Two surprising articles on Medscape
- Created on Saturday, 13 June 2020 13:32
Medscape is a weekly online journal for medical doctors that I have been reading for years, and the June 9 edition contains two articles that surprised me.
The first concerns the latest guidance from the American Cancer Society about lifestyle measures to prevent cancer. For the first time, besides setting limits on alcohol consumption for men and women, they admit that it’s best not to consume alcohol at all- to avoid it completely.
Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, whereas the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.
But, I have to wonder what took them so long because it’s not as though it was ever suggested that a little alcohol is good for you, that it helps to prevent cancer. Ethyl alcohol is a carcinogen, a mutagen, and a teratogen, and that’s been known for a long time.
Of course, there was the longstanding fallacy that a little alcohol helps to prevent heart disease, but that was based entirely on the “sick quitter” effect. In the U.S. and many other countries, most non-drinkers are former drinkers who used to drink a lot and often for decades. They are still suffering from the effects of alcohol even though they don’t currently drink. When researchers compared lifelong abstainers to so-called moderate drinkers, they found no protective effect from alcohol at all. The best thing you can do for your heart- and every other organ in your body- is not to bathe it in alcohol- at all.
The second article was an admission that many Covid patients who seem to recover, whose symptoms clear up completely, continue to test positive for the Corona virus for a long and indefinite period of time. So, the question is: are they still infective? But, what the question should be is: Is the PCR test valid? The medical world, in its religious faith in the Covid PCR test, still refuses to admit the possibility of false positives- even though it is widely recognized that the non-sick often test positive, and that the fully recovered also commonly continue to test positive. Some medical authorities are saying that it’s pointless to rely on the PCR test to determine if someone is cured, that other tests will need to be developed, and it may be best to forego PCR testing of recovered patients completely.
There is supposition about disease that occurs across the whole spectrum of pathology, where this, that, and the other thing are believed to be true. In other words, Medicine is riddled with “commonly held beliefs” that are unproven. But, the amount of supposition that is going on with Covid is off the chart.
I am not saying that there is nothing real underlying the Covid crisis, but I am saying that there is an element of “extraordinary popular delusion and the madness of crowds” that has taken over and is feeding on itself. And I am saying that it is happening at the professional level and fueled by the institutional dogmatism within Medicine, especially when it comes to this kind of disease. And to a large and growing extent, the masses just don’t seem to care any more, as evidenced by people flocking to beaches- and to anti-lockdown rallies. Medicine, as a profession, started based on superstition. Well into the 19th century, they were bloodletting to release the bad humors and the evil spirits. Modern scientific Medicine supposedly started at Johns Hopkins in the early 20th century. But, to a great extent, dogma and authoritarianism, and I mean of the worst and most dangerous order, still dominate the profession. What the world did, which was to shut down on medical orders, where governments of every stripe submitted to worldwide international Medicine shows you what Medicine has become and the extent to which it controls our lives. And it’s a very scary thing. With so many exotic viral outbreaks having happened, don’t you think it’s extremely likely that there are going to be more? What are we going to do if another one breaks out next winter? Is the world going to shut down again? One thing is absolutely certain: medical dogmatism is here to stay, and the sweep of it is going to be even greater going forward because of what happened.
Dr. Grundy’s grunge
- Created on Friday, 05 June 2020 19:37
Dr. Steven Grundy is either very rich, or he has a company backing him with pervasive internet advertising. His schtick is that lectins are bad. Lectins are proteins in plant foods that can potentially have harmful effects, but it’s more theoretical than real. The food highest in lectins are beans, but thorough cooking thoroughly deactivates the lectins. I’m a big fan of beans, and I eat them almost every day. And I’ll confess that it’s almost always out of a can. But, one advantage of that is that you know they have been cooked properly, and you don’t have to worry about the lectins.
Much smaller amounts of lectins occur in almost all plant foods. Dr. Gundry likes to give lectures holding up a tomato and asking if you think it’s good for you. Of course, the answer is that it isn’t. And that’s what got me thinking about Dr. Gundry because my garden tomatoes are pouring in right now, and I am eating them voluminously every day. The quality is so good. And I am not the least bit worried about the lectins.
Here’s a man who ate nothing but canned beans for 40 days. And he was very active physically during that time, so he ate a lot of beans. And on the 40th day, he competed in an ultra-marathon race. The race was so long, the runners had to eat solid food during the race to keep going. And he ate beans. Just beans.
And he looked good too. He slimmed down, as I expected he would (regardless of how many cans of beans he ate). But, he appeared to just lose body fat. His muscles stayed firm.
It's amazing all he could do. What harm did he suffer from the lectins? None.
And if you check the medical databases, you’ll find scant evident of harm from lectins. The most notorious case involves the eating of raw or undercooked red kidney beans. You shouldn’t do that. But, I do eat red kidney beans. Whenever I go to the salad bar, I always take a scoop. The USDA says that they are the highest antioxidant food on the planet. They’re not going to hurt you if they’re cooked properly. And eating them can only drive down your risk of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. And that’s what you have to worry about, not Dr. Grundy’s leaky gut obsession.
The bottom line is that Dr. Grundy is so deluded, you should pay him no mind. None at all. Run away from him. Just click him off whenever he pops up on the internet. And eat your plant foods, including beans. There are things to worry about in this world, but lectins aren't one of them.
Caloric reduction for life extension
- Created on Saturday, 30 May 2020 20:26
First, it works. It has been demonstrated in animals many time, both large and small. Also, in insects. It’s never been tested with people, for many reasons. But, I know of a surrogate test in which they used telomere shortening as a surrogate for aging, and the test subjects who were calorically restricted for two years experienced less telomere shortening.
So, caloric restriction is the most proven life extension technique. But, what should we do about it? Well, I cant see getting underweight, and by that I mean skinny where you are decidedly less than your ideal weight. Life is about quality not quantity, in my opinion. You want to feel good about yourself, the way you look, about your manliness or womanliness. And if you get too thin, you’ll have no reserves to sustain you in an emergency. So my advice is to restrict calories enough to get down to lean body weight but where you still look good and feel good about yourself.
So, what is the best way to do it? There are several ways. You could just eat less at every meal. Or, you could just eat fewer meals. Say, for instance, instead of having 3 meals a day, you have only 2. Or, you could just have fasting days occasionally. That’s how Dr. Roy Walford went about it. He wrote in his book Maximum Lifespan that he fasts every Monday and Tuesday. He found that easier than having to skimp on his eating all the time. But, that really is radical because it comes to 104 days of fasting every year, and that is a lot. I know I couldn’t do that much fasting. I would waste away. I wouldn’t be able to eat enough the other 5 days to make up for it. But, he did it, and perhaps others can.
But, there is such a thing as being too thin, and we have to be practical. But, here’s a way that everyone should think about caloric restriction and that is to use it to keep you from eating things that you shouldn’t eat at all. Say someone offers you a piece of cake with some ice cream. You know you shouldn’t be eating that, and that those calories are just extra calories you don’t need; calories that will age you. So, you pass. That is the most important way to exploit the fact caloric restriction can lengthen your life. Use it to gain the fortitude to say no to food that you should not eat. Use it to say no to junk food.
One world government? It’s already here
- Created on Tuesday, 26 May 2020 20:44
I see a lot written online about the new world order and the coming one-world government. Whether it is going to happen or not, I don’t know, but in one very important respect, it is already here, and I mean: medically.
You know how powerful the CDC is in the U.S. It got the federal government to shut down the economy over the Corona virus. Your freedom to move about, to work, and to live as you wished was shuttered by the CDC, that is, by the medical establishment. Medicine is a profession; it is an industry; but through the power of government, it is overlord. Why couldn’t they just recommend that people who are vulnerable stay home? Or even if they wanted to recommend that most people stay home except for essential workers, but to make it the law of the land? In what is supposed to be a free country?
So, Medicine is powerful. When it talks, people listen, including our leaders. And it’s partly because Medicine is so highly revered. Doctors are the best and the brightest among us, and they, and they alone, have an understanding of disease and what needs to be done about it. We need to listen to them- at the doctor/patient level, and at the level of medical decrees about health and disease that are fanned far and wide.
Why is Medicine so highly revered? It’s because it is perceived as the pinnacle of science. And surely, there is a tremendous amount of science involved in Medicine; I don’t deny that. However, to a great extent, Medicine is a cult, and a dangerous one at that. And I could say it is a religion. It is definitely a belief system. And as in all cults, it has a strict hierarchy of authority, and it does not tolerate dissent.
Take the guiding principle of Medicine and Biology, which is Darwinian Evolution. Is it scientific? A distinguished group of PhDs in biology and biochemistry say it isn’t, and they have put their names to this statement:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
It would be tangential for me to go into this at length, but briefly: life obviously underwent changes on Earth, but what drove the changes? Medicine says that random, accidental chance changes (mutations) to DNA from radiation etc. caused changes in organisms that were favorable, that had distinct survival advantages, such that they were “naturally selected” wherein those individuals survived better and lived longer and reproduced more often and more successfully, passing along those traits, and that’s what drove the whole process of evolution.
I debated it once with a Professor of Biology, and I asked her how it worked when it came to lactation, which is the crux of being a mammal. She actually had the nerve to suggest that it probably started with a pre-mammalian mother holding her infant close, and the infant got some sustenance, if only water and salts, from ingesting sweat from her sweat glands. But, that is SO stupid because it is totally imaginative, and it doesn’t even involve a mutation; it’s just an adopted behavior. So, how could it be passed along genetically? But, it’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to explaining the evolution of lactation because it involves not just changes in the glands on a woman’s chest, but changes in her uterus and birth canal, and a complete revamping of her offspring into a milk-consuming creature. And all these diverse changes had to evolve at the same time. And if it was driven by random changes being naturally selected, it meant that every single piecemeal step in the direction towards becoming a milk maker and milk consumer had to be useful and advantageous. It had to contribute something to survival- immediately. How can you explain the supposed evolution of some kind of a reptile into a mammal that way? It’s preposterous. It is absurd. Yet, it is regarded as “medical science.”
But, you better believe it because if you don’t, it’s assumed that you believe that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th. But, what about just saying that it’s a mystery, that life is a mystery, and we just don’t know how it happened and what drove the unfolding of it?
But, you can’t question Darwinian Evolution. If you do, you are put in the same category as flat-earthers and those darn “9/11 conspiracy theorists”, and be aware that, like the 3000+ architects and engineers, I am one.
But, the point is that Medicine involves beliefs- suppositions that are accepted on faith and in submission to authority.
Look at the whole realm of “vaccination science.” Consider how many doctors spend their days injecting vaccines into children. What do these doctors know about the vaccines, their effects, their effectiveness, or lack thereof, their safety, or lack thereof, their risks, their harms, etc.? I would tell you that they don’t know much more than you do. The only difference is that they have a few more talking points than you do. That’s about it. They’re not “virologists” or “immunologists.” So, not only are the people accepting the vaccines out of faith, but so are the doctors.
There are fields within Medicine that are very straight-forward, such as Anatomy and Physiology. But, when you get to “Virology” it is very autocratic, hierarchical, and dogmatic, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. This is a paper by David Crowe, a Canadian researcher whom I greatly respect, and it concerns the isolation of the Corona virus. We have been told, repeatedly, that the Corona virus has been isolated, but what they mean by that is not what you think they mean. They are conflating the demonstration of “cytopathic effects” with the isolating of a virus.
David Crowe also has done more than anyone else to expose the flakiness of the RT-PCR test for the Corona virus, while completely ignoring the very possibility of false positives and hushing anyone who tries to raise the issue. David discusses it in this video:
David has also written an excellent critique of the Corona antibody tests.
You should definitely listen to this podcast of David Crowe and Dr. Andrew Kaufman discussing the very nature of viruses and their association with and similarity to exosomes, which are cellular excretions.
The whole paradigm of viral infections is fraught with uncertainty and inconsistency. Why is it that having Corona antibodies is good while having AIDS antibodies is bad? Why is it that children, who get colds easily and frequently, which are reportedly caused by Corona viruses, should be relatively immune from Covid-19? And yes, I’ve heard the explanation that there is an overlap of the antibodies, but it’s just a lip-flapping convenience, and it still comes down to believing that feeble children who get sick often are more resistant and better off. And that just doesn’t make sense.
Then, there is the whole “cytokine storm” theory for the lethality of Covid-19, that that’s what kills you. But, they are also telling us that it’s mostly the old and feeble who are dying, and they can’t generate cytokine storm as well, just as old people can’t generate fever as well. Who do you hear about getting 106 degree fevers? It’s not the old; it’s the young. It works the same for cytokine storm because it takes vitality to do it.
The bottom line for me is that we are in a situation in which a disease is being diagnosed solely on the basis of a test, and a very flaky one at that. And the possibility of error with this test is being systematically and dogmatically shunned, and that’s like not seeing an elephant in a room. Clinical presentation has been completely discarded. Although Covid-19 was initially designated as SARS2, which stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, with the cardinal symptoms being fever, coughing, and shortness of breath, now, it no longer has to be respiratory at all. Covid could be digestive. It could be dermatological. It could be anything. If you test positive, it’s Covid- no matter what your symptoms are. If you die of something that you’ve been suffering with for 20 years, you died of Covid, if you test positive- even if it was found out postmortem. If a husband and wife both seem to have colds, and they test for Covid, and she’s positive and he’s negative, then, of course, her positive test is valid, and his negative test is false. But, why not question the validity of the test?
Because of the arbitrary decree that the presence of Corona antibodies means a successful, if asymptomatic, fight against the virus has already been waged and the person is now recovered, they are adding people to the list of contractees in leaps and bounds, such that the lethality of Covid-19 has been reduced to well less than 1%. Because of all the asymptomatic cases, they’re now saying that it’s no more deadly than the flu. But wait. If it’s no more deadly than the flu, what did they shut down the world economy for? And remember that the deadliness of the flu occurs despite the fact that there is a vaccine which is supposedly protective and preventative. So, if Covid-19, without there being a vaccine, is no more deadly than the flu, and if the vast and overwhelming majority of people get no symptoms from it, where they don’t even know they’re sick, or they just get very mild symptoms and don’t even have to stay in bed, then what the heck are we doing shutting down the whole world economy and bringing so much suffering and ruin to so many people? It’s crazy.
The only thing I know for sure about Covid is that it is a dogma; a medical dogma, and the scariest thing about it is that this dogma knows no borders. You know how there is separateness and independence between countries when it comes to international relations, economic policies, and certainly military policies. BUT, THERE IS PRACTICALLY A ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICINE. And that to me is truly the scariest thing of all. Because: all the wacky theories and wacky tests are being heaped on everybody; every person on Earth.
Medical globalism is already a reality. Medicine is a global cartel, and OPEC is like Little League in comparison. China has its own CDC, but methodologically and in their beliefs, they’re the same as ours. Medicine is an international institution and an international mindset. When it comes to this pandemic, they’re practicing the same religion. The institution of Medicine has superseded national sovereignty.
And medical tyranny is on the rise. Of course, in a country like China, it’s easy for it to grow. But even here, opting out of vaccines is getting increasingly more difficult. California recently passed a bill vacating personal exemptions from vaccination, even if doctor-prescribed. Now, If you want to put your kids in public school in California, they have to be vaccinated; no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s been that way in Germany for a very long time. What’s going to happen when they come up with a Corona vaccine? Are they going to lower the hammer even more?
Medical doctrines are like an ether that pervades the whole planet- seeping everywhere. To a great extent, the medical establishment has taken over the planet. It is like a virus that has commandeered the machinery of governments everywhere. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Why I am content to live without medical insurance
- Created on Sunday, 24 May 2020 01:42
I went my whole adult life without having medical insurance, and I do mean none. Now that I am pushing 70, I have the minimal Medicare coverage, but that’s it. I don’t fret about not having good coverage, and I want you to know why.
There is very little in Medicine that I would want or make use of. Obviously, if I were severely traumatized I would need surgery, but the most likely way for that to happen is a car wreck, and I carry extra insurance for that- far more than the State minimum. I think I have $500,000 personal injury protection and the same for Uninsured Motorist. And, it doesn’t cost that much more to get the extra coverage. And otherwise, I avoid doing dangerous stuff. I don’t go up on the roof. I don’t go downhill skiing. I don’t use a chain saw or any kind of dangerous equipment. I play it safe. I am a very cautious driver, and I drive as little as I can. I am very content the days I stay home and don't have to go anywhere. I go bicycling, but never in traffic. I have safe places to ride that entail very little interaction with cars.
But, what about disease? Well, the fact is that there are 3 main diseases that people get in old age: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Those are the 3 big killers.
For heart disease, well I’m a total vegan, living on fruits, vegetables, salad greens, nuts, seeds, and beans. I eat some whole grains too but not much. I take heart-healthy supplements like CoQ10, DHA, Curcumin, Vitamin D3, Vitamin K2, etc. I stay active physically. I keep myself lean. And I take anti-aging hormones like DHEA and melatonin which are cardio-protective.
So, doing all that, what are the chances that I, Ralph Cinque, am going to develop clogged arteries? And even if I did, and I don’t think I will, I wouldn’t take statin drugs or have a bypass operation or do anything medical for it. I’ve known too many people who have. But again, I don’t think it’s going to be an issue for me, and I don’t think I need insurance for it.
What about high blood pressure? Well, I just checked my pressure, and it was 112/60. And it’s always been about that. I don’t believe I have ever had a systolic pressure higher than the teens. In other words, I have never been as high as 120.
But again, even if I developed high blood pressure, I wouldn’t want to take medical drugs for it anyway. I am very open to the possibility and the likelihood that lowering blood pressure with drugs does more harm than good. They refuse to do double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of blood pressure drugs. They say it would be unethical, which is the same excuse they use for not doing double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of vaccines. But, If you think about it logically: drugs do not correct the causes of high blood pressure, and they add a pathogenic influence that takes the body further out of true- which is a reference to a bicycle wheel being out of true when it does not rotate correctly; where it wobbles. You can’t get your blood pressure back to true by taking drugs. Period. They don't fix anything.
What about cancer? The lifetime risk of getting various cancers varies a lot depending on which cancer you are talking about. But for men, the cancer that is, by far, the most likely to happen is prostate cancer with a lifetime risk of 1 in 9. That is the only cancer that is in single digits for men. But, here’s how I view it: 1) I get a lot of lycopene from watermelon, tomatoes, and ruby red grapefruit. 2) I take Prosthera from Klaire Labs every day, which is an excellent prostate botanical supplement.
There are other good ones, but I think it’s prudent for men to take a good prostate formula because the ingredients we are talking about are perfectly safe and have been shown to be effective.
But, let’s get back to that 1 in 9 chance. Again, I have to think that my personal risk is lower than most because of my diet and lifestyle, and I’ll tell you something else that you probably won’t hear elsewhere: I believe that staying lean, as I do, is also a deterrent because you have to think of the prostate as the low man on the totem pole. If there is a lot of weight above from a pendulous abdomen bearing down and putting pressure on the prostate, its drainage is going to be impaired (since veins are low pressure) but the arterial blood is still going to get through. And the result is: congestion. Torpid congestion. And that’s a predecessor to cancer. And that’s why any time you go out and exert yourself hard, you are diverting blood from out of your pelvis and into your arms and legs to do the work. It means you are wringing out your prostate gland. Do you understand how beneficial that is?
So, the next time you should be going out for a vigorous hike, but you’re feeling lazy about it, remind yourself: it’s time to drain your prostate.
So, that’s the worst cancer risk for men, which is 1 in 9, and again I feel that because of everything I am doing that my personal risk has to be much less. If it were half, then it would be 1 in 18. And I can live with those odds.
And the other consideration is that a great many cases of prostate cancer are practically innocuous, that they progress so slowly, that you usually die of something else before it kills you. I’m going to be 70 soon, and let me tell you: as long as I can urinate freely and I’m not having any pain, I am not letting anybody cut on my prostate. No way, no how.
What about diabetes? Again: with my diet, my exercise, my supplements (such as magnesium which is diabetes-preventive) and staying lean, I think I have a handle on it. Besides, I do blood testing every year, and my fasting glucose is 85. It’s no higher now than it was 30 years ago.
But, if it started going up, I would be open to taking Metformin, which is one of the few medical drugs that I think is good. It’s made synthetically, but it is based on an herb. And, metformin is dirt-cheap.
But, there is also the option of taking an herb, such as berberine, and I might do that instead.
Beberine is actually more expensive than Metformin, even though the latter is a prescription drug. But, I may never need either. My mother is going on 99, and she isn’t diabetic. Neither is her sister who is going on 102.
So, I have a plan in mind in case I do become diabetic at some point in the future. But remember that there are all different degrees of diabetes, and in my case, I’ll probably either never get it, or I’ll get such a mild case that I will easily be able to manage it myself.
So, those are the big 3. But, what else is there? There is joint degeneration, and that can happen to anybody. I have friends who are health enthusiasts who wound up with degenerated hips and underwent joint replacement. I have not had my hips x-rayed, but there is an orthopedic test called the Patrick FABER test that I perform on myself sometimes, and it shows good range of motion in my hips. But frankly, even if I did develop bad hips, I don’t think I would have surgery. I would try loading up on SAM-E which is cartilage-boosting supplement, and I would do my best to manage it without surgery. Hip replacement is a very radical procedure, and I am not planning on having it.
What else? Of course, there is Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. But, I’m doing things about that too, such as taking pregnenolone and Acetyl-l-carnitine.
Mental decline is very common. For instance, in the 2020 Presidential race, it’s going to be one demented old guy versus another. I think that both Trump and Biden are manifesting significant mental decline, although Biden more so, and people are making jokes about it like crazy. It’s sad. I feel sorry for him. But, it is progressive, and it is only going to get worse. He shouldn't be running for President, and neither should Trump, in my opinion.
As I approach 70, I think that I am holding up quite well that way. I'll admit that my short-term memory isn't as good as it used to be. But it’s it's going to take more than that for me to think that I am losing my mind. However, it is something that that I am going to pay attention to going forward. But again, I wouldn’t be interested in taking any Alzheimer’s drugs anyway.
Then, there is cataracts, which are caused by ultraviolet exposure, and they're pretty much inevitable. If you live long enough, you're going to get them. But, I'm already tracking. I have a very good friend who is an eye doctor. And he tells me, first, that I am never going to get macular degeneration because my macula are so yellow. And regarding cataracts, he says I have a little opacity but nowhere near the operative stage. I realize that it is going to progress, but I am doing all I can to slow it down. I take Carnosine, which is a dipeptide known to protect the lens.
There are also Carnosine eye-drops that are widely available, but I haven't started using those yet. But, I do wear protective lenses when I'm in the sun, and not usually sun glasses. I am referring to prescription lenses that darken in the sun and become sunglasses, as needed.
But, if worst comes to worst, I'll need cataract surgery at some point. And when the times comes, I'll just pay for it. The uninsured always get a steep discount. I'm finding it available for as little as $5000 per eye. So, if I have to shell out $10,000 for that at some point, I will. I'm not going to pay for medical insurance for decades just to avoid it. Who knows, I could get killed first in a car wreck, a tsunami, or by a jealous husband... just kidding.
But, the main thing is that as I enter old age, and I think everyone would agree that when you’re 70, you ain’t young any more, nor are you middle-aged, that my goal is to remain active and vigorous and avoid the “medical stage” of life, where taking medications and going to doctors and having surgeries, etc. is the center of my existence. I don’t want that. I wouldn’t be content with that. And I am determined to have a higher quality of life than that.
To me, life is more about quality than quantity. How long would I like to live? As long as I am feeling well and functioning well and living independently, and staying engaged in the things that I am passionate about, I want to keep waking up in the morning.
I don’t want Medicine intruding on my life. I want as little to do with Medicine as possible. I seriously see it more as a peril than as a savior. And especially in the wake of this Corona crisis, I see Mainstream Medicine as a sick profession, and I do not want to get in their clutches- not at any age.
Will there be a mandatory Corona vaccine?
- Created on Thursday, 07 May 2020 16:52
I see a lot of concern about this on the internet. I think there is going to be a lot of pressure on people to take the vaccine. For instance, in the Military they will require it. Hospitals will also probably require it. As it is, hospitals usually require doctors and nurses to get annual flu shots, so if they’re doing that, they’re likely to add-on Covid. Then, the other place they’ll surely lower the boom is public schools, that you can’t attend one without getting a Covid shot.
I am reminded that here in Austin, Texas, where I live, there is the Waldorf School, a very expensive private school that retains many students, and it seems that vaccination avoidance is a big reason why they go there because vaccination is optional, and 90% of their students aren’t vaccinated, and that includes the children of medical doctors. There is a big anti-vax community in Austin.
So, private school or home schooling may be the only options for parents who don’t want their kids to be Covid-vaccinated.
The only way they could get me to take a Covid shot is if the Gestapo burst into my house, held me down, and jabbed a needle into my arm. Short of that, it’s not going to happen. But, I don’t think it’s going to come to that. How could there be any pretense of freedom in America if they did that? So, I think they will exert pressure as hard as they can, as well as use psychological manipulation and propaganda to push the populace to comply. But, despite that, there will be plenty of people who won’t do it, and far too many for them to even consider outright coercion. That’s what I predict.
But, I might as well give you an update on my latest thinking on Corona. I haven’t changed my mind about that flaky PCR test, which is so shaky and arbitrary and fraught with potential for false positives, that I consider it useless. Now, there is the new antibody test in which they are claiming that if you test positive for Corona antibodies, it is a good thing. It means you’ve gone through the infection, although in most cases asymptomatically, and now you’re immune. But why? In AIDS testing, if you test positive for HIV antibodies, it means you have the infection. Having HIV antibodies is bad. You want a negative HIV antibody test. Likewise in hepatitis, you want a negative antibody test. But, in Corona, they're saying you should want a positive antibody test. What is the explanation for that inconsistency? And it’s not just inconsistent, it’s topsy-turvy; it is contradictory. I’m sure that if pressed they would come up with an explanation, but I assure you that it would just be a rationalization, and they would rather not talk about it.
So, the bottom line for me is that: the antibody test is just as bogus as the PCR test.
But, what about the disease itself? Am I saying that’s bogus too?
In many cases, yes. I’m sure that many people have died of heart disease, lung cancer, or whatever they had apart from Corona. They are at the point now where they are diagnosing anything and everything as Covid-19. It doesn’t have to be SARS. It doesn’t have to be respiratory. The original designation, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome2 needs to be changed to “any illness or the lack thereof accompanied by a positive Corona virus test.” Or, for short: “Something or nothing with indication by a positive test.” SONWIPT, pronounced sun-whipped. So, are you SONWIPT?
The whole idea that this virus can go anywhere, do anything, mimic anything, and cause anything in the whole wide world of pathology is fanciful to the extreme. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? I haven’t. What is going on here is a blind, cult-like allegiance to a God-damn test.
But, let’s go back to the beginning, to how it started, as a respiratory syndrome: a severe acute respiratory syndrome. Is there something to that?
Well, even in those cases, some of those people may have had ordinary colds and flus that are being called Corona, either with or without testing. And remember that when they do a Corona test, they don’t usually do an influenza test in addition. What would they say if a person tested positive for both Corona and the flu? I don’t know, but I suspect they would just call it Corona. Erring on the side of Corona is official policy.
But, there is one thing that gives me pause, and that is: the weird hypoxia they are reporting, where the person has the ability to breathe OK, in terms of their lung function and muscular action, but they aren’t absorbing oxygen very well. And, so their oxygen saturation plummets. They’re saying now that it is due to blood clots in the vascular beds that perfuse the alveoli. Are the clots due to the virus itself? Or are they due to the “cytokine storm” in response to the virus? They don’t know. And I certainly don’t know. I just wish that I could see some of these patients or talk to a doctor who has.
There are two doctors who own a chain of Urgent Care centers in Bakersfield CA, and they have recently gone public saying that the lockdown should end, and they have taken flak for it. But, they were asked about the extremely low oxygen saturation levels like those found in New York, and whether they've seen them, and they said no. They said that the lowest they've seen is in the low 90s. And, they are very connected to the hospitals in Bakersfield, which they say are practically empty. So, what explains the vast difference in Covid cases, clinically and numerically, between New York and Bakersfield?
GRAINS: How I see them
- Created on Thursday, 30 April 2020 04:01
I see that there is a lot of grain-bashing on the internet. It’s a food that people love to hate, whether because they are paleo, keto, carnivorous, raw food, or something else. For me, I see whole grains as a whole natural plant food, and that can’t be all bad. There has got to be a lot worse things that you can eat than whole grains.
However, if God came down and said that of the 5 classes of plant foods (fruits, vegetables, nuts (including nut-like seeds), beans (including dried peas and lentils), and grains) that I could only have 4, that I had to exclude 1, then I would exclude the grains and just eat the fruits, vegetables, nuts, and beans.
So, why exclude the grains? Well, I wouldn’t consider excluding fruits, nuts, or vegetables because they are primordial foods which can be eaten raw or in the case of some vegetables, with simple, easy cooking methods. It would definitely have to be grains or legumes, and I would rather keep the legumes than the grains. I consider legumes much more natural food for humans than grains.
But, how can I say that knowing that legumes are full of phytates, lectins, hemagluttens, digestive inhibitors, etc.? Because proper cooking neutralizes those things, to a very great extent. And Vitamin C counteracts phytic acid, so when you eat a large green salad and a bowl of steamed vegetables with your beans, you’re in the pink.
But, don’t beans give you gas? Let’s be frank; lots of things can give you gas. It’s not as though you are guaranteed not to get gas so long as you don’t eat beans. I get some gas; just a little; not a lot. It’s not a huge problem for me. And I don’t notice that it’s particularly worse when I eat beans. And, I regularly eat beans; I’m used to eating them; and I’m sure my bacterial flora is adapted to eating them. And that helps a lot. Beans are staple foods in cultures all over the world. In Italy, where my family stems, it’s lentils, chickpeas, and Tuscan beans. In Austin, where I live now, Tex-Mex is big, and almost all the restaurants here serve black beans as a side. Throughout the Caribbean, it’s red beans, which is a small red kidney bean. The point is that beans didn’t become staple foods in so many different cultures for being gassy. If you can’t eat beans, maybe the problem is with you and not the beans.
I think of beans as a dried vegetable because that’s how they start out, as a podded vegetable. For example, did you know that you can eat pinto beans as a green bean? And they are delicious! They are much tastier than the green beans you find in the store. They come with a string. That’s where the expression “string bean” comes from. Young people don’t know about it because commercially they stopped growing string beans a long time ago. So, you have to pull the string off pinto bean pods in preparing them. But, it’s worth the trouble because they really are good eating.
Right now, I am growing black-eyed peas in my garden, and I eat them as vegetable. I don’t dry them and shell them. Well, I do some but only to save seed for the following year. When it comes to eating, I eat them fresh; I just steam them up; and I eat everything. I eat the pod; I eat the pea; I eat it all. It’s all edible. I let them develop until it looks like a row of bulging biceps, but it's still green. Then, I harvest them and steam them for 10 minutes, and they really are good. And in that form, they deliver a lot of protein, because there is a well- developed seed there, but because they are still green, you’re also getting Vitamin C, beta carotene, lutein, and a lot of other nutrients. And they are very hardy. I’ve never had any pest problems, and they grow fast. You can see the growth from one day to the next, and that’s easy. Sometimes, I can see the growth from morning to evening. It’s fun to grow blackeyed peas because you can see the vitality pushing out of the ground.
I am so spoiled getting my blackeyed peas this way that I don’t eat them the usual way at all. But, I do eat pinto beans, black beans, lentils and other beans the usual way. Did you know that lentils are one of the first crops cultivated by humans? The same goes for chickpeas. They go back to the Neolithic.
So, to my thinking, a legume is the dried seed of a podded vegetable, and vegetables are primordial foods for humans. But grains, on the other hand, are makeshift foods. They are the seeds of grasses, and obviously, humans don’t eat grass; we aren’t grazers. And it’s likely that human interest in grains, such as wheat and rye, started because cows could graze on them. So, we started growing them for our livestock, and then figured out ways to consume them ourselves.
You know, of course, that some people are sensitive to the gluten in wheat, and for some, it is devastating. I once saw a severe case of Dermatitis Herpetiformis, and it was extreme, with oozing blisters, to where we had to wash the guy’s sheets every day. They treat that condition medically with a drug called Dapsone, which is an antibiotic; but, it is also anti-inflammatory, so that’s why they use it. But, it is quite toxic, and he didn’t want to take it, and I didn’t want him to take it. He ended up fasting with me for 28 days, and his rash cleared up beautifully. I estimate 90%. And he was a very strong faster too; amazingly so.
So, wheat does a number on some people, but on the other hand, they say that the Roman Army conquered the world on a diet of wheat and barley, and the Jewish slaves built the Egyptian Pyramids for the pharaohs also on a wheat-based diet. You can see it in The Ten Commandments. So, wheat intolerance is not universal. I don’t say that everyone has to avoid wheat completely, although there is no good reason to eat a lot of it.
Rice, of course, is the most widely eaten food in the world. For millions of Asians, rice is half or more of their diet. And it’s almost always white rice. The milling of rice goes back to ancient times. Basically, it went straight to white rice. Why do you think that is? I can think of several reasons: 1) the milder, sweeter flavor was more appealing 2) the milder flavor also combined better with other foods without overwhelming them, and 3) the softer texture made white rice much easier to chew and masticate.
And I would like to dwell on that third point. I believe that humans have an instinctual sense about how long foods should be chewed before swallowing. And I suppose it’s not just instinctual but also cultural to some extent. But regardless, it is a programmed thing. And, the fact is: we don’t expect to have to chew foods as much as brown rice needs to be chewed. If you were to examine the brown rice that people swallow, you would see that it is only partly broken down. There are still big chunks of kernels in it that aren’t going to be digested. And for adults, it doesn’t matter too much, and it may even assist them with weight loss. But, the problem is when parents feed whole brown rice to young children. Kids chew foods even less than adults do. So, if you’ve got this young child who is taking a few chomps on her brown rice and then down the hatch, that girl is going to starve. And doctors have reported a lot of growth retardation in children being fed macrobiotic diets high in brown rice.
So, when it comes to young children, if you want to give them brown rice, it should be a brown rice noodle or brown rice hot cereal that is already pulverized. Otherwise, it is not likely to turn out well.
And I have had two dentist-friends tell me that brown rice wears down the teeth more than any other food, where they can spot a brown rice eater on sight. It reminds me of how the ancient Egyptians added sand to their bread flour which ground their teeth down to nubs. I’m not saying that brown rice is as bad as that, but you get the picture.
It’s not just the amount of fiber, but the kind. Beans are very high in fiber, but it’s mostly soluble fiber, and it softens a lot from soaking and cooking. The result is that you can liquefy cooked beans in the amount of time that a person expects to chew. But not so with the insoluble fiber of brown rice. That is some hard stuff.
Then, there is the concern that rice is high in arsenic, and especially brown rice.
So, the bottom line for me is that I don’t eat a lot of rice. Occasionally, I’ll fix some brown rice, but not that often. And when I eat it, I think about the need to chew it and pulverize it completely before swallowing and longer than my instinct would dictate.
Quinoa is a rice-substitute that a lot of people have gone to. It contains toxins known as saponins, but fortunately, they will rinse off if you make a point of it. And quinoa is one of those foods that if you know how to fix it, if you know how to complement it with the right culinary herbs and vegetables and seasonings, you can produce some very tasty dishes. I’ve had quinoa dishes made by great vegan chefs that are absolutely fabulous, and I mean out of this world. But, it does take some know-how.
So, what grains do I eat at home? I eat oatmeal, and I make it fancy with banana, raisins, and homemade nut butter. People like my oatmeal. They often say it’s the best they’ve ever had. I will eat whole grain bread sometimes. Lately, I have been eating this Ezikeal pita bread. These are the ingredients:
Organic 100% Stone Ground Whole Wheat Flour, Water, Fresh Carrots, Barley Flour, Millet Flour, Lentil Flour, Spelt Flour, Soy Flour, Fresh Yeast, Sea Salt.
And I keep some organic whole wheat linguini around, but I don’t cook it very often. And If I’m going to eat wheat, I won’t eat it at more than one meal. I don’t want to push my luck.
But, the bottom line for me is that I value beans much more than I do grains, and if I had to give up one or the other, it would definitely be the grains. And if anyone asks me if they have to eat grains, I say, “No, you don’t. You can be completely well nourished without them.”
- Created on Thursday, 23 April 2020 03:27
I notice that there is a lot of interest online in restricting eating hours so that there is a rather long fasting interval every single day. So, if you don’t eat from, say 8 PM in the evening until Noon the next day, that’s 16 hours of abstinence every day. And it’s significant.
Of course, the effect would not begin immediately because the food you ate until 8 pm would take a while to digest and be absorbed. But, if your body is done with that by midnight, then it’s 12 hours of uninterrupted stable blood sugar, low insulin, etc. So, what are the advantages?
First note that many people who follow the one meal a day plan, where they are eating all day long. And that, I think, is very bad. It’s bad for blood sugar control, weight control, and it’s also bad for digestion. You want to give your body a digestive task, a “meal” if you will, and then leave it alone for at least 4 hours so that it can work on it, adjust its secretions and its peristalsis to it, and efficiently handle the whole thing. But, if you eat a meal and then you start eating again soon afterwards, it may be like throwing a monkey wrench in there. There are numerous gastroenterologists for whom half their practice consists of patients with vague digestive symptoms that they label spastic colon or irritable bowel, but often, it’s just a matter of erratic and excessive eating. These patients may need to just eat less and eat less often.
So, whether you do the extended nighttime fast thing and eat just 2 meals a day, or if you eat 3 meals a day, don’t exceed that. Don’t divide your eating into more sessions than that. Having intervals of abstinence between meals is important, and you should respect it.
When I was in college at UCLA in the early 1970s, I worked at the County Courthouse in Van Nuys, California. It was a very boring job. I was mostly stamping things, filing things, and looking up things. And there were plenty of others, just sitting at a desk, doing some kind of paperwork that was boring as hell. So, they would make it tolerable by eating. People would bring in snacks and treats to share and pass around, and as I recall, it seems like they were eating all day. As you can imagine, it involved a lot of fat people, and also unhealthy people who complained about their aches and pains and swollen ankles, etc.
I realize that there are animals that pretty much graze all day, particularly those who eat a very low density diet, and that includes gorillas. But when it comes to humans, particularly adult humans, and particularly adult humans who are not trying to get larger and heavier, just eating at meals, either 2 or 3 a day is the best plan.
I have known people who have tried to get by eating just 1 meal day, and some claim to have done it for long periods. But, I don’t recommend that for the reason that it’s likely that the person will eat too much at once, and particularly if they know they won’t be eating again for 24 hours. It’s important to just eat until you feel “smug.” That’s a word with a dual meaning, and most often, people use it to mean stuck-up and full of oneself. But, the other meaning of smug is “comfortably satisfied.” So, you shouldn’t eat until you are stuffed. You shouldn’t wait to put your fork down until you know you can’t take another bite because you are literally stuffed. Rather, you should stop eating when you are comfortably satisfied.
So, if you want to try the 2 meal a day plan, I think the best meal to skip is breakfast. Most people are not that hungry in the morning anyway. In fact, some people have no appetite at all in the morning. So, why should they force themselves to eat? It’s ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with waiting until later in the day to start eating. And if your health is good, it should involve absolutely no impediment to having an active morning, whether working, playing, or exercising.
So if you wait until Noon to eat “brunch” and then have dinner at 6, you’ll be creating that long window of abstinence that daily fast which does benefit the body in many ways. I mentioned the stable blood sugar and low insulin levels. But, that’s not the only thing that remains stable. Most people, the way they eat, put in a big sodium load every time they have a meal. So, their kidneys have to swiftly clear that excess sodium out, and it’s a bit of a strain, believe me. But better that they do it twice a day than three times.
Another thing that happens is that your digestive system gets a long time to repair and replenish itself. There are glands called holocrine glands that get destroyed when they release their secretions, and the whole gland has to be rebuilt. That takes time. So, it does help to let the body do that between meals.
And let’s remember too that reducing the frequency of eating is likely to reduce daily caloric consumption. And unless you are a skinny person who is trying to gain weight, that is good, good, good, good, good.
So, the bottom line for me is: have either 2 or 3 meals a day and don’t eat between meals, and don’t eat at night after you’ve had your dinner. No noshing while you watch tv. That’s a habit you just have to break. But, there is no reason you can’t be flexible about breakfast. If you wake up with a roaring appetite, go ahead and have breakfast that day. But, on another day, if you realize that you really aren’t hungry that morning, wait until later to eat. There’s no reason not to make it as easy and painless as possible.
But, whatever you do: respect the intervals of abstinence between meals. Don’t be grazing all day long. Your stomach isn’t going to like it, and your peristalsis is going to go haywire.