I feel you are falling into the pubmed trap, where you assume if something is true, it would be possible to find a study corroberating it on pubmed. This is one of the most common ways the entire medical profession is manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry and they regularly ignore stories reported to them by their patients.
Medicine has taken the route of cheating and lying (viz the woman who used to edit the NEJM, and many others). So what's the point of quoting its approved studies? Fraid the game's been substantially ruined... which is not something anyone here is happy about.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
-Marcia Angell MD
NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS
Volume 56, Number 1 . January 15, 2009
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption By Marcia Angell
‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue…science has taken a turn towards darkness.’
- Richard Horton, Comment, Offline, Lancet, Vol 385 p1380 April 11, 2015
More recent studies9-11have shown that there are still far too many papers being published in which the statistical analyses are incorrect. Conflicting results from similar studies can often be attributed to varying degrees of statistical competence.12-14
-Douglas G. Altman, Statistics and ethics in medical research, British Medical Journal vol. 281, pp.1181-4, 1 Nov. 1980
But it wouldn’t be unfair simply to repeat Altman’s statement of 20 years ago that: “The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.”
Richard Smith: Medical research—still a scandal, The BMJ Opinion, January 31, 2014
‘The poor quality of medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problems and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.’ Richard Smith – long time editor of the BMJ.
As near as I can tell, today's "science" has been corrupted well beyond redemption by indescribable pride and the big bucks at stake. We are living in a moral sewer and have been for a very long time.
Especially since the doc herself had, like most, neither ability nor inclination to understand!
PS: I notice that I'm the only one so far to "like" your comment. I guess if we're not wedded to the narrative, we'll be oh so "gently" put in our places! : )
As far as my understanding of THE SPIRIT of your comment is concerned I would like to add to your observation of "likes", that it is an HONOUR not to be liked/"liked" as it is a clear - contrary to popular/obvious - indication of being on the (better) track towards THE TRUTH, in the true sense of the word - THE LOGOS.
In contrast to the INTELLECTUAL - linear sequential reasoning - sense of the word, which is applied by those having been drawn to SCIENTISM - being the BRAINWASHING AND INDOCTRINATION department of THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN - latter comprised of all GOD ALMIGHTY'S CREATIONS that have been compelled/have compelled themselves/are compelling others to explain ALL EXISTENCE as a linear sequential MATERIAL process. Above all forgetting their humble beginnings as an "egg and sperm" in the womb of their mother not having any idea about themselves forget about GOD ALMIGHTY'S CREATION, which they are refusing as of having "become" great "thinkers" by their PRIDE, ARROGANCE, HYPOCRISY AND HUBRIS.
Thank you for having had a look at the link ... keep on asking questions! THE TRUTH honours/remunerates curious/brave/humble minds in kind.
There is no doubt that statement is veracious to a goodly extent, but a huge problem is how do we know what he said? I suspect that whatever points he made have been perverted to mean, in many cases, the exact opposite of what he intended.
BTW, thanks to your link, I stumbled upon this, which I think is relevant to the main topic and full of the truth.
Intellectual Vanity: The Lost Art Of Admitting Uncertainty
Such statements certainly are not meant to proclaim personal witness but simply the conviction - FAITH - of what IS true.
Without having read the text your comment is referring to, but the headline already expresses, what the core issue is for those who are UNABLE to have FAITH IN THE TRUTH by having been convinced to loose out by living under UNCERTAINTY. Which in and of itself is a burden on every man's heart but with PROPAGANDA AND BRAINWASHING of BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS it becomes a trap of EQUALLY BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.
" I suspect that whatever points he made have been perverted to mean, in many cases, the exact opposite of what he intended."
... which is exactly the way JESUS CHRIST prophesied, that THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN is going to turn everything into its opposite and still make it APPEAR to represent THE TRUTH. Wolfs in sheep's clothing!
We are of like mind here as well except that I do not feel any sort of loss at having to live with uncertainty.
The link I posted deals, among other things, with the difficulties of discussing many things via comment threads and is an amusing (because it describes much of what takes place so accurately) read. It doesn't deal directly with metaphysical questions.
I have personal experience with Statins. They strip out fats that your brain needs. I lasted about 2 months and concluded it was garbage. I also read that it wasn't cholesterol that was the problem, it was inflamation. The cholesterol was doing its job and coating the inflamation. As a budding medicine man could you verify this for us?
I found Dr. Malhotra on Dr. John Cambell's youtube channel. To me he represents what could have been if only others had the courage and or lack of fear to speak out.
I agree with what you wrote. I think you may be responding to the one I was responding to, especially since I'm no budding medicine man!
Anyway, according to Malcolm McKendrick, if I get his gist, you are correct. Something damages the glcocalyx in a blood vessel and inflammation then ensues which eventually provides a cholesterol "patch."
Geoff, your are right I was responding to the comment you were responding to. Thanks for the follow up on the cholestrol patch, I was probing Rob Woder to see if he/it was an ai bot.
On what basis have you even a basic level of trust? If you are what you claim you are, then it's indisputable that you've been alive during the "covid" farce. Given that, please explain how any living being could place even a basic level of trust in "authority" or what's become of science.
You say this, but you yourself place your trust each day in the invisible machinery of government bureaucrats and scientific authorities that inculcates each aspect of your daily life. You trust that the food you eat today is not contaminated by bacteria because of the FDA - you don’t even have to think about it, because you long ago gave your trust to those government scientists. You trust that the Tylenol you take for a headache is unadulterated, also due to the FDA; you trust the airplanes you fly in won’t crash or explode because of the FAA; you trust that your healthcare provider won’t accidentally kill you because of the extremely rigorous medical education and credentialing system we have in the U.S. So you see, we have both given our trust to the scientific authorities, just in slightly different ways.
I brought up examples like you trusting the food you eat to not make you sick because your justification for that trust, if you were forced to put it into words, would similar to my justification for why I trust scientific data to be real, and not just random numbers pulled from the air: because our scientific system and its safeguards are pretty good most of the time, because most scientists and doctors are normal people who want to do the best job they can, and because in my own lived experience the system simply works as it’s supposed to. I’m sorry if you’re looking for some detailed explanation for why I think scientific literature as a whole is not bunk, but I’ll choose to end my engagement with you here. My sincerest wishes for the new year for you and your family.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34871380/
I feel you are falling into the pubmed trap, where you assume if something is true, it would be possible to find a study corroberating it on pubmed. This is one of the most common ways the entire medical profession is manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry and they regularly ignore stories reported to them by their patients.
Medicine has taken the route of cheating and lying (viz the woman who used to edit the NEJM, and many others). So what's the point of quoting its approved studies? Fraid the game's been substantially ruined... which is not something anyone here is happy about.
Here you go.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
-Marcia Angell MD
NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS
Volume 56, Number 1 . January 15, 2009
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption By Marcia Angell
https://ahrp.org/marcia-angell-drug-co-doctors-a-story-of-corruption/#:~:text=Drug%20Companies%20%26%20Doctors%3A%20A%20Story%20of%20Corruption,have%20corrupted%20the%20integrity%20of%20American%20medicine.%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nybooks.com%2Farticles%2F22237
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.
- John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, PLOIS Medicine, August 30, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0,020124
‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue…science has taken a turn towards darkness.’
- Richard Horton, Comment, Offline, Lancet, Vol 385 p1380 April 11, 2015
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
More recent studies9-11have shown that there are still far too many papers being published in which the statistical analyses are incorrect. Conflicting results from similar studies can often be attributed to varying degrees of statistical competence.12-14
-Douglas G. Altman, Statistics and ethics in medical research, British Medical Journal vol. 281, pp.1181-4, 1 Nov. 1980
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/281/6249/1182.full.pdf
The general standard of statistics in medical journals is poor.
- D G Altman, Stat Med., 1982 Jan-Mar;1(1):59-71.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7187083/
“Skeptical of medical science reports?” by Carlton Gyles.
Skeptical of medical science reports? - PMC (nih.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/
But it wouldn’t be unfair simply to repeat Altman’s statement of 20 years ago that: “The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.”
Richard Smith: Medical research—still a scandal, The BMJ Opinion, January 31, 2014
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/31/richard-smith-medical-research-still-a-scandal/
‘The poor quality of medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problems and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.’ Richard Smith – long time editor of the BMJ.
- Malcolm Kendrick, saturated fat cannot raise cholesterol levels (LDL levels)
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/
You da wiz... :-)
Feel free to share any or all of that.
As near as I can tell, today's "science" has been corrupted well beyond redemption by indescribable pride and the big bucks at stake. We are living in a moral sewer and have been for a very long time.
ANYONE keen to learn about the fork in the road between TRUTH and SCIENTISM should have a read of this interesting take on it ...
https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/a-doctor-reveals-his-wee-p
“Not really. It’s not necessary to understand.”
Especially since the doc herself had, like most, neither ability nor inclination to understand!
PS: I notice that I'm the only one so far to "like" your comment. I guess if we're not wedded to the narrative, we'll be oh so "gently" put in our places! : )
As far as my understanding of THE SPIRIT of your comment is concerned I would like to add to your observation of "likes", that it is an HONOUR not to be liked/"liked" as it is a clear - contrary to popular/obvious - indication of being on the (better) track towards THE TRUTH, in the true sense of the word - THE LOGOS.
In contrast to the INTELLECTUAL - linear sequential reasoning - sense of the word, which is applied by those having been drawn to SCIENTISM - being the BRAINWASHING AND INDOCTRINATION department of THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN - latter comprised of all GOD ALMIGHTY'S CREATIONS that have been compelled/have compelled themselves/are compelling others to explain ALL EXISTENCE as a linear sequential MATERIAL process. Above all forgetting their humble beginnings as an "egg and sperm" in the womb of their mother not having any idea about themselves forget about GOD ALMIGHTY'S CREATION, which they are refusing as of having "become" great "thinkers" by their PRIDE, ARROGANCE, HYPOCRISY AND HUBRIS.
Thank you for having had a look at the link ... keep on asking questions! THE TRUTH honours/remunerates curious/brave/humble minds in kind.
"...that it is an HONOUR not to be liked/'liked'"
We be speakin de same tongue!
Bless you!
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS ALWAYS CORRECT!
There is no doubt that statement is veracious to a goodly extent, but a huge problem is how do we know what he said? I suspect that whatever points he made have been perverted to mean, in many cases, the exact opposite of what he intended.
BTW, thanks to your link, I stumbled upon this, which I think is relevant to the main topic and full of the truth.
Intellectual Vanity: The Lost Art Of Admitting Uncertainty
https://substack.com/home/post/p-109023020
Such statements certainly are not meant to proclaim personal witness but simply the conviction - FAITH - of what IS true.
Without having read the text your comment is referring to, but the headline already expresses, what the core issue is for those who are UNABLE to have FAITH IN THE TRUTH by having been convinced to loose out by living under UNCERTAINTY. Which in and of itself is a burden on every man's heart but with PROPAGANDA AND BRAINWASHING of BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS it becomes a trap of EQUALLY BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.
" I suspect that whatever points he made have been perverted to mean, in many cases, the exact opposite of what he intended."
... which is exactly the way JESUS CHRIST prophesied, that THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN is going to turn everything into its opposite and still make it APPEAR to represent THE TRUTH. Wolfs in sheep's clothing!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
We are of like mind here as well except that I do not feel any sort of loss at having to live with uncertainty.
The link I posted deals, among other things, with the difficulties of discussing many things via comment threads and is an amusing (because it describes much of what takes place so accurately) read. It doesn't deal directly with metaphysical questions.
Thank you. You sent a summary, but I found the article.
https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/29/5/804/6454065?login=false
I'd like to know what about that article is credible? Yeah, I see they claim no conflicts of interest, but do you really accept that at face value?
They cite Cochrane; do you have any idea of what that's become since Peter Gøtzsche, the founder, was squeezed out?
I have personal experience with Statins. They strip out fats that your brain needs. I lasted about 2 months and concluded it was garbage. I also read that it wasn't cholesterol that was the problem, it was inflamation. The cholesterol was doing its job and coating the inflamation. As a budding medicine man could you verify this for us?
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-can-statins-teach-us-about-the
This was my attempt to summarize the issues with them.
I found Dr. Malhotra on Dr. John Cambell's youtube channel. To me he represents what could have been if only others had the courage and or lack of fear to speak out.
I agree with what you wrote. I think you may be responding to the one I was responding to, especially since I'm no budding medicine man!
Anyway, according to Malcolm McKendrick, if I get his gist, you are correct. Something damages the glcocalyx in a blood vessel and inflammation then ensues which eventually provides a cholesterol "patch."
Geoff, your are right I was responding to the comment you were responding to. Thanks for the follow up on the cholestrol patch, I was probing Rob Woder to see if he/it was an ai bot.
Thanks, I was thinking the same things. Bot or not, not very well developed.
I don’t take it at face value, but I have some basic level of trust in its findings.
Well, there's the root of the problem.
On what basis have you even a basic level of trust? If you are what you claim you are, then it's indisputable that you've been alive during the "covid" farce. Given that, please explain how any living being could place even a basic level of trust in "authority" or what's become of science.
You say this, but you yourself place your trust each day in the invisible machinery of government bureaucrats and scientific authorities that inculcates each aspect of your daily life. You trust that the food you eat today is not contaminated by bacteria because of the FDA - you don’t even have to think about it, because you long ago gave your trust to those government scientists. You trust that the Tylenol you take for a headache is unadulterated, also due to the FDA; you trust the airplanes you fly in won’t crash or explode because of the FAA; you trust that your healthcare provider won’t accidentally kill you because of the extremely rigorous medical education and credentialing system we have in the U.S. So you see, we have both given our trust to the scientific authorities, just in slightly different ways.
You do not know me. At all.
This, along with the rest of your comment is an entirely unfounded and bogus claim,:
"You trust that the food you eat today is not contaminated by bacteria because of the FDA..."
Assumptions like that would be hilarious if they weren't so vacuous and ridiculous.
At best, you are projecting and not only that, you completely avoided answering my question. Why would that be?
Please explain the root of YOUR admitted trust.
PS: Your reasoning abilities are on display here and trust me, they do not present a pretty sight.
I brought up examples like you trusting the food you eat to not make you sick because your justification for that trust, if you were forced to put it into words, would similar to my justification for why I trust scientific data to be real, and not just random numbers pulled from the air: because our scientific system and its safeguards are pretty good most of the time, because most scientists and doctors are normal people who want to do the best job they can, and because in my own lived experience the system simply works as it’s supposed to. I’m sorry if you’re looking for some detailed explanation for why I think scientific literature as a whole is not bunk, but I’ll choose to end my engagement with you here. My sincerest wishes for the new year for you and your family.