There were hundreds of anti-vax protesters this weekend in Mass. protesting the new law requiring all kids in school from K to 12, including pre-schools and nurseries with babies as young as 6 months, to have flu shots. Of course, it was provoked by the Covid crisis. Hmmm. So if they are going to mandate a flu vaccine because of the Covid crisis, I presume they are going to mandate the Covid vaccine because of the Covid crisis- as soon as its available.

And the mandate applies to college students and graduate students as well up to age 30. So, even though one is a legal adult at 18, with the right to vote and enter the military, etc., you can’t decide what goes into your own body up to the age of 30 in Massachusetts.

And think about how arbitrary it is. What’s the difference between a 30 year old and 31 hear old? What, dd they just draw a number out of a hat?

Why, Why, Why do they call this a free country? Why do they ever use the word ‘liberty’ any more?

And what do the vaccinated have to fear from the unvaccinated? If the vaccine is effective; if it protects you when you’re exposed to the virus; then you’re not at risk from anyone who isn’t vaccinated. Right? And if you are at risk because the vaccine isn’t really effective, then of what use is the vaccine, and why should we bother with it at all?

Now, keep in mind that I completely deny the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. If it were effective, they would be willing to test it. I mean by taking, say, 2000 people who are comparable to each other, who don’t have any special risks, and administering the flu vaccine to half of them, and giving the other half a dummy vaccine; a placebo. Then, you see how many in each group get the flu.

But, that’s only one kind of testing that should be done. They should also do long-term testing of the flu vaccine, that is, comparing health outcomes over a long period of time between people who are vaccinated and those who are not, comparing their risk for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and much more.  For instance, one prominent researcher found a much higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease among those who repeatedly take the flu vaccine.

Look: if you want to take flu shots, go ahead; take them. Take any shots you want. Take every shot there is.  Take every new one that comes down the pike. I don’t care. It’s your body. Do what you want with it. But, no one should be forced to have something injected into them against their will. That is the worst possible thing. That is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare, more frightening than the flu and Covid combined. 

There are no guarantees in life, and there are certainly no guarantees when it comes to health. And if there is anything for which there are no guarantees, it is vaccines.  If you want them; take them. But, hands off other people. Let us decide for ourselves.  Tyranny in the name of Science is still tyranny.  Medical coercion has got to stop.

I have written before about the supplements I like as sleep aides. And I am not in favor of any kind of knock-out pills. I consider all pharmaceutical “hypnotics” as they call them to be dangerous and detrimental, not only because of their toxicities, but because they interfere with and corrupt the sleep process. They dig you in deeper. Truly, it’s like being stuck in a hole and digging yourself in deeper when you take those drugs.

But things I do feel comfortable taking and recommending are melatonin, magnesium, the amino acid taurine, the amino acid glycine, and some of the calming herbs, my favorite of which is lemon balm. Another good thing is the amino acid L-theanine from green tea. You could take every one of those things- every night- and it wouldn’t hurt you or pose a problem.

But, what I really want to talk about at this time are other things you can do to foster good sleep. The first is to ensure that you have good bedding. You want a firm mattress. Not too firm, but firm enough to support your spine and allow your body to lengthen, as much as possible, on the bed.  And remember that mattresses don’t last forever. Think about replacing your mattress at 10 years, and if not then, at 12 years. You don’t want to be keeping a mattress for 20 years.

The second thing is darkness. Get your sleeping room as dark as possible. There is light from electric alarm clocks, from phones, cell phones, etc. And people have computers in their bedrooms, which may emit light from modems and routers, even when the computer is turned off. Of course, light may also be entering the room through windows. So, do everything you can to make the room as dark as possible.

The third thing is temperature. A lot is written about keeping the room temperature cooler at night, since body temperature drops during sleep. But obviously, being chilled is no good either and may prevent sleep. So, pay attention to room temperature on both sides of the spectrum and make sure you aren’t being affected by a room temperature that is too high or too low.

The fourth thing is quietness. But, I realize that there is a limit to how much people can control noises. How many times has my sleep been interrupted by a neighbor’s barking dog? Numerous times, but fortunately, it hasn’t been a problem lately. Absolute quiet is the goal, and you should try to establish it as much as possible. But, definitely have ear plugs available because you never know. And by the way: I think you should avoid Motel 6 and motels like it when you’re traveling because they are invariably built very close to major freeways, and the traffic roar is likely to keep you awake all or most of the night.

The fifth thing is particularly valuable if you have a problem sleeping, if you know you are inclined to insomnia. Realize that a vicious cycle occurs in which your worrying about sleep raises the bar of difficulty for you to fall asleep. Your insomnia becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I’ll confess that I am not the best sleeper, by nature. I have struggled with sleep issues all my adult life. It started when I was in college, and I have never really been free of it. But, what helps me is to always have good reading materials available at my bedside. Nighttime before sleep is when I do my enjoyable reading; when I read for fun.  I don’t favor novels so much, but rather, biographies and non-fiction, including history. Currently, I am reading a book about World War II, which is a period of history that I am very interested in, and the book is so interesting to me, that I look forward to going to bed at night so that I can read some more. I start reading and continue until my eyes get heavy, and then I turn out the light. But, having good, interesting reading materials takes the pressure off. It distracts you. And it allows the natural sleep process to take place spontaneously without interference.  

I let my cell phone charge at night, but put it in another room. You don’t have to do it in your bedroom. And with my landline, I turn off the ringer at night, and I silence the answering machine too, although it is still operational. And people ask me: what if there is an emergency?  Well, if there is an emergency, then I am just going to have to find out about it the next morning. If that is a selfish act, then so be it.

Well, I hope this has helped you some. And remember that despite everything you do, sleep results are going to vary. You are going to have good nights, great nights, but also not so great nights, where you wrestle with sleep despite doing everything you can that is constructive. But, don’t be tempted to start taking drugs because that is not the answer. You want to avoid that like the plague. Safe supplements yes;  drugs no.

I presume that most people who read this blog are on the older side, like me.  And you know it’s important to stay active for many reasons, including the prevention of atrophy. And atrophy starts young- even in your 30s. I kid you not. I have gotten letters from people in their 30s, both female and male, complaining about not having the round, toned buttocks they used to have when they were young, which for them was not too long ago. They even made an episode of King of the Hill about it, an adult cartoon about life in a fictional mid-sized Texas town called Arlen. And note that I am the creator of a fictional small Texas town called Arlettsville in My Stretch of Texas Ground. But, in one episode of King of the Hill, Hank Hill, who is in his 40s, and is a former high school athlete, discovers that his butt has become totally flat and wasted.

So, what causes the flattening of the butt? First, the person has stopped exercising, and second, it’s a natural tendency. The gluteus maximus tends to atrophy. It is one of the first muscles to go. And there may be a genetic component to the tendency.

To fight it, you should exercise as in bicycling, stair climbing, sprinting. There are various weight-lifting exercises you can do, but let’s note that young people can have very well-toned butts without lifting weights.  It’s not fundamentally about heavy weightlifting.  It’s more about how you move your own weight around.

But, it’s an example of a decline that can take place when a person is still relatively young.  And obviously, the tendency to atrophy only gets worse as we get older. There is a term for it Medicine: sarcopenia, which is skeletal muscle wasting. And it goes hand in hand with bone wasting called osteopenia. And it makes sense that they would go together because it’s all one continuous stream of functional tissue.

But, here’s what I’m getting at: say you have two people, same age, same gender, doing the same exercise. But, one is living healthfully, eating nutritious food and avoiding bad habits like smoking and drinking. The other is eating crap and doing everything else that’s bad. That person is likely to get a flat butt at a younger age,  even doing the same exercise. Why?  Because that person is aging faster overall, and the flattening of the butt is an aging thing. So, it’s not just about exercise; it’s about your general health and how you are living your life.  

So, what exercises are best? Especially for older people who are trying to stay younger? I mentioned weight lifting, and it is very efficient. But, I don’t go to a gym. I have a light weight set in my garage, which I use sometimes.  But, I have mixed feelings about older people lifting weights because it is very easy to hurt oneself. For instance, you should never arch your back. The back wasn’t meant to be arched.  You have about 5 degrees of back-bending before the facet joints lock, and it’s all strain after that.  The window is so small, you should just forget about arching your back at all. Just don’t do it.  Make it a rule: don’t arch your back. But, if you try to lift a heavy weight overhead, you are almost certain to arch your back. And the same goes for a bench press, because it’s very easy to arch your back when you’re lying down.  So, the best way to press a weight is to do it on an incline where the support behind you keeps you from arching your back.  Therefore, yes to incline presses, but no to military presses and bench presses.

And I’ll give one more example and that is curling weight with the forearm supinated- the traditional biceps curl.  In life, the biceps is more of a supporting muscle than a prime mover. There aren’t too many movements in life in which it’s practical to flex the arm with the forearm supinated. For instance, if you were pulling yourself up a tree to climb the tree, you couldn’t do it with your forearm supinated. You’d have no way to get up and over. The only practical way to do it is with the palm rotated internally; i.e. pronated. So, if you are going to pull yourself up on a pull-up bar, you should do it with the dorsal side of your hand facing you. In other words, your hand should be internally rotated, not externally rotated. And note that you are much more likely to tear a muscle if you do it the other way.

But, what about developing big biceps? That shouldn’t be your objective. That muscle is going to be worked some even if you do the exercise the right way. But, the hallmark of a “gym rat” are big biceps. It’s not something that comes from other athletics or strenuous physical work. Gymnasts get big biceps because they often work-out on the high bar underhanded.  Otherwise, a more balanced muscular conditioning takes place that I think is more normal. And again: you’ll be less likely to get hurt because bicep tears are very common when you twist your arm out and flex. 

So, if you are going to do weight-lifting, don’t just do anything that you see other people doing. I hope you have someone good advising you who knows something about body mechanics and kinesthetics.

So, what else? There are competitive sports like tennis and golf, but realize: people get hurt doing those things. Tennis is harder on the body than golf, but they are both hard. Tennis is a disaster biomechanically. There are few things that cause dystonia and dyskinesia more than tennis.  Just watch professional tennis players, and I don’t mean when they’re playing; I mean when they’re just walking. They’re spastic. They’re a dystonic mess.

So, what’s good? Bicycling is good because it’s easy on your joints. The important thing is to have a good bike that fits you properly and a comfortable seat. You should also know how to ride without crimping your neck and thwarting your linearity. But, let’s face it: short of crashing, you’re not likely to hurt yourself riding a bike.

Walking? Well, that's the best; there is nothing better. Walking is better than running because it calls for a more balanced use of the lower extremities. In walking, you actually straighten your leg, that is, your knee joint, which calls upon the anterior thigh muscles. When you run, your leg remains bent all the time; it never straightens; which means that you are using your posterior muscles very much more. It’s unbalanced. Obviously, human beings have the ability to run; it is a natural movement. But, I believe it’s really part of your “fight or flight” mechanism to run. Normal locomotion for a human being- to get from place to place- is to walk.  It doesn’t mean you can never run, but don’t do it every day because if you do, you are going to get hurt.

Now, if you’re concerned about walking being too “easy,” and you want to make it harder, don’t consider carrying something. That’s a terrible idea. Walking is a natural movement that involves cadence and rhythm and freedom, which you lose completely if you are carrying something. So, don’t even think about doing that. What you should do instead is: walk up hills. If you include some hills in your course, you can get everything you need from walking. And of course, I mean walking up the hills. It’s not important to walk down. It would be OK to skip that. 

Swimming is excellent, and that’s another natural movement. A human being does not know how to swim instinctively, but some animals do. I’ll never forget the first time I put my dog Firsky into water, as a puppy, and he started doing the dog paddle, and it was beautiful. And, it’s very easy to teach the dog paddle to children. It’s really the first stroke they should learn.

The crawl (which is often mistakenly called the free-style, but that is really just a competitive distinction; the movement is the crawl) the back stroke, and the breast stroke are all very good and biomechanically sound. Don’t do the butterfly- unless you want shoulder problems. You really should skip that one or else it's going to be impingement syndromes and rotator cuff tears. 

So, what do I do? I follow my own advice. I walk, including up hills. I bicycle. I swim. And I do some working out with weights but in a very controlled, non- straining manner. And I do calisthenics like pull-ups and push-up, but again, with a lot of attention to form.  I always do my pull-ups over-handed.

And as I approach my 70th birthday, I am feeling good; strong like bull.





Why would the body want high blood pressure? Because it may need it in order to circulate the blood.


You know that blood moves from large wide vessels to small, narrow vessels. Think of it like a 4 lane highway being reduced to 2. What happens then? Traffic crawls. Right? But, the situation is made even worse if the person has plaquing in his or her arteries. Then, it takes even more pressure to get the blood through it.


And there’s a special situation involving the kidneys. There, specialized capillary networks known as glomeruli are designed to be porous so that the liquid portion of the blood (meaning not the cells and not the proteins) can pass through the pores forming the initial urinary filtrate. But again, if you have a lot of plaquing, then it may take more arterial pressure to get the process going. And that is why the kidneys have so much control over blood pressure. Some of the popular pharmaceutical treatments involve neutralizing hormones that are secreted by the kidneys, such as angiotensin. But, it’s the body that is secreting those hormones, and it’s not doing it by mistake. It think it needs the higher pressure. And it isn’t wrong.

Most of the pharmaceutical treatments for high blood pressure involve thwarting something that the body is trying to do. So, you really are going to war with your body when you take those drugs. 

And  it’s all so very arbitrary and capricious. You could go to a big medical building with a slew of doctors. The only thing they are going to agree on is that you need drugs to treat your hypertension. But, which drugs? And which combination of drugs? It’s all a can of worms.

Blood pressure rising should be taken as a sign that your arteries aren’t in good shape. In other words: they are diseased. And they’re still going to be diseased even if you do take drugs. They may become more diseased from your taking drugs.

Unless it is a medical emergency, where your blood pressure is so high that you are on the verge of having an imminent catastrophic blowout, I think it’s best to skip the medical approach. Don’t take any drugs. Instead, start doing things- in your life- to make the condition of your arteries better. In other words, start trying to reverse the damage.

And if you succeed and your arterial blood flow improves, then your body will turn off the mechanisms that are causing the higher pressure. In other words, your blood pressure will become lower naturally and spontaneously- without any forcing measures. And you will be so much better off.

So, I think it raises a serious question: Are the millions of people who are taking blood pressure drugs on a routine basis, are they being helped or hurt? Are they actually better off for doing what they are doing?

I doubt it.



The Covid situation is reportedly getting worse, not better. My state of Texas, and my city of Austin, is now supposed to be the nation’s hotspot. The theory goes that Texas was one of the first states to reopen its economy, and as a result of that interaction,  and despite the continued use of masks and social distancing, that the virus got transmitted.  But, if that’s true, then it means that “asymptomatic carriers” have got to be the ones spreading it.

How many visibly sick people have you been around lately? How many visibly sick people have you seen in pubic lately? Even before this, and long before this, it was not a common thing to see acutely ill people in public. And that’s because when people are acutely ill, they tend to stay home. Maybe if they just have a mild cold they’ll go out.  But, I’ve been going to the supermarket, post office, Walmart, etc., and I haven’t seen one person with acute symptoms out shopping. So, if they told me that I have Covid it would mean that somebody I passed in the aisle at Walmart or some other store gave it to me- even though I wore a mask. And the masks are required now. They don’t let anyone in without a mask, and many stores have someone out front handing out masks to those that don’t have one.

So, how is this virus spreading person to person? Are the masks ineffective?

The previous enthusiasm for the antibody tests seems to have waned. They’re saying now that the antibodies don’t last. Maybe a couple of months, but that’s about it.

But, there is still a lot of enthusiasm about getting a Covid vaccine. Just yesterday, the government gave a grant of $1.6 billion to some company to develop one. But, why do people think that a Corona virus vaccine would be any more effective than other vaccines? This past flu season, the CDC said that the Influenza-b vaccine was 37% effective. That means that for every 3 unvaccinated people who got the flu, 2 vaccinated people got it. And keep in mind that the CDC is notorious for propagandizing about the flu and the flu vaccine, claiming that 36,000 Americans die every year from the flu. With their track record of propping-up the vaccine industry, chances are great that the real effectiveness of the flu vaccine is much less than 37%. And keep in mind that they REFUSE to do double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of the flu vaccine. They refuse to do double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any vaccine. They won’t even do unblinded trials. Every single year, there are millions of adults who don’t get the flu shot. I have never had a flu shot in my life, and I never will. So, why not at least compare health outcomes of those who vaccinate and those who don’t? But, I digress.

The point I am really trying to make is that among the newly diagnosed Covid cases, surely the vast, overwhelming majority have had no known exposure to an acutely ill person, sick with Covid.  So, what does that mean?  It means that they must have gotten it from someone who was infected but not sick, a so-called “asymptomatic carrier.”

But, we need to take a close look at the whole concept of an asymptomatic carrier. Because, presumably we are dealing with an infectious agent that causes disease- except when it doesn't. So, what does it mean when an infectious agent does NOT cause disease?  What is going on in the body of someone who is infected with Corona virus but doesn’t get sick?  The presumption is that their body is fighting the virus, but it doesn’t provoke symptoms, such as fever, inflammation, coughing, excess mucus, etc. But, those symptoms are how the body fights pathogens.  So, if there is no reaction, why assume that the body is fighting a virus at all?

An asymptomatic carrier is defined as someone who tests positive for the virus but isn’t sick. But, what is the difference between not being sick with a positive test result and not being sick with a negative test result? Say, we’ve got two people, and both seem to be fine. We test them, and we find that one is positive and the other is negative. So, we presume that the one who tested positive is technically sick, even though he feels OK. Technically and theoretically, there is a BIG difference between the one who tested positive and the one who tested negative. But, what is the difference other than the opposite test result? For instance, if we tested both their blood, would we find tell-tale signs of infection in the one with the positive test result? As far as I know, they’re not even looking.

Why should we accept that a person is sick if the only indication of the sickness is an arcane test result and nothing else? On the day he was tested and found to be positive, Senator Rand Paul lifted weights at the Senate gym and swam in the Senate pool. Now, why should I believe that he was sick?  Just because the test said so? Why should I believe the test?

They just told us that a 17 year old girl in Florida died from Corona virus after going to a Church social in which some people weren’t wearing masks and practicing social distancing. I bet none of them were overtly sick either. So, another asymptomatic carrier, I suppose. But, they also said that the girl had a rare auto-immune disease and that she has had cancer since the age of 2. She also suffered from gross obesity. I know of a 13 year old girl who died from gross obesity, and that was long before Covid.  


So, what is going on? Let me rephrase that:  So, what is going on for me? For me, Covid is a government and media phenomenon. That’s my entire exposure to it- what they are telling me. And the basis for the things they are telling me is not a comfort.  The number of dubious claims and unanswered questions is legion, as are the flip-flops. Is there really a pandemic going on? The only thing I know for sure is that there is a cult-like allegiance to a medical doctrine going on, affecting both doctors and lay people, and that it has spread faster than a virus ever could.





There is a very attractive female doctor on Youtube who goes by Dr. Boz who advocates the keto diet. She is a real true believer in it. She says, for instance, that “fruit is poison.” And I don’t doubt that she is very strict about it. She gives an example of one of her meals being green salad, a small portion of meat, and then most of the calories on the plate from fats, such as avocado and cream cheese. Cream cheese. Now, there’s something that nobody needs to be eating.

But, I have a very strong suspicion that the people who follow that diet, and especially as strictly as Dr. Boz does, develop a severe degree of carbohydrate intolerance. The reason I say that is because I have much experience with people who have been on a keto diet. I am referring to people who have been water fasting.

Do you realize that fasting is like being on a keto diet? It’s just that it is internally generated, rather than provided from the outside. When fasting, you’re in a state of ketosis; your body has switched from burning sugar to burning ketones; and increasingly, your body burns ketones instead of glucose the longer you fast. If you suddenly start putting carbohydrate in, your body will get the message that it doesn’t have to stay in ketosis any longer, and it can start burning sugar again. But, it takes time to make the switch. It isn’t instant. So, if you just start off by pouring sugar into yourself, even wholesome foods such as fruits and melons and sweet vegetables, such as carrot juice, your blood sugar can spike. And I mean spike more than it would under normal conditions when you’re not fasting.  Temporarily, you are sugar-sensitive.

And that’s why it’s a good idea not to go overboard eating sugary foods right after a fast- even wholesome ones.

How do I know this? I know it from testing the blood of post-fasters and seeing that they are sugar-sensitive, that they spike from eating an amount of sugar that a normal healthy person would tolerate easily.  The effect doesn’t last very long. Within two weeks, it’s gone, and they’re back to tolerating carbohydrate normally. The reason that it happens is because the body has to change gears to get into a fasting state, one in which they are going to efficiently get through it. And it takes time to change back.

But, if these Keto people are really staying in a state of ketosis all the time, then I presume they have those adaptations going all the time, and thus, they develop sugar sensitivity and sugar intolerance. And in their case, it may be going on for months and years. How entrenched is it going to be then?

Now, if they remain as strict at avoiding carbs as Dr. Boz apparently does, then their blood sugar obviously is not going to spike. But, I suspect that in the real world, even among her most devoted followers, who think the world of her, that they sometimes cheat. And when they cheat, they may cheat a lot. They may actually binge on carbs sometimes. And they may think that it doesn’t matter because they avoid them most of the time. But, because they avoid them most of the time, they are probably sugar-sensitive, like a faster, and the result is that their blood sugar spikes, even from a normal amount of wholesome carbohydrate.

So, my advice is: don’t train your body to be insensitive to carbs by eating such an extreme diet as the keto diet. The important thing is to cut out all junk carbs, refined carbs, because you surely don’t need them. And make some of your carbs complex, such as beans, which digest slowly and tend not to cause spikes- even in diabetics.  And eat plenty of non-carb foods, such as green and yellow vegetables which are non-starchy, and also raw nuts, seeds, and avocado. In other words, you should find a balance that works that relies very largely on, if not exclusively on: whole, natural, plant foods.

But, if you don’t eat carbohydrates at all, then you are setting yourself up for trouble.

Medicine is such a dogmatic institution, and its dogma permeates all over the world. For decades now, they have preached that the amount of cholesterol in the blood determines whether arterial plaquing takes place.  They say that if serum cholesterol is high, it causes atheromatous plaquing, and if serum cholesterol is low, it prevents it.  High is now defined as 200 or above. But, if your cholesterol is 150, you’re considered OK.

But, how could a 25% reduction in serum cholesterol have any effect on starting or stopping a pathological process? Cholesterol is a normal constituent, and it is vital. Every cell in your body depends on cholesterol to maintain its intracellular environment.  Without cholesterol in your cell membrane, your cells would dissolve! In other words, they couldn’t exist. Cholesterol is also a building block of steroid hormones, including testosterone and estrogen, and it provides vital cholic acid for digestion, which is synthesized from cholesterol. 

If the atheromatous process is driven by the amount of cholesterol in the blood, where a level of 200 milligrams per decaliter of blood drives it, then why shouldn’t 150 also drive it? Why should that little difference be the determining factor in whether plaque forms or not? It’s insane.  

It’s true that when people are on good health programs, where they are eating well, a diet consisting mostly, if not wholly, of: fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, etc. that they are going to have lower cholesterol. And if they eat bad diets, consisting of burgers, shakes, cookies, etc., they are going to have higher cholesterol. So, the level of cholesterol in the blood may be a marker for the kind of diet they eat.  But, it doesn’t mean that the concentration of cholesterol in the blood is the determining factor in whether plaque is formed. 

There is one caveat, and that is that oxidized cholesterol, from frying meats and whatnot, has been shown to be irritating, and anything that irritates the endothelium can cause plaquing.  Tobacco smoke has no cholesterol, but it is very irritating, i.e. poisonous, and it is a powerful progenitor of arterial plaque.  

There are special tests that can determine how much of your blood cholesterol is oxidized, and that has significance. But, that aside, the idea that the amount of cholesterol in the blood is what determines whether your have open or clogged arteries is crazy.

But, what about the fact that when they give people statin drugs, that their cholesterol goes down, and it may go down a lot,  and their risk of heart attack and heart disease goes down with it? The truth is that the risk isn’t lowered that much from taking statin drugs. Maybe one heart attack gets prevented when 100 people take statins for a year. It’s something like that.  The demonstrable benefit from taking statin drugs is actually very small.

And that tiny risk reduction may be due to other things than cholesterol reduction. We know that statin drugs are anti-inflammatory, and we know that inflammation is directly involved in atherosclerosis.  It’s very telling that the slight reduction in heart attack risk has not been shown to be dose-dependent.  

Meanwhile, the demonstrable harms from taking statin drugs are much less obscure, including: an increased risk of diabetes, dementia, and even cancer.

Furthermore, statins are often prescribed in the absence of any clinical signs of heart disease; based solely on the cholesterol number. In other words: it’s a knee-jerk reaction to a blood test. 

“Mr. Jones, we see that your cholesterol is a little high, so we’ll be starting you on a statin drug. You’ll be taking it indefinitely- for the rest of your life. Have a nice day.”

That is the state of Modern Medicine today.  For all the money, and it’s about $20 trillion spent in the U.S. every year, for all the exalted research and science, and regardless of whether you, yourself, are a rich bastard or a dirt-poor pauper, that is what you get. That is what 21st century Medicine delivers and calls health care. 




Dr. Andy Kaufman is a board certified psychiatrist, and I know that doesn’t sound like a specialty that would lend expertise about a viral illness, but he also has a degree in Molecular Biology from MIT, and he has done clinical research in other fields of Medicine, including hematology and oncology. So, he is broadly educated and widely experienced. 

And, as I listen to him, he certainly comes across as being very knowledgeable, and intelligent. Yet, what he says is certainly extreme. He challenges medical orthodoxy to the nth degree about Covid.

But, please give him a listen because I think it’s valuable to do so, whether or not you agree with him. That’s because, like it or not, he makes some very important points and asks some very important questions. For instance, the fact is that, to this day, the Corona virus has never been isolated, even though they speak as though it has been. For two, all claims about the death rate from Covid-19 are worthless because, as he puts it, “you don’t know the bottom number.” Since a great many people, reportedly, contract the Corona virus without getting the slightest bit sick from it, it means that anyone could potentially have it.  And that means that you would have to test every person on Earth before you could know how many infected people there are. And that obviously has not been done or anything close to it. However, it’s worse than that because that assumes that you have a valid test, but you don’t. The inadequacies and faulty assumptions underlying the RT-PCR Covid-19 test have been detailed by David Crowe, Jon Rappaport, and others, including Dr. Kaufman, but he stresses that the problem in methodology long precedes this. The whole medical field of Virology has been plagued, from the start, with the kind of dogmatism that would make religions blush. 

Dr. Karufman goes into vaccines and the refusal in Medicine to do double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of them, presumably because it would be “unethical” to do so, to deny anyone a vaccine. But, that is ridiculous. For instance, what about vaccines for adults, such as the Shingles vaccine? Obviously, a lot of adults don’t get that vaccine and aren’t going to get it. So, why couldn’t they do a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of it?  And even with children’s diseases- and that’s the kicker because how could you deny any child the protection of vaccines- they could still do studies because there are parents who willfully do not vaccinate their children. So, those children aren’t going to be vaccinated anyway. So, why not compare those children to vaccinated children, and I mean scientifically?  Granted, it would not be a blind study, but that doesn’t mean that it would have no value. You could test for the incidence of the disease that is supposedly being prevented, but just as important, you could test for incidence of other diseases and general health outcomes. There has been some attempt outside Mainstream Medicine to do this. For instance, there is this study, which shows a lower incidence of common maladies and chronic problems in unvaccinated children compared to vaccinated.

But, getting back to Dr. Kaufman, he is a psychiatrist, and he looks at the mental  fixations of medical experts who are glued to a paradigm that is a colossal “group-think” of the worst kind, where the dogma starts, and everything that happens afterwards is interpreted according to the dogma- and if they have to pound square pegs into round holes, so be it. For instance, there is the question as to why an infective agent causes little or no illness in the vast majority of people (where, apparently, the number who don’t manifest any illness at all outnumber the ones that get a little bit sick because, as I type this on June 18, they are telling us that the virus is still spreading rapidly, and especially in states that have reopened "too soon," such as my state Texas, but how are these new cases coming about? How are people contracting it? Surely, the vast, overwhelming majority are unaware of having been around anyone with Covid or anyone with respiratory symptoms, which means that, presumably, that they got it from someone without symptoms.  

In other words, with all the quarantining, social distancing, sanitizing, etc., it not only means that the “sickless sick” (to coin a phrase) are the motor of spread of this disease, but that the face masks, etc. are not effective.

And remember that all this supposedly started at “A” seafood market in Wuhon, China, and then spread, from there, person to person, to everywhere on Earth. The implausibility of that is staggering. 

But, to me, the scariest thing is not Covid-19 but the medical response to it. Dr. Kaufman goes into the ventilating, and clearly they have killed a lot of people with those machines. And, Dr. Kaufman explains that they often they have to persuade conscious people to submit to that treatment- to allow doctors to anesthetize them, then administer drugs to them to paralyze them, so that a machine can forcibly ram oxygen in and out of their lungs. And the really perverse thing is that often these people have not been in that much distress. They have not been that dyspneic. They are being asked to volunteer to go on a respirator, you might say, electively. 

Well, I will tell you flat-out that anyone who is able to sit and think and listen and talk (and remember that talking is a modified form of expiration) doesn’t need to be on a ventilator. The risks of ventilating are extremely high. The vast majority of Covid patients put on a ventilator have died: over 90%.

Dr. Kaufman goes into this and more. Again, he strikes me as a very intelligent man and a very courageous one. He explains that there is nothing solid about any of the claims made about Covid-19, and the idea that the whole world needed to shut down over it, is just plain insane.

So please listen to Dr. Kaufman and share this video:



More Articles...