There's a new book out titled "The Death of Science" by a very broadly published physician, oncologist, pathologist, medical researcher and author, Professor Angus Dalgleish.
There were actually thousands of distinguished clinicians and researchers taking issue with the official pandemic narrative, but the censorship of these scientists was so effective the public has been kept almost completely in the dark about their concerns.
As you'll see if you watch the interview, there have been many more unintended consequences, and in more people, than we've been led to believe.
Early studies enumerating these studies were censored, but for whatever reason current studies looking at severe side effects are no longer being censored by the major medical journals. But these many critical studies have not reached the evening news yet, and one has to wonder if they ever will due to mass media's complicity in the censorship.
Do have a listen to Dr Dalgleish in the interview below and form your own opinion.
Our current modern day mythology is that science and technology can do anything. And mythology is always about imbuing us Humans with super powers that put us above nature. And to some extent we are above nature due to our brain size and capacity for tool making.
How is it we are the only primate without a coat of fur? As primate brain size evolved in our one species, tool making allowed that species, us, to survive harsher climates.
It must have been a very slow process! Instinct drove the evolving human to expand its territories, and several things evolved simultaneously: the tool making capacity to begin making clothing,the capacity to withstand harsher climates, and the gradual loss of fur no longer needed for survival. Weapons gave us dominance over smaller brain species, and we gradually lost need of fangs and claws, the "biological weapons".
The odds against becoming a "one off" species with the capacity to dominate the ecological planet must be very small indeed. It is odd also that our super-capable species still "needs" mythology, ie, imaginary limitless capacity.
Of course there are still limits to our capacity, which are most succinctly defined in a single word: mortality. And from that comes the "need" for mythology.
And modern mythology is found mostly in the form of science fiction.
"Action movies" are popular, and full of science fictions: guns that never run out of bullets, and heroes that recover from every imaginable injury by the very next day.
These super hero mythologies are easy to spot...what about those that aren't? And is their relative invisibility to us a positive or a negative? Harmless, or species damaging? Are these mythologies what allows us to unconsciously damage the earth's ecology? And what's the problem if we do? After we trash the earth we can just escape into space, right? Mars or bust?
Our most vital nourishment, the one that is invisible, oxygen, is to the best of our knowledge only found in sufficient quantity to create the "garden planet" that created us through biological processes that are so complex we do not understand them.
Or perhaps the earth was "seeded" by aliens with humans as an experiment, and they are above somewhere, watching to see what happens. Now that's a nice mythology!
Meanwhile, if "miracles" are true, the biology of Earth itself is primo miraculous. Or is primo miraculous the vast "deadness" of everywhere else?
Limitless oxygen in space is like guns that never run out of bullets.
I said in a previous post about Peter Attia's longevity book: "If he has one flaw it's that he does not see empiricism as a type of knowledge".
In other words he only trusts scientific trials designed to test a certain hypothesis.
I also said: "I could unpack that, but I will be succinct and skip it this time". Well, a excellent review of Attia's book has arrived that is in itself an excellent "unpacking".
So first, before the review, a few words on the general problem of these two types of knowledge formation, and the strong biases that can and do form with each.
Empiricism is essentially what we learn from personal and collective experience. For example, if we ate a berry we had not seen before and it made us sick, we would be wary of eating it again. Then if many other people had the same experience, and we learned of their experiences, we would now benefit from individual and collective empirical experiences combined, and knowledge is strengthened.
It would not be an exaggeration to say the survival of any bio-species depends on direct experiences and the resulting empirical know ledger.
So, yep, it's a pretty big deal.
Neither process for collecting knowledge is perfect. Mythology can and does "infect" empiricism, and scientific bias (itself a type of mythology) can and does "infect" science, and these "infections" of process are common. Mythological "biases" in any process are, by definition, mostly unconscious, and for that reason stubborn.
Both processes combined can strengthen overall levels of knowledge. However there are also biases in each camp against the other, which is why early stage knowledge formation can be and frequently is a "long argued" complex process, taking decades for so-called "landed knowledge" to arrive.
Both types of knowledge formation can also be socially problematic when strong biases in either are legislated into law, and contrary opinion is punished. There are many examples of this sort of tyranny through history, and it continues to this day.
And now, a most excellent review of Peter Attia's longevity book, by a scientist with a firm grasp on the benefits coming from applied empiricism. Enjoy --
I've posted a few blogs recently featuring the work of Dr Peter Attia, who currently has a best selling book on longevity. I would say his primary contribution to the the ongoing health conversation is the major increases in health, disease resistance and reversal, and longevity, that come with increased strength.
And absolutely commonly misunderstood is the functional difference between muscle size and strength. Here's a brief discussion on that topic between four experienced vegans who train for strength.
Yep, it's a myth that plants do not have protein. The myth is reinforced in various ways, but lets look (for example) at competitive professional body builders with extreme levels of musculature, who consume mostly animal protein foods. Yes, one advantage of animal based proteins is they are effective at building muscle size.
So what are the disadvantages? Many pro body builders die in their 30's 40's and 50's of heart diseases. Some of that is certainly anabolic steroid use, but all of these premature deaths also had the condition of atherosclerosis, which is the build up of fats and cholesterol on the artery walls. As we all know, this is also the plaque that narrows arteries reducing blood flow. And plaques can also burst, causing blood clots.
Is the cause of premature death in body builders mostly anabolic steroid use? Probably not, considering the primary cause of premature death in the general population is also due to sclerotic plaques in the arteries.
Another thing that is not generally mentioned in discussions of heart disease is that plaque build up is not limited to the arteries, it also occurs simultaneously throughout the vascular system (veins, capillaries, etc), and there are various dysfunctions in health that additionally occur as a result.
Basically we do not want plaques anywhere in our cardiovascular system, and if we can reverse that condition we should. And we can reverse it...in fact, logistically, it is not all that difficult.
How common is this condition? In the developed west extremely common, it is found in the autopsies of teenagers who died accidentally.
It is caused primarily by the western diet, which is increasingly clear, on an ongoing basis.
But it is difficult to change the diet we grew up with, we unconsciously associate the early diet with survival, even, ironically, if it is killing us. Smoking is the same, we unconsciously associate it with the early feeding mechanism of sucking in mothers milk needed for survival. Out of all the addictions, oral addictions are probably the most common.
And BTW, health producing behaviors are not addictions. Addictions, by definition, destroy health. Some will say "I'm addicted to exercise", but that is actually a misnomer, because exercise is health producing.
I'm addicted to breathing? No, that is just silly.
Speaking of exercise, just what can plant proteins produce in terms of muscle size and quality? Have a look at what these two gents have gained in terms of size and function, and more importantly, what has been gained in overall health.
What if we genetically modified a human with eagle genes? Easy to do, just splice them in. But would it result in a human with wings of their own, and that could fly? Theoretically possible? But where is the evidence that genetic modifications of anything has produced "better"?
OK, but what about the combination of biology and technology? What if we inserted technology genes into a human? Wait, technology does not have genres. Or human genes into technology? Where would we put them.
So what if we wired a circuit board into a spinal cord? The Terminator!
But the singularity does not require biology
To this point all growth has been biological. To ascribe motive to technology requires it to be at least partially biological:
Biology continues to be greatly underappreciated. But why should we appreciate it? It's all over the place, everywhere we look. As common as grass.
But we didn't invent biology, we invented technology. And so the "invented here" bias controls the narrative.
Humans have been mythologizing in various ways since writing. This is simply another one of those. Mythology would not capture the imagination if it were not myth.
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” Albert Einstein
If everything is a miracle, why do we even need myth?
AI is an interesting technology, and like all technologies will be a double edged sword with unintended consequences difficult to predict.
But I'm having difficulty imagining how a non biological structure can be malevolent. Perhaps the word is being misused?
Malevolence belongs to biology, and mostly to human biology. We don't think of natural disasters as malevolence. We don't think of a cheetah killing and eating a gazelle as malevolent. Malevolence is a deliberate evil rising from a lust for power or hatred. It has an emotional origin.
An AI could be programmed to be destructive, but the malevolence would come from the programmer, not the software. It could happen accidently as an unintended consequence where the human creators had no malevolence. But just as hurricanes are not malevolent because hurricanes do not have feelings, an AI could be programmed to be destructive, deliberately or accidentally, but it would not be malevolent because AI cannot have feelings, it/they are not biological.
Malevolence is very simply an expression of the human capacity for evil. Deliberately teaching an AI to be destructive is malevolent, but the machine itself (with no feelings and no hatred) is not malevolent, the human is.
We won't be able to teach an AI to love either. We will be able to teach it to look and sound like love, but real emotion will not be there.
Think for a moment of some of the emotions an AI cannot possess: Regret, anguish, grief, anger, joy love benevolence.
In fact malevolence and benevolence are opposite emotions, but a computer cannot experience either of them, because machines do not have emotions.
An AI enabled human can have emotions because the human continues to be biological.
Certain science fictions can become reality, but others cannot, and we can have difficulty discerning which is which because of the human tendency toward hubris. Hubris, like its opposite, modesty, arise from the capacity for emotion. Pride is an emotion.
Emotions are the most complex aspect of being human, and for that reason we can both value them and despise them. When we despise them we may try to push them into our unconscious to the extent possible in order to function. Hubris exists mostly on the unconscious level, and it is moderated only by becoming conscious of it.
Think of a current figure on the world stage whose name begins with a T and who appears to have little to no capacity for the moderation of his own hubris. Where there is little capacity for the moderation of hubris there is pathological narcissism, a potentially dangerous psychological disorder.
If we humans ultimately become the authors of our own species destruction, that malevolence resides within us. Nukes and computer technology are not malevolent, using them to kill humans is.
Why do we persist in attributing malevolence to software/hardware? The answer is found in psychology, it's the denial mechanism, a way of not facing and taking responsibility for our own destructivity.
The history of all technological progress may be leading to our own species self destruction, it does sometimes appear to be the case. If so we cannot attribute the fault to technology, which has no conscience, no emotion, no blood, no veins. We would only accurately attribute the self destruction of our own species to our own inability to recognize the hubris in our belief we are the masters of the laws of nature and biology.
We're in a strange period in US history, and Dr. Jeffery Sachs, a very well know economist, turns a bright light onto one aspect of that "little" problem. It's reassuring to see influential people who continue to put altruism ahead of political agenda and/or greed.
The not so little problem I am referring to is the US is in the early stages of becoming fascist. Fascism is defined in different ways by different people. I would say it's more distinguishing characteristic is governmental censorship and the loss of individual liberties, beginning with freedom of speech. In later stage fascism so-called dissidents are simply put in prison, and in extreme cases executed.
But how do we recognize this growing problem while it's still in the early stages? No free people want to see a loss of liberty, and early stage denial comes easy and is common.
Governments and politicians lie, it is basically normal, unfortunately. There are times however where those lies are more than simply suggestive about how to think and behave. In such times suggestions become coercion. It should not be too difficult to see as a result of the way the pandemic was handled we are now swimming those waters.
But it is still early stage...or at least we hope it is. If it is, and we can begin to see it more clearly, there are still things that can be done that might help reverse course, before it is too late.
Let's hear what Dr. Sachs, who chaired a commission studying the "lab leak" theory, has to say at the link below.
BTW, in case you're wondering, I line up on the side of liberals. But like Dr. Sachs I currently don't want to have much of anything to do with either party, thank you very much.
Peter Attia is brilliant and has figured out a "bunch of stuff" (technical term:) about health, and has a relatively succinct way of communicating this knowledge to the rest of us. If he has one flaw it's that he does not see empiricism as a type of knowledge. I could unpack that, but I will be succinct and skip it this time:)
And I can overlook that one thing for all the rest of his expertise expressed succinctly. And I have never seen Attia express his point of view as succinctly as he does in this 18 minute Amanpour and Company interview.
We've come to a very odd situation where the health of the economy depends on a sick population. It's a modern version of Feudalism I suppose..."Noblemen" and serfs.
If you would like to know the economic particulars of this odd situation have a quick look at a previous post:
Just how big is big? Pharma and the "health care" industries
A New York Times article, that I believe is not behind a paywall, helps to make clear how and why the collective human "genius" driving tech has fucked up the biosphere on boring old earth so badly.
I wonder, is there any chance all this "race to Mars" nonsense is just Musk's Starlink marketing bullshit, or are the geniuses really this stupid.
And it kinda makes me wonder: if the desire to leave the planet is truly becoming this hyperbolic, is the collapse closer than we realize?
And that rare thing, biology, continues to be massively underappreciated.
It's a good article, the author Kim Tingley's tongue in cheek is cleverly hidden, and a ray of hope there is common sense amongst the thickets of dense bio-matter out there.
And as you watch this you may enjoy considering that Dr. Graham is still winning powerlifting competitions in his age and weight category, he's 70 (maybe 71 now), at about 160 lbs, and consuming 100% whole food plant based raw foods only...
I've been wondering how long it would be before prominent "carnivores" began "bonking" on the diet.
The complete elimination of one of the three macros never made sense to me. They are there for a reason...biological evolution does not make mistakes of that magnitude.
We are the only primate with a dual fuel system (carbs and fats), and that is for a reason too...it gives us access to a broader range of calories, and the ability to survive in a broader range of climates.
But both systems are available to us, we can be carb adapted or fat adapted. How well one does with either will depend mostly on correct knowledge and persistence.
I am a plant based carb burner myself, and I do have one reservation about animal based fat-adapted diets, and that is heart disease. There is no Ornish and no Esselstyn in the paleo/carnivore universe as yet, and I doubt one will emerge. For that to happen a credentialed research team would have to produce a study of advanced CVD patients, the unfortunates on death's door, and reverse the condition completely with nothing but a change to a high-fat animal based diet.
And the corollaries to that are all the other chronic conditions produced by bad diets, and longevity. I've run across many centenarians in my studies on the cause of health, but I can't recall any of them being animal based.
Saladino was forced to listen to his body and adapt by adding carbohydrates back into his approach. I respect him for following the evidence when confronted to it biologically, and I respect him further for going public with it despite being publicly adamant that "carbs are bad".
Kudos to Paul Saladino. Here's a video clip where he recants his previous position, and some of the details of why, and how it changed him for the better.
One of the two primary "natural hygiene" principles is to discontinue putting toxins into the body to the extent possible. Not doing so might be argued to be the primary cause of chronic diseases and early death.
The quality of the fuel we put into our bodies is paramount.
The other primary principle is to eat whole unprocessed foods that have a high nutrient to calorie ratio. Some of that is also achieved simply by following principle number one, but there is an active part also that involves proactively looking for the best whole unprocessed foods available.
So one of the keys to understanding what toxins are, is they are not food. Or should I say real food, because too much of the so-called food on offer these days is "junk", and full of toxins. Food does not damage us, it nourishes us and gives us energy.
So we might say anything that is not food is actually a toxin, to one degree or the other. Even "benign" calories take up valuable space in our body and digestive system that could be used productively for the processing of real nutrition. And pharmaceutical drugs, which are "not food", are toxic to one degree or other, and many are highly toxic.
Truly healthy people rarely need pharmaceuticals right up to death. Note I did not say "never", we must learn to use modern medicine intelligently. Otherwise we are "used" by the pharma industry as a source of profit, and pharma generates more profit than any industry to this point in history. And their business model depends to one extent or other on increasing levels of disease in the population.
And if that is not an absurdity, I don't know what is.
In this video Dr John Campbell speaks about lengthy interviews he conducted with the researcher and MD Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRCPA, FRCPath, FMedSci. In the video linked below he summarizes that toabout 16 minutes in duration, and in my humble opinion, worth your time.
Please note the quotes in the title around the word "vaccines" are there to denote my skepticism at calling mRNA tech a vaccine at all, and for numerous reasons.
These numerous problems have been known to independent epidemiologists and vaccinologists around the world for quite some time, and yet our government cannot confront this "little" problem head on, and continues insisting all is well in vaxxyville.
Is our government so starved for revenue it will go to nearly any length to acquire it? Unless we've lost our ethical tether to reality completely this episode will eventually go down in history as a dark period.
Again, Dr John Campbell is doing champion work bringing to our attention the real science coming in from around the world.
Why am I calling it "real science"? Because it is unbiased. Lets not forget the invention of science was founded on the principle of filtering out bias from the discovery process. It is more than ludicrous the entities that concoct and profit from pharmaceuticals are also the entities that produce the "studies" on safety and efficacy.
Women may be particularly interested in this particular study:
In Canada a "National Citizens Inquiry" into how the Canadian government handled the pandemic is underway. This discussion with Mr Ches Crosbie, National Citizens Inquiry administrator, I found to be quite interesting.
Nassim Talib is a renaissance man, one of his hats is philosopher. Back when genetic modification of foods was being debated Talib spoke of the precautionary principle. Here's the definition of the precautionary principle from the wiki page:
"The precautionary principle is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous."
Talib's objection was the GMO studies were not of sufficient duration for absolute certainty to be achieved, and in addition the studies were rife with financial bias.
Once the modification is "in the wild" it can potentially spread exponentially until the entire species is "modified". And if after time it is proven to be harmful as a food, the entire species would be effectively useless to humans as food. Many thoughtful people feel the precautionary principle should always be applied when there is even a small possibility of widespread harm.
And wait a minute...we humans also reproduce via "seeding"...could mRNA technology open that same door in our species?
And now for the more interesting part of this blog post we'll turn to Dr. John Campbell, who is going to tell us in some detail what the Nuremberg Code of 1947 was all about.
Many clinicians and researchers have been saying for many years that evidence based medicine is now impossible because of the tremendous power the US healthcare system has over US government regulators, and even the entire developed world.
How did this happen?
First is revenue, or how much health care contributes to the US economy in total, which gives this industry its power over government.
And second is how drug research is "fixed" to show predetermined results for profit.
Let's look at revenue first. In this IBUS World report of the 10 biggest US industries by revenue in 2023, the first four are all aspects of the health care industry. Pharmacies, number 3 on the list, also sell other products in addition to prescription drugs, so it's not, shall we say, a clean number. I didn't try to break it out however, as that is not remotely necessary to make this point:
First, note 5 through 10 at the link are completely unrelated to each other with the possible exception banking and insurance that can both be said to be "finance". And 1 thru 4, the biggest revenue drivers, are all healthcare, minus cosmetics and toiletries in number 2. And if we make 1 thru 4 a single category the total is so massive compared to any of the other entries it is very clear where healthcare stands in revenue production compared to the others..it's bigger than all others combined. And it's no big secret the US needs all the revenue it can get, and still can't put a dent in the debt the US has piled up.
Now let's look at how drug research is "fixed" to produce effectiveness and safety even when it is not either...the "model under test":
All of reality cannot be used for the model under test because it's unknown. So, sensibly, a model is constructed by the designers of the trial to reflect positive or negative changes to likely conditions.
And the design of the model under test is where all kinds of mischief can be introduced. The common example that makes this easier to understand is how for example the cigarette industry might have produced "studies" to "prove" smoking did not produce cancer:
1 pack a day smokers were gathered for the study, and half were told to up their smoking to a pack and a half a day. And the study ran for a relatively short period of time. Of course the one and a half pack smokers were no more likely over that time period to be diagnosed with cancer than the one pack a day smokers, and the tobacco industry was then able to say "smoking is safe".
Eventually however, thousands of independent studies with more accurately constructed models under test showing smoking produced cancer became so numerous, "the weight of the evidence" made it impossible for the tobacco industry to continue to assert smoking was safe and even healthy. But it was many years past the point the weight of the evidence was clear that the government made a move to inform the public with the surgeons general warning, and banning advertising. This had a huge impact on smoking, so why did government wait so long to act?
Revenue - the government is loath to interfere with revenue generation. And we're a free country, if people want to poison themselves it's their business.
And now revenue generation is exponentially more important than it was decades ago when the clamp on the tobacco industry was implemented. And putting revenue generation above the well being of the population is essentially how fiscally irresponsible governments that pile up debt become corrupt.
And the health care industry's revenue is a critically important component of US revenue. In the recent pandemic for example, this is why US health regulatory bodies forced "off patent" (cheap) drugs that clinicians were having great results with off the market...there was no profit there, and so no revenue, and they were effectively banned, and the media not knowing any better went along.
We know however these early treatments were effective, hundreds if not thousands of clinicians were using them and reporting very rapid reversal of symptoms in a high percentage of cases. But they were forced to stop using them, or lose their jobs and licenses to practice. Very little of that made it into mainstream media, but it was out there if you were tracking what doctors using early treatments were saying to each other online.
But something that was in the media was POTUS came down with the virus and was not doing well! Ever wonder how he, an older person, was out of the hospital in a few days? Early treatment drugs.
Dr. John Campbell is very careful how he talks about these things to avoid censorship, but he makes clear the problems in his own way. And in case you're not familiar with Dr. Campbell's work that he puts out on YouTube, he was very pro mRNA at the beginning, exhorting us to get the jabs, and he himself had all the jabs and boosters.
And here Dr. Campbell talks about this "little" ongoing problem.
“Last year, I had a life-changing experience at 90 years old. I went to space, after decades of playing an iconic science-fiction character who was exploring the universe. I thought I would experience a deep connection with the immensity around us, a deep call for endless exploration.
"I was absolutely wrong. The strongest feeling, that dominated everything else by far, was the deepest grief that I had ever experienced.
"I understood, in the clearest possible way, that we were living on a tiny oasis of life, surrounded by an immensity of death. I didn’t see infinite possibilities of worlds to explore, of adventures to have, or living creatures to connect with. I saw the deepest darkness I could have ever imagined, contrasting so starkly with the welcoming warmth of our nurturing home planet.
"This was an immensely powerful awakening for me. It filled me with sadness. I realized that we had spent decades, if not centuries, being obsessed with looking away, with looking outside. I did my share in popularizing the idea that space was the final frontier. But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is and will stay our only home. And that we have been ravaging it, relentlessly, making it uninhabitable."
-- William Shatner, actor
The fantasy our species is going to survive by leaving a planet with temporarily diminished capacity for generating biology, and go to a planet with zero capacity for generating biology, is proof biology is massively underappreciated. The fact biology exists at all is a nearly incomprehensible miracle. Perhaps the incomprehensibility of it explains how otherwise smart humans think living life on a non-biological rock is even possible.
What do scientists think about species specific diets? A Google search doesn't turn up that much, which is a bit odd since species specific diets are a critical component in the cause of health in every species.
Looking into this I came across something I was unaware of: 40 percent of gorillas in captivity die of heart disease. That's pretty close to the percent of Americans that die of heart disease, about 33%.
I learned that muscular, vegetarian gorillas may seem less likely than humans to have cardiovascular disease, but it’s the leading cause of death for captive apes in North American zoos.
Humm, also the leading cause of death in the US.
And I learned based on studies of gut bacteria and other factors, researchers at zoos are rethinking the types and quantities of food given to great apes, including shifting from processed nutrient biscuits to the kinds of shoots and fruits wild gorillas eat.
Nutrient biscuits? What the heck is that? Gorilla kibble made in a lab?
Humm, come to think of it I used to eat "fortified" biscuits. And fortified breakfast cereal, and fortified bread, juice, milk etc.
How is it at this late stage of scientific progress are we still so regressed on optimal nutrition to not realize it is simply the diet humans were bio-adapted to when we physiologically modern humans first appeared about 150,000 years ago. Which is, by the way, about 138,000 years before agriculture and civilization began! Which means we only shifted from hunter-gathering to making settlements about 12,000 years ago.
But we arrived in current human form about 150,000 years ago. So physiology changes very slowly. And so our species specific diet is about 150,000 years old.
And of course we have tried mightily to improve on it! We discovered vitamins about 100 years ago, and it was widely assumed we had hit on the way to end all disease with highly concentrated nutrients derived from foods. Unfortunately it didn't turn out that way, "derived" vitamins have been found in study after study to not be nearly as effective as "nested" vitamins (those contained in whole foods).
But we humans are stubborn, we don't let go of technologically derived ideas easily. Wide spread adoption of supplementation occurred in the 1970's, perhaps not coincidentally in the same time frame as the acceleration of declining health in the US population.
We humans tend to confuse and conflate progress and evolution greatly. Progress is technological and evolution is biological. And progress is very fast and evolution is very slow. I am not against technology, but I am for knowing what is good for us and what is bad for us. When technology is marketed to us as a shortcut to health, it pays to remember our 150,000 year old physiology wants (and needs) real whole foods grown in nature.
I also came across when googling Gorillas and heart disease that
Becky Malinsky, curator of primates at the Smithsonian National Zoo, says her team has trained its gorillas to cooperate with heart ultrasounds and other data-gathering procedures. The veterinarians send the information they collect to the Great Ape Heart Project, a collaborative program based at Zoo Atlanta.
To which I might gently say: you're over thinking this Becky! We know from observing gorillas in wild settings what they choose to eat:
Fruits and vegetables. Just give them that.
Incidentally, humans also do very well with a diet centered on fruits and vegetables. Probably not a coincidence.
I've posted a few videos featuring Dr Peter Attila recently, who introduces us to the idea that exercise is more effective at creating robust health than anything else. And what is robust health? It's a lot of things, great energy and great mood among them, but you also become very disease resistant, which of course increases your odds of greater longevity by some exponential.
So Attia, who is a longevity expert, credits exercise for longevity. But what is the mechanism for exercise inducing longevity?
Conclusion In six countries, plant-based diets or pescatarian diets were associated with lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. These dietary patterns may be considered for protection against severe COVID-19.
Humm. Well as a plant based person my personal experience would agree with this paper. I did get sick one time during the pandemic, coming down with pityriasis roseaimmediately after the first dose of the Moderna mRNA. I had never heard of it, and at the time when looking it up it was "extremely rare" but now it is "relatively common", and has been cited as being relatively common during the pandemic.
Double humm...I never contracted the virus, but I did have 1 dose of the mRNA.
I have a hard time calling the mRNA a real vaccine at this point. It does not stop infection or spread, and the VAERS injury reports are exponentially greater than would have shut down any previous vaccine program immediately.
Tell me again why congress conferred indemnification on BigP?
Anyway, the condition lasted approximately 6 weeks and my energy was zapped for the duration, and my pandemic energy levels had been very high to that point. One physician said I should consider not getting a second dose of the mRNA, and the dermatologist who diagnosed the condition said I definitely should get the second dose. Well I had decided before either comment not to get another mRNA, thank you very much.
And you know, I now think we the public may have been subjected to brainwashing campaigns about vaccines. There was a huge uproar after mothers with autistic children began noticing a corollary with vaccines and the onset of autism. Mothers typically have very high levels of intuition relative to their children, and BigP produces one fake study after another when profits are threatened by injuries caused by their drugs.
It is also not out of the question that the number of mothers reporting injuries to their children during that period reached a level of statistical significance.
And now with pharma indemnification broadcast TV is FLOODED with pharmacological drug commercials. That used to be illegal, and now the US is the only country in the world that allows it.
Let's not forget that pharma products are toxic, they all have side effects. Let's also not forget that persistent toxic inputs destroy health...gradually at first, then quickly. And that real food is the only non-toxic substance we should be putting in.
And perhaps as the paper above suggests, plant based diets are the realist of the real foods.
Definition of realist:
A person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly.
YouTube follows us around. The algo "feeds" us the things we are interested in, which puts us in a "silo" of sorts, that some call an echo chamber reinforcing what we already believe.
I will also argue the advent of the internet has accelerated the pace of learning by some exponential. People warn the internet is full of crazy stuff, which is true, but it is also a vehicle for thoughtful content. Choose wisely.
I've just come across a guy who sells supplements, but he also advocates a whole foods diet. And when we eat a whole foods diet of sufficient variety we get the nutrients needed automatically, and they will be of much higher quality than the derived variety. Nutrients work in concert in a whole food to become more effective and powerful.
So perhaps he is using supplements more sparingly and effectively. He is also no fan of pharmacological drugs in general, so I would say he is generally aware of the true causes of health.
So why am I bringing this up? I think he has done a couple of videos that are informative and important. The first linked below describes the common use in drug studies of relative risk to inflate the actual benefit of the drug, as opposed to absolute risk, which states the actual statistical risk reduction of a pharmacological drug. He describes the difference between relative and absolute in a very clear way, which is most helpful.
Consider this: if the pharmacology industry was required by law to report absolute risk as opposed to relative risk? Well, the pharma industry would no longer be "big". It's a money making scheme politicians are on board with. There are two problems with that:
1) This approach is mostly responsible for the great collapse in the health of US citizens. Of course there will be great debate on this mounted by the folks on the gravy train, so consider the source.
2) It's fraud. Legalized fraud, but still fraud. The gravy train passengers are making big money on disease, and operating on a "revenue growth" model, which when successful increases rates of disease in the population exponentially.
The other video is very controversial having to do with the many studies clearly showing the mRNA approach we were exposed to as the remedy to Covid was responsible for greatly increased rates of myocardial injury.
I feel this is very important also. It's been difficult coming to grips with the result of pharmacology becoming "big". We've been thrown into a dangerous parallel universe of greed, corruption, and declining health. Yes it is difficult, but health is the thing everything else is built on. Coming to grips with it is important.
I also want to add there are good things that come out of pharmacology. The problem is the ratio of good to bad has gone strongly negative.
How do we protect ourselves?
Consume whole foods and move our bodies so we won't need pharmacology nearly as much (if at all), and become educated and informed as to the dangers of "side effect pharma".
And if we do this most of our working doctors will thank us for bringing integrity back into medicine. What a nice idea that is...
