Why are the best doctors being persecuted?

By best I mean the doctors that are actually curing covid patients quickly and effectively using off label drugs in the context of "cocktails" consisting of drugs and nutrients.

"Off label" drugs are those that are FDA approved for one condition that are discovered to also work in other conditions. And MD clinicians commonly use whatever treatment is most effective, including off label drugs. Off label drugs are used widely...until now, in the case of one drug in particular.

In the pandemic the off label drug that has been found to work most effectively is also out of patent, and costs a tiny fraction of newer drugs protected by patents. As far as I can tell the only reason this drug has been reviled by the medical establishment is the threat posed to profits by the (potential) wide spread adoption of it.

This smear campaign has only occurred in countries that are under the thumb of Big Pharma. But this drug has also been distributed by government health agencies --to entire populations-- in Japan and India, which resulted in a radical collapse in cases in those populations. It has also been widely used in many other countries as the treatment of choice for Covid-19.

In countries where Big Pharma has political control health takes a backseat to profit, and doctors of conscience are persecuted.

https://youtu.be/KVwm-KJvGzk

The Efficacy of Anti-Virials vs SARs-CoV-19 in Japan

Dr. John Campbell of Great Britain looks at the science around the current pandemic dispassionately and with as little bias as any I have seen. Thankfully his neutral and expert tracking of the pandemic and science around it has been allowed without apparent censorship.

In this presentation Campbell looks at Japan which recently experienced a massive spike in cases, and as a result allowed MDs to prescribe Ivermectin freely without restriction. So what happened? A complete and rapid collapse in cases to NIL.

https://youtu.be/E1GF0H9V_1g

I only have one comment. I have been quite surprised by how effectively many of us have been blindsided by a completely biased narrative around the science of this pandemic, and pandemics in general. How is it so many have been completely taken in by narratives originating in certain governing bodies for public health and medicine?

It wouldn't be quite so upsetting if it didn't boil down to the fact hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and deaths would have been prevented by early treatment with the HUMAN version of Ivermectin, which won the Nobel prize in medicine (for use in humans), and has been given for decades to (literally) billions of humans worldwide, with a resultant safety record that is as good as it gets for pharmaceutical drugs.

And has been off patent for quite some time, and sells for a few dollars per dose.

This is a low point for developed world countries, especially the US, who have been captured by institutional structures whose perspectives on health and health safety are grossly distorted by profit biases.

It's never been more clear as it is in the way this pandemic was, and continues to be, mismanaged.

Why are some people highly resistant to contracting symptomatic Covid-19?

In a word it is high levels of natural immunity. Here's an excellent presentation based on recent studies as to what that is:

https://youtu.be/y7IoMFOaduU

there is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists

 Humm. Well I'm not going to say anything that might bring the wrath of the lockdown police upon me. But I will share what I've seen by reading what "non-conflicted" epidemiologists and research oriented clinicians have been saying from the beginning of the pandemic.

1) Well before "Maxine's" roll out most people who tested antibody positive had either experienced no symptoms, or mild symptoms.

2) The average global likelihood of dying was on the order of 0.01 percent.

3) Those with high available energy (younger people and fit older people) were the least likely to experience symptoms when "exposed".

4) Those with low available energy (older people and unfit younger people) were most likely to experience symptoms when "exposed".

5) Nature's own immunity, which occurs in those with high available energy (i.e. immune function), tends to last for decades and is resistant to variants.

And now we find ourselves in a situation where the continent (Africa) with the lowest "Maxine ratio" (6%), also has the lowest incidence of symptomatic infection, and countries (Germany) among those with highest "Maxine ratio" (70.5%) currently have the highest infection ratios so far.

Humm. Well folks, please obey the rules and DO NOT READ BETWEN THE LINES. And if you find what's written between the lines too obvious not to see, please do not talk about it "right out loud". The lockdown police will definitely not like that.

there is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-heavily-unvaccinated-africa-has-so-far-avoided-a-covid-disaster-health-officials-are-optimistic-and-wary-01637309085?mod=mw_more_headlines

Germany has administered at least 117,286,226 doses of "Maxine" so far. Assuming every person needs 2 doses, that’s enough to have vaccinated about 70.5% of the country’s population.

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/germany/

I cannot know how long the above links will be active. Get 'em while their hot.

The Unconscious Conflation of Progress and Evolution

 I am a registered democrat, but I'm really neither democrat or republican, I am apolitical. I don't view the world through the lens of politics, I view the world through the lens of nature, and the unique phenomenon of biology that has occurred on only one planet that we know of, Earth. I find it useful to stop and think about that from time to time - what a stunning thing to think about how amazingly rare the phenomenon of biology is in the known universe.

Added to that are other amazing phenomena of principle interest: humans, evolution, and technology. It is thought biology first emerged on Earth more than 3.7 billion years ago. But early humans, to the best of our knowledge, first appeared on earth "only" about 4 million years ago. And then anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago.

That means if a human infant from 100,000 years ago could somehow be raised in a family today we would not be able to tell the difference between that person and one born today.

Those who study evolution think significant evolutionary anatomical changes take approximately 100,000 years to occur. Let's contrast that with another amazing phenomenon, technology.

Humans developed early tools about 2 million years ago, and remembering anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago, agriculture began to develop about 8,000 years ago, and early civilizations about 5000 years ago.

The Industrial revolution began only about 200 years ago.

The first successful oil well was drilled in 1859, 162 years ago. This was terribly significant because it gave humans "infinite" energy for the first time, in other words the energy "return" was significantly greater than what was spent in extraction and conversion to usable fuel. This is the acceleration point for a lot of things, but primarily a human population explosion, the development of technologies, and the destruction of the biosphere.

Can humans, a biological entity, adapt evolutionarily (biologically) to non-biological (technological) conditions? Will we begin being born without knees because reasonably good artificial knees exist? Born with smaller brains because chips can be inserted into the cortex? OK I'm stretching it to make the point that biology is very likely only capable of adapting to biological conditions. But we don't "know" that yet, which might take another 100,000 years.

Science and technology prove over and over again to be a double edged sword. The first thing to do if we are to survive as a species is to accept that and figure out how to manage it, something we have a lousy record of doing to this point. Freud explains the instinct vs reason problem pretty well, or at least he is given credit for explaining it first, and that was about 100 years ago.

Instinct and technology combined may be driving us over the proverbial cliff, but we don't want to get rid of either of them. As a species we need to do better. But how? Instinct continues to override reason, with no real sign of change.

I'm 70 years old. One of my two wonderful grandmothers used to say "I went from covered wagons to a man on the moon". (Yes, we are Okies:)

I am bringing all of this up to make a specific point - we unconsciously conflate evolution with progress. They are not the same thing, one is biological, the other technological.

I also view the world through the lens of technology, my two primary career paths have been in the technological "arts" of photography and audio. Photography, the recording of vision, uses the lens, the artificial eye, and audio, the recording of hearing, uses the microphone, the artificial ear. Lenses and microphones are "artificial organs" because these are not the biological creations of nature and evolution.

We modern humans conflate evolution and progress in myriad ways, with, in many cases, catastrophic consequences. We can actually have a hard time thinking of the two as completely separate phenomena. If we want to "do better" we will have to stop doing that. So what are the obstacles?

The primary one is we want to think they are the same thing. I frequently hear smart people say "humans have evolved rapidly" when they mean technology has progressed rapidly.

Why do we want to think they are the same thing? Because we want to think nothing is beyond our control. We modern technological humans are the hubristic species.

On one level hubristic narcissism is a manifestation of life force energy. On another level it's the inability to see limits where they are appropriate.

Take GMOs for example. Cross species procreation is not possible. Who wants to see a cross of a human and a lamb? Can you imagine? Nature can't, and we should leave it at that. Is it even possible that nature is somehow smarter than us? Genetic modification enables the potential for instant evolution, skipping over the constraints of nature and biology by 10's of thousands of years.

We think we can do anything because we are technocrats, meanwhile we destroy our biological home with industrial technologies. The one planet we are aware of that is lush with the gorgeousness that is biology.

It boils down to this: we as a species are, um, less than intelligent in ways we don't want to take responsibility for. We need no further proof of this than the destruction we wreak on the planet with technology. But we think more and better technology will be the answer. Is that more of the same hubris? I believe it is.

We have a god complex, and have lost "the fear of god" (which is simply nature). We have replaced the love of nature with the love of technology, and in the process have made science the new religion.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology as much as the next human. I love moving through space faster than my biology will take me...bicycles, motorcycles, cars, helicopters, airplanes. Technology can be exhilarating.

But I was very lucky to have spent a few months in primeval wilderness when I was 30. That was exhilarating also, but in a very different and profoundly quiet way, and it forever changed the way I see "where we are". In cities and towns we are barely aware that we exist within (and ultimately at the mercy of) "The Great Biosphere". Are we missing an important part of our "education" when we don't spend significant time on the primeval planet?

I am fond of saying science is the best marketing tool of our time. Why? Because "science" is almost infinitely pliable, but billed as irrefutable, which many of us "buy" because it is the new religion. How is it even possible that science is pliable? Oh, in so many ways. Here's one: a "model under test" conceived from the outset to produce a desired conclusion. Desired by who? Those who stand to profit from said conclusion.

There are those who get into the forensic weeds on this "little problem" (among others) with science. If you'd like a quick purview of this have a look at a previous post The Huge Problem of Fraudulent Medical Research.

The Misapprehension of the Nature of Nature - Pt 3 - The Cause of Health Is Not Technologically Determined

On the topic of the unconscious conflation of progress with evolution, and why that matters, you may want to refer to another post here:

The Unconscious Conflation of Progress and Evolution

I'm going to use the terms "the cause of health" in this post quite a lot. The first time I heard it was in a 6 part lecture series on the cause of health given by Dr. Doug Graham, a Chiropractor, athlete and athletic trainer, a raw food vegan, a water-only fasting expert who's fasted thousands of people from athletes who wish to achieve better performance to people with various health issues. Graham is best known perhaps for his book "The 80/10/10 Diet", which has been translated into several languages.

Looking back it seems odd to me now that I don't recall hearing the term the cause of health prior to that 6 part lecture series in 2012. It seems odd to me now because in the intervening years since I have come to see how a seemingly small shift in perspective can have a profound impact on how one manages their own health.

One of the more obvious ways we humans can be confused by the conflation of evolution and biology with progress and technology can be seen in the difference of two opposing concepts: allopathic medicine deliberately or unconsciously conflates "the cause of disease" with "the cause of health", but these two perspectives are not even remotely the same thing.

By the time you're sick enough to need a doctor you've already lost your health, but did the loss of health have to occur to begin with? This is the critical question modern medicine has ignored and obscured completely.

The cause of health occurs by giving your body the inputs it needs for optimal biological function, while the ingress of toxins to the body is simultaneously blocked.

These two conditions together make the likelihood of needing the help of a doctor exponentially lower.

The message isn't "don't go to doctors". Of course go to doctors when needed. But by understanding more completely the cause of health we can become greatly more informed users of modern medicine. For example, as someone who understands and practices the cause of health, you may already know how to "fix" certain issues that come up by changing certain patterns. That process may be enhanced by starting with an accurate medical diagnosis of the problem, or it may already be so obvious that a medical diagnosis is not needed.

But also keep in mind that accurate diagnosis may not be on the medical agenda. I hear people say all the time "I can't do that because I have (name the disease)". Or, "I can't eat greens because I'm taking statins". Meanwhile said "disease" is caused solely by toxic inputs to the body that can be completely avoided.

Take type 2 diabetes for example. Common as nails these day, and completely the result of toxic diet, which is typically greatly mitigated or completely reversed by changing certain "patterns".

I find the term "the cause of health diet" to be much more functional because "good diet" allows so much wiggle room bad habits are easily rationalized to the point "good diet" becomes a functionally useless term.

Unfortunately we simply are not taught the cause of health, and so it follows we also do not know that there is a specific "thing" called the cause of health diet.

Let's change that.

We fall in love with technology because in many ways it leverages biological potential. Modern medicine gives us life saving drugs and surgeries, but it also enables the notion this is all that's needed to be optimally healthy. Or that prescription drugs gets us the rest of the way there. So we take them to manage health problems caused by diets we have been taught to think of as "good". The demonstrable truth is if these diets were good we wouldn't have come down with conditions of poor health to begin with.

Yes, diet is that powerful. It is one of the more powerful influences on how your own life turns out. And the good news is you have control of what you put into your own body.

There is more to this than a lean athletic body into your 80's and beyond. There is also mental clarity and even healthy emotional functioning. The cause of health diet has been found to be more effective than antidepressant medications for most conditions. Consistent physical activity has also been found to be more effective than antidepressant medications. Together "the cause of health lifestyle" would be at least 2x more effective than psychiatric medications alone.

Resistance to contagious diseases is also exponentially greater when health is optimal, which is caused in large part by the cause of health diet and lifestyle.

So what are the conditions of the cause of health? In approximate descending order of priority they are:

1) clean air (we can only survive minutes without air)

2) clean water (we can only survive a few days without water)

3) sleep (we can only remain sane and functional on a daily basis by getting adequate sleep)

4) enjoyable physical activity to enable strength and balance (without which we become increasingly miserable)

5) constructive and loving social contact and interaction (we can only remain sane and functional on an ongoing basis in the enjoyment of constructive social interaction)

6) clean food (assuming availability of unlimited clean water, we can only survive a few months without food)

In practice clean food is higher on this approximate ordering of biological priority because what we think of as food is more conceptually distorted in these post industrial times. In other words, toxic substances we think of as food are the "dirtiest" input to the body for most of us.

Whole food minimally processed is "cleanest".

In conclusion: pharmaceuticals are not the cause of health, only biologically nutritious inputs are the cause of health, and pharmaceuticals are not nutritious. There is also a reasonable case to be made (backed by numerous studies) that "nutraceuticals" (supplements) are also not nutritious in the way whole foods are nutritious.

This is not to say there is no role for pharmaceuticals, which is self-evident, as they can be life saving, as can surgery. But neither are they the cause of health, because the cause of health is biological.

And that is because life is biological. We can intervene in biology technologically, but we cannot cause biology technologically. It is a pre-existent phenomenon due to causes that are complex and not well understood.

Institutionalized Racism, Health Disparities, and The Next Big Vegan Film

Title of the film: "They're Trying to Kill Us". Does that sound a little extreme? Check out this interview with the producers of the film and see what you think.

https://youtu.be/phebcgc1iEg

And here's the trailer:

https://vimeo.com/396022702?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=16593775

Young people are waking up...and that's exciting.

More science part 2 - Dr John Campbell looks at New Pfizer drug and Ivermectin

Book end to the previous post "Dr John Campbell reviews the flood of antivirals hitting the market". In this presentation he drills into the most effective of them in the review of several studies.

I loved the way Dr Campbell wrapped this one up.

https://youtu.be/ufy2AweXRkc

wanna be younger?

Who doesn't want that? And no I'm not saying FEEL younger. I'm saying actually (physiologically) BE younger. Of course you'll feel younger too. "Biological age" is how old you really are, chronological age only refers to your birthday, and has little to nothing to do with how you actually FEEL.

So I have a video for you:)  I've been watching this guy for awhile and he knows his stuff. He's paleo, but we won't hold that against him just because we're vegan:) A case can be made that health oriented vegans and Paleos have more in common than not: a completely whole foods diet (NO JUNK FOOD), and an active lifestyle. We are basically on the same team, so why not lower the volume on which is "optimal" and talk more about all the many factors in common for regaining and maintaining optimal health.

Just think about how much more powerful our voice would be if we joined forces against our common enemies in achieving and maintaining optimal health, namely the junk foods and junk pharmaceuticals that play in back to back ads on meanstream television these days.

The title of this video is "Autophagy: Fasting vs Exercise | New Book Makes the Case for Fitness", and it's quite interesting:

https://youtu.be/T6XNdl-jKKA

Dr John Campbell reviews the flood of antivirals hitting the market

Antivirals hitting the market is a good thing and Campbell is as competent a reviewer that is also speaking publicly that I'm personally aware of. Effective anti-virials have the potential of stopping the pandemic (what remains of it) cold in it's tracks.

There does remain some unanswered questions however as to why a widespread antiviral rollout didn't happen nearer to the outset of the pandemic. It's not as if pharmacology scientists and research oriented clinicians with experience from previous pandemics weren't already aware of the potential of antivirals. What the effective antivirals do when used in early stages of symptomatic infection is prevent the majority of hospitalizations and deaths. When not sick enough for hospitalization one rides it out at home, with relative ease.

And there's one antiviral in particular which has been shown in hundreds of clinical trials from around the world to be very effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths, but was demonized by BigP (who controls the narrative) apparently because it is off patent, very cheap, and widely available. These studies are independent (not paid for by for profit sponsors) and all over the internet, but you wouldn't know it, a sign of how effective the censorship campaign has been.

Studies of studies show where any kind of benefit (monetary or professional) accrues to the sponsors and/or authors, studies are not to be trusted. The problem of course is sponsors have motive and means, and in normal cases no one else is interested. But a pandemic is different, the world is interested. And in the case of this pandemic clinical results from physicians using best judgement for treatment with antivirals were so good that hundreds of independent studies were mounted.

Here's a brief paper reviewing some of those studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577703/

This really underlines that we have a huge problem in for profit development of pharmaceuticals. I'm in favor of capitalism and know the arguments for and against, but there are clearly cases where the public good is at stake where profit should take a back seat.

We desperately need to get the egregious profit out of pharmacology. How soon could that happen? Doesn't look promising really, between wall street and BigP all parties down the line are riding this gravy train, and the health of the population is diminished considerably.

The good news is on a grass roots level we are waking up and taking control of our health into our own hands. Paleos and vegans alike have realized the huge benefits of a whole foods only diet and an active life style. And we can vote with our dollars.

Here's the Campbell piece: "Highly effective new antiviral"

https://youtu.be/EMfjtgli55Y

Every MD physician should watch this (if they haven't already)

But possibly take in bite size chunks, it's 2 hours of Dr. Alan Goldhamer of True North Health Center being interviewed by Rich Roll.

If you need an introduction to Rich Roll, he went from alcoholism and heart disease to this guy:

https://tinyurl.com/5rczwy6e

And here is Dr Goldhamer:

https://youtu.be/yaWVflQolmM