I sometimes listen to talks by people with whom I disagree, just to analyze their thinking. The other day I watched a lecture by an Australian orthopedic doctor who is a Keto advocate. It was at a conference called “low carb down under.” His talk was about fruit, and why he disparaged it, and he concluded by saying that he considers fruit “a confection that comes from a tree,” meaning that it’s no different than eating candy or pastry.

It should be obvious that that isn’t true. Fruits contain numerous vitamins and minerals, which confections do not. And fruits contain plant pigments, including the orange, red and yellow caratinoids which are so valuable and essential. Some fruits contain blue and red pigments known as anthocyanins, which are very protective against disease, such as blueberries and cherries. But, he made no mention of any of that.

He wasn’t opposed to non-starchy vegetables, and it’s true that one can get most of those things by eating vegetables. Yet, there are specific phytochemicals found only in fruits, such as the punicalagins in pomegranate. They’re very protective to your heart and arteries and you can’t get them from kale.

So, I think the man is completely and thoroughly deluded, but I imagine he impressed a lot of people at that conference, since they were already leaning that way, as evidenced by the fact that they were there. And the fact is that he looked good: strong, well built, well proportioned, and not the leasy bit sloppy. But, it would be a mistake to give that more weight than it deserves.

However, there were speakers there much more radical than him. They advocated the complete avoidance of all plant foods because of the lectins, phytic acid, oxalic acid, etc. Some of them advocated a diet of just meat and fish, although I should think they’d have to include eggs because otherwise, where would they get their lutein? What, are they just going to walk into blindness?

They had quite a few doctors, actually, some of whom were Americans, and what they all had in common was carbohydrate-bashing. One of them had a slogan: “Just eat fat.”

But, enough about those people. I want to talk about the great nutritional significance of the composition of mother’s milk. It’s the sweetest of all the milks. Over 7% sugar by weight. And, it is the exclusive article of diet of the infant for months. At least, it could be. I met a woman who breastfed her daughter exclusively for 2 years. And I got to see this 2 year old who had never tasted anything except her mother’s milk. And actually, I have to say that she did look rosy and healthy.

And think about it from a conditioning standoint. Every 3 hours that child is having her sugar taste buds stimulated, and remember why they were put there. They weren’t put there for us to commit suicide with. They were put there so that when we came upon a food that was sweet that we would be encouraged to eat it. Dogs and cats don’t have sugar sensers on their tongues. Humans have more of them than any other mammal.  

But, what else does mother’s milk contain? It contains a lot of fat. Breast milk has more fat than cow’s milk. About 30% more than whole cow’s milk. But, the composition of the fat is different. Human milk is lower in saturated fat than cows milk (although it still contains a lot; human breast milk is NOT a low saturated fat food) but it is much higher in monousaturated fat, and also higher in polyunsaurated fat.

What about protein? Well, Nature apparently didn’t get the memo that high protein diets are good for humans because breast milk consists of about 1% protein. And that’s on a good day. In some analysies, the protein content has come in at .9% and even as low as .8%. Now, let’s remember that this is a period of very rapid growth. Typically, human babies double their birth weight in about 6 months. And what does that weight consist of? Muscles, bone, organs, skin. In other words: stuff that’s made from protein. So, somehow, the infant gets enough protein to do all that on an incredibly low protein diet.  

Now, you and I, I presume, are not trying to double our weight in 6 months. I’ll assume that we’re not trying to add weight at all. And I’ll also presume that we’re not trying to grow our muscles either. I’m 70 years old, and I’m certainly not trying to grow my muscles. I’ll be happy if I can hold onto the muscles that I have. And if I do that, I’ll be doing better than 99% of people because most at this age are incurring muscle loss every year.  So, I unlike, the baby, am only trying to maintain my muscles, and I don’t need to put on an ounce of weight. Therefore, how much protein should I need compared to the baby?

Well, it’s actually a moot question because it would be impossible to put together a diet of natural foods that was as low in protein as mother’s milk. So, I’m definitely going to get more than that, no matter what I eat. But, the amount that you need to just maintain, which is all I’m trying to do, isn’t much.

So, what would happen to my muscles if I ate a high-protein diet and kept my exercise constant?  Nothing. My muscles aren’t going to grow just because I eat more protein. Most or all of that extra protein will just be broken down: deaminized; turned into carbohydrate or fat.

And that’s the irony of it because those carbo-phobes who load up on steak and whatnot to avoid sugar, they can’t possibly use all that protein either, and a large amount of it their body will convert into glucose.

I watched a video by a keto doctor who was female, and she tested her blood for glucose right duing the video, and it was 97. It was the daytime, although I don’t know the hour. And I don’t know what she ate that day but she described her meals, and it was meat of some kind, some vegetable, and then for calories, she ate fats in the form of avocado and cream cheese. Obviously, her carbohydrate consumption was neglible. So, where did that 97 mg per dl.of glucose in her blood come from? I have to assume that it came mostly, and I mean almost entirely, from gluconeogensis. So again, Nature didn’t get the “low carb good” memo.

But, I also want to look at this behaviorally. This baby is getting the satisfaction of enjoying the sensation of sweetness. It’s getting it over and over again, every few hours, day and night, and for a long time. So, it becomes very much conditioned to that. It comes to expect that. And after having months- or longer- of that, what kind of food is it naturally going to gravitate to and adapt to quickly? Probably some other sweet food. It’s hardly surprising that after having breast milk for a while that a baby very easily adapts to canteloupe, mashed banana, minced pear, and other sweet foods. The baby takes to it very well because it is already accostomed to a sweet taste.

But, let’s say instead you put the baby on a high protein diet. And it often happens unintentionally. Let’s say the mother doesn’t breast feed or gives up breastfeeding early. And let’s say she resorts to cow’s or goat’s milk instead and starts giving that to the baby every 3 hours. One of the things that often happens is that the baby starts getting diaper rash and diaper burns. It’s delicate skin gets burned by the high nitrogen content of its urine. That’s because the protein content of those animal milks is excessive. It is so much higher than breast milk, and just because it’s higher doesn’t mean that the baby’s body is going to use more protein. So, it’s going to do what I said and deaminate the protein, turning the nitrogen into ammonia and then urea. And then when the baby urinates, the urea comes out but it turns back into ammonia, and wahlah, the skin gets burned. You can’t fool Mother Nature.

The bottom line is that humans are brought into the world on a diet (in this case, a single food) that is high in sugar and high in fat, but very low in protein.  This suggests to me that the low carb crowd are completely full of sh_t, but so are the low-fat crowd- the McDouglites etc. It suggests to me that natural unprocessed carbs and natural unprocessed fats are a normal part of the human diet, and assuming the diet consists of whole foods and is varied and sufficient in calories, that protein needs are going to be met automatically, and with a huge margin of safety.  Getting enough protein should be the least of your worries.

And I’ll leave you with this: Even if that low-carb keto woman is nursing her baby while eating a high protein. no-carb diet, she is still going to produce a sweet milk that is low in protein. Again: you can’t fool Mother Nature.

People around the world are taking to the streets to protest the draconian restrictions ordered because of Covid.


However, there is one line that authorities haven’t yet crossed, and it’s a very significant one. When you hear the list of venues and locations that now require proof of vaccination, what’s not included are grocery stores. They haven’t yet dared to instate that-  to prohibit people from obtaining food unless they submit to vaccination. Of course, you know they want to. And never say never. Don’t assume that their desperation and zealotry couldn’t go that far.

One of the big protests was in New York City, and it’s amazing that it wasn’t front page/ headline news.

We often say that this is a free country, and we celebrate it on the 4th of July. But, in reality, we’re free to do whatever the government lets us do. You're free, but you can't buy an unpasteurized almond. And if you are not free to decide for yourself what you are going to put into your body, then you are not free at all, and it’s foolish to claim otherwise. Am I saying that you have nothing to celebrate on the 4th of July? Yes, that’s what I’m saying; so stop doing it. And just because it’s worse in some places, such as China and Australia, is no reason to celebrate what we have here.

Consider the hypocrisy of it all. They tell us that the vaccines are effective. But, if they are, then the vaccinated should have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. But of course, the vaccines are not effective because plenty of vaccinated people have gotten Covid, and some have died. So, since the vaccines are ineffective, it is ludicrous to mandate them. And to do it on the very nebuous claim that the vaccines aren't effective (they can't be relied upon to prevent infection or illness), but they do lower the risk, is a fiat delusion. Even if it were true, why would anyone be content with that? What is attractive about it?  What I am saying is that what you have heard about all the vaccinated people getting Covid, the reports that you’ve heard, that should be enough to lead you to conclude that the vaccines don't work; period. So, why is it worth it to bear the risks of the vaccine, including the known risks and the unknown ones?  And don’t be moved by their vaunted statistics. It's just data manipulation, starting with a preordained conclusion. Recall what Mark Twain told us about the three kinds of lies.  Dismiss their numbers because they are known liars. Rather, you should consider the reports of vaccinated people getting Covid as a sampling that should tell that you that the vaccines don't work.  

Again, they don’t dare restrict people’s access to food stores, and it’s precisely because they know that riots would result from it. However, they’re trying to go about it indirectly, since President Biden ordered companies and employers to mandate vaccines for workers. Work is how people obtain the money to buy food. If employers are going to mandate vaccines, then obviously, if you get fired for refusing, it’s unlikely to impossible for any other employer to hire you, since they are subject to the same mandates.

But, employees are fighting back. Last weekend, Southwest Airlines had to cancel half its flights because of walk-outs by crew members- including pilots.   

The fact that countries with over 80% vaccination rates, such as Israel and Singapore, are having Covid surges should tell you that the vaccines aren’t doing anything- at least, not anything positive. But, their response is to double down and mandate boosters. When the 3rd booster proves to be ineffective, are they going to mandate a 4th?  

This is medical tyranny, and what’s scary about it is that it transcends national borders. It’s a global tyranny, based supposedly on science, but really on pseudo-science, or what I call medico-religion.  


There is a cardiologist in England whom I follow on Youtube. His name is Sanjay Gupta, and that is the exact same name as the famous media doctor for CNN. And they even look alike, so I suspect that many confuse them. But, this Dr. Gupta is a different doctor, and he does videos on all aspects of heart health and medical care for the heart. And I like him because he’s not straight out of the box. He’s not afraid to dispute and challenge Medical Orthodoxy.  For instance, he did a video questioning whether it’s prudent to treat moderate hypertension with drugs. He frequently extols magnesium and recommends taking it. And he’s very good at explaining diagnostic and therapeutic procedures relating to the heart.

But, in this video, I feel that he dropped the ball. He makes excuses for prescribing statin drugs, and he didn’t say a word about the many adverse effects of statin drugs: that they increase cancer risk, diabetes risk, and dementia risk, and more. 

And then, he made a statement that truly confounded me. He admitted that cholesterol is a natural and vital substance that your body absolutely needs, but that if too much is present in the blood, it will tend to get deposited in the arteries. That claim has never been proven by anybody, and if you think about it mathematicaly, it makes no sense.

Today, a total cholesterol of 200 or more is considered high and therefore statin-worthy. And actually, it doesn’t even have to be over 200. I have a good friend who saw a doctor about something, and she wasn’t a cardiologist, and she prescribed Crestor to him, which is the strongest statin there is. He asked her why she prescribed it when his cholesterol is 165, and she said it was because of his age, which is 70. She told him that she puts all her elderly male patients on Crestor. 

Well, he wisely stopped seeing that woman because that is insane. But usually, a cholesterol of 150 or lower is considered ideal. So, if 150 is ideal and 200 is high, the difference is that 150 is 25% lower than 200. Now, why should a difference of a mere 25% in the amount of cholesterol in the blood have any effect whatsoever on whether cholesterol is going to be deposited in the arteries?  If there is enough cholesterol in the blood to cause plaquing at a level of 200, I assure you that there is plenty enough there to cause plaquing at 150. The idea that that difference is going to make the difference between plaquing or not plaquing is insane. 

Cholesterol is a steroid, and it is the buiilding block of steroid hormones, such as testosterone. And we know that in men, testosterone levels fluctuate very widely. Forget about 25%. There are plenty of men with a testosterone level down in the 200s, while there are also men with a level close to 1000, or even above 1000. And they’re all walking around normally. The idea that the mere mathematical level of cholesterol, that that level, itself, determines whether or not a major pathological process is going to take place, and with very narrow parameters and great sensitivity, is ridiculous.  

And let’s remember also that the process of atherosclerosis does not involve cholesterol just “sticking” to the artery. I’ll tell you how it starts. It starts with irritation. Something is irritating the lining of the arteries. It could be cigarette smoke, which is HIGHLY atherogenic. And you know, of course, that tobacco and tobacco smoke contain no cholesterol. And yet this substance is one of the most highly atherogenic substances there is. Why is it so atherogenic? It’s because it’s irritating. It’s because it does damage. And what is the body’s response to damage? Inflammation. So, the first thing is irritation, and the second thing is inflammation. Atherosclerosis starts as an inflammatory process in response to irritation, and the level of cholesterol in the blood has nothing to do with it.

But, of course, there are many things that can irritate the arteries, not just tobacco smoke. And one of those things is said to be oxidized cholesterol. And I am not disputing it. What causes cholesterol to oxidize? Mainly, it’s the way it’s cooked. When people fry and barbecue meats, for example, it causes oxidation of the cholesterol in the meat, and I agree that people shouldn’t be eating those things. But, what does that have to do with the mathematical level of cholesterol in the blood? Nothing.

But, isn’t it true that people with higher cholesterol levels have a higher incidence of heart attacks strokes, blocked arteries, etc.? Well, we know that the healthiest diets contain a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables, and that other plant foods, such as nuts and beans, are also cardioprotective. And we know that those foods tend to have a cholesterol-lowering effect. So, having lower cholesterol may be a marker for eating a healthy diet which is cardio-protective. It’s the diet, the fruits, vegetables, nuts, and beans, that protects you, not the resulting lower cholesterol. They’re putting the cart before the horse.

So, I’m all for eating the kind of diet that naturally results in lower cholesterol. But, that doesn’t mean that if you produce the cholesterol-lowering effect by taking a drug that you have accomplished the same thing.

On my last blood test, which was done in March of this year, my total cholesterol was 152, and my LDL (the so-called bad cholesterol) was 91. Anything below 100 is considered ideal. Obviously, I don’t need a statin drug, although that female doctor in New York would probably put me on one just because of my age.

However, Dr. Gupta did admit that the benefit of statins may be due more to their anti-inflammatory effect than their cholesterol-lowering effect. And that’s been widely said; it’s nothing new. But, he also pointed out that statin drugs are for life; you take them for life. And that is a hell of a big decision to take something as risky as that for the rest of your life.  And for what benefit? Even going by their rosiest projections, 100 people would have to take statins for 2 years in order to prevent a single heart attack.  

Statins are a racket, and one of the worst in medical history. I would never ever consider taking one. The risk/reward profile for these drugs just plain stinks. They are doing far more harm than good, and much of the harm is untold. I guarantee you that I am going to finish my life, and a statin drug will never enter this body.

Here is the link to Dr. Gupta’s article. This time, he disappointed me.




What you see below is a comment I left on one of his Youtube videos concerning the death of Kassidi Kurill, the 39 year old surgical assistant from Utah who died 4 days after getting her second Moderna shot. Dr. Hansen is willing to make any assumption to exonerate the vaccine in her death, in this case assuming that she overdosed on Tylenol, but no honest look at the matter can vindicate the vaccine.

Ralph Cinque: Kassidi Kurill was a medical professional, a surgical tech, so, can't we assume that she knew of the danger of acetominophen toxicity, that she knew better than to go crazy with it? And, how could they not know how much she took? She went to the ER on Thursday morning, and she was lucid. Did they not ask her what she took? And when she told them Tylenol, did they not ask her how much she took? How could they not? Remember that she got the second dose of Moderna on a Monday and by Thursday morning, she was in the ER. So, the time frame by which she could conceivably have been overdosing on Tylenol was less than 3 days. We know from experience that in many cases of liver failure from Tylenol it also involves alcohol. So, was she also drinking while taking Tylenol? How could they not ask her about that? She arrived on Thursday morning, and they quickly diagnosed liver failure. But, she was still lucid. So, didn't they ask her if she consumed any alcohol and how much Tylenol she took? It's inconceivable that they didn't. And if they did ask her and they found out that she did drink alcohol, you can be damn sure that that would have been reported. We would have heard about it. So, I think we can assume she was not drinking. We have no basis to jump to the conclusion that she was drinking.

 So, it was a period of two+ days that she was taking Tylenol. So, how likely is it that a medical professional, over the course of 2+ days, would take enough Tylenol to shut down her liver? But, let's say, for the sake of argument, that that's what happened. Then the NAC should have worked. We're talking about a pretty tight timeframe here. It's said that people can take up to 4 grams of Tylenol in 24 hours, and that's 8 of those big, fat tablets. So, are we going to assume that she, a medical professional, took more than that? Even if one is willing to make every assumption that will serve to exonerate the vaccine, what does it say about the vaccine if it caused such pain in her that she, in desperation, and probably knowing better, took over 8 extra-strenth Tylenol in 24 hours? So, obviously something dire was going on within her body in reaction to that vaccine to cause her to engage in such reckless and dangerous behavior- if she did. So, even if you make all the assumptions to shift the blame for her death to Tylenol poisoning, it still casts an ominous shadow over the vaccine. And it should give every person pause about taking it.


I am referring to the Covid insanity that is going on. A 49 year old nurse who was vaccinated was dying of Covid, and she did die, but her dying wish was for everyone to get vaccinated. But, she was dying despite being vaccinated! What does it take for failure to register with people?


Here’s a couple who had Covid at the same time and died in the hospital, just minutes apart, holding hands. They too were both vaccinated, and the wish that came from their daughter was for everyone to get vaccinated.


And if you read the article you will see that the wife started getting sick, then she had a Covid test, which was positive. But then, it was repeated 10 days later, and it was negative. They presumed it was a “false negative” since she was still sick. You see, the PCR test NEVER results in false positives, but it can easily result in false negatives. That’s the official dictum, and no one dare dispute it.

In Singapore, where 82% of the total population are vaccinated, and 90% of the population older than 12 are vaccinated, they just had their worst Covid day in over a year.


I will tell you honestly that I don’t think the vaccine is doing anything positive for anybody. And even though they keep saying that the “breakthough” cases are rare, that can’t be true because if it were true, then we’d rarely hear about breakthough cases. But, we hear about them every day.  

I presume, since you read my blog, that you mostly agree with me. But, perhaps you think that the vaccines aren’t very good, but they are helping a little. But, if you think that, why would you take the vaccine? Why would it be worth it to you to risk taking the vaccine for a slight reduction in Covid risk? Just tonight, I heard about a new group that has been set up for people who experienced severe tinnitus (ringing in the ears) after getting the vaccine. A high school athlete went viral from his hospital bed after experiencing debilitating myocarditis. And now, his doctors are telling him to not engage in vigorous spoirts for the rest of this school year.  And he is devastated about that. And what he said from his hospital bed was that he only got the vaccine because he was forced to do so in order to participate, and the mandate wasn’t fair.

Now, there is talk about vaccinating even young children and giving boosters to all. And I am going to remind you that if your children gets sick from the vaccine, and even if your child was to die, they are not going to care, and they are not going to stop. They will keep making excuses. They’ll say that it’s sad, but it’s part of the cost to make medical progress. Think about the many. That’s what they’ll say.

I also heard today from a woman who told me that her best friend got Covid and tried to manage it at home. But then, she started getting short of breath, so she rushed to the hospital. There, she was told that her oxygen saturaton was 99%, which is perfectly normal. Her dyspnea must have been psychogenic.

Covidism is now a sacrament in the religion of Modern Medicine.  


It starts with the claim that the virus is alive. They don’t claim that it’s alive in the same way that cells are alive, but they claim that it’s alive, and it depends on a host cell to live. Here’s the usual mantra.

"Viruses rely on the cells of other organisms to survive and reproduce, because they can’t capture or store energy themselves. In other words they cannot function outside a host organism, which is why they are often regarded as non-living."

"Outside a cell, a virus wraps itself up into an independent particle called a virion. The virion can “survive” in the environment for a certain period of time, which means it remains structurally intact and is capable of infecting a suitable organism if one comes into contact."

"When a virion attaches to a suitable host cell – this depends on the protein molecules on the surfaces of the virion and the cell – it is able to penetrate the cell. Once inside, the virus “hacks” the cell to produce more virions. The virions make their way out of the cell, usually destroying it in the process, and then head off to infect more cells."

"Does this “life cycle” make viruses alive? It’s a philosophical question, but we can agree that either way they can have a huge impact on living things."

So, viruses are not alive in the way other organisms are. And the exact way by which virions can “live” outside a cell is not very well elucidated either. Are virions like the dormant embryo in a seed? Well, virions are nothing like seed embryos. 

But, let’s not dispute it right now. Let’s just assume that cells get infected with virions, and then they start making viruses, and spewing virions, and the virions can “live” long enough between hosts to infect others. 

But surely, we are talking about whole virions, right? A piece of RNA from a virus is surely not living. A piece of viral RNA can surely infect no one. So, that means that in order for contagion to take place, whole virions have to be spewed by the sick person. Viral fragments don't cut it. You need the whole virion. 

Therefore, since the process depends on whole, intact, complete virions going from one person to another, and usually as a result of droplets from a person’s oral cavity, then people must have whole virions in their expulsions, right? I’m talking about what you cough and spit and spew. 

Since that’s the case, then it should be possible to find whole, intact, complete virions in people’s oral and respiratory exudates.

Therfore, why is it impossible to locate whole Covid viruses in a person? Why is it that the test is based on finding tiny fragments of RNA, and actually, very tiny fragments of RNA, which they claim came from the virus. I don't grant that, but my point here is that tiny fragments of RNA are definitely not alive and can’t infect anyone. If that’s all a person spews, then he most certainly cannot make anyone sick.

So, let’s take a person who is definitely in the throes of a massive Covid infection. He’s a danger to others, right? He can make people sick, right? And he does that by spewing whole virions at people; virions with the whole 30,000 long bases of RNA.

So, let’s take the very exudate that this person can spew- his phlegm, his spit, his sputum, and surely we will find whole viruses in it, right? They have to pass from him to another in order to make that person sick, right? So, let's gather them along the way. 

But no, they can’t find them. What they find are just tiny fragments of RNA, which they claim are from the virus. But, why can’t they find and extract whole, intact, complete Covid viruses and take them out of a person?

They say the person sprays them at another person, so have him spray them at something else. How come they have never isolated, not even once, a whole, intact Covid-19 virus?

And I'm not talking about their goofy experiments where they add a complex mixture to starved, poisoned monkey cells, and then when the cells die, they say, "the virus in the mixture killed them, and therefore, we isolated it." They didn't isolate shit.  

If viruses can spread from one person to another, it should be possible to collect them, and in great quantity.  And since only a whole virus can infect another, even theoretically, then it should be possible to find whole viruses in stricken people, and extract them, and examine them.

But, they can’t do it. They are just replicating very short, tiny fragments of RNA, which they claim to know are from the virus. That is extremely doubtful and dubious, but before even getting into that, why can’t they find and distinguish a whole, intact, complete Covid-19 virus in a Covid sufferer?

And if whole, intact, complete Covid viruses are not present in the exudate of the Covid sick, then how can they infect others with tiny fragments of RNA which are surely not alive in any sense of the word? How can an inanimate object infect anyone?  

Before I end this, let me acknowledge that if what I have written here is shown to a virologist or even a regular doctor, I’m sure they will have some answer. And I’m sure their answer will sound erudite. But, just because something sounds erudite doesn’t mean it can't be bull shit.






They say that 10% of people who are 65 and over have atrial fibrillation. It’s a tough situation to be in, because you’re rather damned if you do and damned if you don’t, as I'll explain. 

I’m 70, and I don’t have it. Of course, there are no guarantees that I am never going to get it. But, since it could happen to anyone, I think it’s good to have a plan as to what you’re going to do if you're faced with it.

I won’t elaborate about what it is because you can find that online. But basically, it’s a disturbance of the electrical system of the heart in which errant signals overcome the normal sinus rhythm. Usually, it results in a very fast heart rate, but it can also manifest as a very slow heart rate, if very few signals are getting through to the ventricles. But, whether it's fast or slow, the heart beat is always irregular in atrial-fib. 

Caffeine alone can throw a person into a-fib, and I’ve seen that happen. The same is true for alcohol. Obesity, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, and sleep apnea are all considered risk factors. Bad valves can also do it. But, it is certainly true that sometimes a person without any of those risk factors can go into a-fib.

Now: what are you going to do about it? I’ll tell you what I would do if it happened to me, and I am only speaking for myself. I’m not offering advice to anyone, and I am not taking responsibility for anyone. I want to be clear about that. I’m just telling you what I would do for me. 

The first thing they usually want to do is put the person on heavy duty blood thinners. I means ones like Eloquis, although sometimes they still use the old workhorse Warfarin AKA rat poison. The purpose is to prevent strokes. The way the blood swirls in a-fib makes it easier for the blood to clot, and clots can travel to the brain and cause strokes.

I would not take any of those heavy duty blood thinners. If it were me, I would take natural blood thinners, such as Curcumin from turmeric, fish oil, Vitamin E, and I would eat a very healthy diet, and I mean with a lot of fresh fruits, raw salad greens, cruciferous vegetables, raw nuts, and beans. I already eat that way, but I mean that I would be motivated to be even stricter than I usually am. And that diet itself can be very blood-thinning. It’s pretty damn powerful, and if you added the natural blood-thinners I mentioned, I should think that it’s all the blood-thinning I would ever need or want. But again, I’m just speaking for me.

The reason I don’t like the idea of taking those prescription blood thinners is because they are toxic and risky- and they’re risky even for working. There is so much risk of bleeding- bleeding anywhere. Bleed in your gut; bleed in your brain. What’s the point of preventing an ischemic stroke only to have a hemorrhagic one?

So, I would go the natural route on that, and if they tell me I’d be taking a chance, I’d tell them that I’d be taking a chance if I did what they recommend too.  And, I wouldn’t lose sleep either because I’ve known people who have had atrial fib for years and years who haven’t done anything therapeutic and never had a stroke. I believe that, ultimately, diet and lifestyle are the key, even in a-fib. 

And keep in mind that the blood-thinners don’t fix the problem. They’re just supposed to be an insurance policy against having strokes; that’s all. But, they are not an unmixed blessing, and they don’t come with a guarantee. Besides the profound risk of bleeding, including lethal bleeding, there is also the risk of rebound clotting. If you stop it or if you forget to take it, or if you just run out of it, that could trigger the very thing that you are trying to prevent. You’d be walking a tightrope. It’s not for me. Not going to do it.

What about taking anti-arrhythmic drugs, such as Amiodarone? No. No way. I would not take any of those drugs. Again, I am only speaking for myself. I’m not telling you what to do. I don’t think any of those drugs are worth a damn. I’m not going to go into it except to say that you can’t get to “normal” when it comes to heart rhythm by taking those drugs. And even if you got to something that kinda/sorta looked normal, it wouldn’t be. It wouldn’t be close to normal. So again; no way; not going to do it.

What about cardioversion, where they shock the heart with an electrical current to make it stop, hoping that when it starts again, it reverts to normal rhythm?  Yes, I would consider that, if they thought I was a good candidate for it. And I am saying that because I have known people who have done it with success.

What about taking beta blockers or calcium channel blockers to slow the heart? No, I wouldn’t do that. There is nothing attractive about that. There is nothing good about the outcome from that.   

What about the ablation techniques where they destroy the cells that that they think are generating the errant impulses? I don't say I wouldn't consider it, but it's an extreme thing to do, and it carries plenty of risk. If my a-fib was just occasional, I think I'd rather live with it. And again, if they tell me it's risky to do that, I'll tell them that the ablation is very risky as well.  I guarantee you that if I am having a decent quality of life living with a-fib, I definitely would not do the ablation. And, I would definitely not get the Watchman implant, and that's based on the advice of cardiologist Dr. John Mandrola.


So, the bottom line is that if they thought I was a good candidate for cardioversion, I would very likely do it, but I just might pass on everything else medical and just live with the a-fib, especially if it wasn't interfering with my life to any great extent.  

Now, hopefully, I am going to finish my life without ever having a-fib. No one in my family has ever had it that I know of. And I don’t have any of the risk factors for it either. But, I’ve encountered quite a few people who have had it. And, I’ve been the one to inform them that they have it, where they didn’t know they had it, and I’m the one who told them. And I don’t tell them definitively. I just say, “I think you may be in a-fib. You better see a cardiologist.” And so far, I have been right every time. I’m not saying that to brag. I’m just pointing out that I’ve seen it.

Atrial fibrillation is a heavy thing to contend with, and that’s why I’ve given it some thought ahead of time- when I’m not under pressure. And again, I hope very much that I never have to contend with it, and I hope the same for you.   


I wouldn’t either, especially since I’ve never been sick for a whole month in my entire life.  But, this vaccinated fool is sure that, as bad as it went for him, that it would have been much worse for him had he not been vaccinated.

But wait: that is ridiculous. Because: long before there were any Covid vaccines, there were people who got mild cases of it. How mild? There were cases in which people who got no symptoms at all.

But, after getting vaccinated against Covid, this guy gets sick with it for a whole month and is bedridden, and he thinks he has the vaccine to thank for something.


And this guy has to be young too because he mentioned that his father is 67, which is 3 years younger than I am.

And he didn’t mention having any respiratory symptoms at all. He did not mention coughing. Covidism is supposed to be a respiratory syndrome: Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2. So, we are supposed to believe that this virus can cause no respiratory developments at all OR it can damage your lungs so badly that you need a lung transplant. How do they account for this imponderable range of effects? It’s just a quirky little virus. You never where it’s going to go. You never know what it’s going to do.

So, what really was going on with him? Did he really even have Covid? That I can’t say, but the idea that the vaccine did him any good is just plain lunacy.

He even quoted a doctor who said, ““Even in fully vaccinated, asymptomatic individuals, they can have enough virus to transmit it,” said Dr. Robert Darnell, a physician-scientist at The Rockefeller University.

In any other walk of life, in any other field of endeavor, that finding would lead to the conclusion that the vaccine isn’t worth a shit. But because this concerns Medicine, and particularly because it concerns a vaccine (the Holy Grail of Medicine) that is a forbidden thought. It is so forbidden that they won’t even admit that their expectations for the vaccine were much higher. They can’t even admit that they’re disappointed.

We live in a world of mental submission, and it runs high and low. Whether you are some lowly reporter like this guy, or the Chair of some vaunted medical committee, you walk the walk, and you talk the talk.

“Virus: bad. Vaccine: good.” 


More Articles...