23rd September 2021
With all medical eyes on COVID19, a cardiovascular drug with no proven benefit – at all – has been approved by NICE (The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Once a drug is approved by NICE it can, and will, be prescribed by doctors in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own system.
NICE is also hugely influential beyond this small island. A NICE approval usually means a green light for approval in many other countries as well. Countries who assume that NICE will have carried out an in-depth ‘expert’ analysis using a set-up that they don’t have yet.
Which means that drug companies are always very keen to get NICE approval. It is a de-facto quality stamp. ‘This drug is both safe and cost-effective. You may now prescribe it everywhere in the world…’
Cost-effectiveness means that a drug does not just provide some clinical benefit. It must provide benefits that give you decent bang for your bucks. The ‘bang for your bucks’ measure used is the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY).
A QALY = one year of perfect health.
Of course, no healthcare intervention will ever give you one extra year of perfect health. Nothing is ever as clear cut as that. However, if you are suffering from a painful arthritic hip – and your quality of life is 50% perfect, or 0.5 – and you get a hip replacement, then your quality of life may rise from 0.5 to 0.9. So, you get 0.4 of a QALY/per year improvement.
After five years you have gained 0.4 (QALYs) x 5 (years) = 2 QALYs.
If the hip replacement operation has cost £10,000. The cost per QALY = £5,000. The cost per QALY obviously goes down if you live longer. That is a very simple example, most calculations become exceedingly complex. Measuring quality of life, for example, is fraught with difficulties.
In general NICE will approve a healthcare intervention if the cost per QALY is less than £30,000. This figure can never be pinned down. I often liken it to a blob of mercury. If you try to pick it up, it just slips, and slides, and fragments.
Indeed, this £30,000 figure never had any economic basis, or any other basis. It was simply plucked from the air because … well, because it seemed reasonable.
Here, from a discussion in the UK Parliament when NICE was first starting up:
‘There is clearly confusion about the cost per QALY threshold. Witnesses questioned whether there was any evidence to support the level that appears to be used. Professor Devlin told us that, “the threshold has no explicit basis or location in evidence”. Others agreed that it was “arbitrary”. Professor Smith confirmed…
Professor Rawlins admitted that the threshold was not based on “empirical research” as no such research existed anywhere in the world. He told us instead that the threshold was: …really based on the collective judgment of the health economists we have approached across the country. There is no known piece of work which tells you what the threshold should be.
No public discussion has ever taken place of the suitability of the threshold used. The American Pharmaceutical Group pointed out that the threshold has “never been the subject of public debate or Parliamentary approval. Cancer Research UK also argued that the threshold should be discussed openly and the reasons for its level should be determined in consultation with interested organisations.’ 1
I love it when people say things like ‘the threshold has no explicit basis or location in evidence.’ The short word – no – would have done nicely. As in, there is no evidence. Instead, we get the concept of no explicit basis or location in evidence. Listen guys, just get rid of the words: explicit, basis, or, and location. Why use five words when one will do?
Anyway, it has always amused me that NICE spends vast amounts of time and effort trying to establish with great accuracy whether a healthcare intervention meets a cost per QALY threshold… that was simply made up.
You might as well have got a cane with a hook on the end to pluck one of a thousand plastic yellow ducks floating in a pond with a random number written on the bottom. ‘Oooh look, it says thirty thousand… so that is the figure we shall use.’ Yes, really.
Anyway, as custom is king, this £30K figure – which has remained unaltered for twelve years [has anyone at NICE ever heard of inflation – or maybe a made-up figure cannot be affected by inflation] is unquestioned, and unquestionable. It is carved in stone. ‘And God did sayeth unto the multitude that thirty thousand pounds per QALY shalt be my law unto the end of time. Amen.’ Anyway, following that little history lesson, let us gaze upon the cost per QALY calculations that NICE used for Inclisiran – a new LDL lowering injection to be given twice a year. And below are the calculations [or at least the calculations that I could be bothered to copy]:
As you can see Inclisiran meets the cost per QALY criteria with ease. Well, actually, in truth, you cannot see anything because all the figures have been redacted. It amuses me further that NICE have decided that a table which contains no information of any use is ‘confidential’. Well, of course, it is not very confidential, because I can see it, and so can you, if you decide go to: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ta10703/documents/1
So, which part of that completely pointless table is confidential? It is clearly not confidential that it is confidential. Maybe this is some strange double-bluff. Perhaps you can scrape away the black areas to reveal the numbers beneath, and win a million-pound prize?
I suspect that written beneath them will be the phrases. ‘How much?’ ‘You’re having a laugh.’ Or ‘We will not release your family unless you pay this as ransom.’ And suchlike.
Enough of this. NICE is a public funded organisation that is supposed to work on our behalf. They have decided that Inclisiran is cost-effective, yet they will not let anyone see the figures that they used? You would think they would be shouting it from the rooftops. ‘Look how fantastic it is. Look at the size of that discount. Gaze with wonder on the magnificent cost-effectiveness of Inclisiran.’ No, instead, they are very shy about it. Like little meercats sensing danger and scurrying down into the darkness.
Without any figures, the NICE appraisal is essentially hundreds of pages of utterly meaningless guff. As I used to say, once upon a time, when teaching my children to count. ‘One two, miss a few, ninety-nine, one-hundred’.
How much are we paying for Inclisiran? Nobody knows. Because NICE won’t tell us. We know it should be/could be around £4,000/year ($5,000). So, some sort of discount has been negotiated. How much … well, that’s a secret. A secret. Why? In case we all rush round to Novartis headquarters and try and buy some at a bigger discount?
Secret or not, the truth is that I do not need to know the exact cost of Inclisiran. Because I already know that whatever it costs, the cost per QALY current stands at infinity i.e., ∞. I know this because, at present, there is no evidence that it provides any benefit, on any clinical outcome. By which I mean no evidence that it prevents strokes, heart attacks or, in fact, anything.
Based on this knowledge the Cost per QALY equation goes something like this:
Cost per year of Inclisiran/benefit in QALYs = cost per QALY
With Inclisiran let us set the cost per year at £4,000, and benefit at zero:
£4,000/ 0 = ∞ (infinity)
Let us set the cost at £1 and run the equation again
£1/0 = ∞ (infinity)
You see how simple it is to work out the cost per QALY when there is no benefit. It always ends up at infinity. If it cost one Turkish lira, the cost per QALY would still be infinity. I certainly did not need several hundred pages of guff to tell me this. You ought to try reading an endless NICE report sometime. My advice is, don’t bother.
Anyway, if you do read what NICE has to say about Inclisiran you will find the following key sentences in the NICE appraisal documentation.
‘There is also no long-term evidence on whether Inclisiran reduces cardiovascular events. This means the clinical evidence and the cost-effectiveness estimates are very uncertain.’2
Let me rephrase the first sentence.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT INCLISIRAN WORKS
Let me rephrase the second sentence
THIS MEANS, THE CURRENT COST-EFFECTIVNESS ESTIMATES ARE NONSENSE
Yes, it lowers LDL (low density lipoprotein), we do know that. We do not know if this will have an impact on cardiovascular deaths, or overall mortality. NICE assumes that if you lower LDL, you will reduce cardiovascular death – and suchlike.
However, this is not necessarily true. Repatha (evolucamab) is a drug which has exactly the same mechanism of action as Inclisiran but needs to be given every two weeks instead of twice a year. Both Inclisiran and evolucamab are PCSK9-inhibitors. [They block the breakdown of LDL-receptors in the cell, which means that more LDL receptors are available to pluck LDL molecules from the blood, thus reducing the blood levels]. Both drugs reduce the LDL level by pretty much the same amount.
In the FOURIER study on Repatha the results were the following
Cardiovascular mortality – total numbers:
Repatha = 251
Placebo = 240
Overall mortality
Repatha = 444
Placebo = 4263
Yes, Repatha lowered LDL to the same degree as Inclisiran and yet slightly more people died taking Repatha than died taking placebo. Repatha has been approved and launched, although you may wonder how or why.
In short, just because a drug lowers LDL does not mean it does any good. Just to give another example, the drug evacetrapib lowered LDL by 37% (and increased HDL by 132%). It, too, had absolutely no impact on cardiovascular mortality.
‘Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease.’ 4
Just in case you are wondering, Evacetrapib did not launch. Nor did another three drugs in the same class that all had ‘favourable effects on established lipid biomarkers’ but achieved nothing. One of them, torcetrapib, increased cardiovascular death by 50%.
In short, approving drugs, or launching drugs before you have any evidence that they do anything – other than having a favourable effect on an established lipid biomarker – is ridiculous. But never mind, longer term studies on Inclisiran will be completed by 2023, and 2026. When will they actually be published?
Who cares, by the time they are published, Inclisiran will have made billions, and no-one will care if the results are positive, or negative, as it will have become established as ‘standard’ treatment.
A number of us found the NICE approval of Inclisiran so ridiculous that we wrote them a letter. (See below). I do not imagine it will have the slightest impact.
To: Sharmila Nebhrajani OBE,
Chair: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
2nd Floor, 2 Redman Place
London E20 1JQ
cc. The Right Honourable Sajid Javid, MP Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Department of Health
Richmond House 79 Whitehall London, SW1A 2NS
15th Sept 2021
Concerns about the latest NICE draft guidance on Inclisiran
Introduction:
We are concerned about your draft final guidance recommending the novel anti-cholesterol drug inclisiran (Leqvio and made by Novartis) for people with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia who have already had a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke.
We would ask for this decision to be over-turned immediately until there is enough data to support any hard outcome benefit of Inclisiran, namely the prevention of heart attacks, strokes or death.
Our main concerns are addressed in six key areas:
1. Inclisiran is an investigational drug in the UK
Inclisiran gained approval by the European Medicines Agency in Dec 2020, however, the drug remains unapproved in the UK (which is not part of the European Union) since 31 Jan 2020 and other major nations. The novel PCSK-9 inhibitor has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
We would recommend however, that a full appraisal of the Inclisiran trial data and marketing license be obtained by UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency prior to rolling out the drug to patients in the NHS.
2. Lack of transparency in NICE decision making process
The decision for NICE follows an agreement on a population-level commercial deal between NHS England and NHS Improvement and Novartis which will make inclisiran available with a discount to its list price.
The full details to the pricing agreement have been kept confidential and not available for independent scrutiny. This lack of transparency should be of concern to the British public, prescribing doctors and taxpayers who fund NICE.
3. No long-term data on effectiveness or safety
To date, the trials are short term, only 18 months. NICE’s daft guidelines acknowledge this issue. “The committee was concerned that there was a lack of long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes from the clinical trials that compared Inclisiran with placebo. However, it noted that ongoing clinical trials would provide more data on these outcomes.”
We propose that more long-term data on safety and efficacy is accumulated before recommending Inclisiran, even as an adjunct to statin therapy.
4. Decision based on a surrogate marker (LDL-C)
Inclisiran, the novel PSCK-9 inhibitor is effective at lowering Low Density Lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), however, mounting evidence demonstrates that it is a weak surrogate marker of cardiovascular disease.
The push to lower cholesterol with statins to prevent heart disease has been hugely influenced over the years by meta-analyses performed by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration at Oxford University researchers.
The CTT suggests that there is a linear relationship between LDL-C reduction by statins and the reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease. The individual patient data, upon which they make these claims, is not accessible to third parties for independent scrutiny.
NICE justifies its decision to be guided by the CTT in its recommendations “The clinical experts stated that the CTT meta-analyses were appropriate and that a similar relationship between LDL-C lowering and a reduction in cardiovascular event risk as seen with statin use could be expected with Inclisiran.”
However, it should be noted that statins have pleotrophic effects – anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic – that may be responsible for the benefits seen in secondary prevention patients.
Further, there is conflicting evidence that LDL-C is a causal factor in heart disease. A 2020 recent study published by Danish researchers, for example, demonstrated that LDL-C the lowest risk of all-cause mortality was found at an LDL-C concentration of 3.6 mmol/L (140 mg/dL).
In comparison the highest association with all-cause mortality was actually at LDL-C levels of less than 1.8mmol (70mg/dL).
Notably, NICE recommendations suggest that people with LDL-C concentrations persistently 2.6 mmol/l or more, despite maximum tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, should be on Inclisiran. This has no independent scientific basis.
Although the NICE recommendation is specific to patients with either previous cardiovascular disease or FH such a well-publicised recommendation feeds into a false narrative that the lower the LDL-C the better when it comes to overall health and/or managing cardiovascular disease. It’s instructive to note that there is also no difference in levels of LDL-C in patients with FH who developpremature heart disease versus the one’s that don’t suggesting that LDL-C is not the main driving factor for the development of coronary artery disease in these patients.
Furthermore, an independent peer reviewed systematic review of drug trials carried out by three cardiologists in 2020 published in BMJ Evidence Based Medicine revealed that there was no clear relationship with reduction in LDL in both high risk and low risk patients in reducing cardiovascular events.
5. No evidence for cardiovascular benefit with Inclisiran lowering LDL-C
Low Density Lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been the primary outcome of the clinical trials. While we agree that Inclisiran demonstrates effective reduction in LDL-C, we find that the clinical data to support the benefit of cholesterol lowering is absent.
An analysis by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) found there was a “lack of cardiovascular outcome data” in the regulatory documents sent to the drug agency.
It also found that “the number and percentage of deaths was comparable between the placebo and the Inclisiran group, but numbers are too small for clear conclusions.”
“In addition, no definite data on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are currently available,” the report stated.
NICE’s own guidelines state, “there is also no long-term evidence on whether inclisiran reduces cardiovascular events. This means the clinical evidence and the cost-effectiveness estimates are very uncertain”.
Given that Inclisiran has not proven to reliably reduce major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular morbidity, or mortality, we believe a decision to recommend this drug based is premature.
Two studies, ORION-4 in secondary prevention and ORION-17 in primary prevention are currently underway.
6. Loss of professional confidence
The lack of transparency in the decision-making process may undermine professional and public confidence in NICE and its decision-making processes. This could be critically damaging to professional confidence in the delivery of evidence-based healthcare in the UK
In light of our concerns, we urge you to withdraw the current guidance on Inclisiran for people with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia who have already had a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke until further important clinical data with clear cardiovascular benefits are made available.
Your Sincerely,
Dr Aseem Malhotra FRCP, Consultant Cardiologist, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Chairman of The Public Health Collaboration.
Sir Richard Thompson, Past President of The Royal College of Physicians
Dr JS Bamrah CBE, Consultant Psychiatrist and Chairman of BAPIO (British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin)
Dr Campbell Murdoch, General Practitioner and Royal College of General Practitioners – Clinical Advisor
Dr David Unwin FRCGP, General Practitioner, Vice Chair – The Public Health Collaboration.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick, General Practitioner and author.
Sherif Sultan, Professor of Vascular Surgery, President of International Society of Vascular Surgeons. Shahriar Zehtabchi, MD, Professor of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York
Postscript:
The Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration (CTT) in Oxford is the group that hold all evidence from cholesterol lowering trials that have been done on statins. They will not release this evidence, or allow anyone else to come into their unit see it.
The meta-analyses carried out by the Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration (CTT), using the data that only they can see, using the evidence only they hold, has established that the risk of cardiovascular event is reduced by a set amount, for every 1mmol/l that LDL is lowered. (1mmol/l = 38.67mg/dl. Mg/dl is the form of measurement used in the US)
‘The CTT Collaboration has shown that lowering LDL cholesterol using statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (heart attacks, stroke or coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one fifth for each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved.’5
This was the evidence used by NICE to establish that LDL lowering can be used as a ‘surrogate end-point’ i.e., the CTT ‘know’ that if LDL is lowered this will – for certain – result in a known reduction in cardiovascular end-points.
‘The company (Novartis) used the Cholesterol Treatment Trialist Collaboration (CTT)meta-analyses, which reported change in cardiovascular event risk per1 mmol/l reduction in LDL-C by statin use. The ERG agreed that these analyses were appropriate and noted that earlier versions of this source were used in past NICE technology appraisals in this disease area.’
It should be noted that the Cholesterol Treatment Triallists Collaboration (CTT) is part of the Clinical Trials Service Unit in Oxford (CTSU) 6. This unit has received hundreds of millions of pounds in funding from pharmaceutical companies, primarily those who market cholesterol lowering drugs.7
The Clinical Trials Service Unit (CTSU) in Oxford is currently running, and co-ordinating, the various ORION studies that are being done on Inclisiran. For example, ORION-4, as can be found on the CTSU website:
‘ORION-4 is a research study which aims to find out if a new cholesterol lowering injection safely reduces the risk of heart attacks and strokes in people who have already had one of these conditions, or who have had an operation or procedure to unblock their arteries.’8
Thus, NICE are using the meta-analysis created by the CTT to make the decision that Inclisiran will reduce cardiovascular events, purely due to the effect on LDL lowering.
The CTT hold all the data that make up the meta-analysis used by NICE – and will not allow any independent researchers to see it.
The CTT are part of the CTSU which has run, and continues to run, many pharmaceutical company sponsored studies on LDL/cholesterol lowering drugs. For which they have received hundreds of millions in funding. The CTSU is the group primarily responsible for running the clinical trials on Inclisiran.
Yet, and yet. If you look at the final stakeholder list of consultees and commentators for the Single Technology Appraisal:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE
Single Technology Appraisal
Inclisiran for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia
[ID1647]
Final stakeholder list of consultees and commentators
…if you look closely, the CTT and CTSU do not get a mention 9. It is as if they simply do not exist. And there are literally hundreds of stakeholders. Running from the British Cardiology Society, to the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group, and NHS Bradford City CCG.
Yet, the CTT/CTSU hold on the data for the meta-analysis upon which the entire approval process rests. They are the people running the clinical trials on Inclisiran. And no-one at NICE thought it might be a good idea to speak to them? Are they not, stakeholder number one? Why so coy?
One could even argue that NICE have breached their own guidelines by failing to speak to the most important stakeholder of all.
1: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhealth/27/2707.htm
2: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ta10703/documents/final-appraisal-determination-document
3: https://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/35/75
4: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28514624/
5: https://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/research/ctt
6: https://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/research/ctt
7: https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/08/ctsu-funding-from-drug-companies/
8: https://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/research/orion-4 9: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ta10703/documents/final-matrix
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick 
Thank you for this. It seems NICE is just short for “NiCE little earner for pharma companies. I assume the table must contain astronomical figures which needed so many digits that it just comes out as a black blob. Of course it might be the numbers were written with a fat permanent marker about 6mm wide (I really meant 1/4”). When I went to the NICE site, as soon as I saw “hypercholesterolaemia” it smelt strongly of rats.
Thank you to you and your colleagues for your advocacy on our behalf. I am afraid you are right that it won’t have much impact but you never know. We must keep trying!
Thanks for still being there for us. I particularly like to see the names of your co-signatories – and note that these are people I can trust.
Once you see the pattern, the variants on the theme are merely fronts by which to fool the unwary.
Alas that ‘old normal’ includes any remaining vestige of transparency to a relational account.
Which is to say the perfect transparency of a systemic predatory intent or human as farmed stock is revealed regardless the ruse. Except that living people are only a ‘cell culture’ or ‘lab human’ on which to grow sickness or try out new means of chemical and bio-technical surveillance and control.
A diabolic predicament that sneaks through under cover of brazen and open lies backed by bankers, set in regulations, and enforced by authority.
My sense of ‘Dont feed the Troll!’ includes abusive ‘relationships’, gas-lighting authoritarianism, and guilted fear driven manipulative dissociations.
Looking after our heart is essential to being held in a larger field of guidance and support.
Dissociation from the heart is the loss of bio-resonance to a manually managed mind-control system – every step of the way.
Thank for that. I especially liked “To date, the trials are short term, only 18 months. NICE’s daft guidelines acknowledge this issue.” Daft indeed. Is here any point to NICE apart from giving bureaucrats something to occupy their time?
Dear Dr Kendrick
Typo alert! Para 3 includes ‘NICE’s daft guidelines’ – true, but I suspect you meant ‘draft’.
Thanks for all you do.
Sherard Wilson
I think I shall keep it
Bravo!
Do I recall correctly that the empirical basis for the decision from NiCE to lower the “official” approved level “cholesterol” to (?) 5 was based on a study in the US which , surprise surprise was part but significantly funded by Statin manufacturers? Can anyone confirm that for me , with a link? ( if I am any where near accurate, of course) Thank you.
I know – just re-read “The Great Cholesterol Con” – very illuminating but evidently that bit did not fix in my mind!
My ‘very high’ cholesterol hasn’t harmed me. I think the last time it was tested, many years ago, it was over 10.
I believe the human brain is composed very largely of cholesterol.
So…
Same as launching a vaccine for children because it causes them to produce antibodies but has no effect on symptoms because they have any anyway.
Among many other good things, this talk by Dr Michael Yeadon emphasises that antibodies have very little role in combatting viral infections anyway. Antibodies do not enter human cells – which is where the battle is being fought. They are most effective at killing bacteria, which rampage and multiply outside the cell.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/no_author/a-final-warning-to-humanity-from-former-pfizer-chief-scientist-michael-yeadon/
Dr Yeadon takes a very, very dim view of the situation. I can’t fault his logic or his facts; I think the only faint glow of hope lies in Dr Yeadon’s tendency to overestimate the competence of the enemy. I put my hopes in Hanlon’s Razor:
“Never attribute to malice that which is caused by incompetence”.
I see the political leaders of the world more as a herd of frightened wildebeest stampeding away from the shadow of a passing cloud, rather than as a bunch of brilliant, determined conspirators.
Unfortunately, I don’t see the incompetence theory as tenable. There is a smoking gun in that early treatment with antiviral cocktails was smeared by the medical authorities. Not by merely one or two. By many dozens. And it hasn’t stopped.
Another smoking gun. Hydroxychloroquine was mandated to be given _very late_, in the hospital, “for compassionate use.” This despite the CDC recommending _in Jan. 2020_ to treat influenza _early_ with antivirals, even before lab results were provided.
Another smoking gun. There have been no RCTs of early treatment of high risk patients with inexpensive, well-tolerated antivirals. None of the medical authorities have pushed for this.
So I don’t see the incompetence theory as tenable.
Hopefully RICO lawsuits against the CDC, FDA, pharma, mass media, and social media will provide discovery of collusion between these entities to deceive the public (including physicians) about antivirals in order to promote vaccines.
Lawsuits are the way forward.
They could not endorse the use of HCQ as a form of early treatment. Doing this would negate the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for the vaccines as no other treatment CAN exist if you want to invoke the EUA. This was all a push for the vaccines. This is why they shoot down ivermectin also. The CDC, FDA, and Big Pharma are all evilly intwined.
Yikes you don’t take any prisoners Dr K do you lol good on you its time NICE had their gilded cages rattled.
On the subject of statins and cholesterol, my cholesterol has been steadily rising for years and docs were frantically trying to get me to take statins which in fairness to moi I had tried years ago and side effects were horrendous,I became a young mum who couldn’t even brush her children’s hair for school I could barely lift my arms the muscle pain was so severe ,so I’ve resisted as long as I could then I got private blood tests done after years of illness and hpylori and discovered I had pernicious anemia,I cant tell you how these b12 injections improved my health,(which I now self administer because nhs refuse to increase my frequency and I get ill very quickly between doses so like many p.a sufferers. I buy the ampoules from Germany and self inject to try and stop the progress of the neurological damage caused by years of neglect by NHS gps in not testing me properly,intrinsic factor etc anyway the outcome of this injecting with b12 has been that in the last 12 months I’ve improved hugely but also my cholesterol has dropped,even though I consider I ate healthy and don’t smoke/ drink alcohol I couldn’t seem to budge it before and now I’m pleased to say the b12 injections have regulated it I think,any comments Dr K ? Take care
In the course of my fight with statins (nicely behind me now) I was given a proton pump inhibitor (to counter the extra stomach acid produced by the NSAID drug I was using to reduce the statin pain) and it lowered my stomach acid so much that I could not absorb B12.
I was started on regular B12 injections for life
Once I was off the statins, I didn’t need the pain killers, so I didn’t need the PPI drugs (but you have to tail these off slowly because they are a bit addictive). I then got tested and my B12 was normal again – so I didn’t need the injections for life!
If you are free of the rest of the rubbish, I would get re-tested for B12 levels.
I don’t bother with my cholesterol levels (or the LDL/HDL ratio) at all!
David, I have responded to your answer, but it has got out of sinc with other responses. Jen.
Well, isn’t that just the classic escalation of medication.
You take an unnecessary, in fact, counterproductive (i.e. harmful) drug.
Which causes a side effect (one of several no doubt) that requires more medication, which causes a side effect requiring another intervention….. and when the statin dose starts to become insufficient everything needs upping in proportion, for as long as ye may live.
You could take some solace from their strong desire to at least keep you alive for as long as possible. And as Dr K noted in the forward to Doctoring Data, you’ll save on food.
Great work.
Waving this iffy drug through during the coronavirus ‘crisis’ is a bit like ‘burying’ bad news on the day of 9/11.
Yourself and the other signatories are keeping their eye on the ball.
Many thanks for your work and dedication.
Great article Dr Kendrick. I particularly liked the line “NICE’s daft guidelines acknowledge this issue.”
The TV interview you gave with Dr Malhotra was excellent – thank you for speaking out. It seems to me that NICE has reduced medical treatment to the equivalent of paint-by-numbers art and are selling at Christie’s prices.
Best wishes.
Dr. Kendrick, I share much of your skepticism about statins, but do you also think statins or other cholesterol-lowering drugs are not always necessary for people who have had stents or bypasses?
Two overlapping stents (DES) in both RCA and LAD inserted in Dec 2018 due to STEMI, prescribed atorvastatin 80mg, try 40mg with CGM and observed blood glucose sky rocketing next day with muscle fatigue, refuse the statin till date, also stop low dose aspirin 1.5 years back. However eating very low carb to no carb still fit with LDL-C cal 9.72mmol/L HDL-C 2.31mmol/L, trig 1.61mmol/L HbA1c 5% (31mmol/mol). Statin is a conned job to treat a number and fatten the Big Pharma and to show that medical people are doing some work.
2 stents 2004 followed by 80mgs of pfizer’s lipitor. Very bad experience all round reaching a point in 2010, quit statins 2014 and its like coming back to life. Consistent exercise, some chill outs on my couch with some favoured music plus low carb ever since while kicking lo-fat products to touch – firmly. GP send me for a angiogram some 4 years ago such was her concern about clogged stents, cardiographer looked at the screen and proclaimed “nothing too exciting there – whatever you are doing, keep on doing it. I
Thank you for your work on behalf of us all.
Thank you, Dr Kendrick. Right to the very heart of the matter, and one is left speechless. As outlined by our fellow member, the signatories to the plaint, are noteworthy, honourable, and totally to be trusted. Thank God for sanity in this cracked-up world. Again, grateful thanks to yourself.
Thanks, Dr. K. I ditched the statins years ago after reading your books and realised an almost immediate improvement in health. I’m an old biddy now but find to my amazement that I actually understand better the ins and outs of blood lipids than the average practice nurse. There’s always a sharp intake of breath when my numbers are revealed but, hey, my ratios are just fine, thank you you much. And if my trigs have crept up a bit from their usual .6 I know why and to what to do.
The information you have imparted to us over the years has been invaluable and I treasure your posts.
Ta,
JanB
Very good
The cholesterol theory lives and prospers mightily all those who at its table
Oh Malcolm. Stay with us. We need you.
Trying to analyse the numbers from the Covid affair must have felt like wrestling with frog spawn. I’m glad to see you back on terra firma, exposing the crooks who do so well out of the great cholesterol con.
I just love page 16, “Summary of Economic Model (1)”, especially that blood blob “Any living state”. NICE must have some graphic designer whizz kids. I am trying to work out what the handle on the blue ellipses means, presumably that once you are dead you remain dead, overpowering insight. However, I know about Markov stochastic models and doubt that the past can be ignored when ‘computing’ what happens to a living thing next especially as we know so few parameters of the current state. Then page 36, “Have all relevant benefits been captured in the QALY?” I am sure more will be created. Then in “Equalities”, “Cardiovascular disease … deprivation”. That’s the real key is it not: poor diet, poor housing, stress – we don’t need a medication to fix those.
Fig 16 desperately needs a ‘you are here’ marker!
Interestingly, the text below the figure refers to a 3.5% discount. I wonder if that is the discount NICE/whoever obtained for whitewashing this.
Maybe we could counter by developing a software program to generate and register as many copyrightable pronouncable lettersalad drug names as possible, each supported by commercially confidential data that only we have access to (locked away in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory in the basement, behind a sealed door labelled ‘beware of the Leopard’
Wow. Thank you for your informative blog.
NICE one!
Correct. The whole thing stinks.
If I may, with the greatest respect, point out one minor inconsistency…..
You quote, “In short, approving drugs, or launching drugs before you have any evidence that they do anything – other than having a favourable effect on an established lipid biomarker – is ridiculous”.
In fact they do do something, they add to the bottom line of a number of companies by the odd billion and feather the rear pockets of a number of Oxford-based researchers.
“In short, approving drugs, or launching drugs before you have any evidence that they do anything…” could be applied to other current treatments (which require coercion)
.
If you want ‘crazy’, look at what is happening in Australia.
“I love it when people say things like ‘the threshold has no explicit basis or location in evidence.’ The short word – no – would have done nicely”.
Not only is there no evidence; the whole idea of QUALYs is fallacious. The underlying error is commonly known as “the is-ought fallacy”.
We know certain things as facts. We believe other things as moral rules. If someone’s head is cut off, that person will die. That is a fact (in the “is” category). It is wrong to cut off people’s heads. That is a moral rule (in the “ought” – or rather “ought not” – category).
One can reason about facts, and one can reason about moral rules. But it is unsound to mix the two categories, because while everyone agrees about facts – that is what we mean by calling them “facts” – they tend to disagree about morality.
If you think carefully about the moral assumptions behind QUALYs, you find that there are quite a lot of them. We would mostly agree that it is better for a person to be healthy rather than sick or injured. But we might differ about exactly how much each of us would be willing to pay to make another person whole. (Bill Gates could obviously afford a lot more than I can – but I wouldn’t necessarily assume that he sees things the same way). Then there is the matter of extracting money from people by the threat of extreme violence (otherwise known as “taxation”), in order to pay for drugs, etc., to give to other people.
Not only, as I said before, is there no evidence for the chosen threshold of £30,000; there cannot be any evidence, because the threshold represents a moral belief as to how much one person should be willing to pay to help another person.
Looking forward to the reply, or even an acknowledgment, from NICE.
I see that you and your colleagues had some success against NICE regarding statins back in June 2014. As a relative newbie, I wanted to follow the story between 2014 and today. Is there any way of navigating around this website other than using the previous and next buttons at the bottom of the page?
Thank you for all that you do and for having the strength of mind and purpose to carry on with your work.
Thank you, Dr. Kendrick. Something tells me this will not end well.
As much as Doctor K wants to stay away from the topic of covid, this does tie in.
How can anyone read this post and have any faith in the drug approval process, whether it’s a new cholesterol lowering drug or a “warp speed vaccine.”
At least the government isn’t twisting anyone’s arm to take the latest “life saving drug”. On the other hand, covid vaccines are mandated if you want to keep your job or simply participate in society like a free human being.
I’d rather avoid the ‘vaccine’ even if it means I can’t fly abroad for a few years. The only downside to not being vaccinated is that some of my family gently nag me to relent. This is one advantage to being retired!
I can not make up my mind if it is a case of massive complacency, a overdeveloped sense of “we know best” ( I was going to say the curse of the Medical profession having had a “don’t you question me” episode that did not end well for the GP who had to admit he knew nothing of nutrition when “blanket” telling me “you must have statins” but I acknowledge not all medics fit this description ) or a blind faith in the worth of vaccines, sorry gene editing therapies.
Or all of them.
I may be mistaken, (?) but isn’t this part of the project to make Professor Sir John Bell FRS HonFREng PMedSci one of the richest men on the Planet ?
He appears to have his fingers in all the dodgy stuff that is sprayed out of Oxford – Once a renowned seat of learning, now a cesspool of corruption and dodgy ‘science’.
Sadly
I understood that the £30k came from compensation claims for loss of life in industrial accidents. It’s the amount paid to dependants, I think, per year of life the deceased would normally be expected to have lived.
Malcolm,
Thanks for keeping on going! I can’t imagine how much professional hassle you must get for your work on this blog, but we all appreciate what you do so much.
This seems a potentially frightening scandal to add to all the others.
Everything I read about the health service makes me want to use it less and less. If I didn’t have a regular prescription for blood pressure medicine, I’d be inclined to stop visiting them at all unless I had some emergency.
David, I did have said ’emergency’ in the form of a TIA. ( I am insulin dependent)
Oh, Lordy Lordy….cholesterol 6.5…so get her on the statins asap. Well, no way, says I after my horrific encounter years previously, So, Ezetimibe it must be then, Must get level down to 4.
B/P at hospital admission levels ( but I went home)…get her on an antihypertensive asap ….then double it, then treble it, despite home readings being lovely. I was at a state of collapse with a diastolic of 53….so stopped playing that game immediately)
Add a drug to wee out the excess sugar ( risk of UTI, thrush etc), well no….the extra 2 units of insulin am and pm have dealt with that problem, thankyou. But MUST get fasting sugar down to 4mmol….help, I will be incoherent at that level, I pleaded.
So, when can I have my Us and Es tested, as presumably I am at risk of renal damage with potty sodium and potassium levels on high dose B/P meds. (annually?)
Assuming I am reducing my cholesterol levels with Ezetimibe….when can I have my blood tested.( annually?). In the past, on statins, my level was 3.8 and I was immobile and in dreadful pain, but no acknowledgement of statins being the cause…I just needed to swim more.
Assuming I am now weeing out sugar, how is my bladder health being monitored, or do I have to present with a UTI requiring antibiotics, or thrush, requiring anti-fungal treatment? Even the GP thought that was a no-goer.
So, you see, David, unless there is an emergency situation, it is best to keep away from our beloved NHS, or we end up back on the ever speeding merry-go-round of polypharmacy, which I intend to jump off as soon as possible.
As my GP told me 8 years ago…if you stop those statins…you will have a cardiac event. As mentioned, a TIA eventually happened, but scan showed no atheroma in carotids, or negative pathology on brain scan. But an assumption was concluded that cholesterol of 6.5 was the causal factor! Hmmm….
Jennifer,
I think if I were you, I’d go to an alternative health practitioner and discuss the situation. Although they are not doctors, they seem to know a lot about medicine. I was amazed that a guy I go to for acupuncture knew all about the cholesterol/statins/saturated fat/etc scandals.
They will also help you to eat a low sugar diet.
Increasingly my reaction is to say **** the health ‘service’ and simply use it if I really need it (broken limbs etc).
Also, as you get older it is helpful to remember that we all die eventually. There is no point in letting doctors wreck your later life – but they will if you let them.
Thank you David. Your advice is welcome, however, I find it difficult to completely break the apron strings of the NHS. As I found out in the past, it was a big step to ‘go it alone’ into the private sector, by withdrawing from prescribed medications that I deemed unnecessary. I was ridiculed by a GP, but I was 8 years younger and was proved correct. As I get older, I fear that my future needs may require state help.
As to acupuncture, I liken it to the TENS machines I have decided to use ( and most successfully) for trigger fingers and disabling inflammation of my sacro iliac joints. I had been prescribed strong NSAIDs, which made me ill. I am annoyed with myself for not considering TENS when the problems first arose, but equally upset that I was left to my own devices to conclude that medications are not always the answer. Nearly 30 years ago, I worked in an NHS department where acupuncture was practiced in a remote Friday afternoon clinic; it was looked upon as ‘alternative’ therapy back then, and I understand that such ‘non-proven ‘ alternative therapies are only available privately now.
Have you heard of Sharon Wheeler’s Scarwork? I trained in this and it is used to treat trigger finger, among other things. I recently used Sharon’s Bone and Scarwork on an elderly woman who was sitting next to me at an exhibition. Her little finger had broken in a fall and set at right angles. It took about 20 minutes to straighten it using a combination of the two protocols. We sat and chatted while I did it; it is very gentle. Also, Jan Trewartha’s Body Realignment for your SI problems. (A quick question, is your pelvis level? A tilted pelvis can cause all sorts of problems and it is the first thing I correct in a treatment. (I’m mostly retired now and will only help if someone is in a lot of pain (or sits next to me with a misaligned digit.))
From discussions I have had while being given acupuncture, I don’t think it is like TENS. I tried a TENS machine in the period when I had statin pains but did not realise that they were the cause. Using TENS is quite unpleasant – far more so than acupuncture!
The acupuncturist explained that most joint pain – including back pain – is actually caused by muscles that have started to pull too hard, or in a way that pulls the joint off-centre. He felt all my relevant muscles, and used his needles to relax those that were causing the trouble. Needles in the back don’t go anywhere near the spinal cord – they just tweak the muscles in the back.
The price of acupuncture is £40 per hour – far cheaper than the cost of private medicine!
Since joint pain causes so much misery to people and is so widespread, I think that shutting out alternative medicine for these problems is a scandal comparable to the cholesterol scandal etc.
David: Very important point about the relationship between joint pain and the musculature! I had terrible back pain while bending during my 50’s, partly due to an injury years before (I suspect), but largely due to posture and muscle issues. Taking Esther Gokhale’s (an acupuncturist) posture course mostly resolved this, but I wasn’t completely cured until I strengthened the core muscles, through doing pushups, pull-ups and squats. Now I can bend anytime is wish without any pain. The core muscles, front and back, are so crucial for any sort of movement we do.
david Bailey
about joint pain, that has long been my opinion that the muscles get tensed up wrongly and don’t let go.
Now I have had two hip replacements, but have never been able to work out why. Someone sait that Bretons are more susceptible to hip wear, so it might be genetic. or not
In my limited experience it is not muscles which cause the problem but fascia, usually at the site of an injury, either physical or mental (in my training we did not differentiate). Scars have profound effects on fascia, particularly abdominal scars. We would not try and work on aligning a person until all scars had been treated to some extent. Fascia is very strong, stronger than muscle.
“Everything I read about the health service makes me want to use it less and less”.
Moi aussi. Unfortunately, that suits the purposes of the people who run the NHS. The fewer actually sick people who come bothering them, the better; then they can concentrate on their “core business” of handing out repeat prescriptions for expensive, unnecessary and dangerous drugs – and billing the taxpayer for them.
So much more profitable than actual medicine. And less trouble.
The big mistake you’ve made is finding out what your blood pressure is. Better read the chapters covering BP in DD again! 😉
If the average blood pressure of UK citizens is not a lot higher today than it was two years ago, a lot of the government’s efforts have been in vain.
Creating and maintaining an atmosphere of threat and vague, undefined terror is a most reliable way of elevating blood pressure, weakening immune systems, and generally undermining health.
Your government is NOT your friend.
Can you imagine the amount of financial resource that would be released back to our consistently cash-strapped health service if they could stop with all these drugs-that-don’t-do-anything-useful? The NHS – and by implication Big Pharma – will consume us all.
To the predatory agenda they are fit for purpose.
To the willingly sacrificed they are distorted so as to maintain the illusion of being protected by them.
But yes if the true cost was acknowledged, the result would be unimaginable to a drugged and conditioned dependency.
The cash strapped NHS is deliberate and strategic. However for a restructure via covid, no limits to the public purse are allowed to stop the redistribution of wealth and control – the greatest in the history of our world.
Big Pharma is claiming its assets by actively retraining their compliance to overt dictates against all or any reason.
Without Global Financial backing none of this could run, or have been set up and lockstepped.
I heartily concur, and I would add: what if people stopped eating and drinking what the government advises them to (“healthy whole grains”, sugar, and synthetic seed oils) and returned to a healthy diet based on grass-fed red meat, game, fish, organic vegetables and organic dairy? Washed down by a little wholesome wine, whisky or (if you absolutely must) beer.
And if they got enough healthy exercise, slept 8 hours a night (or whatever their individual need is) and were free from haunting, deadly stress over jobs, money, sickness, war, terrorism, etc.
Over time I can easily imagine the NHS budget being halved or better.
If only it were possible to imagine a government that would even start moving in such directions…
So true.
Today the Guardian reports that, not content with the damage they have set in train by gree-lighting jabs for 12-17yos, the idiot cabal of CMOs have sanctioned the addition of fluoride to our drinking water so everyone is poisoned.
There is no recognition that most of us already make sure that we and our children use fluoride toothpaste as directed to ensure that we don’t overdose on the stuff.
And there is no recognition of the fact that, along with aluminium, fluorine is not present in mammalian biology – not sure if any ancient groups use it, but I suspect not, it is highly reactive.
The question is, rather like the jabbing, why are they doing this, is it just hubris, on a roll, or do they all have shares in companies struggling to dispose of fluorine?
As I understand it, fluoride occurs naturally in water at various concentrations in different places. This would work out fairly well for hunter-gatherers; as they roam around their wide territory, the water in one place would have more of a certain set of minerals, and elsewhere less. Any place that had a poisonous amount of anything in the water would simply have no hunter-gatherers.
The decision to add fluoride to water suppliers reflects the prevailing belief among politicians and their accomplices that it is always better to do something – even if it is wrong – than to do nothing.
As the bishop said to his priests at the news that Christ had risen and was approaching, “Look busy!”
Fluoride is known to adversely affect animals, as it is the most reactive halogen, and will take the place of calcium or any other halogen, eg iodine, needed for thyroid function. It’s a big subject, and for those interested who think it strengthens teeth and prevents decay I suggest you do some research. It is beneficial like covid vaccines, statins and plenty of well supported compounds, and by and large unnecessary. If you look at https://quackwatch.org/11ind/connett/ (quackwatch the fact-checkers), the similar attacks are made against Paul Connett as are made against Dr. K, Mike Yeadon, or anyone else who dares to expose the lies we are fed. If you want to reduce tooth decay, read Weston Price and cut out refined carbohydrates, so the teeth can function properly and allow the pressures to allow fluid up through the teeth, and not have the pressure pushing fluids downwards (pedants should reverse that for the upper jaw). Fluoride does harden enamel, good? Not necessarily, hard can mean brittle and so more likely to crack. Less hard means tough, and thus less likely to crack. Fluoride is yet another compound promoted by the “health” industry (and we know their game where “health” is nothing to do with wellbeing), suits the naive, and those who don’t take responsibility for their own health. Cut out industrial sugars and use sodium bicarbonate instead of toxic toothpaste. It’s cheaper too.
Exactly – and thanks for the details, of which I was unaware. One thing I do know is that fluoride – like margarine and petrol – first became a product after being seen as an undesirable and inconvenient industrial by-product. Why pay to dispose of it safely when you can get the government to pay you for it?
The petrol story is amazing – I learned of it from Dmitry Orlov, a trained scientist, engineer and linguist whose blog is a brilliant resource. When oil wells were first drilled, 150 years or so ago, at first the light fractions that we know as petrol (“gasoline” in the USA, or – confusingly – “gas”) were burned off as there was no practical use for them. Then some bright spark realised that he could kill two birds with one stone by popularising vehicles fuelled by petrol. Much less efficient than diesel, but never mind – profit is profit, wherever you find it.
AhNotepad wrote “Fluoride is known to adversely affect animals, as it is the most reactive halogen, and will take the place of calcium or any other halogen, eg iodine, needed for thyroid function.”
Flouride definitely cannot replace calcium – their ions are of opposite charge.
You also have to be careful about concentrations because selenium for example is toxic at high concentrations but an essential mineral at low ones.
I’m not saying that fluoride is or is not bad for you in drinking water concentrations, just that this doesn’t follow from the fact that it is toxic at higher concentrations.
See also hormesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
Calcium is an element. Fluoride is a compound (sodium, etc). The fluoride compounds replace calcium compounds in teeth and bones.
There is much misinformation available then. There are many links, this is just one https://www.drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/CALCIUM.htm
”Excessive fluoride replaces calcium in the bones, causing them to become brittle and weak. Sources are fluoride tablets, fluoridated tap water, some mineral waters, foods contaminated with fluorides from the soil and foods processed with fluoridated water such as reconstituted fruit juices and soda pop. Some foods are naturally high in fluorides like tea. Drinking fluoridated water or consuming products processed with fluoridated water is a cause of osteoporosis.”
There’s a common misconception that the “fluoride” added to drinking water is pure fluoride. It is not, at least here in the USA. it’s a toxic byproduct of the fertilizer industry (toxic waste in other words) that the industry would normally have the cost of disposing of, since dumping it in the environment is prohibited. Many don’t realise it’s not the same chemical formula that the dentist uses to apply to your teeth, which is applied topically, not internally. It doesn’t occur to them that when this chemical is ingested, it doesn’t just find its way to their teeth but to all the parts of their body, including the brain, where it has been shown to cross the blood brain barrier. Research has shown it lowers IQ in children and possibly contributes to Alzheimers. Approx. 50% of American children have some degree of fluorosis (mottled brittle teeth from too much fluoride). There are multiple scientific studies describing the harm it can do but these have been ignored by the EPA, FDA, NIH etc., though the FDA recently warned not to use it in baby formula for less than 1 yr olds. It’s not allowed in kidney dialysis either. Apparently, most of the rest of the world doesn’t use it, including most of Europe.
Some 70% of the US drinking water is fluoridated artificially and there’s been a growing network of resistance in local areas, spearheaded by F.A.N. Fluoride Action Network whose website is full of useful information, led by Dr. Paul Connett (who’s British and mentioned above in the previous comment) and son Michael, who’ve travelled the world trying to get the message across. Adding it to tapwater is the equivalent of mass medication, where people are not given a choice, other than buying bottled water.
There’ s a really great book by Christopher Bryson (another Brit) called “The Fluoride Deception” that tells the whole rotten (political) story of how fluoride came to be imposed on uninformed Americans just after WWII. It’s been around for so long, that most people accept it without question.
alexei, good post. “Fluoride” is just a lazy reference to the toxic byproducts which have so many syllables that most people will have stopped listening before you get to the end. This level of attention is probably because they have been dosed with, er, flouride. I think Edward Bernays deserves the thanks for advising the ignorant despots how to manipulate the population that fluoride is good to drink. Even topical application will mean it will be in the bloodstream via the gums in seconds.
Thank you Alexei, perhaps you could add a reference or two, so people can look it up. I am very much against fluoridation of water supplies. Yet another piece of unevidenced dogma that simply will not die. Not only no good, but the potential for significant harm.
This, concerning fluoride exposure:
Shhh… CDC Lowered the Recommended Fluoride Levels for Drinking Water… Pass it On
Does Your Water Department Know? Does the EPA Know?
James Lyons-Weiler
Sep 29
Comment
Share
For years, the question of bad health resulting from fluoride has been dismissed as wild-eyed “conspiracy theories”. In fact, studies have been around for some time indicating that fluoride can have adverse health effects. When you find out what they are via this article, and when you learn that in a super-hushed move, CDC lowered the recommended fluoride levels in drinking water, you’ll see the “debunking” and “conspiracy theorist” labeling tactics of perception control are beginning to fail. This article gives you what you need to inform your City Council and Water Department that they need to adjust the fluoride levels in your drinking water.
After a huge online activist campaign in 2018 to raise awareness on the studies showing that fluoride decreases IQ, CDC quietly changed the recommended fluoride levels. Did you miss the huge online activist campaign? Me, too. Because it was a spontaneous, autonomous effort by individuals sharing scientific studies.
Studies like this systematic review of 27 studies by Dr. Grandjean and colleagues:
Background: Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children’s neurodevelopment. Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to investigate the effects of increased fluoride exposure and delayed neurobehavioral development.
Results: The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was -0.45 (95% confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22820538/
Or this one, by Nakamoto and Rawls:
Abstract:
Fluoride, one of the most celebrated ingredients for the prevention of dental caries in the 20th century, has also been controversial for its use in dentifrices and other applications. In the current review, we have concentrated primarily on early-life exposure to fluoride and how it may affect the various organs. The most recent controversial aspects of fluoride are related to toxicity of the developing brain and how it may possibly result in the decrease of intelligence quotient (IQ), autism, and calcification of the pineal gland. In addition, it has been reported to have possible effects on bone and thyroid glands. If nutritional stress is applied during a critical period of growth and development, the organ(s) and/or body will never recover once they pass through the critical period. For example, if animals are force-fed during experiments, they will simply get fat but never reach the normal size. Although early-life fluoride exposure causing fluorosis is well reported in the literature, the dental profession considers it primarily as an esthetic rather than a serious systemic problem. In the current review, we wanted to raise the possibility of future disease as a result of early-life exposure to fluoride. It is not currently known how fluoride will become a cause of future disease. Studies of other nutritional factors have shown that the effects of early nutritional stress are a cause of disease in later life. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29763350/
Since then, numerous other studies have shown that IQ and fluoride exposure in children:
Associations between Urinary, Dietary, and Water Fluoride Concentrations among Children in Mexico and Canada https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/8/4/110
And this one
Critical windows of fluoride neurotoxicity in Canadian children https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121006095
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s online resource, The Defender, published this essay
Fluoride Is Toxic to Developing Brains, New Studies Find
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fluoride-is-toxic-to-developing-brains-new-studies-find/
All of this progress has been made in spite of attempts to malign one scientist among a large team of scientists who have published the IQ/Fluoride link (it didn’t work):
Scientists call for independent probe of Canadian professor’s research linking fluoride to lower IQ https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/scientists-call-for-independent-probe-of-canadian-professor-s-research-linking-fluoride-to-lower-iq-1.5137842
Perhaps because more scientists have published more science than the science-deniers can handle:
Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634
“Conclusions and Relevance In this study, maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.”
The study that triggered the emotion-laden letter claiming that the scientist in question had an agenda?
Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/
Results: Thirty-eight percent of mother-child dyads lived in fluoridated communities. An increase of 0.5 mg/L in water fluoride concentration (approximately equaling the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions) corresponded to a 9.3- and 6.2-point decrement in Performance IQ among formula-fed (95% CI: -13.77, -4.76) and breast-fed children (95% CI: -10.45, -1.94). The association between water fluoride concentration and Performance IQ remained significant after controlling for fetal fluoride exposure among formula-fed (B = -7.93, 95% CI: -12.84, -3.01) and breastfed children (B = -6.30, 95% CI: -10.92, -1.68). A 0.5 mg increase in fluoride intake from infant formula corresponded to an 8.8-point decrement in Performance IQ (95% CI: -14.18, -3.34) and this association remained significant after controlling for fetal fluoride exposure (B = -7.62, 95% CI: -13.64, -1.60).
Conclusions: Exposure to increasing levels of fluoride in tap water was associated with diminished non-verbal intellectual abilities; the effect was more pronounced among formula-fed children.
The critics of Dr. Till’s study claimed that they scientists did not consider parent-child IQ (an imagined “confounder”) but they missed that they studied DYADS (which automatically adjusts for inheritance.
Realize that synergistic toxicity between aluminum and fluoride is well-established in the scientific literature for a long, long time, e.g.,
Role of Spirulina in mitigating hematotoxicity in Swiss albino mice exposed to aluminum and aluminum fluoride https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27687764/
From 1997: Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9369984/
What you can do:
Inform your water department by sharing this article with them. CDC has been truly hush-hush on this and practically no one knows the lowered the recommended levels. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/public-service-recommendations.html #ShareTheStudies #ScienceMatters
Support the TCSA trial. EPA is actually being sued to act. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water due to fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups sued the EPA in Federal Court. The trial was held in June 2020 and the judge has yet to make his ruling as of August 2021. https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/
Share this article in your email lists and online across social media. Let’s do ten times better than the online campaign in 2018. YOU MATTER. Act now!
James Lyons-Weiler, 9/29/2021
Subscribe now
Give a gift subscription
Leave a comment
Share
Share Popular Rationalism
Comment
Share
You’re on the free list for Popular Rationalism. For the full experience, become a paying subscriber.
Subscribe
© 2021 James Lyons-Weiler Unsubscribe
2912 Kilcairn Ln, Allison Park, PA 15101
Publish on Substack
Today there is a wide-ranging discussion here:
Video from Joy Warren
That seems like a very (western and northern) European way of looking at the diet, and the world.
But good luck, I seem to have forgotten how exited the world was when Michelle Obama pushed for people moving to a healthy diet…
The pharmaceutical companies must be so embolden now that who knows what quackery is coming down the pipeline?
To be honest, all that reading this does is make me wonder how any patient relying on modern medicine, particularly new ‘wonder’ drugs, is still standing.
Ah, Chancery, that is the beautiful thing about “modern medicine” – like any really good racket. The more drugs are handed out, and the more people follow government dietary advice, the sicker they get. So more drugs are handed out…
Because they have learnt from nature. The successful virus/bacteria is the one that doesn’t kill the victim, but just makes them sick enough to maximise propagation without cessation. So the pharmas ensure that you’ll end up with the maximum meds for as long as possible. Their main issue is getting you on the treadmill in the first place, which is where your GP comes in. Few GPs are your friend. You don’t give them gifts, pay them anything or take them on ‘conferences’. 80%, or more, of their ‘knowledge’ of a disease or drug comes from the supplier. If BP can get the GP to put you on the first step, many other steps will follow.
If it wasn’t so serious a topic and such an awful misuse of public money and trust it would be very comical. Your article (through your lovely writing style) did indeed give me a much needed laugh… bit of medical black humour never goes amiss in dark times. 🙂 Thanks.
To David Bailey.I do so like to hear of histories such as yours, and pleased that you have solved the problem.. The logicality of the course of events regarding counteracting drug side effects is so well documented, but seems to be disregarded by many medics. I can tell you, as a Registered Nurse, yonks ago, it was drummed into me about intrinsic/extrinsic factor and the need for B12 supplementation by injection. On the old fashioned geriatric wards, vitamin B12 deficiency was anticipated, so actually looked for, then treated,
Towards the end of my Nursing career there seemed to be a tsunami of prescriptions for statins, then for NSAIDs, then PPIs. But I suspect that a deficiency of vitamin B12 is rarely considered in the long term use of PPIs.
The pharmaceutical industry must have thought they had found the proverbial golden goose in the gullible NHS managers….for that read NICE.
Thanks for that comment. If you sort through the various letters and replies here you will find my more detailed description of this incident:
David, many thanks for your link back to 2014. I have re-read the blog, and it just shows how we have not moved on one iota since your superb letter. 7 years of ever-increasing poly-pharma, with the government suggesting there is a problem. Thankyou for your efforts in getting the message across about statins in particular.
September 26, 2021
David Bailey-
You are due the highest praise for the letter you wrote. And before the letter, the approach you had taken to confirm the Simvastatin as the cause of pain and weakness in your leg. Thank you for giving the link back (which shows Dr. Kendrick’s spotlight on your story), and all the work done, then and now, to inform the rest of us. Thank you so much.
OK, I think I have to add:
“Seven, eight
Make them take statins.”
Forcing cells to take more LDL than they want seems like madness.
Sept. 24, 2021
One, two,
miss a few
Seven, eight,
let them eat cake.
Aha, I will call this a nursery rhyme: and dispense with questions of whether it is properly a Couplet X2, or a Quatrain. Word processing has set some limits on me trying to make them proper couplets……. Kind of like trying to deal with Cost/Benefit quantification.
Wishing all peace of mind (see what that will do for your cholesterol) and the best of health. and I had better get on now with my daily efforts.
Sept. 24, 2021I
I am at fault for not crediting Dr. Kendrick with “One, two, miss a few”. I assumed that everyone had read his blog post and had it fresh in mind that it was his line from his post above.
Then, I took the liberty of embroidering on his lines a bit. I liked the fact that “let them eat cake” plays to those of us who think that carbohydrates have anything to do with the health of the heart. Nonetheless, one must always cite references.
So, sorry, Dr. Kendrick; and thank you again for your thoughtful informative posts……and nursery rhymes, as appropriate. It is essential that those of stature, such as yourself, give the healthcare, pharma, and medical agencies a good dose of common sense, and every opportunity to get back on track.
Thank you to all who continue this grueling work. It sometimes seems hopeless to many of us (we are impatient). I commented not so long ago, on the need to Tell Them You’re Going to Tell Them, TELL THEM, and Tell Them That You Told Them. And then keep repeating.
Thank you, Dr. Kendrick, for doing so.
I’m sorry, you can’t say it doesn’t work. That should be “The efficacy of Inclisiran has no explicit basis or location in evidence.” who taught you to science!
Where does he say it doesn’t work?
Irony alert, Eggs! He is mocking the official use of that pompous, vague and misleading phrase.
We’ve been indulging in a binge of “The Sullivans”. Up to season five or six by now. It’s incredibly refreshing to take a trip back to a time when men were men, women were women, and the worst hazard you faced was a dunny catastrophe (as described by Clive James all those years ago).
I’m doing the same with Yes Minister.
Sometimes with Yes, Minister it is really hard to remember that you are watching a comedy from long ago rather than today’s news expose.
Particularly the hospital with no patients, which everyone loves because it runs so smoothly. Todat that episode is rapidly coming true for the whole NHS.
who taught you to english ?
Much like Inclisiran, my Englishing also has no explicit basis or location in evidence.
You are eminently qualified to be a senior government advisor then.
Wow …. the big-pharma “central planners” of our biology, like the central bankers (of today) and so many others in modern societies, are getting breathtakingly more brazen with playing God.
The first thing that struck me was the mention of the mere twice-annual requirement. In quickly scanninng just one paper on this Frankendrug, it appears that the “trick” employed may have been the discovery that, if short-chain enough, double-stranded RNA can evade its normal triggering of the intracellular host defenses (built into the cellular genomes) to eliminate RNA viruses. These viruses (e.g. SARS-CoV-2 and flu), while being replicated in cytoplasm, are the ONLY source of double-strand RNA in nature, but are longer in length.
There is probably more to it than just the fact that the so-named siRNA molecule is short/small. But evidently it is pretty stable within the cell — scarily so. The “gene silencing” effect implies to me that the molecule is able to attach to something in the nuclear chromosomal/epigenetic molecular superstructure fairly readily, likely conferring protection against the breakdown/catabolism of molecules in the broader cytoplasm I would simply guess.
So this is really a type of gene/genetic manipulation (I cannot bring myself to use the word “therapy” given its implication of benefit rather than harm), overriding all of the evolved negative/regulatory feedbacks that our species and others have generated over billions of years on earth by adaptation.
And human LDL is unique amongst mammals, with its massively potent innate-immune antibody-like properties and the extraordinary devotion of large resources by liver to maintain capacity to continuously manufacture large quantities to maintain the (individual’s own unique) immunologically appropropriate/optimal level of serum concentration so as to provide for an instantaneous capability to overwhelm a new pathogen acutely introduced into serum/lymph (e.g. RNA virus). Like the adaptive-immune, humoral antibodies which are more selective/specific in binding affinity and target, human LDL coats (and hence partly disables) and “tags” the pathogenic molecule/cell for destruction by the leukocytes. The WBCs molecularly “recognize” human LDL, just as they do the Ig base molecule of true/adaptive antibodies, as a label for a pathogen to be destroyed. This is not true of any other mammal species and its non-human LDL molecule(s).
Methinks there could be more than just the above-suggested tie to CoVs and other viruses. If the drug molecule turns out to be exquisitely specific/selective, so that it affects ONLY genes expressing the target enzyme, this is already of course a bad thing for immunological potency. We are modern hominids, with huge brains, and there is a REASON we uniquely evolved our expensive innate-immune antibody of “human LDL”. Its PRIMARY function/purpose/role is immunological — the animal biology, and even more so species evolution, do NOT profligately waste resources. This would/will be selected out in nature.
One of the massive misconceptions (with probably some fraud in addition) popularized and likely made permanent by SARS-2 public health policy, turning all that came before upside down, is that the humoral response (i.e. adaptive-immune antibodies and B lymphocytes working (initially/germinally) with T-helper’s) carries an outsize role for viruses. Instead, it is the opposite. I have absolutely NO B-cell function (a severe case of a PID, or polygenic mutations in B cells). I have had absolutely NO problem with SARS-2. CVID patients have problems with bacteria, usually increasing with age, leading usually to first diagnosis. And NOT fundamentally with viral infection. Especially once they receive the benefit of Ig (actually, this is a misnomer for the antibody’s base molecule — should be “antibody”) infusions. This lessens the constant overburden of the T cells and reduces the lymphopenia of the CVID patient. And this, then, reduces the inadequacy of response to viral infection because it is the cell-mediated response that is overridingly critical for fast and efficient elimination of non-cellular, non-organism pathogenic loads (e.g. RNA viruses). This cannot be overemphasized. The emphasis upon vaccines for (especially) respiratory viral pathogens/epidemics has very little public-health policy benefit or justification. For flu there is some, arguably.
For SARS-2 there is NONE. Absolutely none. There IS, arguably, a humanitarian benefit for the oldest and most fragile. It MIGHT extend life for these individuals. But THAT is a completely DIFFERENT matter than public-health benefit and epidemic management.
Back to the main subject …. this siRNA molecule. If it interferes with human immunology in a broader sense than what is being targetted, it could have longer-term detrimental health consequences to say the least. And I very much DOUBT that ANYONE in the big-pharma development group is even AWARE of what I have discussed in terms of the basic research (beginning in the late 1930s, and very much continuing on through today) indicating clearly and elegantly what the evolutionary purpose of human LDL actually IS. Really, really DUMB and irresponsible, these central planners. And those masses who dutifully follow them.
German medical experts study and comment on causes of COVID vaccine deaths, also on undeclared ingredients
https://odysee.com/@en:a5/PK_Tot-durch-Impfung_english:a
Complete with English translation.
For any medic. with a conscience I presume that it will be
1) illuminating
2) distressing.
It’s hard going technically unless you have a good grounding in bio-science. I’m shocked at the apparent degree of manufacturing-related contamination and it’s hard to believe some of that material was a deliberate ingredient. Quite apart from mRNA concerns, who wants that in their body?
September 25, 2021
Posted September 25, 2021, by Stan Bleszynski, at his blog, Stan-heretic:
“Curious lack of discussion on natural immunity”
Stan concisely summarizes some of the studies on “natural immunity” to the SarsCov2. His blog also includes many posts on cholesterol and diet, and is archived back to 2008.
It’s helpful to do some basic maths. If a typical dose is 0.5 millilitres, and a corporation manufactures 100 million doses, that amounts to 50,000 litres or over 10,000 gallons of muck. That’s a hell of a lot of muck, and you can be sure it is not produced in test tubes by highly trained technicians wearing spacesuits in a sterile laboratory. (Although even in the most secure of virus labs, it often happens that viruses escape and contaminate workers and the external world).
When vaccines are manufactured by pouring gallons of different types of muck into huge vats (and, for all I know, stirred by filthy cackling witches… sorry, I got carried away for a moment), how can you be sure that nothing extraneous has got in there?
You can’t. On the contrary, you can be sure that many extraneous substances have got in.
“I think one of the major problems with vaccines is that they’re grown in animal tissues and we don’t know what viruses and pathogens are coming back in the needle. A recent inquiry in December 2018 by the Italian lab, Corvela, on the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine Priorix Terta highlights troubling problems that our technology can now uncover but that few seem to have the courage to investigate. Translated from the Italian, the report finds:
“We have continued the investigation, both chemical and biological, on the Priox Tetra, quadrivalent against measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella. We have found . . . proteobacteria and nematoda worms, 10 other viruses through ssRNA, Microviridae (bacterial or phage viruses)
and numerous retroviruses including endogenous human and avian retroviruses, avian viruses, human immunodeficiency and immunodeficiency virus of monkeys (fragments that if inserted into the database detect fragments of HIV and SIV), murine virus, horse infectious anemia virus, lymphoproliferative disease virus, Rous sarcoma virus, alphaendornavirus, hepatitis B virus, and yeast virus…
“If you eliminate the animal tissue, that leaves aborted human fetal tissue, and I think there are significant moral and scientific issues with what happens on a genetic level when you inject human tissue into the bloodstream. Then you get to the issue of chemicals in the vaccines, like mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, and a host of others, and it begins to look like a witch’s brew that would only be given to children in some demented fairy tale”.
“PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION
“RESTORING FAITH IN THE PROMISE OF SCIENCE”
Dr Judy Mikovits and Dr Kent Heckenlively
(Amazon Kindle Edition)
My interest was piqued re. muck production, and found this (not sure of relation to CV19):
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/how-fluvaccine-made.htm
My edited summary.
For the U.S. there are three different influenza vaccine production technologies approved:
1. egg-based flu vaccine,
2. cell-based flu vaccine, and
3. recombinant flu vaccine.
All commercially available U.S. flu vaccines are made by private sector manufacturers.
1. candidate vaccine viruses (CVVs) grown in eggs, these CVVs are then injected into fertilized hen’s eggs and incubated for several days to allow the viruses to replicate. The fluid containing virus is harvested from the eggs, inactivated and the virus antigen is purified.
2. The vaccine manufacturer inoculates the CVVs into ‘cultured mammalian cells’ (foetuses ?) and allows the CVVs to replicate for a few days. Then, the virus-containing fluid is collected from the cells and the virus antigen is purified.
3. Recombinant vaccines are created synthetically. First the gene that contains the genetic instructions for making a surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) is obtained. HA is an antigen, which is a feature of a flu virus that triggers the human immune system to create antibodies that specifically target the virus. This gene for making flu virus HA antigen is then combined with a baculovirus, a virus that infects invertebrates. This results in a “recombinant” baculovirus, which enters a host cell line where it instructs the cells to rapidly produce the HA antigen. This antigen is grown in bulk (?), collected and purified.
Steve and Prudence Kitten
Have either of you ever been in a pharmaceutical factory. From the way you write about muck, witches cauldron etc I think not.
Yes.
But let’s not make the schoolboy error of confusing the end product with the production method.
“Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking”.
– John Maynard Keynes (New Statesman and Nation 15 July 1933)
And, the basic maths shows that in the UK a single dose costs, roughly, £2.50, and a GP is paid, around, £12.50 to administer each dose.
So, in the UK, each dose is roughly costing a minimum (infrastructure aside) £15.00.
From Gov.uk:
> As of April 13, 2021, the United Kingdom government had ordered 457 million doses of various COVID-19 vaccines.
> 28 April, 2021. An extra 60 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine have been secured by the UK government to help support the booster COVID-19 vaccination programme beginning from the autumn.
> 23 August 2021. The UK has agreed a contract for 35 million more doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, to be delivered from the second half of next year.
That’s 552 Million doses.
552 Million x £15.00 = £8.28 Billion
The UK is heading for economic meltdown for a virus that is no worse than seasonal Flu and is not a threat to over 99% of the population.
“…fragments that if inserted into the database detect fragments of HIV and SIV…”
Please note that what this means is that, if tested by similar means to the PCR used to assess Covid status, Priorix Tetra [sic] inoculates human recipients with HIV and SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus).
A certified, officially approved GlaxoSmithKline “vaccine” introduces HIV into its recipients.
Somewhat belatedly, may I link to Simon Elmer’s latest magnificently researched and documented article:
“The UK ‘Vaccination’ Programme. Part 2: Virtue and Terror”
https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2021/09/22/the-uk-vaccination-programme-part-2-virtue-and-terror/
Another thing being snuck in under the cover of Covid is adding more ‘stuff’ to our food and water to supposedly increase the health of the nation !
1. “Following a 2019 public consultation, the UK Government and devolved administrations have announced that the addition of folic acid (the synthetic form of folate, or vitamin B9) to all UK-milled wheat flour, except for wholemeal, will become mandatory.”
“The main reason is an attempt to reduce foetal development problems called neural tube defects (NTDs). If a woman’s diet is deficient in vitamin B9 during the early stages of pregnancy, it can lead to NTDs, such as spina bifida. The UK Government’s 2019 consultation documents included an estimate that the addition of folic acid to flour might reduce the number of NTDs in the UK by around 150-200 per year.”
Question: Why not just give every pregnant woman free B9 supplements instead of adding stuff to everyone’s food ?. Wouldn’t it be more cost effective and better targeted ?
2. “Fluoride is expected to be added to drinking water across the country after Britain’s chief medical officers concluded that the mineral would cut tooth decay.
Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, and his counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland cited estimates by Public Health England that adding more fluoride to water supplies would reduce cavities by 17% among the richest children and 28% among the poorest. They also ‘dismissed safety concerns’ saying there is no evidence that the ionised form of the element fluorine causes cancer and condemned “exaggerated and unevidenced” suggestions about health risks.”
Question: Whitty and PHE ‘dismissed safety concerns’, say no more ! IMO the biggest causes of tooth decay are: the cost of NHS dental treatment, the ‘fact’ that NHS dentists don’t do preventative treatments any more and creeping privatisation pushed by the NHS. Why not make NHS dental treatment free, fund it properly and close down the private sharks ?
3. There are even stories circulating about making the gene jab into a food additive !!
As a species we are doomed if our food and water is allowed to be contaminated by government edict and the say so of dubious ‘experts’ and corrupt organisations.
It’s only one person’s experience but high vitamin D supplements and a blood level since 2018 of >90 nmol/ltr, now 120 nmol/ltr seems to have improved my dental health. In the past it was dreadful. I’m past retirement age, so it’s a case of better late than never.
Possible unwanted side-effect: Won’t water fluoridation lead to increased sales of bottled water to opponents who can afford this luxury and more plastic waste?
Some years ago, I was involved in a campaign against fluoridation and the relevant water authority also seemed to support the campaign against it. Apparently private water companies didn’t want to be sued for adding an ingredient not necessary for health and safety. So I assume the government must have come up with an indemnity, as with the vaccine makers.
We also noted at the time of this campaign that fluoridated Birmingham had poorer dental health than unfluoridated East Anglia. Rather surprising, we thought. But like today, never mind the data; follow the dogma.
On a separate note, here’s the latest move to medical fascism –
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposal-for-mandatory-covid-certification-in-a-plan-b-scenario-call-for-evidence
David, they want submissions by Oct 11th, but only from stakeholders. Another hint at the luciferians I suppose
The best way to obtain folic acid is by eating green leafy veg. Hence the name, as in “foliage”.
Thank you.
I do not believe that anything in the medical and dietary world will have the power to surprise me any more. And I am unlikely to vote ever again, though I remain indebted to the suffragettes.
Just read “The Spartacus Letter” which presents a very detailed and eye opening understanding of Covid, vaccines, etc. Worth Reading!
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/damn-you-hell-you-will-not-destroy-america-here-spartacus-covid-letter-thats-gone-viral
Download PDF here:
https://www.bitpost.app/u/donfre/covid-19-the-spartacus-letter-pdf-SQEZJ6K
A very poor document. Full of “references”. Full of everything we know yet.
This first “part” isn’t well laid and is confusing. Even for me, a MD.
Do not lose your time.
The term “medical theater” – used in the introduction, to describe all the silly health guidelines is very apt.
You highlight a real problem that most of us have faced since 18 months ago. Masses of facts and figures have been published about Covid, and yet they are systematically ignored by the authorities, most of the public, and worst of all by doctors.
So any thorough coverage must inevitably include lots of stuff that makes you feel, “Oh, I knew that long ago!”
This is all over the internet but the original pdf with 24 pages of references has disappeared.
I found it on Wayback machine but it cannot be downloaded. I copied the text elsewhere and then copied the references but I could not get it to format correctly. They are all there but it would take a long time to format. I expect someone else will succeed.
https://invesbrain.com/damn-you-to-hell-you-will-not-destroy-america-here-is-the-spartacus-covid-letter-thats-gone-viral/
I wonder who wrote this, I’d say a team with some unwilling to put their name to it.
Spread far and wide. It is a long hard read and I do not understand half of it, Of course this will be buried and not debated as would happen with real science.
It’s here https://www.docdroid.net/kZZXcGS/covid-19-the-spartacus-letter-pdf
404
“This letter has been deleted”
Just searched for “spartacus letter pdf” https://www.docdroid.net/z3E19up/covid-19-the-spartacus-letter-pdf and up it came.
Yes. Third time lucky. Thanks
This link still works as of September 28th 11pm (London time):
https://data.bitpost.app/file/53d1d490f7389adf8645672aa3b3a3ab63346c4503f47ca03b0d647c1ae10cbe
I have taken a copy just in case.
Did you know that taking a statin will RAISE your level of Lp(a)?
Well I don’t know if Lp(a) is a problem or not in the first place, but there is a new drug on the block to take care of you.
There are also drugs coming along to address your high triglycerides.
How good is that! ??
https://www.healio.com/news/cardiology/20210924/novel-agents-targeting-lpa-triglycerides-spearhead-profound-change-in-therapies?utm_source=selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news&M_BT=4129698024700
Oh. And, of course, we all know that statins can get you aboard the insulin resistant / type II diabetes express train, don’t we?
Dr. K
The day after you posted this blog entry, Amgen posted a new press release:
“FDA Approves Repatha® (evolocumab) In Pediatric Patients Age 10 And Older With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia” and subtitled “Approval Based on HAUSER-RCT Study Demonstrating a Significant Reduction in LDL-C”
The FDA garbage on my side of the pond seems the same as the NICE rubbish on your side.
Ref: https://www.amgen.com/newsroom/press-releases/2021/09/fda-approves-repatha-evolocumab-in-pediatric-patients-age-10-and-older-with-heterozygous-familial-hypercholesterolemia
YouTube bans ALL anti-vax videos.
https://www.rt.com/news/536174-youtube-bans-anti-vax/
Sad day for free speech.
Sept. 29, 2021
Thanks to all of those above who posted links to the Spartacus letter. I have just spent a bit of time reading through a few parts of it. Here are 2 excerpts, to give some idea of the contents:
of “the SPARTACUS LETTER”
(pages unnumbered)
excerpted Sept.29, 2021
QUOTES
This condition is not unknown to medical science. The actual name for all of this is acute sepsis.
We know this is happening in COVID-19 because people who have died of the disease have noticeable ferroptosis signatures in their tissues, as well as various other oxidative stress markers such as nitrotyrosine, 4-HNE, and malondialdehyde.
When you intubate someone with this condition, you are setting off a free radical bomb by supplying the cells with O2. It’s a catch-22, because we need oxygen to make Adenosine Triphosphate (that is, to live), but O2 is also the precursor of all these damaging radicals that lead to lipid peroxidation.
The correct treatment for severe COVID-19 related sepsis is non-invasive ventilation, steroids, and antioxidant infusions. Most of the drugs repurposed for COVID-19 that show any benefit whatsoever in rescuing critically-ill COVID-19 patients are antioxidants. N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, fluvoxamine, budesonide, famotidine, cimetidine, and ranitidine are all antioxidants. Indomethacin prevents iron- driven oxidation of arachidonic acid to isoprostanes. There are powerful antioxidants such as apocynin that have not even been tested on COVID-19 patients yet which could defang neutrophils, prevent lipid peroxidation, restore endothelial health, and restore oxygenation to the tissues.
…………………………….
and, from the discussions which close the letter:
Graphene oxide is an anxiolytic. It has been shown to reduce the anxiety of laboratory mice when injected into their brains. Indeed, given SARS-CoV-2 Spike’s propensity to compromise the blood-brain barrier and increase its permeability, it is the perfect protein for preparing brain tissue for extravasation of nanoparticles from the bloodstream and into the brain. Graphene is also highly conductive and, in some circumstances, paramagnetic.
END QUOTES
The references are useful, in that they are grouped under the same headings as the letter itself, so that one may easily find the references for the topic of interest. They are links, so I have no excuse not to try to find “malondialdehyde”, and learn something about it.
Information and opinions regarding the COVID19 vaccines are expressed. Thoughts on possible uses and abuses of future vaccines are expressed.
Now, where is that copy of The Crying of Lot 49, that I hope is in my library archives somewhere ?
October 1, 2021
A short paper from doctors who have treated and are treating Covid19:
*******************************
A scoping review of the pathophysiology of COVID-19
Paul E Marik1,4, Jose Iglesias2,4, Joseph Varon3,4 and Pierre Kory4
Abstract
International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology Volume 35: 1–16
© The Author(s) 2021
**********************************
yes, this paper is at the FLCCC (FrontLine Covid Critical Care Alliance) website:
covid19criticalcare.com
The authors present the model of Covid19, the disease, as of the date of publication (I always like to think that future findings will enable better understanding, and better health, as in, staying well).
Oct. 2, 2021
On page 9 of Marik et al., 2021, (see reference above), in the section entitled :”COVID-19
as am auto-immune disease”, there is this reference cited:
169. Marchand L, Pecquet M and Luyton C (2020) Type 1 di- abetes onset triggered by COVID-19. Acta Diabetologica 57: 1265–1266.
The title is enough to give rise to many questions. Those of us who are already burdened with illnesses considered auto-immunogenic are categorized “high risk” with respect to Covid19, and prime candidates for vaccination, but the likelihood that vaccines may in fact exacerbate an existing “auto-immune” condition is rarely addressed.
I am hoping, Dr. Kendrick, that in the new book, to whatever extent you consider cardiovascular disease due to auto-immune factor(s), you address this issue. You did in an earlier post speculate regarding the possibility that spikes resulting from the Covid19 vaccinations may result in latent and/or long-lasting inflammatory conditions in the cardiovascular system.
Looking forward to your book.
Dr Kendrick,
You asked me for some links re. fluoride but I couldn’t find a way to attach them to your or my post above, so here are a few to be getting on with:-
https://fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/
https://fluoridealert.org/
https://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/thyroid/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db53.htm
http://fluoridealert.org/articles/absurdity/
Click to access Flouride%27s%20Revenge.pdf
https://fluoridealert.org/articles/nader/
Oh but Malcolm, you are overlooking the much bigger picture here. This cosy little arrangement makes billions for all of those involved!
Dear Dr. Kendrick,
Thanks for another clear look at the patterns of deception. But more thanks for the continuation of your articles!! Your voice is very much appreciated.
Two things of general interest.
Firstly, a link on “mysterious” rise in heart attacks in Western Scotland reported in the Times.
https://archive.ph/H8kw7
Secondly, some positive news (perhaps) from Australia on employer mandates for covid vaccines. Would love feedback from you Aussi bloggers on the relevance and authority of the Australian Fair Work Commission and this decision. It contains extensive commentary on the illegality, under Australian law, of employer covid vaccine mandates as an addendum to a disrelated case over a flu vaccine refusal in 2020. I believe the ruling went against the employee who brought the case but the covid commentary is spot on.
Australian MP Tanya Davies comments on this here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KAhJBgLA3UVZ/
The legal document is here – scroll to line 101 (left margin) entitled PART 2 –VACCINE REQUIREMENTS IN RELATION TO COVID:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb6015.htm
It is an amazingly coherent, logical, scientific rebuttal of the decision. It is a dissenting opinion, but it has been published and is factually correct – not that facts have ever been allowed to get in the way of the narrative. The other two commissioners are either idiots or corrupt. It’s unbelievable that they rejected the case. At least she had the courage to say
“Can COVID vaccinations be mandated by employers on health and safety grounds?
[130] The short answer to this question, in almost every case, is no.”
And then goes on to explain the risks.
However the steamroller continues in Victoria with mandatory vaccines for virtually every business and employer, now including all farmers and their workers.
Has anywhere else in the world mandated this?
Dr Kendrick. I am unconvinced that Inclisiran has any use whatsoever. I am unconvinced that anything which reduces cholesterol levels has any use whatsoever. I detest statins. But following my TIA 12 weeks ago, I was advised by 3 different consultants that I must get my total cholesterol lowered to 4, and the way to do it would be using Ezetimibe. So, I am now suffering the very same side effects I experienced with Simvastatin. I am experiencing them so much more quickly, ….severe lethargy, leg cramps, hair loss, blurred vision. I have given Ezetimibe a good trial, but now intend to withdraw them from tomorrow. I will not be ‘asking permission’ to withdraw, as I feel I may be advised to try Inclisiran, and I would certainly decline. I feel that there is a big red sign across my notes shouting ‘NON-COMPLIANT MADAM’, because no one seems to acknowledge the real problems I endure with low cholesterol.
My question used to be ..’ is it the reduction in cholesterol that makes me ( and many others ) so ill, or is it the accompanying ingredients used in the manufacture of statins that are to blame? Now that Ezetimibe has caused me to experience such side effects, I can only assume my cholesterol has plummeted like it did with Simvastatin…so…question answered. A low cholesterol, however caused, is a serious health risk. ( I haven’t a clue what my blood levels are because guidelines say I have to wait a year to have them checked).
Thank you for continuing your quest to educate the public regarding The Great Cholesterol Con.
Jenifer
Mayb I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on Ezetimibe? I was on Ezetimibe and Crestor with similar side effects as you describe. When. I decided enough was enough those symptoms disappeared within six weeks.
As for LDL being bad for your life expectancy, there is a graph somewhere which correlates life expectancy with LDL levels,.
Finally our evolution has led to us having bodies with remarkable control systems, so I am of the opinion that Nature has set my LDL level as it should be and I have no intention of interfering with that.
BTW eat real food
Mr Chris. Thanks for suggesting the article. The science is above my head, but the message is that Ezitimibe is of no value to me, particularly as my LFTs always err on the high side.
Chemical interference by polypharma does little to allow our bodies to cope with the upsets we encounter throughout our lives. Good, natural food goes a long way to healing us, it’s just things move a bit slower as we age. Quick fixes may have long term negative consequences.
Jennifer
Ezetimibe was approved because it lowers LDL and that was felt to be an end in itself, whereas I am interested in years of good life. What is more I dont like taking something on a long term basis that acts through gene suppression.
TIA’s are a signs of abnornal blood circulation. For sure, no one can say its origins or causes. MD always make guesses.
Oliveira. I agree that a TIA is likely to be a sign of abnormal circulation. My point is that in the absence of any cause being found, an assumption was made that cholesterol must be the problem, and so must be reduced with statins. On explaining that I would never again use statins, I was advised that Ezetimibe should be used; anything to reduce my cholesterol level, I was told.
I think that is illogical, as I do not believe in lowering so called ‘cholesterol’. I am now experiencing the very symptoms of years ago whilst using simvastatin. I don’t like using chemicals to reduce anything I consider is essential to my health.
All the same, it would be nice to know what is causing a problem with my circulation. Any ideas, anyone?
Hi jennifer, re TIA
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7080130/
Hyperglycemia, recognized and unrecognized, as a risk factor for stroke and transient ischemic attacks
“We conclude that hyperglycemia commonly precedes stroke and TIA, is usually unrecognized, and has been under-appreciated as a risk factor for cerebrovascular disease.”
andyS. Many thanks for that link….absolutely fascinating set of research papers. So, I have checked my own glucose levels in the days prior to my TIA. I had been prescribed an NSAID 2 weeks beforehand, and my blood glucose levels went haywire, in fact the highest and lowest readings I have ever recorded. So, I stopped the medication after 12 days, and then the TIA occured. But an ‘elevated cholesterol’ was blamed….no one questioned my recent glucose levels. Thankyou, and I will certainly bear this in mind.
thank you
just touching base here, we can assume, or can we, that the same factors associated with hyperglycemia that cause stroke will also contribute to heart disease ?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23322142/
Chronic hyperglycemia and glucose toxicity: pathology and clinical sequelae
“Tissues most vulnerable to the effects of prolonged elevated plasma glucose levels include pancreatic β cells and vascular endothelial cells.”
Insulin resistance is the common denominator for many chronic diseases. This term has replaced “metabolic syndrome”.
To AndyS: There is a lot more going on (leptin and glucagon resistance) with metabolic syndrome than just insulin resistance, and then there are the mitochondrial dysfunctions…
Hi Shaun: I have been going around in circles for a long time trying to understand what causes what. It all boils down to metabolism, and glucose in excess appears to be a key factor. Some argue that it is inflammation that is the problem ie excess ROS generated by mitochondria. But ROS is also an essential signalling molecule. Getting rid of ROS would not help. Some medications interfere with mitochondrial function; Carvedilol inhibits complex 1, Amiodarone inhibits complex 1 & 3, Crestor is a mitochondrial poison, aspirin inhibits beta oxidation. To simplify matters I just cut back on carbs, something that can be seen and touched and easily measured.
Visceral adipocytes excrete adipokines which increase leptin levels which affects thrombin which affects platelet activation witch causes coagulation. Visceral fat and Covid19 is a bad combination. Visceral fat is a result of excess carbs.
In response to andyS and Shaun Clark. We share the same thoughts.
But where in NHS do we ever get tests to measure leptin, glucagon function, insulin levels or mitochondrial dysfunction? I am having trouble accessing HbA1c and lipid levels, despite using insulin. Even my retired GP expressed confusion at instructions to prescribe Insulin to me because it was assumed I must have insulin resistance. Hey Ho!
Jennifer, It’s not easy, but there are a whole bunch of brilliant Dr’s and health care folk out there who do care. What you ask for is straightforward stuff. I could rattle off a couple of dozen stellar health folk here in the UK with Dr K being right up there, but I would respectfully suggest that your portal to good health is Diabetes.co.uk https://www.diabetes.co.uk/hba1c-test.html David Unwin, and his wife Jen (…the adopted patrons Saints of that organization), are quite possibly the nicest and kindest Dr’s you could ever wish to meet. Avoid the NHS diabetes org like the (Covid) plague. It’s been bought, much like most of the health care in the UK. ‘They’ of course watch this site, but they don’t care. You, like most of us, are just seen as pawns in their shitty game. Welcome to the world of asymmetric bullshit. The age of BigPharma.
Jennifer,
Today I read your notes posted after mine. What a drug cocktail…
From William Osler: One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.
>>> Get better. Get healthier.
From a very old MD
I am in a similar situation, it seems to me that the majority of the British medical profession doesn’t feel getting to the cause is important – just throw another drug into the mix, often without even reading the patient’s notes beforehand! I have been having incidents of arrhythmia since 2018. I have had to beg to have tests done and to be seen by a specialist before being put on both statins and beta blockers by my GP. I finally got to use a seven day 24hr monitor back in February 2021 but am still waiting to see an arrhythmia specialist. They just recommended beta blockers and, totally without discussion, sent me a prescription! I have asthma and migraines which are contra-indicated and my husband is on beta blockers so I know what happens to people who take them!
Magnesium?
I have reluctantly started taking Statins again.
My total cholesterol at the last count was 7.3 which my doctor considered to be very high and said that I should get it below 5
I subsequently left a copy of ‘The Great Cholesterol Con’ at the surgery for him, and he did send me an email thanking me for it.
The reason I have started on the dreaded Statins again is purely due to Xanthelasma. I first had these things in my early twenties, more than 40 years ago. I subsequently had them surgically removed and had no more trouble until quite recently when they started to appear again, and seemed to be getting bigger quite quickly. I absolutely hate the appearance of them, and it is very difficult to try and get any information about them or why they occur. The only fact I seem able to glean is that they are a possible indicator of high cholesterol. I had a heart scan about a couple of years ago and that was okay, so despite being told that I almost certainly had clogged arteries due to high cholesterol and the re-appearance of Xanthelasma this was not the case.
After 50+ years of clinical practice, I write:
Very high Chol levels >7.3mmol/L (280mg/L) are stable for a life. They don’t change with food nor drugs. They are found on very intelligent people who die (for any disease) after their 80’s.
Peace
Xantelasma is a sign of abnormal lipid levels. It is a Xantoma. It was described by the XVIII-XIX centuries.
Charles,
Maybe try this prescription from Dr. Thomas Cowan:
“while I am not convinced this is related to coronary artery disease, very high LDL levels often tell me there is oxidative stress or a liver imbalance in the patient. For this condition I give 1 capsule per day of OPC synergy, a food-based antioxidant, from Standard Process and 1 teaspoon/day of an herbal bitter tonic, the best being Globe Artichoke Extract from MediHerb. This intervention will usually lower the LDL by 10-20 percent.”
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/ask-the-doctor/cholesterol-high/
Will lowering LDL not coincide with a lower life expectancy?
It wouldn’t be lowering LDL per se, but improving liver function, which maybe would help with the Xanthoma’s.
thank you. So again, treating the high LDL is treating the symptom and not the primary ailment.
Dr Kendrick
What do you think about this?
”Rise in heart attacks from blocked arteries
So-called N-STEMI attacks are up 25 per cent in the west of Scotland
Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland.
During the summer there was a 25 per cent rise in the number of people rushed to the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank with partially blocked arteries cutting blood supply to the heart.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mystery-rise-in-heart-attacks-from-blocked-arteries-m253drrnf
There was a rise elsewhere in the UK, perhaps less dramatic. My book, soon to be released on an unsuspecting world, will (I think) explain exactly what is going on.
We’ll all buy your book anyway, so please give us a clue, Dr Kendrick.
I second that.
Is there a date of publication/on sale for the new book? Is it likely to be on Amazon or via your website? Eagerly awaiting it
My first thought was ‘have they been jabbed?’ but I’ll leave it to the expert, Dr K, to answer.
Charles. Despite tests failing to expose clots or bleeds anywhere, it was concluded that a cholesterol of 6.5 resulted in my TIA. Diagnosis by hunch, I reckon.
And as you point out, there seems to be no absolute explanation for your xanthelasma. So…’high’ cholesterol it is then. Diagnosis by hunch.
In my limited experience, xanthelasma was always blamed on excess cholesterol, and I just took the diagnosis as gospel. ( I do not have it, but I observed it in patients). I was such a trusting soul back in the day. On a ward round I spouted off some gem to a newly appointed ( very young) consultant….’where’s the research to back your statement?’ he asked me. And since that day, I like to know the ins and outs of most things medical. The Great Cholesterol Con was po-pooed by my GP shortly after its origianal publication. And that was enough for me to re-read it. Added to my own experiences, I reckon I have researched enough (within my own limitations) to condemn statins.
Vernon Coleman agrees. He doesn’t deserve the unavoidable ridicule he faces. I know it’s easier for retired people to speak out but he’s been doing it for years. Wish there were more brave and honest men like him (and you Dr K).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bhEzv46hIIk
Dr Coleman is a wonderful example to us all. He is also (in my view) an outstanding demonstration of the fact that a person can be absolutely right about many things, and still get one or two wrong.
While everything he has said about Covid seems absolutely true, I seem to recall that he maintains that eating meat causes cancer – an opinion possibly influenced by his lifelong love of animals.
Here is a hero who is risking all to inform people. It’s the impressive 54 year old TV presenter and author Neil Oliver and he is as respectable as they come:
I just saw this amazing video of the medical professions similar response decades ago..https://rumble.com/embed/vjk0en/?pub=4&fbclid=IwAR2pXpAHtyg6JlaerzCKY3zYn_5T4P5w2ufOKt7g9Kwdb1XspALZxtYlVUY
Canada Starts Cracking Down on Fringe Medical Groups
— Much like America’s Frontline Doctors, groups up north are spreading misinformation
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/94713?xid=nl_medpageexclusive_2021-09-27&eun=g1182305d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MPTExclusives_092721&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Medpage_Exclusives_Active
Appears that after spending a lot of money in corrupting a wide range of medical institutions and decision makers the time is ripe for BIG PHARMA to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the COVID19 pandemic.
Yes, we are now firmly in the phase of this fake ‘pandemic’ where the power of the big pharma lobby has kicked in and the tax payer is being mandated to fund their business.
When Jeremy Corbin suggested the Tories were going to sell off the NHS he was pilloried by the establishment. Where are we now ? a more than five year waiting list for treatments, GPs that won’t see patients face to face, A&E departments treating people in car parks, people dying of fully treatable ailments. Meanwhile medical staff make videos on social media and people clap on their doorsteps – Wake up you morons, you’re being robbed blind, Covid is the excuse, not the reason, the decision makers will not be impacted by this chaos – you will.
“When Jeremy Corbin suggested the Tories were going to sell off the NHS he was pilloried by the establishment”.
A sure sign of someone who has accurately told an unpalatable truth. Without wishing to promote Mr Corbyn to sainthood, the same thing happened most conspicuously to Socrates, Jesus Christ, Galileo Galilei… as well as Julian Assange and Craig Murray.
This comment stands out – from the medpage article –
re – “I have the perception that subset, the very right-leaning political fringe, is more sizable in the U.S. than it is in Canada, but we have it here too,” said David Juurlink, MD, PhD, a pharmacologist and internist in Toronto.”
“This ISN’T about Left, Center, or Right political leanings… people of ALL political positions have issues with what’s going on. I’m VERY liberal, and I’m appalled with what is happening! I’m in utter shock with it all”
From the Medpage article:
“The group has also retweeted Gold’s tweets. One expert said he wasn’t surprised by the overlap between the far-right groups. “The information that is typically trending or top on social media platforms comes primarily from the United States,” said Aengus Bridgman, a PhD candidate in political science at McGill University in Montreal, who leads the Canadian Election Misinformation Project there. “A lot of the conspiratorial thinking — fake cures like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin — has flown north. We are very exposed in Canada to that.””
A PhD candidate in political science is an expert on whether or not medical cures are fake?
Subscribers to an ideology gain, among other valuable benefits, freedom from the tedious need to seek out and verify facts. The ideology tells them what is true, and that is that.
I suspect that the explanation for the (questionable) behaviour of lemmings that hurl themselves en masse off cliff tops is that their ideology tells them they can safely run on air as long as they go fast enough.
In the case of this Bridgman person, I suspect devotion to left-wing beliefs including the proposition that Mr Trump cannot be right about anything. Together with the commitment of the US Democrats and whatever spiritual creatures rule Canada to their regime of vaccines, masks and total subservience, that explains the observed remarks.
I know why the drug was approved. The devil is in the details as usual. So you have to use a multiple of drugs to help heart disease. The cholesterol lowering drug, is used with a blood thinner, and a blood pressure medicine that increases nitric oxide. In this way, the soft plaque is packed down and is stable. They got lucky with statins. Statins are anti inflammatory, lower cholesterol AND thin the blood a little. They pack down the bad plaque and make it stable. That’s why they are also using repatha. It sucks the liquid core out of the lesion and makes it flat so it won’t burst. diet and exercise don’t always work. I am the poster child for it. I am thin, fit and a woman and still had a heart attack at 56. I am thinking that sugar and pollution might be exceptionally deadly for people like me.
I hate taking them Lucy, but that is pretty much why I take a statin. In a way, we’re quite fortunate, because we have a set of ‘health parameters’ within which to work. If what we take gives us that 5% edge in trying to control our conditions, then we (certainly I) take them, Being badgered and coerced into jabs and drugs when you’re basically healthy is really something to grumble about – which is most of the population. I would categorically not take a statin exclusively for cholesterol control.
Have you looked at red yeast rice as an alternative to statins? That is where all these pharma statins started. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002914909025880
It is a statin.
I regularly play golf with a guy (65?) who was/is skinny as a rake. He was also a noted ex-amateur local footballer. He recently ended up having a heart attack and got 6 stents fitted. He’s kinda OK now. His diet was good, but he was also kinda addicted to bags of crisps (…US chips) as his go-to snack. The key IS in diet, and you answered your own thoughts. Stay away from sugar / (ultra)refined carbs, and of course ANYTHING to do with the FFA linoleic acid. The later is a very, very tough call-out today. Anyway, check out Dr Chris Knobbe on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM
Good post. To amplify your point about oils, https://youtu.be/ExhVWLu_hbk is an interview with Tucker Goodrich who has done a lot of research into industrial seed oils, and the many problems they cause. There are other interviews with Tucker, and you can search youtube for them.
Hi Shaun, more about linoleic acid
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4764384/
Ferroptosis: death by lipid peroxidation
“Abstract
Ferroptosis is a regulated form of cell death driven by loss of activity of the lipid repair enzyme glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) and subsequent accumulation of lipid-based reactive oxygen species, particularly lipid hydroperoxides. This form of iron-dependent cell death is genetically, biochemically, and morphologically distinct from other cell death modalities, including apoptosis, unregulated necrosis, and necroptosis. Ferroptosis is regulated by specific pathways and is involved in diverse biological contexts. Here, we summarize the discovery of ferroptosis, the mechanism of ferroptosis regulation, and its increasingly appreciated relevance to both normal and pathological physiology.”
Until someone puts a name to it, it does not exist. I would like to put a name to two more form of cell death related to linoleic acid oxidation of cell membranes:
HYPERLIPIDEMIA-OPTOSIS: glycation and oxidation of LDL particles containing excess linoleic acid making the LDL particles metabolically unsuitable and thereby destroyed by macrophages and initiating inflammation. Now cardiologists can explain why LDL-C is bad.
COVIDSPIKE-OPTOSIS: cell death induced by COVID19 vaccines. Subjects more susceptible to dying from this type of cell death have high blood sugar and excess linoleic acid in their cell membranes.
Being thin and fit isn’t synonymous of being healthy.
Most elite athletes are thin and fit, but the very high carb diet of most of them, together with strenuous training causing constantly elevated cortisol, make them quite at risk for a number of serious medical conditions.
Intelligent elite athletes and sportsfolk enjoy the human being’s traditional diet of red meat, eggs, fish, and vegetables – with some fruit and nuts for variety.
There is no need at all to eat vast amounts of grain-based food to perform well, whether in the sprints, marathons, or jumping and throwing events.
The fad for grains began in the 1960s and – athletes and coaches being singularly fashion-conscious – quickly caught on and has never gone away.
Does anyone here consider that this scenario might be true?
The virus was designed to be much more powerful so as to justify the mass vaccination program. Indeed it seemed to start in a much more virulent way – in China and Italy, but it evolved into something much milder. Thus the justification for all the anti-COVID actions is becoming weaker by the day.
After all, as I understand it many pathogens (not just viruses) evolve to become less dangerous because that helps them to spread.
Are we watching a sinister plan go badly wrong?
Not sure how well researched this is but, there is some evidence I have read (wish I kept notes that I could search) that viruses are far more dangerous to systems that are already affected by other parasites, bacteria, fungi, other viruses from different ‘families’ and that it is these comorbidities that often lead to serious illness or death…… because the immune system is already ‘fighting on other fronts’ and the ammo is nearly used up.
It was in an article that studied the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Flu – first wave no co-infection lower fatality rate, second wave bacterial coinfection high fatality rate.
David.
1) Whether CV19 was designed, or not, we will never know. Is the common cold/Flu (AKA Covid) designed or naturally occurring ? If common cold/Flu is natural why not CV19 ?
2) Did it really come from China ? Let’s recall it was Trump that designated it the ‘Kung Flu’ because politically it fitted his agenda. Also, it was the US Government and Fauci (and by implication NSA/CIA) that was financing and supporting the ‘off shore research’ at Wuhan – and the UK (Porton Down) were also involved. Some research suggests early detection of CV19 in US sewage samples from 2019.
3) There has NEVER been any justification, morally or legally, for the CV19 ‘pandemic’ actions. ‘Operation Cygnus’ in 2016 informed the government what they needed to do, they chose to totally ignore advice. The only viable actions should have been protect the vulnerable and let the rest get on with their life – the western regimes took the totally opposite approach.
4) Ivor Cummins has covered quite well the natural progress of a Flu epidemic, whereby like ripples on a pond each Flu season is weaker than the previous one, until a new strain evolves. CV19 has followed this pattern. The data shows that 2020/21 has been no worse than previous Flu seasons – other than the numbers of vulnerable that the state culled.
5) We are now in the final throws of the ‘pandemic’ where the corrupt attempt to steal as much power and money as possible before the game is finally up.
The producers of this fake pandemic would like to state that no rich or corrupt people were harmed in the making of this fiasco !
Steve,
I absolutely don’t condone anything that has gone on – the probably artificial nature of the virus, and the subsequent efforts to exaggerate it and inject people repeatedly with ‘vaccines’ of doubtful effectiveness that they did not need is an appalling medical scandal.
I am just speculating that they planned something far more spectacular. In the very early days, a lot of people seem to have died in China and also Bergarmo (Italy) but after that they had to exaggerate the numbers of deaths by reporting those who died after receiving a positive COVID test as having died of the disease (originally this had no time limit, later it was limited to 28 days).
At the moment everything remains open in England, and we aren’t seeing a spike that could justify any more restrictions. My hunch is that this virus has run its course.
This horrible farce was a huge gamble – possibly to usher in Reset21 – and I rather think it was supposed to be a lot worse.
Just to be clear, my partner and I have not had the ‘vaccine’ and I think those responsible for this should spend the rest of their lives in jail.
“I am just speculating that they planned something far more spectacular”.
I agree, David – on the assumption it was planned and not simple incompetence. The nasty possibility is that this was just a “sighting shot”.
It is interesting to notice that, according to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the USA is the only country in the world that retains substantial stocks of chemical weapons. Biological weapons are far less bulky and noticeable – and would, of course, be developed and stored abroad so that any risk of a leak falls on foreigners.
https://www.rt.com/russia/536722-us-chemical-weapons-novichok/
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see a student of Cambridge university citing Russian ‘news’ regarding the use of chemical weapons…
As soon as a positive test became a case of sever infection, and flu cases dropped to zero all else became not worth even looking into. Cases in Bergamo Italy ? DO you mean the fleets of army lorries at night…a story so comically planted to be rediculous. My field is funeral care. No-one asked us. Nothing busier than usual than for the past ten years. Burials plus cremations being the same as always.
I remember reading that someone had done the legwork and discovered that the pictures of army lorries were from Belgium or somewhere like that, years ago for a completely different reason.
Rather like the pictures of “Russian tanks invading Ukraine” that were angrily displayed by a US congressman back in 2015. It soon transpired that they were actually taken in Georgia in 2008! The Israeli photographer who owned the copyright was quite cross.
The funniest part was the mountains distinctly visible in the shots – the border between Ukraine and Russia is as flat as Cambridgeshire.
Cambridgeshire may appear flat, but it still (or did) host the Pidley Moutain Rescue Team http://www.pidleymountainrescue.org.uk/
Pidley is in Huntingdonshire. Don’t have no truck with these new fangled shire redefinitions.
Have no truck as you choose. That will be trivial redefinition compared with what is coming. Australia redefined to “Eastern not-so-open-prison” it’s nearly there, UK redefined to some or other Europe region(s), California redefined as “Western not-so-open-prison”. 😁
Lol!! You’re so right. We’ve already suffered a change in the definition of vaccines from “preventing disease” to “stimulating a response” (the 95% efficacy claims seem to be totally forgotten now), and that only vaccines, not natural immunity, can provide protection (but not prevent it). Meanwhile in the communazi state of New South Wales the sheeple are having mass celebrations at being given 10% of their freedoms back.
Eggs,
My definition of vaccines is “something injectable that makes money for pharma.”
I assume that your definition based on the structure or the biological effect of the ‘vaccine’…
ASD’s statement was simple enough. “Something injectable that makes money for pharma”. No mention of biological structure, or anything else. Just read what people write and stop second-guessing.
Why? I read this and want to understand how ‘Something injectable that makes money for pharma’ is a definition of vaccine, don’t you?
How does this compare to monoclonal antibody therapy? This makes (more) money, so I guess it must be a better vaccine…
The italian army acting as undertakers was as a result of a reluctance by ordinary undertakers to deal with what were seen as plague ridden extremely infectious bodies. There was an epidemic of extreme fear and anxiety at the time as our viral friend was still argely an unknown.
Maybe it was a cockup and they didn’t know how fast it would mutate to Delta = less deadly than flu, I read.
The UK government declared it in mid March 2020 ‘not a high consequence infectious disease’, so they knew the reality then for ‘Alpha’, even if the propaganda said otherwise.
I’m gratified to see the relatively low rate of vaccination in Switzerland and the USA. They seem to be at ~60% of the population compared to maybe 80-85% in the UK. Still carrying on the propaganda war, though
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/health-minister-puts-faith-in-new-covid-vaccination-drive/46996880
Too much words about an entity that in the 21st century no Scientist ever told what its structure is. To me it is as any computer generated data [FIFO].
Some have using it for get richer and others to avoid being killed.
There is no Justice without Clemence. However, Justice must be done.
Charles Edward’s xanthelasmas thread…
…The British Heart Foundation has a booklet called “Life with Familial Hypercholesterolaemia” and both tendon xanthomata and xanthelasmas are covered.
With reference to tendon xanthomata (TX) it states “It’s believed that tendon xanthomata are only found in people with FH”.
With reference to xanthelasmas (X) it states “it may be an indication that you have high cholesterol, but it doesn’t mean that you definitely have FH”.
For both conditions the booklet alludes to excess cholesterol for TX and high cholesterol for X.
I’m not sure of the publication date for this booklet.
Elsewhere, on the Formula 216 website, this gets a small section called “Fatty Tumours”. Here’s the link to the article:
https://formula216.com/not-applying-all-we-know-about-vitamin-c/
Essentially, a lack of vitamin C leads to weak capillaries and lets the circulating fat ooze into the skin.
It alludes to Dr. Willis. If you have some spare time it could be spent reading previous blogs/articles by Dr. Kendrick and Dr. Willis has been mentioned.
And also what can and cannot pass through arterial walls but I can’t remember.
Thanks Charles!!
RT is now reporting that some Pfizer scientists are starting to blow the whistle!
https://www.rt.com/usa/536666-project-veritas-pfizer-covid19-vaccine/
David
On here it always seems a one way discussion, vaccines bad, you will all die etc
Is this the truth?
I doubt it
There’s no question that the adverse events count for deaths for covid vaccines are about 60x the average of other vaccines.
There’s also no question about waning effectiveness of the vaccines to almost nil (or maybe negative) after 8 months.
Do you have a problem with science? Is the public health narrative so important to you that you will discard science?
No question? I would love to see the science you refer to.
By the way, is the ‘x60’ for total or per-capita?
” I would love to see”
(Obviously, you haven’t cared enough to look.)
First, you have to remove the blinkers. I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.
“By the way, is the ‘x60’ for total or per-capita?”
That’s 60 x deaths per vaccine dose given. Some vaccines require two doses.
You can find baseline data to figure the count for all vaccines here:
Click to access data-statistics-report.pdf
4,000,000 vaccines over 14 years
153 VAERS death reports per year, average
“As of May 14th there have been over 4,133 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in 2021, compared to just 165 in all of 2020, and an average of 153 per year, over the last 10 years.”
https://theexpose.uk/2021/05/25/vaccine-deaths-in-the-usa-have-increased-27-fold-over-the-average-seen-in-the-previous-decade-thanks-to-the-covid-jabs/
(153 VAERS death reports per year x 14 years) / 4,000,000,000 vaccine doses in 14 years
= 0.0000005 VAERS deaths reports per average vaccine dose
covid vaccine VAERS death reports = 15,000
15,000 VAERS death reports / 300,000,000 covid vaccine doses given
= 0.00005
Ooops. Sorry. Looks like I was off a lot.
100 x the number of VAERS deaths reports for the vaccine average, not 60 x.
And not a single autopsy report from the CDC for any of the 15,000 reported deaths.
Looks like the 153 VAERS deaths average for all vaccines is low. 500 is nearer the mark, if OPENVAERS is correct.
https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
So that reduces the ratio of covid VAERS death reports to the vaccine average from 100x to about 25x.
Sorry, that’s 4 billion doses over 14 years, not 4 million.
Thank you for clearing this up. All you had to say is, ‘I don’t have any scientific data to back this up’.
I guess that we could discuss the problematic use of VAERS as a source of data (as compared to VSD), but for that you would need to remove your blinders and read other sources. As I’m sure you know, anyone can file a report (as opposed to VSD reports, filed by medical practitioners), so there is a real problem of verification. Have you gone through the database? Have you read any of the reports? One of my favorite is ‘My friend was fully vaccinated got covid on ventilator 14 days then died – how can you say it is safe and effective if you can still get it and die? Stop this madness of this vaccine NOW!’. Is this one of the 15,000 deaths you calculated? Would you characterize a breakthrough infection as a side effect? I probably wouldn’t.
How do you ‘know’ that all reports are actually caused by the vaccine? How do you know that the filed report is an accurate description of the incident? You don’t.
How do you compare the populations in the two groups you cited? Are there any other differences, such as age or health condition? I don’t know.
There have been a number of publications using VAERS to present data on vaccine side effects, but those have been highly questionable and have results differ significantly from data collected by other sources. Which one is correct? I don’t know, but the other sources are more trustworthy that VAERS.
I think that the only thing about which ‘There’s no question’ is that VAERS reports are up. Is that because of the vaccine or the talk about this in the media? I think that there is a good chance that side effects (including deaths) are also up. I don’t know by how much, and VAERS will not provide the answer.
Adverse reporting systems are almost entirely unreliable. It is estimated that around 1 – 5% of drug related adverse effects are actually reported. Most doctors, and I include myself, find the process of reporting and adverse effect massively time consuming. It is an almost entirely dysfunctional system.
You don’t know that all events were caused by the vaccine. But you still aren’t the least bit curious about why there have been no autopsy reports from the CDC with 15,000 reported deaths in VAERS. That doesn’t speak well for you.
Have you seen this? I cannot find the original post so have resorted to The Rio Times: https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/international-research-groups-find-sharp-metal-objects-in-covid-vaccines-very-frightening/
German pathologists and the Japanese were asserting this about some vaccine lots.
You just created a logical fallacy, by requiring a particular kind of data. Empirical data is sufficient, with corroboration. Scientific data is needed when mechanisms are obscure. You know, like autopsy reports. Oh, wait, there’s no p value with a lot of data in autopsy reports and no error bars with autopsy slides. So that’s merely anecdotal evidence. My bad. /sarcasm
It’s true that everything isn’t nailed down, but the information we have is enough to cause major concern–unless you dogmatically believe that vaccines are safe and effective.
Vaccines are accompanied by bulletproof immunity–legal immunity for pharma from lawsuits because of adverse events from “safe and effective” vaccines.
I agree with what Dr Kendrick says (how kind of you, I hear everyone think).
But surely, at least, the reported vaccine injuries give us a “floor” – an absolute minimum. And, as Dr Kendrick says, we can be fairly sure that the true figures are far higher.
David,
I found Greg Nigh’s comments about the lack of reference for the 1-13% claim in the Pilgrim report where Klompas and Lazarus were mentioned in the end references. Then I looked at the Pilgrim report to verify Nigh’s claim.
I then searched google scholar for “Automated vaccine adverse event detection klompas lazarus” and found
“Reported events included seizure, pleural effusion, and lymphocytopenia. The odds of a VAERS report submission during the implementation period were 30.2 (95% confidence interval, 9.52–95.5) times greater than the odds during the comparable preimplementation period.”
in “Advanced Clinical Decision Support for Vaccine Adverse Event Detection and Reporting”
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/61/6/864/451758?login=true
So it looks like underreporting is estimated to be around 3.3% based on this paper. And it has a WIDE confidence interval, so it’s not that far from a SWAG. Maybe that’s where the 1% to 10% underreporting range comes from (the paper found between 10x to 95x increased reporting with automated systems).
Nigh observed, “The Harvard Pilgrim study is not a reference that substantiates any claims about VAERS underreporting. It is a reference to substantiate claims that the CDC has no interest in making reports of vaccine injury either more accurate or more comprehensive.”
The CDC has no interest in making more than a token effort at tracking vaccine adverse events. It likewise has no interest in reporting the results of autopsies derived from vaccine death reports in VAERS.
So there’s one paper backing up my range of estimated covid vaccine deaths of between 1-10% underreporting.
A ‘logical fallacy’? You have the worst kind of ‘data’, both ‘self-selecting’ and ‘self reporting’. It is both partial and often wrong. The Lazarus report stated that in 2010 ‘fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported’. Is this true for all kind of side effects, or does this depend on severity? Do we know that this is still the situation in 2021? Is it now 1%, 5% or 50%? I would think that all the media related to the SARS-COV-2 vaccines would increase the % of reporting, but I don’t know.
Have you read any of the reports? Some seem serous and some. Does it seem logical to you that the largest groups of cases have ‘Unk’ listed as the age group? Or that 123 cases list Covid-19 as the cause of death?
At best, this should form a basis for further research, and hopefully when used in combination with other sources.
Autopsy reports (or any kind of case study) are not ‘anecdotal evidence’ but they can’t form the basis for statistical analysis. This is one of the reasons you need to tie together the various kinds of data, obtained from different types of research, from the population level on down to the cellular level.
We don’t have anything ‘nailed down’. I am concerned, both by the potential for side effects and by the use of problematic data. You seem only to be bothered by the first.
Autopsies can help set the low end of a statistical range.
Where have you gotten the idea that I don’t care about problematic data? What do you think we have been talking about?
Finding a percent of incomplete reports of age in VAERS is to be expected and finding inaccurate reports is also to be expected. The German pathologists found that 60-70% of AE reports of deaths had nothing to do with covid vaxxes. I am not surprised by this.
Why aren’t you concerned by the lack of interest of the public health authorities in obtaining data?
I have provided an article which helps set the range and you have valid questions about whether the AE range applies to deaths and whether it still applies. Ok, but it’s up to you to provide evidence of a problem since that is the only data we have. Possibly the under-reporting range in 2021 is actually at the lower end of reported deaths. Here’s why. If doctors believe that vaccines are safe and effective and necessary to save lives, then they may consider a single vaccine death to be a fluke and not report it. And there’s no benefit to their patients to report it, so there’s no ethical problem from a medical standpoint. And there’s no financial benefit to report it and the VAERS data has so much bathwater and so many babies have been filtered out that it can be hard to see benefit in reporting.
And the public health authorities don’t care about improving VAERS data. And this is to pharma’s benefit. And these facts together is indirect evidence of regulatory capture by pharma. Perhaps a RICO lawsuit would enable discovery of regulatory and pharma emails showing collusion to commit fraud on the public. We need a RICO lawsuit to get more data.
In the meantime, we use the best data we have. We have likely a minimum of 5,000 covid vaxx VAERS deaths, which is huge, considering that other vaccines have been withdrawn after only a few dozen deaths. And considering that our population has a total of combined and innate immunity in the range of 70%, mandating vaccinations looks unnecessary. And considering that vaccination benefit totally ends after eight months and perhaps goes negative, jabs look worthless and possibly detrimental without even considering AEs.
So, to summarize what we know – vaccines have side effects (including death) and some but not all are reported to the regulators. But there are lots of things we don’t know:
– we don’t know how much underreporting there is (maybe even 99%)
– we don’t know if the underreporting is the same for every kind of side effect
– we don’t know is this holds true for the current group of vaccines, in the current media environment
– we don’t know if all the reported side effects are real
– we don’t know if they are caused by the vaccine(s)
So – we could be missing lost of cases, in which case there could be a 100-fold rise is vaccine-mortality. Or not – we don’t actually know. Did I miss anything?
I think that we can be absolute sure that we know is that the numbers reported in VAERS are not the actual number of cases.
I think that is a pretty accurate summation.
What you’re missing are the results of the Pfizer clinical trials. Which showed that after six months, the OM was higher in the vaccine group, and within one month of the second dose there was an excess 1 in 200 serious adverse events in the vaccine group.
Just to clear this up, when you say ‘an excess 1 in 200 serious adverse events in the vaccine group’ means 1 out of 200 people had an adverse effect or there was 1 more per-200 than the control group?
Curious that you seem to understand ‘excess’ in terms of mortality, but struggle with the same concept in adverse events.
To be clear, it’s 1 per 200 more in the ‘vaccine’ group compared to the control group. 262 in the ‘vaccine’ group, 150 in the control group. N=21,926/21921 respectively. In a two month period. P.11
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true
P.12 has the excess mortality, up until unblinding at six months.
How about this (from Swiss Policy Research, a very reputable and well-researched source):
Especially this eye-catching graph:
I agree, very eye catching. And very scary. What does it mean? Is this a ‘real’ results or just an ‘artifact’? I don’t know, and neither do they – Who ever the SPR is.
How did you get to ‘a very reputable and well-researched source’? What do you know about them? Are they ‘independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit’? Why do you trust their analysis? Who are they, what is their background? Where do they get their funding from?
Some of the numbers they quote have citations, but some don’t. I have a problem trusting sources that work with that.
In general, I would stick to quoting real authors and publications, not what ever the SPR is. But that’s just me
You missed the following:
1) The public health authorities didn’t bother to conduct autopsies on VAERS deaths.
2) The public health authorities didn’t bother to work to obtain accurate data about vaccine injuries and to improve our knowledge about those other things in your list
3) The public health authorities said that vaccines were safe and effective without data to back up their claims.
4) The governments gave pharma protection from vaccine liability without long term data and other safety data.
5) The public health authorities pushed vaccine mandates without data on long term vaccine safety or ability to reduce transmission.
6) The public health authorities deceived the public and used data from January 2021 thru April 2021 wrt the vaccinated and unvaccinated, saying that in August the unvaccinated were the spreaders, which wasn’t true in August. After several weeks of this deception being spread throughout social media and MSM, a “correction” was issued, which, of course, was NOT spread throughout social media and MSM.
7) We have strong reason to believe, based on reports from German pathologists, that 30-40% of VAERS deaths are due to vaccines.
8) We have strong reason to believe that vaccine immunity wanes and may go negative and that there is no protection from severe effects of covid after eight months.
9) We have strong reason to believe that naturally-acquired immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity in terms of preventing infection and reducing severity if infected. One reason for this might be that NAI induces mucosal immunity, which protects the nasopharynx.
10) The public health authorities have done little to obtain safety data on vaccines, preferring to gaslight their narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective.”
11) The PHA have distorted statistics about covid in order to advance their narrative that vaccines are “safe and effective.” For example, the “fully vaccinated” are only compared with the “not-fully vaccinated”, also incorrectly referred to as the “unvaccinated” by many. The “not-fully vaccinated” group includes the 1) singly vaccinated, 2) the doubly vaccinated in timeout, 3) the unvaccinated with naturally-acquire immunity, and 4) the unvaccinated who are immunologically-naive.
What have I missed?
theasdgamer: Regarding point #2: We have good reason to suspect this utter lack of interest in post-marketing surveillance of the jabs is intentional.
I don’t know, but it’s good to see you also see the low quality of VAERS data.
Maybe you missed some facts?
I do know that there is no support for the second part of your ‘vaccine immunity wanes and may go negative’ statement. A version of this statement, as ‘fact’, has been around ever since the vaccines came out.
Likewise, I know that your feeling of being lied to is not a related to a medical or scientific question
Protection from infection is now -66 in the UK data for 40+ y.o. Covid vaccine protection from hospitalization and death looks to be negative in Vermont.
It’s a fact that vaccine protection wanes and the early signal is that ADE may be a problem. May be.
Why do you think that waning vaccine protection is an early signal of ADE? Have you ever seen this before?
As for Vermont, can you provide your data? Thanks
David,
Over-representation of infection in the vaccinated population is a sign of ADE. Both waning immunity and ADE may be in play at the same time. I don’t know of any reason for waning immunity to cause ADE–that would be due to the vaccine directly, wouldn’t it?
Here’s the source for the Vermont data:
“76% of September Covid-19 deaths are vax breakthroughs”
“For example, there were a total of 33 deaths (as of 9/24) among fully vaccinated people since January. This is a fraction of a percent of the vaccinated population – now nearly 450,000 people age 12 and older. This is an indicator that vaccines are working to protect the vast majority of Vermonters from the worst outcomes.”
Apparently, being unvaccinated is working to protect the unvaccinated even better from the worst outcomes. The health director was perfuming the manure.
8 of 33 were “unvaccinated”, which I take to mean, “not fully vaccinated.”
““Age is an important predictor of disease severity, and we have been seeing that the Delta variant is taking a tragic and disproportionate toll on our older population.
“In addition to being more likely to have severe illness and consequences like hospitalizations and deaths, older Vermonters were among the very first to be vaccinated, and therefore, have had more time to potentially become a vaccine breakthrough case, with these more severe outcomes.””
Here the health director is describing waning immunity and the lack of protection of the elderly, which was the primary reason for vaccinating them.
Of the Vermont population, 68% are fully vaccinated and 8% have had at least one dose (and we would expect some are in double dose timeout). That leaves 24% actually unvaccinated. 32% are “not fully vaccinated.”
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/state/vermont
So it looks like the vaccinated are over-represented in Vermont deaths. This looks like a disaster for the vaccines. And the health authorities will assiduously avoid using the word “over-represented.”
On a positive note, the numbers are low and we may be nearing endemic status re covid from natural immunity, so waning vaccine effectiveness might soon become a non-issue. But I’m sure that the vax mandates will continue unabated because stopping stupid takes a while.
Okay, if you say so. I don’t see it.
But if you want to show ADE, I would expect your data to start by showing that vaccinated people have (statistically significantly?) higher rates of severe illness/hospitalization/death etc. than unvaccinated (or partially vaccinated) people of the same age.
Next, I would expect your data to show that this cannot be simply explained by previously existing conditions (such as the deceased being immunosuppressed, immunocompromised etc.).
Does it?
Which number is larger, 68 or 76?
Yes, 76 is higher than 68 (aren’t we past that?), but what do those numbers mean? >90% of the +65 are vaccinated. Isn’t that more relevant to mortality? If most elderly are vaccinated, and most people who die are elderly (and younger people are vaccinated at a lower rate), would you be surprised if most of the deaths are among the vaccinated?
If you want to make an argument that vaccinated people are dying at a higher rate than unvaccinated, then lay out the numbers. Show that different age groups, % of vaccinated, number of infected, number of hospitalized etc.
So you’re taking a distribution argument that somehow there is no waning immunity. You’re saying that the unvaccinated are more likely to be younger? This is true. The unvaccinated in Vermont tend to be younger. However, Vermont didn’t report the ages of those hospitalized for the period in question.
Clearly, the vaccines are providing less protection now than four months ago, so whether or not there is waning immunity is no longer in question.
The outstanding question is whether ADE is involved and we don’t have enough info yet to decide.
Actually, I wasn’t making any argument, just asking questions about the support for your argument. If I was saying anything, it’s that the data you provided doesn’t demonstrate anything at all.
I personally think that there is some waning protection, more related to infection than to severe disease/death, but I wouldn’t get that from your citation.
As for ADE, I don’t see any evidence at all (here or anywhere else). Do you?
I’m surprised you missed my other errors if you were looking.
I said that the VAERS covid vaccine death count was 25x the VAERS other vaccine death AVERAGE. The correct statistic is that the VAERS covid vaccine death count is 30x the VAERS other vaccines death TOTAL.
Where are the CDC autopsy reports on VAERS death reports???
Maybe they are hidden under the wad of pharma cash?
Actually, I wasn’t looking for mathematical errors. With starting assumptions as problematic as yours, I don’t know what calculations you can make, or what the answers would realy tell us. With margins of errors as big as anything based only on VAERS this must have, I don’t think that there’s a significant difference between x25 and x30 (or x5 or x50).
Yes, and isn’t the willful ignorance of the CDC just stunning?
You still have not agreed that some sample autopsies are necessary to filter a signal out of VAERS. Why is that?
I agree – the FDA (more that the CDC/NIH etc.) has to conduct continued evaluation of all treatments (Pharmacovigilance), including vaccines, and that the VAERS can be one tool for identifying cases. But VAERS isn’t the only tool (and one of the weakest). What we know is that autopsies (or any other kind of case study) are not being published, not that they are being conducted. Agree?
Yes, we agree. Do we also agree that autopsy reports should be published and that their lack of publication is a cause for concern, given the pattern by the three letter agencies?
I had no assumptions other than the VAERS database and under-reporting of issues in VAERS.
I guess those are somehow “problematic” in your mind. And you seem curiously incurious about filtering the data to find the signal.
I guess that’s what passes for science these days.
By the way, how can I get a pharma paycheck like you do for sowing confusion?
So what are you saying? What is your argument (besides having an argument)?
As for the ‘assumptions’ (you didn’t make), by using the database at all you are making so many (I guess without even knowing it). If you use the data from VAERS you except that the numbers have some meaning, which they don’t.
I strongly disagree. Just because data is noisy doesn’t imply that it contains no signal.
It may contain a signal – do you think that you know what it means? What does the number of filings represent?
I think that noisy is an understatement. Have you read any of the VAERS reports?
yes, I have read some
you don’t get the signal until you apply the filter
David,
Thanks for clearing up your positions.
I don’t see how you say that increasing breakthrough hospitalizations aren’t evidence of waning immunity from severe disease.
The following chart shows that covid cases and deaths in Vermont are at an all time high and continuing to rise, currently–and 76% of the deaths are breakthroughs. The background is that Vermont has the lowest deaths per million of any state and heavily rural (about 80 percent living in small cities or rural areas) and hence I infer that most of the population is only just now being exposed to covid.
https://corona.help/country/united-states/state/vermont
To see ‘increasing breakthrough hospitalizations’ by its self, as ‘evidence of waning immunity from severe disease’, seems a somewhat weak proof. I would expect to see a rise in the ratio of severe disease/hospitalization/death (in different age groups), not only absolute numbers. If you have a highly infectious virus spreading in a population, wouldn’t you expect to also see a rise in infections/hospitalizations/deaths etc., among all groups in the population, regardless of immunity status (waning or otherwise). The question should be the % of cases being hospitalized. Has this changed? Interring, Vermont shows a continuing drop in mortality, not what I expect if we had waning protection from death (and the opposite than if we had ADE). Do you know it this hold true for all age groups?
If it’s true that ‘most of the population is only just now being exposed to covid’, this would seem to show Vermont is an example of the successful use of NPIs for preventing viral infections.
“If its true that…….” requires a long stretch of the imagination.
You would expect increasing deaths in older groups, but not younger–covid is usually only fatal to the old. In a low-population state, the numbers of deaths in younger age groups would be statistically meaningless.
If the NTI is “moving to rural areas to live,” then your last statement holds.
I lost you – Can you show that the CFR/IFR of vaccinated is higher than unvaccinated? Can you show a rise in the CFR/IFR over time? In the same age group – that’s my question.
That would indicate ADE or waning protection from severe disease.
We see that in the 80+ year olds in Vermont. It’s right there in the Vermont Health Department data. /sarc
Everything is just so above board and transparent. The CDC issues autopsy reports and Vermont reports weekly covid deaths by age and vaxx status so that we can compare. /sarc
If I understand your ‘sarc’, then you have no data? Can’t you just say what data you have (or don’t have)? Why do we have to play this game? If you have some data – please let us see it
Isn’t the point that we have no data because the CDC doesn’t want data? lol
LOL indeed
We all know that the lack of proof is not proof of a negative, but I guess for you, the lack of proof is proof of something else. Are you even looking for proof?
You and my mother in law would get on well.
Why?
Not knowing your MIL, I can only guess…
Not knowing her is something I wouldn’t worry about.
I’m not worried about that, I’m worried about understanding what you are trying to say, what your point is – if you have one. Do you?
Lets call it a non medical intervention/observation on my behalf. Nothing wrong with being dogmatic- I’d say. (But I should apologise for a sexist comment – so apologies to one & all for lazy sexism)
Lack of investigation by the powers that can perform the investigation is a lack of something. Maybe scientific curiosity?
But keep dancing–it’s entertaining.
Can I summarize:
1 – You don’t have any data to support your statement;
2 – This lack of data supports your feeling that the truth is being hidden from you.
3 – You think that the cause of death of every person that dies should be investigated, and autopsied (>3,358,814 USA, 2020)
Did I miss anything?
It seems that you select your data based on your predetermined conclusion, and data that does not support your conclusion is ignored (or considered as suspect).
“You don’t have any data to support your statement;”
Lie
“2 – This lack of data supports your feeling that the truth is being hidden from you.”
Lie
“3 – You think that the cause of death of every person that dies should be investigated, and autopsied ”
Lie
“Did I miss anything? ”
You could have told a lot more lies.
“It seems that you select your data based on your predetermined conclusion, and data that does not support your conclusion is ignored (or considered as suspect).”
It would seem that way to a person who is devoted to lying.
“David” (maybe he came across Goliath in a previous existence) seems to be possibly 1) from 77th brigade, 2) a bot, or 3) a group from a university philosophy group who just like playing and making mischief. Any response will be interesting to see.
Perhaps we could take this off-line?
We don’t have to take this anywhere. I would love to know what data we are talking about. Shouldn’t that be the basis for any discussion of science? Is that too much to ask?
I was taught that statements should be backed up by search, when possible.
I would love to have a scientific argument, but I’m finished with this discussion. Why do I need to be called names?
Dr, it’s your blog, and you set the standards.
It is becoming rather heated, and not really getting anywhere that I can see
On two or three occasions I have supplied you with the data you’ve requested and the result was a deafening silence. So your claim that you would love to have a scientific argument is on thin ice.
OK, this discussion is not getting anywhere, I don’t think.
Mr Chris, it’s not quite as one-sided as you might think. Many of us – and of course, Dr Kendrick in particular – have read and thought a good deal about the matter.
1. Once you penetrate to the true figures about Covid-19, you find that it is not very misleading to say that it is as harmful as a bad flu year. It’s very hard on the old and sick – especially those who are already past the mean life expectancy and have more than one severe illness. So the need for a vaccine is doubtful. That is the main reason I will not accept vaccination.
2. No safe and reliable vaccine has ever been developed for any coronavirus, in spite of many years of effort by teams around the world. Some candidate viruses were “looking good”, but killed all the animals they were given to when they encountered the live virus.
3. A normal vaccine takes at least 10 years to develop and test. Yet in 2020, vaccines were supposedly ready for mass use within a few months. Those of us who are serious-minded do not accept explanations such as “Warp Speed Magic Worked very hard”.
4. The facts and figures show that the Covid-19 “vaccines” have injured and killed more people – even on the very suspect official numbers – than all other vaccines combined in the past 20 years. The harm they have caused may be vastly greater than admitted, and quite possibly the vaccines are killing more people than the virus.
‘Bad flu year’? How did you get to that (not from this blog)? Would it be too much to ask to back this up this ‘not very misleading’ statement with some data?
A hypothetical – what would you consider enough data to (potentially) show a safe vaccine? What additional data are you waiting for? How many more billions of shots do you need to track? I don’t think that there are all that many people in the developed world left to vaccinate.
According to the UK government’s official figures https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
Deaths within 28 days of a positive PCR test: 137,417
Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate: 160,824
That’s over a period of 18 months (since March 2020), so the figures per year are:
Deaths within 28 days of a positive PCR test: 91,611
Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate: 107, 216
The Hong Kong flu of 1968-1970 is reckoned to have caused about 80,000 deaths in the UK. (I remember those years well, as I was an undergraduate. Nowhere in the many letters, diaries and other papers from those years, written by myself and other family members, is there even one mention of flu).
So, on the face of it, Covid-19 would appear to have killed about twice as many people as the flu outbreak of 1968-1970.
But how many “Covid” deaths were really caused by Covid? There is such a mass of evidence in support of the view that “Covid deaths” have been grossly – and deliberately – exaggerated that I will not embark on the laborious task of citing it all here. I suspect you would brush all evidence aside anyway.
Here is a pretty conclusive report:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/there-is-no-pandemic
“Research by an independent statistician, who goes by the pseudonym of John Dee, appears to confirm what many have suspected since the beginning of the Covid-19 pseudopandemic; that the government narrative about the disease is a confidence trick.
“John Dee looked at more than 160,000 admissions via the Emergency Department of a busy hospital. His analysis shows that, for an unnamed NHS trust, between 1 January 2021 and 13 June 2021, of the 2,102 admissions coded as Covid-19, only 9.7% (204) had any supporting diagnosis of symptomatic disease.
“For the remaining 90.3% (1,899) there was no discernible, clinical reason to describe them as Covid-19 patients”.
“A hypothetical – what would you consider enough data to (potentially) show a safe vaccine? What additional data are you waiting for?”
I would want such a “vaccine” to have undergone the safety and effectiveness tests applied to all previous vaccines for human use. That typically takes about 10 years. First, in vitro tests; then long-term animal tests; and finally a few selected human volunteers.
It seems to me that, instead of my having to explain why I object to the current “vaccines”, the burden of proof is on you to explain why you believe those “vaccines” can possibly be safe when, in effect, they have been approved without any proper testing at all. At best this is a form of Russian roulette with the lives and health of billions of people.
Moreover, I think it is common sense that no vaccine should be approved unless is substantially reduces the risk of sickness, death and onward transmission. The manufacturers have freely admitted that they do not claim that their products even slightly reduce infection, sickness or transmission; all they claim is that they reduce severity. That is a very vague, unqualified claim.
“How many more billions of shots do you need to track? I don’t think that there are all that many people in the developed world left to vaccinate”.
That’s exactly what I am frightened of. Billions of human time bombs walking around, most of them quite unaware of what the spike proteins are doing to their blood vessels and organs.
May I remind you that thalidomide was sold to the public and considered a safe and successful drug for five years?
Are we talking about the H3N2 Flu of 1968-70, with 30,00 deaths in the UK and 80-10,000 in the USA over two seasons (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31201-0/fulltext, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15962218/)? How did you get to 80,00 deaths in UK? Where did you get your ‘data’ from (I could only find one blog with this number)?
As from your anonymous source, using ‘data’ from an ‘unnamed NHS trust’, I don’t have anything so to say. I don’t have the time to do the research to even start to respond to this.
You say that ts ‘typically takes about 10 years. First, in vitro tests; then long-term animal tests; and finally a few selected human volunteers’. Do you know why it takes 10 years? I think that we can agree that research into mRNA vaccines have been ongoing for +25 years and COV-SARS vaccines have been worked on for >15 years, and that research formed the basis for the current generation of vaccines. One of the main changes made (due to improvements in technology and increased funding, in addition to the urgency of the pandemic) was conducting work in parallel when possible and being able to move faster on to the next step. Do you think that they skipped some steps, or do you just feel that things are moving too fast?
You don’t think that reduced severity (and mortality) is a positive outcome? I would present that there is data to back this up (and even data showing reduced infection and transition, but at a lower rate). What do you think that effect of the flue vaccine is?
As for thalidomide, it was not ‘considered a safe and successful drug for five years’ by every regulator. Don’t forget that it is an effective drug for many conditions, just as long as you’re not pregnant…
Prudence
Thank you for your reply.
You mention digging into the real figures, and Dr Kendrick. As I understand it, he himself said he had tried to make sense of the figures and had given up, such was the confusion, and, perhaps deliberate obfuscation.
You say in fact COVID is probably noncore than a bad flu, and, in a somewhat heartless phrase, suggest that the elderly who died, if the l’y they were over the mean life expectancy, it was tough but what could anyone do? There is of course long COVID which affects all ages, even those younger than the mean life expectancy.
I think it was a mistake to call the various jabs vaccines, since they do not seem to prevent catching COVID but certainly seem to obviate serious effects of the disease, The reason I feel the debate is one-sided is that on this blog, we only seem to hear the bad news, when surely there is some good as well.
Finally the subject of this edition of the blog was Inclusiran and Covid and making the suggestion that perhaps Heart diseases were in fact the COVID of the arteries. The discussions pretty quickly got back to vaccines, in an earlier life Dr Kendrick commented that whatever he wrote about heart disease, the comments always came back to diet.
Perhaps he would revise that now to the discussion always comes back to vaccines
“Dr Kendrick commented that whatever he wrote about heart disease, the comments always came back to diet”.
Possibly because diet seems far and away most likely to be the main causative factor.
Many excellent posts today, thank you.
“Possibly because diet seems far and away most likely to be the main causative factor.”
Or because it is the easiest factor to blame. And the easiest one to influence. But from TGCC Dr. K said that only three factors had been shown to have any effect on CVD; exercise, alcohol and green vegetables. And then went on to propose that stress was a critical factor. I think we’ve come a long way since then in consolidating those ideas into a more refined understanding as to how stress works and why those mitigating factors have their effect. Which is good, because the diet hypothesis on its own had many serious flaws, the obvious ones being nonagenarian and centenarian atrocious dieters, and tofu salad eating joggers popping their clogs in their forties.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken“
Tom Levy suggests mouth originating infections are a significant cause of heart disease. This may or may not be as great as supposed diet related causes, so the claim of “far and away” is not proved.
“You say in fact COVID is probably noncore than a bad flu, and, in a somewhat heartless phrase, suggest that the elderly who died, if the l’y they were over the mean life expectancy, it was tough but what could anyone do?”
I am sorry (but not surprised) that you choose to play the politically correct card of saying that I used “heartless” language. Science and medicine deal in facts, not emotion. It should go without saying that it is sad when anyone falls ill, and very sad indeed when they die. I have seen people die – including some of my own family – and it is horrible. But moaning and crying does not help us to establish the facts.
If you can’t understand that people who have reached the average age of death, with one or more severe illnesses, are likely to die soon – of something – there is no point in my saying anything further. Doctors used to call pneumonia “the old man’s friend” because, in their view, it killed relatively quickly and mercifully. Covid is of that order: a respiratory virus that carries off people who are, in many cases, already at death’s door.
“There is of course long COVID which affects all ages, even those younger than the mean life expectancy”.
But is there? I have seen a great deal written about “long Covid”, but I have yet to see a convincing explanation of it – or any proof that it is not a collection of signs and symptoms caused by other conditions. Many people suffer from lingering illness after many diseases, including common or garden flu.
“Which is good, because the diet hypothesis on its own had many serious flaws, the obvious ones being nonagenarian and centenarian atrocious dieters, and tofu salad eating joggers popping their clogs in their forties”.
Actually we seem to be in agreement, Eggs. The examples you quote are ones that I quite understand: tofu salad is an atrocious concoction which I imagine is very unhealthy. (Tofu is made with soya, which unless properly fermented has serious ill effects; and “salad” suggests something lacking meat or fish, and hence almost by definition not sustaining).
As for the very old people whom you call “atrocious eaters”, I disagree; I think they are probably very healthy traditional eaters. One old lady swore by her fried eggs every morning, which I am inclined to agree is a very healthy dish – as long as it is prepared with butter, fresh animal fat or olive oil rather than dangerous vegetable or seed oils.
Before the murderous lies about Covid, there were murderous lies about diet: “eat you healthy whole grains and avoid the dangerous cholesterol”. I think diet is an important factor, but the issue is blurred because so many people have wrong ideas about what foods are healthy.
I am sure I have seen at least one paper documenting loss of taste and smell with severe flu. The NHS admits that colds and flu can cause loss of taste and smell, but say it is through a different mechanism than in Covid.
In her excellent book “Toxic Legacy” Dr Stephanie Seneff states that glyphosate poisoning can cause loss of taste and smell. She makes a strong case that glyphosate can both mimic the symptoms of Covid and make people much more vulnerable to it, through the several ways in which it harms the immune system, liver, kidneys and other organs. The doses required to cause such harm are very small.
“Stephanie Seneff is a senior research scientist at MIT, where she has had continuous affiliation for more than five decades. After receiving four degrees from MIT (B.S.. in Biophysics, M.S., E.E., and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science), she has conducted research in packet-switched networks, computational modeling of the human auditory system, natural language processing, spoken dialogue systems, and second language learning. Currently a Senior Research Scientist (MIT’s highest research rank) at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, she has supervised 21 Master’s and 14 Ph.D. students. For over a decade, since 2008, she has directed her attention towards the role of nutrition and environmental toxicants on human disease, with a special emphasis on the herbicide glyphosate and the mineral sulfur.
Having just read “Perfect Health Diet” by Paul and Shou-ching Jaminet for the umpteenth time, I made a note of this (right at the end of the book):
====================================================================
To reach age 105 or older, usually something more is required: a high-fat, low-sugar, low omega-6 diet, often supported by intermittent fasting.
Here are a few stories from the oldest old:
• Gertrude Baines “lived to be the world’s oldest person on a steady diet of crispy bacon, fried chicken and ice cream”. She died at age 115 in 2009.
• Edna Parker, an Indiana schoolteacher, was the world’s oldest person when she died at age 115 in November 2008. Her diet was dominated by eggs, sausage, bacon, and fried chicken.
• Jeanne Calment, who lived to age 122, “ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to olive oil, which she said she poured on all her food and rubbed onto her skin. She also drank wine and ate chocolate – both recommended PHD foods.
• Dr Leila Denmark was the world’s oldest active pediatrician when she retired at the age of 103; she… died at age 114. She counseled avoidance of sugary drinks, including fruit juice; whole fruits were the only source of sugar she supported. At her 100th birthday she refused cake because it had sugar in it, and at her 103rd birthday party, when she again refused cake, she explained that she hadn’t eaten any food made with sugar for seventy years.
• Larry Haubner of Fredericksburg, Virginia, passed away at age 108 in 2010. On his 107th birthday he complained that he had been served an unhealthy food – cake – for his birthday. A visitor recalled the hostile reception she received when she took him candy; thereafter she took fruit.
• Walter Breuning of Great Falls, Montana, was the world’s oldest man when he died at age 114. He practiced a daily 16-hour fast, eating only breakfast and lunch. On his 114th birthday, he celebrated with his favourite food: liver and onions.
Prudence Kitten: Actually Jeanne Calment only made it to 99 (not bad!). The 122 came from her mother’s birth date.
Gary
JeanneCalmant
Her case causes considerable scepticism, but here is a link which seems to validate her 122 years.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/rej.2019.2298
Prudence
I am with you there. I always read those sort of comments, since they are usually full of sound sense. I am on board with most of their diets, and see little sense in eating unwholesome food, when there is so much of the good stuff around
Gary, I am going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment#Skepticism_regarding_age
“In 2018, Russian gerontologist Valery Novoselov and mathematician Nikolay Zak revived the theory that Calment died in 1934 and her daughter Yvonne, born in 1898, assumed her mother’s official identity and was therefore 99 years old when she died in 1997. However, Zak had difficulty getting published… In the meantime, the theory had attracted widespread media attention since 30 December 2018 after a series of postings on Medium titled “J’Accuse!” by gerontology blogger Yuri Deigin went viral. This theory, however, is considered weak by mainstream longevity experts such as French gerontologist Jean-Marie Robine.
“Robine, a French gerontologist and one of two validators of Calment, dismissed the claims and pointed out that, during his research, Calment had correctly answered questions about things that her daughter could not have known first-hand. Robine also dismissed the idea that the residents of Arles could have been duped by the switch. Michel Allard, the second doctor who helped verify Calment’s records, said that the team had considered the identity switch theory while Calment was still alive because she looked younger than her daughter in photographs, but similar discrepancies in the rates of aging are commonly found in families with centenarian members. Allard and Robine also pointed out the existence of numerous documents relating to Calment’s activities throughout her life, and that the Russians brought no evidence forward to support their hypothesis”.
Prudende Kitten:
Thanks. Since there is also a well-documented case of a woman living to 120, 122 is not that much of a stretch. Won’t be too many more of those, though, at the rate we’re going.
It would be nice to see figures for vaccine damage reported in the form number of X-events per million vaccine shots given. I.e. part of the problem with COVID vaccines, is that they have been given to so many people., however it would be nice to know the risk per jab.
Prudence
well you accuse me of not understanding science, but reading your posts over a period I am afraid it could be you who is not up to snuff on scientific method.
Politically correct? I note you use emotive language very often, which, in my opinion detracts from the objectivity of what you are saying.
finally, anecdotally, how many people, that si family friends acquaintances etc do you know:
who have died of Covid; me 3
been in an ICU with corvid me 2
have had Covid: me more than 60
Per jab or per jabbee? Assuming one jab to be sufficient have possible adverse effects, counting the former would be a perfect incentive to give as many jabs as possible to each jabbee.
Mr Chris, I fear you have been unlucky. To answer your final question,
“how many people, that si family friends acquaintances etc do you know:
who have died of Covid; me 3
been in an ICU with corvid me 2
have had Covid: me more than 60”
In my case, the answer is none, none and none. But it’s hard to be sure. In October 2019 we had a guest for several days who arrived with a shocking bad cold – having flown from the USA. While she was with us I developed the worst cold I have had for years, which however didn’t exceed the levels of a bad cold – not even fly. I suspect I may have gained immunity right there.
I don’t know how anyone can be sure whather they have Covid or not. It has no unique symptoms, there is no reliable test, and moreover – like many other “novel” diseases – it could possibly be caused by something other than a virus. Pollution, for example. See Dr Stephanie Seneff’s fine book “Toxic Legacy” which makes a very strong case that some, at least, cases of “Covid” could be caused by glyphosate poisoning.
I think that loss of taste and smell is a unique symptom. I have never seen it before – other than in people with advanced brain tumours.
Malcolm
Thank you for that about taste and smell. I had forgotten it. The advantage of reading things over and over again is that they get into the brains of slow learners like me
I have heard a couple of anecdotes of young(ish) people dying of covid but, as we know, they may have died of something else as the testing system is rubbish. A friend died, supposedly, of covid but she was 92 years old, in a nursing home and had a lifelong heart problem. Old age, anyone?
Is it always the case that loss of taste and smell is unique to Covid? https://www.raleighcapitolent.com/blog/lost-sense-of-smell?entryid=109&tabid=89
Mr Chris,
I tend to agree with you for the simple reason that I think it is probably extremely hard to devise something that you can inject into people with most people suffering minimal reactions for a while – and then dying!
I mean, how have they tested the stuff to achieve this effect?
That does not mean I think Big Pharma isn’t evil, or that it is safe to take the ‘vaccine’ – we are still unvaccinated.
However many a good cause can be undermined by escalating exaggeration.
Hello David
Previous links have suggested that when more spike proteins are made by our own cells with each injection, the already primed immune system can become so enhanced that even when the common cold comes along (which is often a coronavirus) the immune system could overreact leading to inflammation and clotting anywhere in the body. And plenty or perhaps most of us are very likely to have some good old fashioned natural immunity anyway – which might possibly add to the problem.
We do know that auto-immune conditions can be ghastly. We know frighteningly little about the immune system. We need to exhibit caution if there is a possibility that our actions may lead to the immune system going haywire.
I have several friends whose thirty something daughters have reported adeverse effects on their menstrual cycles – anecdotes? This article would suggest not! https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2211
That diet is very important can’t be disputed but let’s not let it cloud the massive importance of stress/strain in heart disease. It may not be so easy to address but stress and depression warrant more attention in my opinion. Previous blogs here have highlighted it of course but then it tends to take a back seat. Still, if addressing diet relieves stress it may have even more value I suppose.
Hi Tish: Chronic stress affects the immune system and so does diet, therefore need to address both for best results. Or perhaps the gut microbiome is central since swallowing food will initiate communication with the immune system.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5476783/
Inflammation: The Common Pathway of Stress-Related Diseases
“Conclusion
In summary, through disturbing the balance of immune system, stress induces inflammation peripherally and centrally. This imbalance leads to diversified stress-related diseases. Although there might be various different triggering events, they appear to converge on inflammation. In this review article, we provide evidence that stress induces or worsens CVD, NAFLD, depression, neurodegenerative disease and cancer through peripheral inflammation as well as neuroinflammation. Stress engenders central microglia and astrocytes, blood vessel, immune system and liver by mainly activating SNS and the HPA axis. Therefore, we suggested that inflammation may be the common pathway for stress-related diseases, which may act as a factor that contributes disease progression or may occur very early during the development of the disease.”
Thanks Andy. It does indeed seem that everything in the body is so interrelated and that gut bacteria play a very important part. I have begun reading Merlin Sheldrake’s ‘Entangled Life’ in which he leaves you totally flabbergasted by the cleverness and essential role played by fungi in all life. We humans have rather neglected them believing ourselves to be so superior yet we are apparently learning that we can learn an awful lot from them. It’s really most humbling.
Tish.
If I recall correctly, Dr K introduces ‘The Stress Hypothesis’ in his book: “The Great Cholesterol Con”. Well worth a read.
Translation for Readers of the Sun:
‘Dear Secretary of State for Health
What the blazes do you think you’re doing allowing NICE to issue this load of old claptrap about some new drug or other from Novartis?
It’s rather like Spurs signing a back up striker to Harry Kane on the sole basis that his brother scored a few goals in Ligue 1.His own track record? Zero goals, zero assists in the Eredivisie.
Yours Faithfully
XXX’
“There are certain tell-tale clues of a plan to deceive by the health authorities. A veritable smoking gun.
The health authorities admit panic mongering in official documents.
The health authorities said to give high risk patients antivirals early for flu, but late for covid.
The health authorities didn’t set up any studies to test early treatment with antivirals for high risk covid patients. But they were very prompt to set up fake late treatment studies in order to smear repurposed antivirals.
The health authorities say that vaccines are safe and effective but pharma needs official protection from legal liability
The health authorities don’t do any autopsies (or at least report them) as a followup to vaccine fatal adverse events
A smoking gun of official intent to deceive.”
I know a woman who has been told that she had to have a booster vaccination before she would be admitted to Wrightington hospital (UK) for knee replacement surgery. How widespread is this, and is it legal?
“American Woman Removed From Kidney Transplant Waiting List Because She’s Unvaccinated”
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/07/american-woman-removed-from-kidney-transplant-waiting-list-because-shes-unvaccinated/
Yes, I believe it is widespread.
I, personally, know someone who was informed they HAD to have the ‘gene jab’ to receive eczema treatment on the NHS !!
F**ing immoral, the NHS are complicit in this fake ‘pandemic’ – part of the Vichy state.
My husband was refused a visual field test for his glaucoma because he refused to put on a mask.
Quite, but is it legal to refuse treatment?
It worries me also. I’m T1 diabetic but have refused statins, flu vaccine and now this experimental gene therapy. What chance my insulin might soon be subject to “supply issues”?
I asked this before…it is absolutely immoral but is it illegal? I think that people forget that these jabs are still undergoing trials, using the public, and are not fully approved. (I’m hoping that they never are approved.). I had one administrator on a health site tell me that they were fully approved and that people claiming otherwise were wrong and then shutting me off. The propaganda is working.
Lawrence Gostin: Public health hero.
Gary, I wonder what you might think of this.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/podcasts/trackthevax/94859?xid=nl_covidupdate_2021-10-08&eun=g42415d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyUpdate_100821&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Daily_News_Update_active
JDPatten: The only thing I can say is: horrifying. The free and voluntary, informed consent for all medical procedures is the fundamental value in medical ethics. Our system of government has gone so far off the rails it has become a grave danger to the citizenry. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are responsible for and complicit in this. Astonishing how much George W. Bush was demonized and reviled by the Democrats while he was mangling everything; now he is their hero!
JDPatten: I agree that the ‘free and voluntary, informed consent for all medical procedures is the fundamental value in medical ethics’. However I do not believe that statement is absolute. In terms of a medical procedure involving one person, it make complete sense. But when we are talking about public health, the individual right should be modified to account for society at large. We do not allow tuberculosis to be spread. We insist on sanitation, clean water, and clean air – an individual does not have the right to put others at risk for disease. Think about some of the diseases of the (mostly) past: tuberculosis, yellow fever, the plague. How about ebola and dengue fever?
Covid is probably not as infectious or as deadly as those diseases, but arguing that society does not have the right to limit individuals from spreading disease is a step hill to climb. Societies do it all the time, and it is a good thing.
You may, however, argue that in the case of Covid-19, it is not virulent or deadly enough to justify such stringent measures. You may well have good case to make. If only we had good information on just how virulent, on just how deadly, and on how many people have immunity due to being infected, or vaccinated.
Tom Morgan
“arguing that society does not have the right to limit individuals from spreading disease is a step hill to climb. Societies do it all the time, and it is a good thing.’
That argument justifies welding people into their homes, perhaps to die of starvation.
” If only we had good information on just how virulent, on just how deadly, and on how many people have immunity due to being infected, or vaccinated.”
It would seem that this undercuts your first argument, since it relies heavily on competent health authorities. And since money is involved, perhaps your argument is being used to justify corruption.
ASD: My thesis is that decisions made by individuals have to be tempered by the effects on the society as a whole, and those decisions are not black and white. There are some circumstances that call on society to make unpopular decisions. Covid is an example of how difficult the decision process can be. Balancing individual freedoms with the safety of the public requires a thorough understanding of the threat posed by the disease. But we never have all the facts, but a decision needs to be made. Doing nothing is a decision. Doing something is a decision (and how does that ‘something’ affect people?).
It is to be encouraged that people question the decisions being made. Only thru this type of process can decisions be improved.
I don’t think what I’m saying is at all earth-shattering. I’m only pointing out that JDPatten’s statement is not absolute.
I have no idea why you think my argument supports corruption. You may have to expand on that for me to understand what you mean.
My point is that the least burdensome path to freedom must be taken by authorities and that possible risk is no excuse for causing actual damage to our rights. That is the route of tyrants.
If authorities avoid looking into questions of risk by not doing their due diligence and gathering data but panic populations and tyrannize them where data is bogus and deliberately incomplete because of corruption, then “the public good” becomes an excuse for tyranny and actually supports corruption which is the actual reason for the tyrannical actions.
It’s necessary to understand the mindset of predators–and politicians are almost all predators.
I suggest yo read “Virus Mania”. Most of the diseases’ effects are propaganda to keep people in fear, just as what is happening with covid, and now being morphed into the end of the world is nigh if we do not immediately stop using fossil fuels. Mostly generated by fossile fools.
Thank you Tom.
But I wonder about the figure of U. S. dead of COVID.
How deadly is that? Not enough?
Or is it that you don’t trust that figure?
JDPatten: I don’t trust the official deaths due to Covid in the US. But I have gone to the CDC and downloaded the data for deaths due to ‘natural causes’ for each week from 2014. That data is hard to fiddle with. So I can look at the expected deaths per million by week in the US, and from that I can look at Excess Deaths each week. The signal from Covid is clear for the last 18 months, or so. As Dr. K has pointed out, the way the MSM portrays the deaths from Covid is completely useless, but for the US Covid-19 has been considerably worse that any recent flu outbreak.
The question of ‘deadly enough’ is a judgement call, which, unfortunately, is always decided with incomplete knowledge. And with Covid that knowledge base is, as Dr. K has pointed out, completely mucked up. Ideally, our public health sector would have guidelines to make informed decisions on things like the use of masks and quarantine, etc. However this time around, the CDC, for example, has squandered all credibility and authority. So we are left to our own devices. Definitely not ideal.
I believe if Covid were as bad as the 1918 Influenza outbreak, no one would question the public health measures. But Covid seems much less of a threat. Is it enough less that no measures should be instituted? Some measures? Which ones? This is where medical judgment and political governance meet. And that’s where disagreement over exactly what, if anything, should be done. I have no problem with people disagreeing over policy. And if they can give reasoned arguments for a different approach, so much the better.
Hm. Over 700,000 dead in the U S as reported now.
How does that compare with your count?
In any case, people do die of this thing. You can do risk calculations ’til the cows come home, but there are only three immediate outcomes with respect to this virus for any single individual:
You avoid COVID altogether.
You get COVID with symptoms – or not – but recover.
You get COVID and die.
‘Course you might avoid COVID . . . up until you get it. So, two outcomes.
But, there’s only one of Tom Morgan. You live or you die. No shadings, no curves on the graphs for you. No tallying of prior corpses to make a difference for you.
It comes down to that for each of us.
Since even vaccinated people can become infected and, presumably, transmit COVID what difference does it make if some people prefer not to be vaccinated? Shouldn’t we be allowed the freedom to decide our own fate in this respect as we are in many others in life? We can drive a lethal weapon (car, motorcycle, etc), cross a road, drink alcohol, participate in dangerous sports, etc. Why is weighing up the pros and cons of being vaccinated suddenly not something we can decide for ourselves?
I haven’t checked this but do you think that this might be the answer to your question?
https://privacyinternational.org/examples/4083/public-private-partnership-launches-biometrics-identity-and-vaccination-record-system
I’m starting down the tin hat route, methinks.
I follow John Dee’s Almanac and have come to the conclusion that none of this is about health, something other concluded many months ago.
The suggestion is, as said by a nurse from an inundated large hospital in north west N.I. just yesterday evening that its primarily the untouched who are clogging up the beds & ICU units – that’s from the local ITV network.
Meanwhile a graph apparently was produced to show the huge increase in Israeli cases post jab followed by a huge reduction post booster.
ASD
if we all take your argument that :
It would seem that this undercuts your first argument, since it relies heavily on competent health authorities. And since money is involved, perhaps your argument is being used to justify corruption.
it would seem to mean that we can believe no one, and will end up quoting from obscure sites or experts on the grounds that they are not big Pharma and therefore must be right;
I can’t buy that.
Mr. Chris,
As the “competent health authorities” can’t be bothered to get accurate facts and do actual science, but always seem to be spinning yarns to benefit science, where are we to go for info? Fortune tellers? Ouija boards?
Show me how Risch and McCullough are any less reliable than the CDC or SAGE. I have found both baby and bathwater on the internet and I am not the least troubled by bathwater, since I have no trouble sifting it. That’s not saying that I don’t make mistakes that need correction. I do. But I am constantly making progress at accumulating baby. I have found at least as much bathwater from the “competent health authorities” as anywhere on the internet. And I have found a smoking gun of their corruption and deceptions.
We can believe what we ourselves have sifted and found to be baby. I hope that answers your question.
Maybe you should watch a video interview of Harvey Risch where he discusses various nefarious dealings by the “competent health authorities” which are not well-known, but where the information is publicly available. E.g., France’s Health Minister Buzin withdrew HCQ from being over the counter in Dec. 2019 and her husband, Yves Levy, was involved at Wuhan Institute of Virology and was a professional enemy of Didier Raoult.
https://rumble.com/vj4pop-hydroxychloroquine-and-its-friends.html
“benefit science” should be “benefit pharma”
Slightly off topic, but.
It’s interesting exercise to contemplate whether the Wuhan research was aimed towards benefiting humankind (via medical science) or the MIC (via germ warfare). Some of the players and funders of the research have very dodgy links with the dark side.
An interesting question that we shall probably never receive a satisfactory answer to is: “Why would the US (and UK) fund research into dangerous germ mutations in laboratories in foreign countries, like The Wuhan institute in China and the Lugar laboratory in Georgia, particularly when facilities like Fort Detrik in the USA and Porton Down in the UK already exist nationally ?”.
Steve: The gain-of-function research which led to this chimeric virus was funded mainly by the Pentagon. The debacle in Kabul has shown us once again how utterly incompetent the military (and political) leadership actually is. I’m with Dr. Kendrick that it is mainly incompetence, with a bit of malice and the prospect of eye-watering profits, and cowardice. thrown in, which has led to this state of madness.
In the US Intelligence circles, there are some very, very clever people as well as a whole bunch of idiots – as there are in most Intelligence outfits. They all know what happened, but no one wants to kick sand into the face of the big lump on the beach, as they will get ‘buried’. The guys in the US (and their Wuhan subcontractor) fucked-up. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s both asymmetric opportunism and a bullshit show now looking for a fall-guy, and the runners are…
If the virus was deliberately spread initially, governments ought to be looking into whether agents were sent abroad to deliberately infect our populations.
China is no predator. It didn’t illegally grab Hong Kong away from the UK. China isn’t building military bases in the South China Sea. China isn’t sending military flights invading Taiwanese airspace. China isn’t using its aggressive economic strategy of Belt and Road to increase its influence in third world countries via economic subjugation.
So it’s obvious that China is no bioweapon-predator:
“In a 2006 follow-up article, Colonel Guo expands on his thesis, advocating the weaponization of military medicine, in order to make it:
“a fighting power in addition to a tool of maintaining and strengthening the fighting power of the army–that is, forming an aggression system of biotechnology.”
Unlike weapons of mass destruction, Colonel Guo proposed that military medical scientists use biotechnology to produce weapons that target specific physiological effects on the human body:
“The goal of precision injury is not necessarily to terminate a life, but to choose a degree of injury depending on the purposes of operations and the types of enemies.””
More at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/exclusive-reports-uncovered-show-covid-19-planned-bioweapon-chinas-peoples-liberation-army/
Gary,
You know how Washington works. Funds are sent overseas and kickbacks return. Fauci and company doubtlessly got kickbacks from the Chinese for funding the Wuhan research.
‘An interesting question that we shall probably never receive a satisfactory answer to is: “Why would the US (and UK) fund research into dangerous germ mutations in laboratories in foreign countries, like The Wuhan institute in China and the Lugar laboratory in Georgia, particularly when facilities like Fort Detrik in the USA and Porton Down in the UK already exist nationally?”’
Probably because gain-of-function research in the USA was explicitly forbidden, but there was a loophole; subcontracting abroad was not explicitly forbidden.
In the second place, common prudence dictates that research on making viruses more dangerous to humans should be conducted as far away as possible from those responsible. If a lethal virus escaped, 1.4 billion Chinese would be first in the line of fire, followed by billions of other Asians. Admittedly, Wuhan is only about 7,700 miles away from Washington as the airliner flies – only about one third of the way around the Earth – but hey, no one is perfect. Apart from Perth, Australia – which would have been tricky – the ideal antipodal spot would be in the Indian Ocean.
Also, of course, the whole mess could be blamed on the Chinese – as has happened.
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=837679
https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/wuhan-lab-documents-show-fauci-untruthful-about-research-critics/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9966873/Rand-Paul-says-Fauci-LIED-Congress-insisting-never-funded-gain-function-research.html
ACTIV-6 trial for repurposed medications
“Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Completed Informed Consent
Age ≥ 30 years old
Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by any authorized or approved polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antigen test collected within 10 days of screening
Two or more current symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days. Symptoms include the following: fatigue, dyspnea, fever, cough, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, body aches, chills, headache, sore throat, nasal symptoms, new loss of sense of taste or smell
Exclusion Criteria:
Prior diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (> 10 days from screening)
Current or recent (within 10 days of screening) hospitalization
Known allergy/sensitivity or any hypersensitivity to components of the study drug or placebo
Known contraindication(s) to study drug including prohibited concomitant medications
”
A study design flaw the size of a mountain is obvious to me. Anyone else spot it?
This study is designed to show no benefit for any of these interventions.
Here’s an important study.
“Hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin in COVID-19: The association between time to treatment and case fatality rate”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002040
“No patient treated within the first 72 h of illness died.”
“The factors associated with higher case fatality rate were age (OR = 1.06; 95% CI 1.01–1.11, p = 0.021), SpO2 (OR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.79–0.96, p = 0.005) and treatment onset (OR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.06–1.27, p = 0.002), being the latter the only associated in the multivariate analysis (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.05–1.32, p = 0.005). 0.6% of our patients died.”
Treat within 72 hours of symptom onset to minimize hospitalization and premature deaths.
Oh, I finally found RECOVERY’s limitation statement.
“These findings indicate that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for hospitalized patients with Covid-19 but do not address its use as prophylaxis or in patients with less severe SARS-CoV-2 infection managed in the community.”
So RECOVERY says nothing about outpatient treatment effectiveness. It did its job, which was to give ammunition to mass media to spread misinformation that HCQ doesn’t work (by implication, in early treatment as well as late treatment).
Is it possible that most patients will recover anyway, after the first 72 hours? We do know its just a flu with complications for the dying & vulnerable and of course, an IFR of 99.7%
It’s the high risk patients who need to be treated. The rest not so much–nutraceuticals ought to be sufficient for them.
Rather urgent … guidance on how to respond to a UK government consultation on social credit passes, ahem sorry ‘covid status certificates’
Deadline is tonight; it just crept up on me.
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/2021/09/guidance-for-responding-in-2-minutes-to-the-governments-new-consultation-on-covid-passports/
The govt had earlier consultations but seems to keep wanting to hold them to justify its decision to go ahead. Bastards.
Thanks for your prompt, I replied in time.
Unusually it supplied some space for comments and criticisms of the consultation process. I pointed out that the consultation would be more useful if it supplied links to a range of expert opinion, such as Robert Malone, to help people make an informed decision.
Some interesting stories you probably won’t see in the MSM:
1) PFIZER are being accused of conducting trials of their Covid-19 mRNA jab on Polish babies. It would appear that knowledge of these Pfizer trials has been suppressed because of ‘secrecy clauses’ in the Pfizer procurement contract The suspicion is that these children have been targeted in orphanages and care homes, as has happened historically in other vaccine trials.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/pfizer-accused-of-jabbing-orphan-babies-in-covid-trials/
2) PFIZER very twitchy about the public knowing that they use fetal cells in their vaccine research, although not in vaccine production.
https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/10/06/pfizer-executive-emails-aborted-fetal-tissue-covid-vaccine-testing.html
3) The first three Covid variants emanated from the UK (18/12/20), closely followed by the South African variant (14/01/21), and then the Brazilian variant (15/01/21). By sheer coincidence, AstraZeneca had selected three countries to trial their Covid-19 vaccine. As can be seen in their press release, those countries were the UK, Brazil and South Africa. The odds of the first three designated variants of concern emanating by chance from the very three countries selected by AstraZeneca for their trial are over one in a million.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/we-both-know-this-has-never-been-about-saving-lives-boris/
The moral of these stories ? There are no morals when it comes to Big Pharma and profit.
JDPatten (1:59AM): Could not reply yo your comment directly… So ‘my numbers’ are:
Excess deaths for all of 2020 is 491704
Excess Deaths thru week 38, 2021 is 324744
Total= 816,448
Oddly every news outlet accumulates deaths across the 2 years.
A few words about how these numbers were arrived at. The CDC has a website where anyone can download various data sets. I downloaded data that starts in 2014 and goes (almost) thru the week before the data is downloaded. So I get deaths due to ‘natural causes’ for the USA as a function of dates and week numbers. I used the years 2014-2019 to get an expected number of deaths for each week in the ideal year. Plus 1 standard deviation (based only on the 6 years). I also estimate the population of the USA at each week, so I can calc the expected number of deaths per million population from those 6 years. Then for 2020 and 2021, for each week, I get the actual number of deaths and compare it to the expected number of deaths (normalized by population). So the numbers above are the sum of the ‘Excess Deaths’ for each week in both years. Clear as mud, right?
WorldoMeter, today, has the USA deaths due to Covid as 737,584. Those are supposed to be due to Covid. Not sure why my number of Excess Deaths is so much higher than WoM, but it could be that the CDC number include flu deaths which have been low, but probably not non-existent.
JDP I do agree with your analysis of what an individual is faced with. The problem is that doctors an public health folks can only deal in averages. All medical guidelines are meant to apply to everyone who fit in a particular box. As an individual I want the best info available so I can assess the risks for myself, and make decisions I think are best for me. Unfortunately the quality of the info is dubious at best, as Dr. K has lamented. The public health folks and politicians don’t seem to have any better data, and don’t seem to be able to communicate sensible regulations. So individuals are doubly screwed. End of rant.
Tom. You can do the best analysis you can do and still get caught.
I’ve written about my past battles with risk factors here before.
Briefly:
The chance of phrenic nerve palsy resulting from atrial fibrillation ablation was 0.6% when I had mine done some years ago. Well, I was breathing with half a diaphragm for six months after. Function returned, thanks.
You can count the annual cases of sylvatic epidemic typhus in the U S on one hand without thumb, if that. I caught it from flying squirrels in my attic. Then, twelve years later it came back as Brill-Zinsser recrudation.
Mine is the only known case. Go on pubmed and look it up.
Calculate the risk factors for that!
So, I view risk calculation basically as a wishing well.
Reasoning the best you can with the intelligence you have in the circumstances you find yourself in is good, but don’t obsess. It’ll take you only so far.
But toss a few coins in. Can’t hurt.
JDP: Yikes! I can’t decide if you should buy lottery tickets with that kind of ‘luck’ or save your money… I do think tho that evaluating ones risk is a necessary exercise. Otherwise flipping coins is what you’re left with. However, once the risk is evaluated, that evaluation needs to have some uncertainty assigned to it. In your case the uncertainty is VERY large, so as to be useless.
Tom
Was, Tom. Was.
Those incidents were in the past. Those coins have been flipped. Each next flip is brand new and innocent. 50/50.
I’m not superstitious bout it all, just mindful of the fiction of precision of even the best risk assessment and correlation with outcome for any one individual at any one time for any one potential problem.
Be guided, yes. Don’t be a slave to it.
Tom,
Have you considered how many of those excess deaths can be attributed to people living on the streets, or indeed to people crossing the border and living without adequate health provision?
This didn’t happen on anything like the same scale until recently.
Have you tried resolving the excess deaths state by state?
David,
The data I grabbed from the CDC include a bunch of causes of death. There is ‘All Causes’ and ‘natural causes’ plus a bunch more. I figured ‘All Causes’ would include suicides and other causes of death I didn’t want to consider, so I am only using ‘natural causes’.
I’m not sure trying to resolve excess deaths on a state by state basis is worth doing, but it could be done. Do you expect to see some signal near the southern US border due to migrants? As you get smaller populations the variance starts to get large, so trying to tease out information starts being problematic. Also the data I have only goes back to 2014, so my estimate of the Average of deaths per week has some variation to it for the whole US. At the state level that variation is larger still.
I’m looking forward to a year when ‘Excess Deaths’ is actually a negative number…
Tom
Well I suppose I’d expect excess deaths at the border, but also in states like California, where large numbers of people live on the streets now.
I suspect there are more reasons for the excess deaths than COVID or the vaccines, but I agree it is hard to see how to tease this out – unfortunately the US seems to be a rather unstable place right now.
FYI.
The 13th round-ups of Covid vaccine safety reports – October 2021.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/12/vaccine-safety-update-13/
One of my comments looks like it has too many links and went to jail for its misconduct.
VERY strongly recommended (by me):
Winning the War Against Therapeutic Nihilism & Trusted Treatments vs Untested Novel Therapies (Dr Peter McCullough; 1-hour video talk to Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)
https://rumble.com/vnbv86-winning-the-war-against-therapeutic-nihilism-and-trusted-treatments-vs-unte.html
Recommended by Dr McCullough, right at the end of that talk, is this book:
“COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey” by Peter and Ginger Breggin
The book gives a lot of information about the larger political context of Covid-19. How come it was all so organised? Why did almost all governments respond in the same ways, at the same time, like a well-drilled unit of soldiers? What’s going on?
I like McCullough. However, I found Harvey Risch’s handling of statistics more persuasive than McCullough in his discussion of HCQ studies. Very persuasive and enlightening. (Link above.)
But Risch has a PhD in biostatistics, so he ought to be able to discuss statistics competently. Even more, Risch is an interesting speaker and has his arguments well-marshalled. Never boring and he always has something new to me.
Informative video with great sound track.
Great video. I thank Martin Back for posting the tweet and Edward Grieg for (pothsumously) providing the soundtrack.
Discussion of where the ‘epicentre of bullshit’ lies and many other things
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-rogan-conversation-is-up/comments
I wondered what your thoughts were on the research from the Karolinska institute with regard to statins and COVID-19 deaths? https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2536
Just placed my pre-order for ‘The Clot Thickens’ via Book Depository – 10 days to go they say !
I’ll be looking for another sales outlet. B.D. is amazon owned apparently.
Thats a very good question as to if someone who takes an injection, when their position is that it is a dangerous experiment, and the motives behind it are very debatable..if they can be criticised for that action. For me I would not call it an ethical stance but merely hiding behind a loophole. ‘I was only wanting to do my job’…isn’t really an excuse in my book. Rather like ‘I refuse to answer this question because I don’t have to’ also was, in the past.
I think in real truth that in the medical community there is a degree of serum swopping going on.
So, you get a heart attack – a myocardial infarction – that leaves a substantial amount of heart muscle isolated. That results in scarring that blocks electrical pulse signals from reaching all areas of the myocardium.
Now, no problem. Coil up an electrically conducting matrix and scoot it through appropriate vessels and voila, it unfurls and bonds to that problem area. Electricity is restored! It all beats much more normally again… At least it would for your pet rat. Or piggy. So far, so good.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/961136
Dr Kendrick,
Are you aware of anyone who has published anything in relation to Prescription Drugs. More specifically in relation to their shelf life?
I’ve always wondered how many ‘good’ drugs are thrown away yearly, and what if any is there any requirement on drug manufacturers to test the shelf life of their drugs are?
regards
I would quite like to know a ball park number on that too, as I have an stack of emergency ivermectin 12mg – just in case – that expires may 22 by which time I had foolishly thought the world would have come to its senses and the pills could be safely flushed.
But, since Molnupiravir and Delta+ are just around the corner I fear I need to restock if expiry dates are to be relied on.
In the current madness you simply have to cut corners sometimes. If it were me, I’d keep them the ivermectin for 10 years at least. I’ve taken diclofenac long after its expiry date (but not any more because I have discovered acupuncture).
I rely on vitamins C and D plus a magnesium supplement to keep me free of COVID. I’d love to read some reliable statistics as to how effective that strategy might be – particularly in people like us who haven’t had even one dose of vaccine!
I recall many years ago reading a study where they tested many drugs that were 40 years old. All of them were fine, except eye drops.
For anyone unaware that the fox is guarding the henhouse (but only picking off a few at a time, so as not to arouse suspicion), here is proof positive, in all its sleaze:
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/public-fear-brings-easy-money-to