Anti-Ivermectin Deception in a Major Medical Journal?

7 Comments

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).

Since the details are a bit subtle, the ridiculously stressed and busy reporters run a literal footrace to become the first to publish a story with a headline like, “New Study Proves Antibiotic X Ineffective Against Bacterial Pneumonia.”

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.

Here’s an article that details how this particular example of pseudoscience against Ivermectin reached the public.

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.

It’s always aliens, don’t be silly.

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.

…

Unbiased Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Big Brother attacks Joe Rogan BECAUSE he sees both sides

14 Comments

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.

…

Unbiased Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

The Japanese COVID Miracle kept quiet by the mainstream media

39 Comments

I still say the miracle in Japan is this young woman’s vibrant, joyful attitude toward life and work, but others think there’s a more important miracle going on in the Land of the Rising Sun…

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:

To complicate things, below is a look at Japan’s high vaccination rate compared to a few other countries. What this graph doesn’t show is that South Korea has a similarly high vaccination rate but continues to see an increasing rate of COVID infections. So it’s doubtful that the vaccine alone has caused Japan’s miracle.

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?

…

Miracle Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Suppressed Treatments for COVID Victims

3 Comments

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.

For the full above interview, including the parts that would cause YouTube to cancel the whole video, go here: https://rokfin.com/AlisonMorrow 

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.

…

Love and Survival,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Nasty Data on COVID Origins

10 Comments

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.

 

  1. 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.)
  2. 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).
  3. 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.

Geek Love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

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

11 Comments

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

A Racist Virus, SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19)

14 Comments

Here’s a scientific paper (an Indonesian Study that’s not peer-reviewed as yet) showing that people with below normal vitamin D levels have a 10-times greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than people with normal vitamin D levels: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3585561.

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.

https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/covid-19-episode-1

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.

Love and air kisses,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

 

 

The Airborne Coronavirus

23 Comments

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