I’m so glad to read this. My mom had a stent installed several years ago after they nicked her carotid artery while trying to clean it out.
They prescribed plavix and a full grain of aspirin. After a few months of ridiculous bruising, I reduced her aspirin to a low dose, still keeping the plavix.
I’m so glad to read this. My mom had a stent installed several years ago after they nicked her carotid artery while trying to clean it out.
They prescribed plavix and a full grain of aspirin. After a few months of ridiculous bruising, I reduced her aspirin to a low dose, still keeping the plavix.
She continued to bruise terribly and bleed a great deal when any little cut happened. I finally completely eliminated the aspirin.
Just yesterday I told her that I’d like to get blood work checked comparing her now and then switch to strictly aspirin and check it again.
I have a bit of irregular heartbeat, afib, but not bad. But rather than aspirin, I use nattokinase, which the Japanese eat a ton of; lubrokinase is also good. Mercola.com sells that, and natto you can get online. I use NOW foods. Garlic - Kyolic brand - also thins the blood. But then if you are taking RXs, you need to make sure you don't mess that up! If you have a good doctor they might be hip to this stuff. I usually now look for D.Os. first....
But I'm not a doctor, don't play one on TV, and in fact don't even watch doctor shows on TV, so check out those links above rather than my layman ideas.... of course, they do sell stuff, but there is a LOT of free info, and they all seem legit.
AMD , such an important and thoughtful essay . The things I see in triage that put the patient in triage / emergency department that were caused by another physician is mind boggling . Also , The patient that gets a million dollar workup with no answers and honestly, just sitting down, taking the time and listening to the patient long enough .. .. many times they tell you what’s wrong . Physicians are so quick to give medication for cholesterol ( one of my pet peeves) and never discuss the components of a healthy lifestyle. Happy Friday !🤗
"Cholesterol" (lipids) one of my peeves too. I'm a layman, but got interested enough to read (some) of "the literature" especially about statins, but also HDL, LDL and such. Imagine my surprise when, in a nutshell, I learnt that statins really do reduce "bad" numbers (usu. LDL) the incidence of cardio-vascular "events" every so slightly. Problem is they hardly move the needle at all with all-cause mortality.
My latest humorus find is this study. To save time, I recommend you open the pdf version which I'll comment upon below.
Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and All-Cause Mortality according to Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level in the Elderly, a Nationwide Study”
It discusses what they call the "LDL-C paradox." For reference, consider that current medical wisdom holds that any LDL reading above 100 indicates a risk for CVD disease (which may be true, but again -- isn't the overall death rate a more important metric?)
Exhibit A:
Look at the table on P. 726: note how incidence of all-cause death drops, dramatically, as LDL levels rise.
Exhibit B:
Now look at graph C on P. 728: Non-statin users showed a significantly higher death rate, the lower was their LDL. Elsewhere in the text, the "paradox" applies most strongly to the non-statin users who were relatively health (no diabetes, existing heart disease, etc.) Taking this data point as presented, it shows a lower all-cause death rate, in fact dramatically less, at least in a certain patient cohort (non-statin takers), in fact their LDL was far higher than the supposedly ideal level (100).
Assuming the study data had integrity, this "paradox" or anomaly alone would lead an impartial judge to posit that the lipid/cholesterol hypothesis has flaws. I'm far from an expert, but some of the newer research indicates a more nuanced view of lipids. As I understand it, HDL is not universally "good," nor LDL "bad." The new metrics may be particle size, the presence and potential damage done by oxidized or glycolated HDL/LDL, and so forth.
In the broader issue, it is far from clear that a high-fat diet is evil. There never was consensus about that and it appears even after more than half a century the evidence is far from supportive of that case. Yet, it's been academic, government and medical dogma for decades that saturated fat is "bad" and should be reduced.
As study authors say, "more research is needed." That's often true. But you, dear reader, can do alot of that yourself. There are usually other similar papers, indeed a ton of them, that you can wade through or at least browse, and perhaps gain perspective on the issues.
I concur - and Dr Zoe Harcombe torpedoes the drivel about cholesterol and animal fats very adroitly too.
Agree 100% about RRR vs ARR - a very big fraud also trotted out with MRNA experimental GT CV19 drugs......Dr MK confirms there is no (proven) connection between cholesterol and CVHD and that epithethial cell damage is a far stronger indicator ( how odd - such an action is also a factor in said vaccine induced damage); studies which determined the former are decades old and ignored., surprise surprise - his 3 books are an education how poor your GP can be..... and how beneficial is the (indolent and allegedly unhealthy ) lifestyle of the French ..
No surprise that statins trials concentrated on whether they lowered cholesterol - which they did - but never on reducing mortality which they don't. UK NICE determined cholesterol should be "5" - from a study in US that was funded very substantially by......you guessed it.
UK GPs do not study nutrition and diet to anything other than a token amount......and yet dispense pills by the truckload. QED.
Relative risk is almost always deployed by pharmaceutical companies to make numbers look significant when they aren't. Another tactic is to use surrogate endpoints (such as cholesterol) instead of the actual desired outcome.
I only have a high school education, and even I have learned enough to do rudimentary critical assessment of some scientific studies.
I am in the UK; left school at 18..now have two professional qualifications.one currently benchmarked to a Masters degree.
When people understand that RRR is a comparison between those of the SAME "injected" cohort who did and did not experience the "virus", for example, which the drug trial PI reports as "efficacy" , rather than a comparison - ARR- between the control and placebo groups to demonstrate TRUE efficacy of the injected vs the non injected, they should rightly feel totally conned and become very very angry. This should/will increase by a factor of one hell of a lot when they realise this is the way Big Pharma has fraudulently conducted trials, among many many other criminal practices, for decades. When they THEN realise that the Health Regulatory agencies have known about this , again for decades, actively participated in the cover up and in the case of UK MHRA Chief drug enabler Raine, told barefaced lies that "no corners were cut", their anger should be such as to fire them into action.
A cursory review of Pfizer's trial reports/trial PI's conduct since 2019 tells you everything - but why do you expect when you allow a business which has been fined to the tune of many bns of $ prior to 2019 to take 100% control of the trial metrics for an experimental GT mRNA drug which uses two elements, LNP/ induced production of Sp 1/2 - both proven toxic humans years before 2019 - purely for profit?
"It was never about health". Like you, I do not consider myself blessed with great knowledge - but by dogged effort, IQ ~125/130, and very bad personal experience, I know the fraud of "surrogate endpoints". Trust in authority died some time ago - and will never ever return as long as I have breathe in my lungs
In a Dark Horse podcast, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying have explained how even saline will give that 83% efficacy rating by using the not-officially-vaccinated-until-two-weeks dodge. This wasn't original to them, but it was a very illuminating conversation.
"Eat Rich, Live Long" by Ivor Cummings & Dr Jeffrey Gerber summarizes the research on cholesterol, insulin, metabolic disease etc. and 1/3rd of it is about how readers can apply the research to their lives. I highly recommend it.
This is the crux of the problem, same as economics: "If you lined up in a straight line all the PhD economists in the world, they still couldn't come to a conclusion."
Medical care properly is an art, not a science. The Bible says for a good reason, in Ps. 139 "I praise you because I am *** fearfully and wonderfully made...**** "
Thanks for putting the reference in. It is by doing stuff like this that we will overcome the massive evil that the vile Soros, Schwab, ad nauseam have put in place
The world also seems have forgotten the lesson of Dr. Barbara Starfield, MD., of the Johns Hopkins School of Health, and her study published in JAMA, 2000, the well-known (at the time) US Healthcare Third Leading Cause of Death. Basically, the US medical system is the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, killing, at time of study in 2000, 225,000 people a year, including 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries,7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals, 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals, 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals, 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines. The Alliance for Human Research Protection, which advances voluntary, informed consent to medical intervention has a summary of this here, as does the Society for Iatrogenic Awareness in its article Medical Errors: Still the Third Leading Cause of Death. Then, of course, since we need to lock down the world for Covid, perhaps we should permanently lock down the world – and particularly one of the big drivers, illegal immigration – over tuberculosis. In 2019 there were an estimated 1,418,000 deaths from TB. There’s just gotta be some way for Fauci and the WHO to milk this one! Or as Dr Travis Harding MD says, pandemics are about control, so they can keep us busy and preoccupied while politicians do other things with the other hand (exactly what magicians do.) Masks have zero to do, per Dr. Travis Harding, MD, with getting or passing the virus and the countries with the highest vax rate also have the highest, “by far,” Covid spread.
In fact, you are hurting your immune system by not having continual, normal exposure as you lock yourself down from normal interactions. Basically, they are just using this all to make money off of you he summarizes.
I’m so glad to read this. My mom had a stent installed several years ago after they nicked her carotid artery while trying to clean it out.
They prescribed plavix and a full grain of aspirin. After a few months of ridiculous bruising, I reduced her aspirin to a low dose, still keeping the plavix.
She continued to bruise terribly and bleed a great deal when any little cut happened. I finally completely eliminated the aspirin.
Just yesterday I told her that I’d like to get blood work checked comparing her now and then switch to strictly aspirin and check it again.
I’d like to eliminate any side effects of plavix.
I would check out Drjockers.com, greenmedinfo.com, or mercola. com
I have a bit of irregular heartbeat, afib, but not bad. But rather than aspirin, I use nattokinase, which the Japanese eat a ton of; lubrokinase is also good. Mercola.com sells that, and natto you can get online. I use NOW foods. Garlic - Kyolic brand - also thins the blood. But then if you are taking RXs, you need to make sure you don't mess that up! If you have a good doctor they might be hip to this stuff. I usually now look for D.Os. first....
But I'm not a doctor, don't play one on TV, and in fact don't even watch doctor shows on TV, so check out those links above rather than my layman ideas.... of course, they do sell stuff, but there is a LOT of free info, and they all seem legit.
AMD , such an important and thoughtful essay . The things I see in triage that put the patient in triage / emergency department that were caused by another physician is mind boggling . Also , The patient that gets a million dollar workup with no answers and honestly, just sitting down, taking the time and listening to the patient long enough .. .. many times they tell you what’s wrong . Physicians are so quick to give medication for cholesterol ( one of my pet peeves) and never discuss the components of a healthy lifestyle. Happy Friday !🤗
"Cholesterol" (lipids) one of my peeves too. I'm a layman, but got interested enough to read (some) of "the literature" especially about statins, but also HDL, LDL and such. Imagine my surprise when, in a nutshell, I learnt that statins really do reduce "bad" numbers (usu. LDL) the incidence of cardio-vascular "events" every so slightly. Problem is they hardly move the needle at all with all-cause mortality.
My latest humorus find is this study. To save time, I recommend you open the pdf version which I'll comment upon below.
Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and All-Cause Mortality according to Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level in the Elderly, a Nationwide Study”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35255552/
It discusses what they call the "LDL-C paradox." For reference, consider that current medical wisdom holds that any LDL reading above 100 indicates a risk for CVD disease (which may be true, but again -- isn't the overall death rate a more important metric?)
Exhibit A:
Look at the table on P. 726: note how incidence of all-cause death drops, dramatically, as LDL levels rise.
Exhibit B:
Now look at graph C on P. 728: Non-statin users showed a significantly higher death rate, the lower was their LDL. Elsewhere in the text, the "paradox" applies most strongly to the non-statin users who were relatively health (no diabetes, existing heart disease, etc.) Taking this data point as presented, it shows a lower all-cause death rate, in fact dramatically less, at least in a certain patient cohort (non-statin takers), in fact their LDL was far higher than the supposedly ideal level (100).
Assuming the study data had integrity, this "paradox" or anomaly alone would lead an impartial judge to posit that the lipid/cholesterol hypothesis has flaws. I'm far from an expert, but some of the newer research indicates a more nuanced view of lipids. As I understand it, HDL is not universally "good," nor LDL "bad." The new metrics may be particle size, the presence and potential damage done by oxidized or glycolated HDL/LDL, and so forth.
In the broader issue, it is far from clear that a high-fat diet is evil. There never was consensus about that and it appears even after more than half a century the evidence is far from supportive of that case. Yet, it's been academic, government and medical dogma for decades that saturated fat is "bad" and should be reduced.
As study authors say, "more research is needed." That's often true. But you, dear reader, can do alot of that yourself. There are usually other similar papers, indeed a ton of them, that you can wade through or at least browse, and perhaps gain perspective on the issues.
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick is an excellent source for cholesterol-skeptic reading.
Looking at the raw data from a big statin study was where I first learned about how relative risk is used to misrepresent pharmaceutical efficacy.
I concur - and Dr Zoe Harcombe torpedoes the drivel about cholesterol and animal fats very adroitly too.
Agree 100% about RRR vs ARR - a very big fraud also trotted out with MRNA experimental GT CV19 drugs......Dr MK confirms there is no (proven) connection between cholesterol and CVHD and that epithethial cell damage is a far stronger indicator ( how odd - such an action is also a factor in said vaccine induced damage); studies which determined the former are decades old and ignored., surprise surprise - his 3 books are an education how poor your GP can be..... and how beneficial is the (indolent and allegedly unhealthy ) lifestyle of the French ..
No surprise that statins trials concentrated on whether they lowered cholesterol - which they did - but never on reducing mortality which they don't. UK NICE determined cholesterol should be "5" - from a study in US that was funded very substantially by......you guessed it.
UK GPs do not study nutrition and diet to anything other than a token amount......and yet dispense pills by the truckload. QED.
Relative risk is almost always deployed by pharmaceutical companies to make numbers look significant when they aren't. Another tactic is to use surrogate endpoints (such as cholesterol) instead of the actual desired outcome.
I only have a high school education, and even I have learned enough to do rudimentary critical assessment of some scientific studies.
I am in the UK; left school at 18..now have two professional qualifications.one currently benchmarked to a Masters degree.
When people understand that RRR is a comparison between those of the SAME "injected" cohort who did and did not experience the "virus", for example, which the drug trial PI reports as "efficacy" , rather than a comparison - ARR- between the control and placebo groups to demonstrate TRUE efficacy of the injected vs the non injected, they should rightly feel totally conned and become very very angry. This should/will increase by a factor of one hell of a lot when they realise this is the way Big Pharma has fraudulently conducted trials, among many many other criminal practices, for decades. When they THEN realise that the Health Regulatory agencies have known about this , again for decades, actively participated in the cover up and in the case of UK MHRA Chief drug enabler Raine, told barefaced lies that "no corners were cut", their anger should be such as to fire them into action.
A cursory review of Pfizer's trial reports/trial PI's conduct since 2019 tells you everything - but why do you expect when you allow a business which has been fined to the tune of many bns of $ prior to 2019 to take 100% control of the trial metrics for an experimental GT mRNA drug which uses two elements, LNP/ induced production of Sp 1/2 - both proven toxic humans years before 2019 - purely for profit?
"It was never about health". Like you, I do not consider myself blessed with great knowledge - but by dogged effort, IQ ~125/130, and very bad personal experience, I know the fraud of "surrogate endpoints". Trust in authority died some time ago - and will never ever return as long as I have breathe in my lungs
Yet another dodgy technique…
In a Dark Horse podcast, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying have explained how even saline will give that 83% efficacy rating by using the not-officially-vaccinated-until-two-weeks dodge. This wasn't original to them, but it was a very illuminating conversation.
👍🏼
"Eat Rich, Live Long" by Ivor Cummings & Dr Jeffrey Gerber summarizes the research on cholesterol, insulin, metabolic disease etc. and 1/3rd of it is about how readers can apply the research to their lives. I highly recommend it.
Awesome 👏🏻. 😎🌞
Thanks for this.
This is the crux of the problem, same as economics: "If you lined up in a straight line all the PhD economists in the world, they still couldn't come to a conclusion."
Medical care properly is an art, not a science. The Bible says for a good reason, in Ps. 139 "I praise you because I am *** fearfully and wonderfully made...**** "
💯 % Blaise💞
Thanks for putting the reference in. It is by doing stuff like this that we will overcome the massive evil that the vile Soros, Schwab, ad nauseam have put in place
Thank u S D … it’s all angled into big pharmas’ pocketbooks. …,like a giant cash register.
I don’t think plavix is meant for long term use.
Well, apparently in killed Barbara Starfield..
The world also seems have forgotten the lesson of Dr. Barbara Starfield, MD., of the Johns Hopkins School of Health, and her study published in JAMA, 2000, the well-known (at the time) US Healthcare Third Leading Cause of Death. Basically, the US medical system is the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, killing, at time of study in 2000, 225,000 people a year, including 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries,7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals, 20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals, 80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals, 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines. The Alliance for Human Research Protection, which advances voluntary, informed consent to medical intervention has a summary of this here, as does the Society for Iatrogenic Awareness in its article Medical Errors: Still the Third Leading Cause of Death. Then, of course, since we need to lock down the world for Covid, perhaps we should permanently lock down the world – and particularly one of the big drivers, illegal immigration – over tuberculosis. In 2019 there were an estimated 1,418,000 deaths from TB. There’s just gotta be some way for Fauci and the WHO to milk this one! Or as Dr Travis Harding MD says, pandemics are about control, so they can keep us busy and preoccupied while politicians do other things with the other hand (exactly what magicians do.) Masks have zero to do, per Dr. Travis Harding, MD, with getting or passing the virus and the countries with the highest vax rate also have the highest, “by far,” Covid spread.
In fact, you are hurting your immune system by not having continual, normal exposure as you lock yourself down from normal interactions. Basically, they are just using this all to make money off of you he summarizes.