Bad Cholesterol (LDL) is Innocent of the Crime

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:

  1. 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.
  2. Elevated LDL cholesterol is NOT the cause of atherosclerosis and heart attack. Excess dietary carbohydrate is.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Chronic carbohydrate restriction elevates LDLs (so-called “bad” cholesterol), but does NOT cause coronary atherosclerosis or heart attack.

Here’s a link to all the lectures in this series (while it lasts): https://diabetesessentialsprogram.com/?idev_id=27140.

I’ve listened to four of the interviews, and so far they’re based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. That’s unusual for the alternative health videos I’ve seen in this format.

(I have no affiliation with any of these people, no conflict of interest, and nothing to sell.)

I found the above interview of Dr. Ali on YouTube by googling his name, Dr. Nadir Ali. Hopefully, all the videos in this series will be available on YouTube.

 

Love, longevity, and good health,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Disclaimer: Please always consult a health care provider before changing your lifestyle or diet. This post is for educational purposes only, it’s not medical advice.


Genocidal Racism? The case of the missing Vitamin D Research

I just found this important video:

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.

Love, Sunshine and Vitamin D3,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD


Vitamin D Cuts the Severity of COVID-19 in a Clinical Trial !

The scientific evidence for taking Vitamin D to decrease the severity of COVID-19 continues to come in with this prospective clinical pilot study (randomized and blinded).

Here’s the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764?via%3Dihub

Results…

“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.”  

Conclusion…

“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….”

Note:

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.

I take D3 this week.

Keep in mind that genetic SNPs are still being regularly ignored in almost all randomized clinical trials. This is the fundamental weakness of almost all mainstream clinical medical literature, especially when negative findings are touted as proof that a treatment or supplement is worthless to every individual in the entire world.

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?

Love and good health,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD


Six-Minute Workout Miracle

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 Airborne Coronavirus

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:

  1. 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.”
  2. 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.
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.
  5. 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.”
  6. The incubation period is 4 days. This gives the virus a short doubling time.
  7. Loose fitting “surgical masks” and gloves offer very little protection, if any. You need a tight-fitting (airtight) mask capable of filtering viruses.
  8. 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.”
  9. “We are not going to have a vaccine any time soon.”
  10. “Kids” are getting infected but are not getting sick. In China, only 2.1% of “cases” are under 19 years of age.
  11. 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.

“Eyes open, no fear. Be safe everyone,”

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

 

 


The Elephant-Sized Flaw in Large Clinical Trials

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 broader public 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 them dishonestly.

Despite their efforts, they bring you bad news. There is no statistical evidence that your patented velvet bean extract improves executive functioning or mood.

Rats!

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. 

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Photo by Rafael on Unsplash