myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Gov/Tech/Pharma are feeding us harmful medical BS
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20779

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:27 pm    Post subject: Big Gov/Tech/Pharma are feeding us harmful medical BS Reply with quote

For those of you with open minds, an interest in extending the length and quality of your family's lives, and any suspicion at all that government, industry, pharmaceutical reps, outdated physicians, etc. might be wrong on many issues, I'll be occasionally posting URLs or whole articles here. It's no coincidence that I've been harping on some of these topics for many years, because I've often -- definitely not always -- reached the same conclusions long before these articles appear.

I encourage rational, supported opposing viewpoints, because I want to learn, not just regurgitate. Realize, though, that the usual "you're a racist, anti-science, ideological moron who watches Fox News" just makes you look stupid. I've made some dramatic reversals in my beliefs over the decades, but you can bet your ass they resulted from deeper or newer research, not peer pressure. FAR more often my conclusions are constantly being reinforced by new findings.

Many of these will come from Dr. Mercola, as he summarizes and analyzes a huge variety and volume of this stuff. Get over it. He:
• Also promotes supplements (independently rated as high quality, and his prices are good) ... as do the world's top physicians and institutions.
• Writes prodigiously (so what if it attracts paying supplement customers?)
• Cites many rock solid, world class sources you can vet for yourselves.
• Is soldiering on despite being censored by Big Pharma, Gov, and Tech AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR HEALTH (a classic example is the U.S. and global Food Pyramid, which research suggests has killed hundreds of millions of blindly compliant people worldwide.)
• Consolidates exercise, medical, and health principles already validated in thousands of books and peer-reviewed papers from many eminent researchers and institutions worldwide.

Ignore him and his sources at your own risk and that of your family. Rely instead on the "It's settled science; SHUT UP YOU FOOL" crowd. Ask no questions (as so ordered by our current president). Get your totally managed news and facts and decisions from CNN and Twitter and MAC, GT, et.al. FOR CHRISSSAKE rather than your own informed judgement based on original medical sources. Hell, regarding health, medicine, and fitness, just ... just ... die prematurely, as millions do.

90% of the many medical providers I see comment out loud at my health when they first see me, my extensive lab results and scans, and my birth date. I hope to die from things beyond my control, not from ignorance.

My next three posts in this thread are just starters, intended for insomniacs, for people who want to improve their health and vitality, or for people who want to prove my sources wrong for everyone's benefit. I don't have time to debate this stuff; it's here as decision fodder, not pissing contests. If you want to present erudite scientific counterarguments from comparable original sources, please do so.

I'm not going to waste my time reformatting these; it's up to each of you to decide whether your health is worth a little effort on your part. I can't always just post URLs, because Big Gov/Tech/Pharma really do take Mercola's 25 years of daily publications off the internet within 48 hours because they regard every medical and health and fitness institution, physician, scientist, investigative medical journalist, etc. he cites as mere rabblerousers, subordinate to Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerburg, Pfizer, and Joe "What day is it?" Biden.


Last edited by isobars on Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20779

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No major surprises here to the millions of people who actually follow the uncensored science of Covid. Folks who bet their family’s lives on CNN, Fauci, Biden, Zuckerberg, et.al. might actually learn something life-saving from this post alone, let alone Mercola’s hundreds of similar Covid analyses based on thousands of scientific sources.

What You Need to Know About the COVID Shot, and More
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola  Fact Checked
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
 The COVID shots are based on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is the most pathogenic part of the virus, responsible for the worst symptoms of COVID-19, such as the abnormal blood clotting seen in severely ill patients
 Pzer’s and Moderna’s mRNA shots, and Janssen’s vector DNA shot, all inject genetic material into your body that program your cells to start producing this spike protein. They’re gene transfer technologies that instruct your body to produce a dangerous protein inside its own tissues
 A Pzer biodistribution study showed both the mRNA and spike protein is widely distributed in the body. In particular, it accumulates in the ovaries. Despite that, reproductive toxicology studies were eliminated in the interest of speed
-
 The average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually for all vaccines combined, with an average of 155 deaths. The COVID jabs alone now account for 701,126 adverse events in U.S. territories as of December 17, 2021, including 9,476 deaths
 Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, and disproportionally affect boys; 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. Cases are also inversely correlated to age, with younger boys being at greater risk. The estimated incidence for post-jab cardiac adverse events is 162 per million for boys aged 12 through 15, and 94 per million for boys aged 16 to 17

In the video presentation above, Dr. Peter McCullough, a highly credentialed and published cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist, and one of the primary physicians leading the charge to provide commonsense clinical wisdom into COVID treatments, explains what the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is and how it harms human biology — whether it comes from a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection or a COVID jab.
The presentation was given at the Burleson, Texas, COVID Symposium: A Legal Perspective, which streamed live December 3, 2021. He begins by addressing the necessity for safety whenever a new biologic product is launched. Safety is not something we can simply ignore, no matter what else is at stake. We must demand that whatever we’re given actually meets some kind of safety standard.
Warning bells started ringing in McCullough’s ears in the summer of 2020, long before the COVID shots were rolled out. “I was telling lawmakers that we’ve got a problem,” McCullough says, because corners were being cut that might result in a dangerous product. Safety studies, for example, were truncated down to a mere two months, which doesn’t allow for adequate evaluation.
Why Did They Use Spike Protein?
He also had several other concerns about the development program. Notably, the shots were based on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which by then we already realized is the most pathogenic part of the virus, responsible for the worst symptoms of COVID-19, such as the abnormal blood clotting seen in severely ill patients.
As explained by McCullough, the virus can be illustrated as a ball with spike-like protrusions on its surface. Those spikes are what’s causing the problems.
“They had been genetically altered and engineered in a lab in Wuhan, China” McCullough says, “to be particularly infectious, and to be particularly dangerous when they get into the human body.
The last thing you want in your body is one of those [spike proteins], let alone billions of them because [they] damage the brain, they damage the heart, they

damage bone marrow, they can tear up platelets and red blood cells. Very importantly, they damage blood vessels and cause blood clotting.”
Pzer’s and Moderna’s mRNA shots, and Janssen’s vector DNA shot, all inject genetic material into your body that programs your cells to start producing the spike protein. They’re gene transfer technologies.
In short, the shots instruct your body to produce a dangerous protein inside its own tissues. “We’ve never done that before in the history of medicine,” McCullough says, and for good reason: It’s a bad idea. “It’s almost like a science fiction story going bad,” he says.
The idea is that by making your body produce this damaging spike protein, your body will react and ght it off, thereby creating immunity. However, in the process, the spike protein can do near-incomprehensible damage. In some people, the spike protein is lethal.
Uncontrolled Spike Protein Production
What’s more, we have uncontrolled production of spike protein, both in terms of quantity and time. The May 2021 paper,1 “Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients,” proved the spike protein circulated in the blood stream for an average of 15 days’ post-injection. The longest was 29 days.
This refuted the claim that the mRNA simply stayed in the arm and didn’t circulate out of the injection site. Logically, that claim doesn’t make much sense, and the Japanese government, early on, demanded Pzer do a study to show them where the injected mRNA actually goes.
Pzer did that biodistribution study,2 which showed both the mRNA and spike protein were widely distributed in animals’ bodies. In particular, it was found to accumulate in the ovaries. Despite that, the Pzer biodistribution data package reveals reproductive toxicology studies were eliminated in the interest of speed.

June 25, 2021, a paper was posted on the preprint server BioRxiv, showing the S1 portion of the spike protein remains detectable for up to 15 months after you recover from COVID-19.
“No wonder people have long-COVID syndrome,” McCullough says. “The body is trying to clean out this spike protein that’s not supposed to be there, 15 months after you’ve had the infection.”
McCullough points out that Bruce Patterson, the Stanford scientist who led that study, also continues to nd the whole spike protein — both the S1 and S2 segments — in patients who got the COVID jab, months post-injection.
So, as of right now, we don’t know when the spike protein production ceases. What we do know, with great certainty, is that the spike protein damages the human body and contributes to both acute and chronic health conditions and diseases.
Australia has already purchased 14 doses of the COVID jabs for every person. This is meant to cover them for seven years, at one dose every six months. As noted by McCullough, some people simply aren’t going to survive that kind of continuous and ever-increasing onslaught of spike protein.
Urgent Questions on Vaccine Safety
Clear danger signals were apparent in April 2021, and May 24, 2021, McCullough published a paper along with 56 other international scientists in the journal Authorea.3
The paper, “SARS-CoV-2 Mass Vaccination: Urgent Questions on Vaccine Safety that Demand Answers from International Health Agencies, Regulatory Authorities, Governments and Vaccine Developers,” demanded the injections be pulled from the market unless or until safety concerns are addressed. Key clinical concerns raised include:
The potentially hazardous mechanisms of action of the shots resulting in cell, tissue

The paper was sent to every health and regulatory agency in the world. Here we are in early 2022 and, well, you can see what the response was. It’s been nonexistent.
A Critical Appraisal of VAERS
In October 2021, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., with the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, published a report in the Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law journal.4 The report, “Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the US Vaccine Adverse
and organ damage
The presence of harmful spike protein in donated blood
Lack of genotoxicity, teratogenicity and oncogenicity studies
The effects of bioaccumulation in women’s ovaries
The potential for reduced fertility
The lack of a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) to oversee clinical trials and post-market surveillance
The lack of human ethics committee to oversee clinical trials
The lack of restrictions on exempted groups from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) such as pregnant women, women of childbearing potential, COVID survivors (previously immune)
The lack of risk stratication for hospitalization and death in the clinical trials
The lack of data transparency
The lack of public risk mitigation (early and at-home treatment options)

Event Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System?” details three primary problems found:
1. Deleted adverse event reports involving COVID jab injuries
2. Delayed entry of reports
3. Recoding of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MeDRA) terms from severe to mild
It also includes bar plots showing the extreme difference between the COVID shots compared to all other vaccines on the market. If the shots were safe, the number of VAERS reports would remain relatively steady, not varying much from previous years, but what we see is a staggering spike in vaccine injuries reported in 2021.
The average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.
The COVID jabs alone now account for 701,126 adverse events in U.S. territories as of December 17, 2021, including 9,476 deaths. If you include international reports that make their way into the VAERS system, we’re looking at 983,756 adverse event reports and 20,622 deaths.5
As staggering as these numbers are, they are just the tip of the iceberg. When you add in the underreporting factor, which is believed to be anywhere from ve to 40, the numbers are simply astronomical.
VAERS is an early warning system and is supposed to alert our government to potentially hazardous vaccines once they’ve been rolled out. The signal from VAERS is so clear there’s simply no doubt we have a safety problem on our hands.
Can COVID Shots Cause Death?

As noted by McCullough, there’s a very tight temporality to the shots in most deaths. Half have occurred within 48 hours of injection, and 80% have died within one week of their jab (be it the rst, second or third dose).6
Temporality is one of the 10 Bradford Hill criteria used to establish causal relationship. In order to be causative, one event must occur before another, and the shorter the duration between the two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.
In June 2021, Scott McLachlan, Ph.D., at the University of London published an analysis7 of VAERS death reports concluding that 86% of post-jab deaths could be attributed to the shots. There was no other explanation for the deaths. McLachlan also looked at who’s getting killed by the shots and, sadly, it’s the same people the shots are intended to protect — our seniors.
In September 2021, Ronald Kostoff, Ph.D., published a report8 that also showed seniors were dying from the jab at far higher rates than other age groups. As noted by McCullough, this makes perfect sense because people die from COVID-19 due to the impact of the spike protein. Why would anyone assume they will survive having it produced in their own bodies?
Using the best-case scenario cost-benet analysis, Kostoff estimates that people aged 65 and older are ve times more likely to die of the COVID shot than from COVID-19 itself.
The reason for this is because if you take the shot, you’re guaranteed to be exposed to its risks, but you’re not guaranteed to get COVID-19 if you don’t take the shot. You may be exposed, or you may not. And not everyone develops a severe infection even when directly exposed.
COVID Jab-Associated Myocarditis in Children
In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis9 of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged

12 to 17 who reported symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.
They also concluded that healthy boys have a “considerably higher” chance of being hospitalized with myocarditis post-jab than they are of requiring hospitalization for COVID-19.
According to McCullough, the FDA has heard these data twice in 2021 and never disputed them. Yet they’ve proceeded with recommendations to give the COVID jab to anyone with a pulse over the age of 5. It’s just shocking. Historically, as a rule, we’ve never given drugs to people when they’re more likely to harm than provide a benet.
What Hoeg et. al.10 showed is that cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et. al.:11
“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.
The incidence of CAEs was considerably lower after the rst dose across all age and sex groups. Median peak troponin was 5.2 ng/mL among boys aged 12-15 years, 11.6 ng/mL among boys aged 16-17 years, 0.8 ng/mL among girls aged 12-15 years, and 7.3 ng/mL among girls aged 16-17 years.”
Troponin Levels Reveal Massive Heart Damage
Troponin is a protein that helps regulate contractions of your heart and skeletal muscles. It’s a biomarker for heart damage, as your heart releases troponin in response to an injury. Elevated troponin is used to assess whether you’ve had a heart attack, for example.

Normal troponin levels are nearly undetectable, so even small increases can indicate heart damage. A level above 0.4 ng/mL is typically indicative of a heart attack and anything between 0.04 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL indicates there’s some kind of problem with the heart.12
So, the sky high post-jab troponin levels in these adolescent boys is anything but inconsequential. It can absolutely be life-threatening. Myocarditis can result in sudden death, as illustrated in an October 2021 case report13 from Korea, where the death of a 22-year-old man from acute myocarditis was causally linked to the Pzer shot.
“Without a doubt, it will kill kids,” McCullough says. Even if not acutely lethal, myocarditis can signicantly lower your life expectancy. Historically, the three- to ve- year survival rate for myocarditis has ranged from 56% to 83%.14 That means a certain percentage don’t make it past ve years because their heart is too damaged.
McCullough and Rose have also tried to publish an analysis on this topic. They submitted a paper15 on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. But after initially accepting the paper, the journal suddenly changed its mind.
You can still nd the pre-proof on Rose’s website though. What they show is that post- jab myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. They too found there’s a dose-dependent risk, with boys having a six-fold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.
Mortality in Adolescents Is Skyrocketing
McCullough’s assertion that the shot will kill some children is also starting to show in statistics. British data, for example, shows deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots.16
Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. During that same time period in 2021,

217 deaths occurred in that age group. That’s an increase of 47%, which has yet to be explained.
Deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out. Signicant concerns have been raised about the possibility that COVID jabs might worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).17 Is that what’s going on here? As reported by The Exposé, which conducted the investigation:18
“Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and COVID-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far.”
COVID Jabs Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome
Aside from troponin levels, researchers have also found Pzer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase other biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.19
People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their ve-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood ow to your heart.
In Months, the Jabs’ Effectiveness Wanes to Zero
As should be evident by now, there are signicant risks to these COVID shots. But what about the benet side of the equation? As noted by McCullough, while the shots reduce the risk of death from COVID-19, the benet is vanishingly small.
A number of papers have been published calculating the absolute risk reduction of the shots, showing the four available COVID jabs in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction between just 0.7% and 1.3%.20,21

McCullough goes on to cite a December 1, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine study22 that compared the effectiveness of Pzer’s and Moderna’s injections among hospitalized veterans. Here too, they found that the shots had an effectiveness of less than 1% against all COVID-19 events, over the course of six months.
As of the end of October 2021, we had 22 studies showing the shots’ ecacy against all variants rapidly wane over the course of three to six months, eventually hitting zero.
For example, a Swedish study23 published October 25, 2021, looked at data from 842,974 pairs, where each person who had received two COVID jabs was paired and compared against an unvaccinated individual, to see if the vaccinated had fewer symptomatic cases and hospitalizations.
Early on, the double-jabbed appeared to have decent protection, but that quickly changed. The Pzer jab went from 92% effectiveness at Day 15 through 30, to 47% at Day 121 through 180, and zero from Day 201 onward. The Moderna shot had a similar trajectory, being estimated at 59% from Day 181 onward.
“ Vaccines aren’t viable if they can’t last a year! The minimum criteria to accept a vaccine ... is 50% coverage and it must last one year. These [COVI”D shots] aren’t cutting it. ~ Dr. Peter McCullough
The AstraZeneca injection had a lower effectiveness out of the gate, waned faster than the mRNA shots, and had no detectable effectiveness as of Day 121. All the while, millions of Americans have already had COVID24 and have natural immunity that doesn’t wane in this manner.
“Vaccines aren’t viable if they can’t last a year!” McCullough exclaims. “The minimum criteria to accept a vaccine ... is 50% coverage and it must last one year. These [COVID shots] aren’t cutting it. None of them are viable to be commercial products.”

The COVID-Jabbed Are Just as Infectious as the Unvaccinated
COVID jab mandates are even more irrational when you take into account the fact that they don’t prevent you from being infected, and studies have repeatedly shown that when you are infected, you have the same or higher viral load as unvaccinated individuals. What that means is you’re just as infectious as an unvaccinated person.
What’s more, as noted in a letter25 to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, the shots also have only minor inuence on viral clearance. If you get the COVID shot and come down with COVID, you might be sick for a day or so less than someone who is unvaccinated.
We Must Treat COVID Patients Early
McCullough closes out his presentation going over the all-important issue of early treatment. You need to treat COVID early and aggressively. You also need to hit it from multiple sides. No single drug can effectively treat all aspects of this infection (although the Omicron variant does not appear to have any of the blood clotting and low oxygen issues associated with the earliest strains).
Very few people need die from COVID as long as they get appropriate treatment early enough. The fact that our health authorities are to this day refusing to acknowledge successful treatment protocols is nothing short of a crime.
If you want to live, and if you want your family and friends to live, you’d be wise to ignore the CDC’s and FDA’s recommendation to wait until you can’t breathe and then go to the hospital, where they’ll give you toxic remdesivir and lethal ventilation. Instead, arm yourself with one or more early treatment protocols and make sure you have the basics in your medicine cabinet. Protocols you can use include:
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance's (FLCCC's) prevention and early at- home treatment protocol. They also have an in-hospital protocol and long-term management guidance for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome. You can nd a listing of

doctors who can prescribe ivermectin and other necessary medicines on the FLCCC website
The AAPS protocol
Tess Laurie's World Council for Health protocol America's Frontline Doctors
I reviewed all of these protocols and believe the FLCCC’s is the easiest and most effective. I’ve posted a summary of it below. However, I’ve altered some of the recommendations. Specically, I recommend:
Decreasing zinc dose from 100 mg to 50 mg elemental zinc, but only for three days, then decrease to 15 mg elemental zinc.
Increasing quercetin from 250 mg to 500 mg.
Add NAC to 500 mg per day.
When using vitamin C, I recommend liposomal vitamin C, 1,000 to 2,000 mg, four to six times per day.
When using honey, make sure it’s raw, not normal honey from the grocery store. Raw honey can be obtained online or at a health food store.
Add brinolytic enzymes like lumbrokinase, serrapeptidase or nattokinase, two to four tablets, two to three times a day, on an empty stomach (one hour before or two hours after a meal). This will help break down any microclots and can be used in lieu of aspirin.
I’ve also added a couple of therapies that they have yet to include:
Nebulized hydrogen peroxide — Nebulize 5 ml of 0.1% peroxide dissolved in 0.9% normal saline every hour or two. It’s best to use a nebulizer that plugs into the wall,

as these are more effective than battery operated ones. Intravenous ozone administered by a trained ozone physician.
Sources and References
1 Clinical Infectious Diseases May 20, 2021; ciab465
2 Trial Site News June 6, 2021
3 Authorea May 24, 2021
4 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law October 2021; 3: 100-129 5 OpenVAERS Data as of December 17, 2021
6 Dare to Seek the Truth Dr. Peter McCullough
7 ResearchGate June 2021 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26987.226402
8 Toxicology Reports September 2021; 8: 1665-1684
9, 10, 11 medRxiv September 8, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866
12 Medical News Today June 7, 2019
13 Journal of Korean Medical Science October 18, 2021; 36(40): e286
14 European Heart Journal September 2008; 29(17): 2073–2082
15 Journal Pre-proof, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID [...]
16, 18 The Exposé September 30, 2021
17 Int J Clin Pract. 2020 Oct 28 : e13795
19 Circulation November 16, 2021; 144(Suppl_1)
20 Medicina 2021; 57: 199
21 The Lancet Microbe July 1, 2021; 2(7): E279-E280
22 NEJM December 1, 2021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115463
23 Lancet Preprints October 25, 2021
24 Our World in Data December 15, 2021
25 NEJM December 23, 2021; 385: 26 (PDF)


Last edited by isobars on Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20779

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I’ll bet a board that you know someone taking statins. This is just one among thousands of science-based pages I’ve read that persuaded me to stop them decades ago.

Statins Do More Harm Than Good
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola  Fact Checked
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
-
 Data from a study published in January 2021 were converted into a graphic and published on Twitter in December 2021, revealing that in 28,025 participants there were more cardiac events in people taking statins than in those with the same risk factors who didn't take statins
 The writers believe the negative effects found may be overcome by changing the scoring method and investigating the protective role of calcied plaque, but current research limited validation of the change
 The research supports past data that show despite the popularity of statins, heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death and killed far more last year in the U.K. than COVID
 Statins are known to increase your risk of dementia and diabetes; one study found despite these added risks, statins could potentially extend your life by only 3.2 to 4.1 days than if you didn't take the drug, when you made no other lifestyle changes
 Instead of focusing on the raw cholesterol numbers, pay attention to your cholesterol ratios, ferritin level and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) tests for a better evaluation of your cardiac risk
Amid the pandemic media storm in January 2021, a study1 published in the journal Atherosclerosis quietly revealed that people taking statin medications had a higher rate of cardiovascular events than those who were not on statins.2

In the study, the researchers separated the participants by assigning them a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. This is a noninvasive CT scan designed to detect plaque buildup in your coronary arteries. It is also called a cardiac calcium score,3 calcium scan or Agatston score.4
Doctors use this score to calculate your risk of developing coronary artery disease as it measures calcied plaque within the arteries. Data has shown your risk of heart disease correlates with this score. The lower the score, the less likely you are to have a cardiac event when compared against other men and women your age. The score ranges from zero to over 400.5
Zero — No plaque with a low risk of a heart attack.
1-10 — Small amount of plaque and less than 10% chance of heart disease.
11-100 — Some plaque with mild heart disease and a moderate risk of a heart attack.
101-400 — Moderate amount of plaque that may block a coronary artery, with a moderate to high risk of a heart attack.
400+ — Large amount of calcied plaque is found in the coronary arteries with more than a 90% chance it is blocking an artery.
Doctors consider a CAC test if you are between 40 and 70 with an increased risk for heart disease but do not have symptoms.6 People with a family history of heart disease, who are a past or present smoker, are overweight, are inactive or have a history of high cholesterol, diabetes or high blood pressure have factors that increase their risk of heart disease.
Yet, not all physicians use the CAC score as recommended. Writing for the Texas Heart Institute, the assistant medical director, Dr. Stephanie Coulter, says, “When my high-risk patients are not taking their cholesterol-lowering statin medicine, the calcium score can be a very powerful motivator for them to follow my professional advice and prescription.”7

However, further into her article, she stresses the test is only appropriate for moderate- risk patients, and those with a low or high risk of heart disease do not benet from the scan. The study published in Atherosclerosis indicates that even with a high CAC score, taking statins does not reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event and may, in fact, increase it.8,9
Data Show Statins Increase Your Risk for Heart Events
The researchers were working under the premise that statins do not decrease the CAC score and may increase calcication.10 They used the prognostic signicance of CAC when compared against statin users in 28,025 patients ages 40 to 75 years. The researchers adjusted the data for traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors and examined the performance of CAC volume, density and area.
Nearly 11 months after the results were published, Tucker Goodrich11 extracted the data from Table 1 into a graphic representation that demonstrated only in the highest CAC score range of 400 or greater were the data nearly identical between those taking statins and those not taking statins. Otherwise, those taking statins always had more cardiac events than those who weren’t. The researchers concluded that:12
“CAC scoring retains robust risk prediction in statin users, and the changing relationship of CAC density with outcomes may explain the slightly weaker relationship of CAC with outcomes in statin users.”
The researchers acknowledged that true to the recommended use of CAC scoring, only a baseline score was known, so they were unable to evaluate whether statins inuenced the progression of calcication. There was limited race and ethnic diversity within the study group.
Yet, despite the limitations of the design and the results, they believe the analysis used data from one of the largest samples available to date and provides “both real-world and investigational support for the role of CAC in risk stratifying patients taking statins.”13

Tucker Goodrich14 quotes from an article in the American College of Cardiology published January 2021, in which the writers analyzed the data. They wrote:15
"The ndings conrm that CAC does have prognostic value among statin users, although the association is attenuated. Complicating interpretation is the inclusion of only fatal events and the relatively elevated, but still low, mortality rate in statin users versus non-users with a zero CAC score.
A key mechanism underlying this phenomenon is that statins increase plaque density thereby paradoxically raising the Agatston CAC score — as density is upweighted."
There appears to be some discrepancy. First, the data that show people with a CAC score of zero — no plaque and low risk — were inexplicably taking statins. Secondly, the study acknowledges that there was one baseline CAC score taken, so how much the plaque density increased or didn’t increase in this population could not be ascertained.
And nally, the raw data showed people on statins died more frequently than those who didn’t take the drug in nearly every CAC category. However, the writers postulated that the increasing plaque density that raises the CAC score may be overcome by expanding the scoring method and investigating the protective role that densely calcied plaque may play in cardiovascular health:16
"However, this is hampered by a current lack of reference values, limited supportive research, and validation; implementation limitations include software update requirements and standardization."
In other words, expanding the CAC scoring, which should be taken before prescribing statins and is not recommended as a follow-up since it exposes patients to the same radiation as 10 X-rays,17 may possibly alter the results enough that it reects greater benet to using statins.
Statins Are More Than a Colossal Waste of Money

Despite decades of statin drug use and vilication of saturated fats and cholesterol, heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death.18 Although the researchers in the featured study do not mention it, their data support past research that shows statins are a colossal waste of money, and likely more.
In 2014, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., produced a documentary, “Heart of The Matter: Dietary Villains.” The lm exposed the myths behind the statin fad and the nancial links that drove the industry. It was so thorough that vested interests convinced ABC-TV to rescind the two-part series and got the documentary expunged.19
Since the release of that documentary, the evidence against the cholesterol theory and statins has only grown. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner with the British National Health Service, expressed his disbelief at how widely statins are used despite research evidence they are not effective, and possibly worse. He wrote:20
"New research shows that the most widely prescribed type of drug in the history of medicine is a waste of money. One major study found that the more 'bad' cholesterol was lowered, the greater the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every other medical condition has been shoved onto the sidelines. However, in the UK last year, heart attacks and strokes (CVD) killed well over 100,000 people — which is at least twice as many as have died from COVID-19.
CVD will kill just as many this year, which makes it signicantly more important than COVID-19, even if no one is paying much attention to it right now."
What data have demonstrated is that statin medications are not inert, and in fact can damage your health while not protecting your heart. One of the side effects of lower cholesterol levels is impaired cognitive performance.21
One study22 showed patients with mild cognitive impairment had double the risk of dementia when using lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin

(Zocor), Fluvastatin (Lescol), and lovastatin (Altoprev), which dissolve more readily in fats.23
This Harvard article claims those same drugs that increase the risk of dementia may lower your risk of liver cancer, which is not a choice any patient should have to make. There is also evidence to suggest people taking statins have twice the risk of being diagnosed with diabetes than those who do not and taking the drug for longer than two years triples the risk. One of the scientists from The Ohio State University explained in a press release:24
“The fact that increased duration of statin use was associated with an increased risk of diabetes — something we call a dose-dependent relationship — makes us think that this is likely a causal relationship.”
Not all data show that people taking statins have more heart events than people not taking statins. Some, like this systematic review25 published in 2015, found that despite the added risks of dementia and diabetes, people taking statins could live an average of only 3.2 to 4.1 days longer than if they didn’t take the drug.
Your Body Requires Cholesterol to Live
The triggers for cardiovascular disease are more complex than just lowering cholesterol levels. As data have shown us, lowering cholesterol is not the panacea for avoiding heart disease and extending your life. Kendrick refutes the idea that the LDL-cholesterol hypothesis is accurate, writing:26
“For the LDL hypothesis to be correct, it requires that LDL can travel past the lining of the artery, the endothelial cells, and into the artery wall behind. This is considered the starting point for atherosclerotic plaques to form. The problem with this hypothesis is that LDL cannot get into any cell, let alone an endothelial cell, unless that cell wants it to.”
However, damage to the arterial walls can be induced by several factors, including high blood pressure, inammation, elevated blood sugar and smoking.27 Once damaged,

plaque begins to build up as a protective mechanism. The problem arises when the rate of damage and result in clot formation outpace your body's ability to repair it.
Instead, it's crucial that you understand how important cholesterol is to the human body. In fact, according to Zoe Harcombe, Ph.D., nutritional researcher, author and public speaker, “If you had no cholesterol in your body, you would be dead.”28
As noted by Harcombe, the notion that there is good and bad cholesterol is also wrong. LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are not even cholesterol but, rather, carriers and transporters of cholesterol, triglycerides (fat), phospholipids and proteins. "LDL would more accurately be called the carrier of fresh cholesterol and HDL would more accurately be called the carrier of recycled cholesterol," she says.29
How to Identify and Lower Your Risk for Heart Disease
Using simple strategies at home may help normalize your cholesterol and blood sugar levels. I believe a total cholesterol measurement has little benet in evaluating your risk for heart disease unless the total number is over 300.
In some instances, high cholesterol may indicate a problem when your LDL or
triglycerides are high, and your HDL is low. You’ll be better able to evaluate your risk by
looking at the two ratios below, in combination with other lifestyle factors such as
ferritin and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) tests. To calculate your cholesterol ratios:30,31,32
Cholesterol:HDL ratio — Divide your total cholesterol by your HDL level. Ideally, the ratio should be below 5-to1; a ratio below 3.5-to1 is considered optimal
Triglyceride:HDL ratio — Divide your triglyceride level by your HDL. This ratio should ideally be below 2
However, rather than focusing on cholesterol, there are two tests far more important for assessing your CVD risk. These are the serum ferritin33 and gamma-glutamyl

transpeptidase (GGT) tests.34 The GGT test can be used as a screening marker for excess free iron and is a great indicator of your sudden cardiac death risk.
To protect yourself against heart disease, here are several suggestions that help lower your insulin resistance and restore insulin sensitivity, among other heart-protective mechanisms:
Avoid environmental pollutants and toxins, including smoking, vaping, heavy metals, herbicides and pesticides, especially glyphosate.
Minimize your exposure to electromagnetic elds and wireless radiation from cellphones, Wi-Fi, routers, smart meters and more, as this kind of radiation has been shown to cause serious free radical damage and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Eat an unprocessed whole food-based diet low in net carbs and high in healthy fats. A ketogenic diet — which is very low in net carbohydrates and high in healthy fats — is key for boosting mitochondrial function.
When your body can burn fat for fuel, your liver creates water-soluble fats called ketones that burn far more eciently than carbs, thereby creating fewer reactive oxygen species and secondary free radicals. Ketones also decrease inammation and improve glucose metabolism.35
Eat nitrate-rich foods to help normalize your blood pressure. Good sources include arugula, cilantro, rhubarb, butter leaf lettuce, mesclun mixed greens, beet greens, fresh beet juice, kvass (fermented beet juice) and fermented beet powder.
Get plenty of non-exercise movement each day; walk more and incorporate higher intensity exercise as your health allows.
Intermittently fast. After you've become accustomed to intermittently fasting for 16 to 18 hours, you can try a stricter fast once or twice a week…

Sources and References
1, 8 Atherosclerosis, 2021;316
2, 9, 11 Twitter, Tucker Goodrich, December 23, 2021
3, 6 Cleveland Clinic, Calcium-Score Screening
4 University of Maryland Medical Center, Cardiac Calcium Scoring, About your CAC score
5 University of Maryland Medical Center, Cardiac Calcium Scoring, Calcium score results
7 Texas Heart Institute, Do I Need a Coronary Calcium Score?
10 Atherosclerosis, 2021;316 Abstract/Background/Aims
12 Atherosclerosis, 2021;316 Abstract/Concl
13 Atherosclerosis, 2021;316 Discussion last line
14 Twitter, Tucker Goodrich, December 23, 2021, 3 of 4
15, 16 American College of Cardiology, January 19, 2021
17 Texas Heart Institute, Do I Need a Coronary Calcium Score? Are there any risks to this procedure? 18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Leading Causes of Death
19 Highstreaks May 21, 2014, Section - Update
20 RT, August 4, 2020
21 Frontiers in Neurology, doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00952
22 Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2021, 62
23 Harvard Health Publishing, January 27, 2020, 50% down the page, search on “lipitor”
24 The Ohio State University, June 25, 2019
25 BMJ Open 2015 Sep 24;5(9):e007118 Abstract/Results
26, 27 Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, November 27, 2018
28 ZoeHarcombe.com, We have got cholesterol completely wrong Point 1
29 ZoeHarcombe.com, We have got cholesterol completely wrong Point 3
30 Mayo Clinic
31 University of Rochester Medical Center
32 Journal-Advocate February 27, 2012
33 Int J Prev Med. 2013 Aug; 4(Cool: 911–916
34 Ann Transl Med. 2016 Dec; 4(24): 481
35 IUMB Life April 3, 2017, DOI: 10.1002/iub.1627 36 EECP.com


Last edited by isobars on Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20779

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sat fat false alarm has been exposed literally for generations, but I wasn’t aware just how bad significant quantities of chicken can be for us.

Study Tells Why Chicken Is Killing You and Saturated Fat Is Friend
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola  Fact Checked
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
-
 60% of the U.S. population have one or more chronic diseases; nearly 70% are overweight or obese and 90% are metabolically unhealthy, which means virtually everyone is at risk for Type 2 diabetes and all the chronic diseases associated with insulin resistance
 Part of why chronic ill health is so widespread is this persistent idea that saturated animal fats are unhealthy, and should be replaced with industrial vegetable oils
 Long thought of as a healthier type of meat, primarily because it’s leaner than red meat, the problem with conventional chicken is that they’re fed corn, which makes them a source of harmful linoleic acid, a harmful type of fat
 Research admits the long-standing nutritional guideline to limit saturated fat has been incorrect, and foods high in saturated fat such as whole-fat dairy, red meat, eggs and dark chocolate are not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease
 The reason the low-fat myth is so hard to break is because the food and drug industries are largely built on this awed science, and they cannot afford to relinquish what have become highly protable businesses
This article was previously published July 11, 2020, and has been updated with new information.

In the video podcast above, Dr. Paul Saladino and science journalist and author Nina Teicholz — who is also executive director of The Nutrition Coalition — review the evidence against chicken, and why saturated fat really qualies as a health food.
Teicholz' book, "The Big Fat Surprise," challenged the conventional wisdom on dietary fats, especially saturated fat. Saladino, meanwhile, released the second edition of his book, "The Carnivore Code," in August 2020.
Why Conventional Chicken May Contribute to Poor Health
As noted by Saladino, while consumption of red meat is on the decline, thanks to the vilication of red meat and saturated fat, people are eating more and more chicken.
Long thought of as a healthier type of meat, primarily because it's leaner than red meat, the problem with conventional chicken is that they're fed corn — typically GMO varieties that are farmed with glyphosate.
Increasingly, we're nding that trans fats and polyunsaturated fat from vegetable oils are far worse for your health, and a greater contributor to chronic disease, than added sugar. And what happens when chicken is fed corn? The meat becomes high in omega-6 linoleic acid, as corn is high in this type of fat.1
As Saladino points out, high chicken consumption actually adds to your vegetable oil consumption. While you need some omega-6, the amounts obtained from a standard American diet high in processed foods are far too high for health. High omega-6 intake also skews your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, which ideally would be close to 1-to-1.
As noted by Saladino and Teicholz, 60% of the U.S. population has chronic disease, nearly 70% are overweight or obese, and recent NHANES data2 reveal 87.8% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy, based on ve parameters. That data is over 4 years old now, so the gure is clearly greater than 90% of the population today.
That means virtually everyone is at risk for Type 2 diabetes and all the chronic diseases associated with insulin resistance, which run the gamut from cancer to Alzheimer's.

Simply assuming you are one of the 12.2% (from the 4-year-old gures) that are metabolically healthy would be risky business.
Will Saturated Fat Myth Soon Be Upended?
Part of why chronic ill health is so widespread is this persistent idea that saturated animal fats are unhealthy, and should be replaced with industrial vegetable oils.3
On the upside, Teicholz reviews a 2020 paper4 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which actually admits the long-standing nutritional guideline to limit saturated fat has been incorrect. This is a rather stunning admission, and a huge step forward. As noted in the abstract:
"The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta- analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no benecial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.
Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are much less strongly related to CVD risk.
It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering the overall macronutrient distribution.
Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods."
How Did We Go so Wrong?

In the podcast, Saladino and Teicholz review the history of the demonization of saturated fat and cholesterol, starting with Ancel Keys' awed hypothesis5 that saturated fat causes heart disease in 1960-1961, and how the introduction of the rst Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980 (which recommended limiting saturated fat and cholesterol) coincided with a rapid rise in obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease.
“ The massive increase in linoleic acid (omega-6 polyunsaturated fat found in industrial vegetable oils) is a key metabolic driver of obesity”, heart disease, cancer and other chronic disease.
They also discuss the reasons why this myth has been allowed to persist, despite the scientic evidence against it. In short, the low-fat, low-cholesterol myths promulgated by Keys in the '60s rapidly led to dramatic changes in the food and drug industries, and these behemoths are incredibly reluctant to relinquish what have become highly protable businesses.
Acknowledging that saturated animal fats are healthy, and processed industrial vegetable oils and grains are not, would decimate the processed food industry, as it relies on vegetable oils and grains. The healthy alternative is real food, and there's no big industry prots to be made from that.
Vegetable Oils Undermine Your Health
Saladino and Knobbe are both equally convinced that the massive increase in linoleic acid (omega-6 polyunsaturated fat found in industrial vegetable oils) is a key metabolic driver of obesity, heart disease, cancer and other chronic disease. They review several studies6,7,8,9,10,11,12 demonstrating the truth of this.

Historically, humans got an estimated 2% polyunsaturated fat from their diet. Today, that percentage is between 10% and 20% — and conventional poultry is a hidden source of harmful polyunsaturated fat as well.
Importantly, they also review the incorrect belief that high LDL is a risk factor for heart disease, and that by lowering your LDL, you lower your risk of a heart attack. The science simply doesn't bear this out, and the reason for this is because not all LDL particles are the same.
By cutting down on red meat and saturated fat and eating more vegetable oil and chicken for example (which again will count toward your vegetable oil or polyunsaturated fat intake), your LDL may go down, but those LDLs are now going to be oxidized, and no one is testing for oxidation. Oxidized LDL, Saladino explains, will in turn trigger insulin resistance and related problems, including heart disease.
Eating saturated fat, on the other hand, may raise your LDL, but those LDL particles will be large and "uffy," and do not cause any arterial damage. Many studies have demonstrated that high LDL has nothing to do with heart disease. High LDL does not raise your risk of heart disease per se, but oxidized LDL do.
Teicholz also makes another important point, in that the saturated fat myth has been one of the most thoroughly and comprehensive hypotheses in the history of nutritional science, and it has failed miserably.
She also details how avoiding saturated animal fats causes you to end up with nutritional deciencies, as animal foods and fats are also rich in micronutrients. Industrially processed vegetable oils are not. As noted by Teicholz, "foods high in saturated fats are the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet." These nutrients are also highly bioavailable.
Meanwhile, the diet recommended by our Dietary Guidelines for Americans does not actually meet nutritional goals. As a result, the most disadvantaged among us — impoverished school children who rely on school meals, hospital patients and the

elderly who are in long-term care facilities, for example — are being disproportionally harmed, as they have few if any options to make healthier food choices.
The Benets of Carnosine
In addition to saturated fat and the vitamins and minerals it contains, red meat is also an important source of carnosine, a dipeptide (two amino acids put together) made up of beta-alanine and histidine. Carnosine is only found animal products. It serves as a scavenger or sink for reactive carbonyl groups — intermediaries that go on to form advanced lipoxidation end-products.
If you can grab these carbonyls before they attack proteins and fats, you can essentially stop the vicious cycle resulting in catastrophic peroxidation. Diets that exclude animal products and meat will lower your carnosine level, and carnosine is a really important nutrient to limit the damage from oxidation products. It's also important for mitochondrial function.
Summary of Why Saturated Fats Are so Crucial
Toward the end of his podcast, around one hour and 44 minutes in, Saladino offers a comprehensive summary of the entire discussion. Here's a quick review of his key points:
The insulin sensitivity of your adipose fat cells is inverse to the rest of your body. In other words, you want your fat cells to be insulin resistant, because this makes the rest of your body insulin sensitive (i.e., not insulin resistant). If your adipose fat cells are insulin sensitive, the rest of your body will be insulin resistant. The factor that determines the insulin sensitivity of your adipocytes is the fats you eat.
Linoleic acid "breaks the sensitivity for insulin at the level of your fat cells" — it makes them more insulin sensitive — and, since your fat cells control the insulin sensitivity of the rest of your body by releasing free fatty acids, you end up with insulin resistance.

Conversely, when you eat saturated fat, because of the way it's beta-oxidized in your mitochondria, your fat cells become insulin resistant. As a result, they do not grow and they do not release free fatty acids. Thus, the insulin sensitivity in the rest of your body improves, and insulin resistance goes down.
Vegetable Oils Are Toxic
As discussed in an interview with Dr. Chris Knobbe, the polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils, seed oils and trans fats are mostly stored in your fat cells (opposed to being used for fuel), and have a half-life of 600 to 680 days.13
They also get incorporated into tissues, including your heart and brain. Who in their right mind would want a highly oxidizable oil saturating their organs for years? One result of this could be memory impairment and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease, which is exactly what they found with canola oil.14 As reported in one 2017 study:15
"Our ndings do not support a benecial effect of chronic canola oil consumption on two important aspects of AD pathophysiology which includes memory impairments as well as synaptic integrity. While more studies are needed, our data do not justify the current trend aimed at replacing olive oil with canola oil."
In the interview, Knobbe explained the harms of vegetable oils and, like Saladino and Teicholz, reviewed why they are a root cause behind virtually all chronic diseases.
Sources and References
1 Journal of Dairy Science January 2018; 101(1): 222-232
2 Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders February 8, 2019 DOI: 10.1089/met.2018.0105 3 Jeff Knobs March 28, 2020
4 Journal of the American College of Cardiology June 17, 2020 [Epub ahead of print]
5 Seven Countries Study
6 STAT April 19, 2017
7 BMJ 2016;353:i1246
8 NIH Grantome, Dietary Treatment of Hyperlipidemia in Women vs Men

9 Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology 2004;24:498–503 10 Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging 2018;22(Cool:885-891
11 British Heart Journal 1995 Oct;74(4):449-54
12 The Lancet August 29, 2017; 390(10107): 2050-2062
13 Journal of Lipid Research 1966 Jan;7(1):103-11 14 Medical News Today December 7, 2017
15 Scientic Reports 2017; 7, Article number 17134
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13593
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

whats up mareen? I mean IS so stupid




Joseph Michael Mercola (/mərˈkoʊlə/;[1] born July 8, 1954) is an American alternative medicine proponent, osteopathic physician, and Internet business personality. He markets dietary supplements and medical devices.[2] On his website, Mercola and colleagues advocate a number of unproven and pseudoscientifc alternative health notions including homeopathy and opposition to vaccination.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17182
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mikey is a sucker for grifters. Can’t cheat an honest man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MikeLaRonde



Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 443

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rare "good" news
and an excellent web site
https://rairfoundation.com/alert-japan-places-myocarditis-warning-on-vaccines-requires-informed-consent/

priceless
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-the-game-is-played

I gotta admit, I'm not a big fan of Mercola. I watched one of his presentations and thought he was boring. I don't like how he totally downplays the importance of vitamins and supplements. And limiting most of his writings to subscribers isn't helping. Thanks for sharing ..


Last edited by MikeLaRonde on Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17182
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Officially the craziest thread ever on iwindsurf. Check out laronde’s go-to site. But be close to your bathroom, you’re going to need a shower.

https://rairfoundation.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10402

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amy Mek's bio from the RAIR website's article posted by mlaronde. One's to believe that she's a real muckraker whipping up a righteous storm worldwide.


Investigative Journalist: Banned in parts of Europe, Wanted by Islamic countries, Threatened by terror groups, Hunted by left-wing media, Smeared by Hollywood elites & Fake religious leaders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17182
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can’t invent sources this sick.

Quote:
On May 31, the Huffington Post published a story exposing Twitter user @AmyMek, an ardent Trump supporter and prolific anti-Muslim troll. Behind the account is a woman named Amy Mekelburg, who lives in New York City.

Averaging around 25 tweets a day — almost all of them anti-Muslim — Mekelburg has 230,000 Twitter followers and has received several endorsements from Donald Trump on the social media platform.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 1 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group