is real because I have an Asian friend with this trait. So regardless of your skin color, it seems to be entirely worthwhile to have your vitamin D3 level checked, especially now with this lung-attacking virus going around.
Future studies will probably sustain the preliminary data in this post, so be brave and share it with everyone on your email list. You may save someone’s life.
It’s tough to find non-politicized info on COVID-19 (or anything else).
Here’s a lengthy Rogan interview with Michael Osterholm, an internationally recognized expert on infectious disease epidemiology who seems, as best I can tell, to have no political ax to grind, although he’s mainstream black-and-white on vaccinations.
A few essential points from the above interview:
Since COVID-19 is airborne, transmitted early, and has a short incubation period, it is inconceivable that our efforts to contain it will succeed. “This is like trying to stop the wind.”
Transmission from person to person is highly efficient, like a flu virus. Infected individuals with early symptoms carry a potent viral load in their throats (“ten thousand times what we saw with SARS”) and are highly infectious before they feel ill or develop a cough.
Michael Osterholm “conservatively estimates” that there will be over 480,000 deaths due to this virus in the US over the next three to six months or more. He states that this will be “ten to fifteen times worse than the worst seasonal flu you have ever seen.”
Although people over 60 are at greatest risk of death from this virus, they are now seeing an alarming number of “horrible cases” in the 40s age range in Italy.
Here is a message from a cardiologist at one of the largest hospitals in Italy: “They’re deciding who they have to let die. They aren’t screening the staff anymore because they need all hands on deck… Even if they’re positive (meaning that they’re sick) but they don’t have a severe cough or fever, then they have to work.”
The incubation period is 4 days. This gives the virus a short doubling time.
Loose fitting “surgical masks” and gloves offer very little protection, if any. You need a tight-fitting (airtight) mask capable of filtering viruses.
Dr. Osterholm recommends avoiding “large public spaces” if you are over 55 or have underlying health problems such as obesity or a smoking habit. (Smoking is associated with increased mortality in China). “Limiting your contact is about all you can do.”
“We are not going to have a vaccine any time soon.”
“Kids” are getting infected but are not getting sick. In China, only 2.1% of “cases” are under 19 years of age.
This virus jumped from an animal species to humans, probably in the 3rd week of November 2019. It was not the deliberate or accidental product of a weapons laboratory in China. (Dr. Osterholm claims that his unique background allows him to state this with confidence.)
It’s extremely difficult to interest human beings in preventing disasters. The simple existence of a term like “doomsdayer” is enough to keep most people from believing and acting upon a negative prediction, no matter how strong the science.
Add political or other pseudo-religious bias and the hyper-confident voice of a reporter (there are no non-political, unbiased reporters), and you have the secondary gain that leads the majority of humanity to slaughter again and again throughout history.
Don’t let the media’s professional “opinion molding” take your life. Whether your favorite political hacks and quacks are calling this thing “the Trump virus” or shouting with false confidence that COVID-19 is a virus that “kills only people over 80,” please plug your ears to all mainstream political judgments on this virus and heed the expert advice of a qualified doctor like Michael Osterholm, PhD.
Imagine you’re like me and have a genetic variation in your D2 Dopamine receptor code which makes some aspects of “executive functioning” difficult. (I was always the last one to finish my lab work in Chemistry, Biochemistry, and General Physics — though I got the highest final score in Physics Lab, so I’m not claiming to be stupid.)
Anyway, you’ve got this D2 challenge in your brain, you do some reading and discover that organic velvet bean powder has L-dopa that might help you with things like working faster through cookbook recipes.
You buy some velvet bean powder, try it and, wow, you’re not only more efficient, your mood improves.
You should feel ecstatic, right?
But no, you’re vaguely suspicious because you’re a medical doctor. Professors and attendings have warned you that anecdotal evidence is worthless, and the placebo effect is ready and waiting to make a fool of you.
To avoid embarrassment, you decide you need a double-blinded, prospective clinical trial with a large number of test subjects and proper randomization. Anything less would be rubbish.
Fortunately, this is not a problem. You’re also a multi-billionaire who can fund a complete drug trial.
Of course, you didn’t get rich by ignoring opportunity. You plan to make money with these velvet beans.
Knowing that your problem starts with genetic D2 variation, common sense tells you to study a few thousand people who have the same genetic makeup.
But what about your target buyer? A businessperson looks there first.
From that perspective, you want the FDA approval to apply to as many people as possible so you can hand out genetically modified velvet bean pills to the broaderpublic and make more money.
You therefore choose the typical mainstream experimental design: Thousands of unselected participants taken in randomly and then randomized and blinded into trial and control groups. You’ll also blind the people administering the bean pills and placebos so no one can fault your study.
Ten years and 1.2 billion dollars later, the trial ends and the stats come back from the math geeks, those rare professionals who honestly understands statistics and can manipulate themdishonestly.
Despite their efforts, they bring you bad news. There is no statistical evidence that your patented velvet bean extract improves executive functioning or mood.
You go home and glare at your dog, then apologize with an organic carrot.
If you publish the paper, the entire world of mainstream MD’s, those smart women and men who don’t read the scientific literature or think for themselves because they’re too busy and frightened of lawsuits – those dedicated, exhausted people will hear from their educators, the drug reps, that velvet beans are rubbish. “This is just another example of the functional medicine quacks peddling snake oil.”
But you take organic velvet bean powder every day, it’s made a real difference. In the kitchen now, you’re turning out Molten Lava Cakes faster than the famous TV chefs. You feel more grounded and calm, too.
What should you do?
It’s obvious, isn’t it? Common sense tells you to go back and do a clinical trial using people with the D2 receptor issue, testing the organic velvet bean powder that works for you, not the GMO stuff your lab cooked up for megabucks.
Unfortunately, this common-sense approach rarely if ever happens in the real world. Negative studies like this are routinely published, and the mainstream fails to see the elephant-sized flaw in their assumptions: the human population is vastly more diverse than previously known at the genetic and biochemical level.
Genetic diversity is relevant to every branch of medicine because single nucleotide polymorphisms (genetic SNPs), like the one that affects my D2 receptors, create a huge diversity in disease susceptibility at the root-cause level, as well as a myriad of diversity in personal strengths and weaknesses within every system of the body.
From the central nervous system to the skin, genetic SNPs are the rule, not the exception. And science has hardly begun to uncover them all or understand their complex interplay across systems.
I have another common genetic SNP that reduces my ability to “detoxify” caffeine by about 60%.
With this knowledge, I’ve lowered my caffeine intake from several double mochas a day (at the VA Med Center years ago), to two cups of green tea per day. This reversed an unbearable sensation of vascular congestion in my legs. (n=1)
I also have a SNP that makes me inefficient at converting beta-carotene to vitamin A, a few SNPs that increase my need of several B vitamins for adequate methylation to keep my homocysteine levels down, and numerous others that I won’t bore you with. But despite all my SNPs, I’m still quite healthy for a 63-year-old man.
The thing is, genetic SNPs are so common, you yourself almost certainly have at least one, more likely a handful. So it’s irrational for researchers to lump you into a huge unselected “normal” population when they’re testing something. And it’s misinformed and lazy for MD’s, however busy they are, to ignore your SNPs and follow cookbook-official protocols when treating you. They need to read more broadly and act with integrity even if it costs them.
Genetic diversity is why functional medicine, imperfect as it is, will become central to mainstream medical care someday. The establishment will change the name from functional medicine to something they haven’t already disparaged.
Currently, they say functional medicine is not evidence-based. In some ways that’s true.
But when it comes to reversing chronic disease rather than just controlling its progression, functional medicine is more evidence-based than mainstream medicine because it uses personal genetic data that the mainstream ignores.
Moreover, it understands the elephant-sized flaw in the mainstream’s large clinical debunking trials.