For the first time, Dr. Andy Kaufman and Dr. Sam Bailley have done a Covid podcast together.  Sam must be short for Samantha because "Dr. Sam" is a woman. She is from New Zealand, and I have been following her for a long time, and I mean long before Covid. And what I noticed about her with Covid is that her thinking seemed to evolve. She didn't start off being as "radical" as she is now. And I know she wasn't hobnobbing with the likes of Dr. Andy Kaufman either early-on. So, she really traveled in her thinking and became willing to stand up to the medical establishment- in New Zealand and around the world. And the New Zealand medical establishment has been harassing her. So, she is a very brave woman, and she is really becoming a leader in the resistance movement about Covid tyranny. 

It starts with them talking about so-called virus isollation, and Dr. Andy points out that when they do the genome of a person, they take hisor or her DNA and analyze it. But, they don't do that with viruses. They just take the whole secretion of lung fluid from a person, which they presume contains the virus, and then see if it can make a cell culture damaged or sick. But, there is no "isolation" of anything. On the contrary, it is an extremely complex and multi-faceted substance that contains many different things, including many different sources of genetic material, including bacteria, molds, fungi, and of course, the person's own DNA.

"If you want to determine if a virus is harmful to a cell culture, you need to add just the virus to it, not a host of things."  That makes sense, doesn't it?

Then, he points out that the reason they don't do it the sensible way- by isolating the virus from the host and applying it to the test culture- is because they can't. He said they tried for over a decade to do it. Not with Covid, of course, because it hasn't been around for a decade, but with other viruses, and they couldn't do it, and they gave up.

Then, they discussed the work of Dr. StefanLLanka, who did controlled experiments that duplicated the viral studies except leaving out the addition of the so-called virus, and he got the same cytopathic effects.

Then, when they got to talking about how Medicine determines the genomic sequence of viruses, they put it succinctly: “they make it up.”  What they do is start with lung fluid again. They find fragments of nucleic acids in it, and I mean short fragments of 100 or 150 nitrogenous bases. And keep in mind that the virus supposedly has 30,000 sequenced in its whole genome. But, they have machines that can only identify the order of these bases in short fragments. So, they analyze a bunch of them, and then, they turn it all over to a computer. An “algorithm” is what does it. They think the computer can accurately extrapolate from whatever small fragments they provide, and remember that there is a multitude of different sources of genetic material in that lung fluid. But, the algorithm will eventually spit out a sequence of 30,000 or more nucleotides which presumably corresponds to the virus.

If I said it was arcane, it would be a gross understatement. The same goes for presumptuous. What it really is is a pseudo-scientific cult. It’s all based on nothing but a computer simulation! And Dr. Sam points out  that people that they are taking this virus out “end to end” and putting it under a microscope and seeing what it contains. But, they are doing no such thing.

And then, virologists multiply the presumptuousness by saving up a data bank of viral genomes that were created in this duplicitous manner, and using them as “indices” to confirm the genome of other new viruses. Of, if not a totally new virus, a new “variant” of a previously assigned virus. And that is how they come up with all these Covid variants that you hear so much about, and it’s madness.  

At the end, they talk about Dr. Sam’s journey from being a free-thinking and skeptical physician to being a complete and total heretic, as she is today. And of course, Dr. Andy is too. They are both two very courageous doctors, and they are both among my heroes.

You may have to cut and paste this link:



















Most people think of smug as meaning conceited, self-adulating, and feeling superior to others, but that is not the original meaning of the word. Smug meant that you were satisfied not with yourself but within yourself. It meant that you didn’t need anything; that you were content and comfortable.

“Do you want some more?”

“Nope. I’m smug.”

And I will tell you that smug is more than a word. Smug refers to a distinct physiological sensation. It’s the feeling that you’ve had enough to eat. And, it doesn’t come from being physically full, from feeling that you don’t have a bit of room left in your stomach for any more food. The feeling of smugness comes before fullness, and it is more subtle than fullness.

So, what is the feeling of smugness? It’s partly related to the capacity of the stomach, where you feel you’ve done enough filling, but it’s not that you couldn't eat another bite. It’s more that you know you don’t need to eat another bite.

So, the feeling of smugness is more about realizing that you are sated, that you don’t need any more satisfaction from eating, at this time, because you are already satisfied.

But, as I said, smugness is more subtle than fullness, and if you haven’t paid attention to it for a long time, it may be off your physiological and psychological radar. In other words, you are used to blowing past smugness and continuing to eat all the way to fullness, and fullness is the only inhibiting sensation you experience when it comes to eating.

And that is a bad thing, first, because it involves over-eating, and we know that reducing calories is the most proven and effective life extension technique. But secondly, it taxes the stomach because if you eat until you’re full, where you are literally stuffed, your body has to add digestive secretions to the contents, so a half-hour to an hour later, you may be really uncomfortable. And if you do it chronically, you could wind up with chronic digestive problems and start supporting gastroenterologists, who are a very wily group of doctors, in my opinion. I have no appreciation for their remedies.

So, eating less and stopping when you get to smugness is the best thing you can do for your stomach and digestive system.  

But, what should you do if you just don’t feel connected to the feeling of smugness? Well, you should try to get it back, and here’s what I recommend.

First, learn to eat slowly. Eating fast almost guarantees that you are going to blow past smugness and not even notice it.

Second, ignore the amount of food on your plate. I come from a family in which it was considered a sin not to clean your plate. I don’t know how many times, as a boy, that I was reminded about the starving Armenians, but it was a lot. We were expected to clean our plate. But, that is a false virtue if there ever was one, and whether you do it or not will not have any effect on the Armenians.

Third, consciously think about your relation to the food and your perspective about it. How strong really is the impulse to put that next bite of food in your mouth? Are you just doing it because it’s there? Or are you just doing it because other people at the table are still eating? There is a distinct feeling of knowing that you don’t need to take that extra bite, that you’re good without it. That’s smugness, and that’s when you put your fork down.

Fourth, really make it a personal ambition. Have the mindset at the start of the meal that you are going to try very hard to eat to smugness and then stop, regardless of whether you feel physically full and regardless of anything else. And let me tell you: you’ll feel good about yourself the times that you do it. And I’m saying that as someone who comes from a long line of over-eaters. They used to say, when I was young, that there is no way the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet could make a profit on us- or even break even.

So, I admit that I wrestle with it too, but I know it’s good for my digestive health and my overall health, and even my longevity if I get in touch with my smugness and heed it. 

So, forget about the common usage of the word and realize that: it’s good to be smug.

Eight fully vaccinated players from the New York Yankees have tested positive for Covid, plus three coaches, plus four members of the team’s traveling staff. That’s 15 people, and I don’t know how many got physically ill, but at least one did.

Very quickly, the damage control set in, explaining why this isn’t a bad thing and why it doesn’t negate the effectiveness of the vaccine.

But, think about it logically: if you can still catch Covid despite being vaccinated, then you can still pass it along. And that means that there is no basis to expect the pandemic to end.

If the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection, then it doesn’t halt the spread of the disease.  And exactly why, if after making your DNA produce the “spike protein” from the virus, to which your immune cells make antibodies against, why doesn’t it prevent infection? And if the antibodies, resulting from the vaccine, can’t stop the virus from infecting you, then why assume they protect you at all?  

And remember what they told us in the past. They said that even asymptomatic positives are sick. They may not feel sick, but they are sick, that they show the same “ground glass opacities” on their CT scans as those who are symptomatic.  

Aug. 11, 2020 -- A big chunk of people who catch COVID-19 -- maybe as many as 40%, by some estimates -- never develop noticeable symptoms.

They don’t run a fever. They don’t cough or feel short of breath, and they don’t get the strange panoply of other symptoms that can herald a COVID-19 infection like frostbite-like bumps on the skin, diarrhea, or the loss of smell or taste.

“It's a very big portion of people, and although they are silent without symptoms, internally, they are taking hits in there inside their body so they don't even know it,” says Eric Topol, MD, the founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, CA. 

Researchers who have scanned the hearts and lungs of people who tested positive for COVID-19, but never felt ill, have seen telltale signs of distress.

In the lungs, scientists have reported cloudy white areas called “ground glass opacities” in asymptomatic patients. Ground glass opacities are also seen patients with more severe COVID-19.

Across four different studies of people with asymptomatic infections, about half have had ground glass opacities on CT scans.

One of those was a study of passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined for 2 weeks off the coast of Japan. Ultimately, 712 passengers -- out of 3,700 on board -- tested positive. Almost half of them, 331, had no symptoms. Of those, 76 had their lungs examined by CT scan for a study. More than half had ground glass opacities, though they didn’t show as much damage as people who had symptoms.

Aileen Marty, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, says the hazy areas indicate inflammation. It’s a sign that the lung is sick. She has seen it for herself. In her hospitals, 67% of people who don’t feel ill but test positive for COVID-19 have some changes in their lungs that can be seen on CT scans.

Dr. Cinque: So, what about all these positive-testing Yankees? Is it going to be the same for them? Are they going to do CT scans on all of them and look for those ground glass opacities?

I think this challenges not only the effectiveness of the vaccine but the validity of the whole paradigm on which it’s based.  And it also raises a big question about the validity of the test on which it’s based, and I presume they are doing the pcr test since it’s considered the “gold standard.”

By the way, I was tested for Covid recently; I had to; in order to be allowed on the film set of His Stretch of Texas Ground. And my test came back negative. I don’t know which test they did on me, but they did not swab my nasal cavity deeply; they just swabbed inside my mouth. But, whatever test it was, it came back negative.

But, this is ridiculous. They’re strapping, young, athletic baseball players who were fully vaccinated, and I’m an unvaccinated 70 year old man; yet, they test positive, and I don’t. 

And keep in mind that if the results were different, if none of the vaccinated tested positive, that would have been heralded as a good thing. But, this result is also a good thing. So, it, and the opposite of it, both mean the same thing, that the vaccine is working.

Bull shit. The only thing working here is the spin machine. They’re spinning like crazy.

It’s all one gigantic dogmatic cult, and that to me is scary as hell. It's like we're living in the Twilight Zone. 





Now, with the Covid vaccination campaign well underway, the results are coming in, and the reporting of adverse events has been record-setting. And of course, “adverse events” include suspicious deaths, and there have been over 3400 reported. That is far more than the number of deaths that led to the aborting of the Swine Flu vaccination campaign in 1976.

However, not surprisingly, the CDC denies that any of those deaths were caused by the Covid vaccine- even though quite a few of them involved relatively young people who had no life-threatening illnesses, and who died very soon after getting the vaccine, and who, simply, fell apart immediately after getting it.

Since there was nothing else bearing down on these people as a health threat, what else could it have been that killed them? And frankly, there aren’t that many things that can cause sudden death.  Heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism, severe cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest, fulminant infection; what else? So, if it appeared that the person died from the vaccine, and you want to find out what else it could have been that killed the, you know what to look for and what rule out. And, once you rule out the alternatives, which would be easy enough to do, then you really have no choice, as I see it, but to admit that the vaccine killed them.

But, the CDC is doing nothing and will do nothing to make those confirmations. They’re just going to leave it that the vaccine hasn’t killed anybody because it hasn’t been proven that it has, and they are going to continue vaccinating, in earnest.

You may or may not know that I am a filmmaker. My first film, My Stretch of Texas Ground, is streaming on Amazon and Tubi, and it is the first and only anti-war feature film of the 21st century.  In my second film, His Stretch of Texas Ground, which is soon to be released, one of the stars was Jeff Caperton. In fact, I also cast Jeff in my third film, The Pro Bono Watchman, which is now in post-production. But, Jeff put this up on Facebook the other day.


 Of course, the disclaimer at the bottom was added by Facebook. I don’t know if Jeff has reported his adverse event to VAERS, but I doubt it. And I suspect that a great many people who suffered ill-effects from the vaccine didn’t report it because many people don’t.

But, I want you to think about the double standard involved. Because: on the diagnostic side, if a person has symptoms and they get a Covid test, and it comes back positive, it’s assumed that Covid is responsible. And if that symptom hasn’t been seen with Covid before, then it’s a new thing that Covid can cause- and Covid can cause anything.  So, they’re willing to make the assumption of “causality” on the diagnostic side wily-nily. But, when it comes to acknowledging ill-effects to the vaccine, they have dug in, and they are going to do it.

And, I’ll tell you honestly that I predicted that this was going to happen, that this time, no number of apparent deaths from the vaccine would cause them to stop. I said that no matter what, they were going to go all out and all in.

I want to close by giving you the link to a wonderful video on Youtube by Dr. Sam Bailey, who is a woman. In fact, she is a very beautiful woman, if that’s any incentive. It’s called:  2020: The Year Medicine Lost Contact. It’s a critique of Medicine’s role in fanning the flames of Covid hysteria and the extreme and destructive measures that followed from that hysteria. And it’s more that that; she addresses the whole sordid and corrupt history of Virology, and she shows how this “science” is really pure dogma. Here’s the link. You may have to cut and paste it.


The fact is that kidney stones are very common, and the most common kind of kidney stones are calcium oxalate stones. These form when oxalic acid and calcium bind together forming the salt, calcium oxalate. The chemical affinity of these two substances to come together is very strong.

So, it would seem to make sense to avoid oxalic acid as much as you can. However, it’s not easy to do because oxalic acid occurs widely. It’s in practically all fruits and vegetables, though in widely varying amounts. The foods with the highest content of it are spinach and chard. And of the two, you know how popular spinach is. Once they started selling it in plastic bags, pre-washed, it started flying off the shelves. It used to be that you could only buy spinach in bunches that were loaded with dirt and sand. You had to soak and rinse it 3x to get it clean. But, those days are gone, and I don’t miss them.

But, does spinach, because of its high oxalic acid content, cause kidney stones?  The answer is: not usually. I’m sure that if you took a poll of kidney stone patients in the hospital, you would find out that most kidney stone patients eat no more spinach than average and often less than average. There are people who get kidney stones who don’t eat any spinach at all.

So, how do they get them? The body generates oxalic acid as a product of its own metabolism. You might say that it's a waste product. And, the way the body breaks down Vitamin C is to convert it to oxalic acid. Think of all the people who take thousands of milligrams of Vitamin C every day. Yet, you almost never hear of them getting kidney stones.

What I’m saying is that even though there is an epidemic of kidney stones, spinach-eating has very little to do with it, and in many cases, nothing to do with it.

Then, what is going on? I think we need to look at the other side of the equation: the calcium. It takes two to tango. When people have high urinary calcium, they will tend to form calcium oxalate kidney stones. I’m saying that the thing driving it is the calcium.

Many people have high urinary calcium from eating a high protein diet, and particularly a lot of meat. It’s been known for decades that high-meat diets cause high urinary calcium.

It’s easy to test your urine for calcium. Anyone can do it. You get this reagent called Sulcowitch Reagent and add it to the urine. You shake it. Then, you see if the urine turns cloudy. If it does, it indicates high calcium. One of the components of it is oxalic acid.

So, people wind up with high urinary calcium from eating high protein diets. What about talking calcium supplements? Does that contribute to the problem? I don’t have a definitive answer, but I’ll tell you that I don’t take calcium supplements. Unless you are extremely frail with brittle bones, I don’t think it’s worth it to take them. And, the whole idea that I need 1200 or 1500 mgs. of calcium each day to keep my bone strong is nonsense. I suspect I get about 500 mgs a day from my diet, and that’s plenty. I don’t want any more. I'm too aware of how pervasive pathological calcinosis is. And my bones? Like my muscles, they’re strong.  I have no doubt that my  bones are getting all the calcium they need.

So, I really want to emphasize that with normal consumption of spinach and chard, there is nothing to worry about. I buy spinach regularly and eat it several times a week. Chard, I do not buy as often, but I buy it occasionally, and in the fall, I grow swiss chard. I eat it out of my garden from October to April. I find that it’s much easier to grow swiss chard than it is spinach, plus, it’s such a beautiful vegetable. It really brightens up the garden.

However, it would be remiss of me not to point out that there are exceptions. I heard about a woman who went on a green juice fast in which she was drinking copious amounts of spinach juice. She was also taking copious amounts of Vitamin C, and as I told you, it converts to oxalic acid. The result was that she formed so much calcium oxalate, it shut her kidneys down completely, and she had to go on dialysis.

So, at the extremes of spinach consumption, it could be dangerous. Therefore, don’t do it. Don’t make a whole salad out of spinach. Just add a few leaves. And if you include spinach in your vegetable juice cocktail, just use a little spinach.  

Note that when you steam spinach, 30 to 40% of the oxalic acid winds up in the pot liquor, which you should discard.  I eat spinach both cooked and raw. I always add cooked spinach to my pasta, and it’s delicious. It’s so delicious, they even make pasta with spinach infused in it.

So, the idea of avoiding spinach completely because of the oxalic acid, I do not find appealing at all. But, being cognizant of the potential danger, I know I need to be moderate in my spinach consumption, and I am. I have never had a kidney stone, and I have every expectation of getting through my whole life without ever having that problem. 



I am posting an open letter from a Canadian physician about his experience vaccinating his patients in the small town of Lytton, British Columbia.

On the one hand, I applaud him for voicing his concerns and honestly reporting his experience with the Covid vaccine, as a physician. However, much of what he says was known before he started vaccinating his patients. So, I would applaud him even more if he had refused to give the vaccine.  

What is he going to do going forward? Is he going to continue vaccinating people who want it, despite knowing what he does? Is he going to administer second shots to those who got the first shot? Or, is he going to tell them what he knows and what he’s seen and tell them that they will have to go elsewhere if they still want it? I hope it’s the latter, but he doesn’t say.

Despite the high rate of serious adverse effects he reports, including one fatality, I realize that there are many people who have gotten the vaccine and experienced nothing more than a sore arm for a couple days and maybe some brief flu-like symptoms. One should not assume that they are out of the woods. We need to distinguish between immediate adverse effects and long-term adverse effects. The percentage of people who are being harmed by this “vaccine” is very likely 100%. Now, here is his letter:

To Dr. Bonnie Henry, Provincial Health Officer, B.C.

re: Moderna Vaccine Reactions

Dr. Charles D. Hoffe, BSc, MB, BCh, LMCC
Lytton Medical Clinic
Lytton BC

The first dose of the Moderna vaccine has now been administered to some of my patients in the community of Lytton, BC. This began with the First Nations members of our community in mid-January, 2021. 900 doses have now been administered.

I have been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment.
From this relatively small number of people vaccinated so far, we have had:

Numerous allergic reactions, with two cases of anaphylaxis.
One (presumed) vaccine induced sudden death, (in a 72 year old patient with COPD. This patient complained of being more short of breath continually after receiving the vaccine, and died very suddenly and unexpectedly on day 24, after the vaccine. He had no history of cardiovascular disease).
Three people with ongoing and disabling neurological deficits, with associated chronic pain, persisting for more than 10 weeks after their first vaccine. These neurological deficits include: continual and disabling dizziness, generalized or localized neuromuscular weakness, with or without sensory loss. The chronic pain in these patients is either generalized or regional, with or without headaches.

So in short, in our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age.

So I have a couple of questions and comments:

Are these considered normal and acceptable long-term side effects for gene modification therapy? Judging by medical reports from around the world, our Lytton experience is not unusual.

Do you have any idea what disease processes may have been initiated, to be producing these ongoing neurological symptoms?

Do you have any suggestions as to how I should treat the vaccine-induced neurological weakness, the dizziness, the sensory loss, and the chronic pain syndromes in these people, or should they be all simply referred to a neurologist? I anticipate that many more will follow, as the vaccine is rolled out. This was only phase one, and the first dose.

In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with Covid-19. So, in our limited experience, this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than Covid-19.

I realize that every medical therapy has a risk/benefit ratio, and that serious disease calls for serious medicine. But we now know that the recovery rate of Covid-19, is similar to the seasonal flu, in every age category.

Furthermore, it is well known that the side effects following a second shot, are significantly worse than the first. So, the worst is still to come.
It must be emphasized that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease. These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.

It is normally considered a fundamental principal of medical ethics, to discontinue a clinical trial if significant harm is demonstrated from the treatment under investigation.

So my last question is this: Is it medically ethical to continue this vaccine rollout, in view of the severity of these life-altering side-effects, after just the first shot? In Lytton, BC, we have an incidence of 1 in 225 of severe life altering side effects, from this experimental gene modification therapy.

I have also noticed that these vaccine-induced side effects are going almost entirely unreported, by those responsible for the vaccine rollout. I am aware that this is often a problem, with vaccines in general, and that delayed side-effects after vaccines, are sometimes labelled as being “coincidences”, as causality is often hard to prove. However, in view of the fact that this is an experimental treatment, with no long-term safety data, I think that perhaps this issue should be addressed too.

Furthermore, I have noticed, that the provincial vaccine injury reporting form, which was clearly designed for conventional vaccines, does not even have any place to report vaccine injuries of the nature and severity that we are seeing from this new mRNA therapy.

It is now clearly apparent with medical evidence from around the world, that the side effect profiles of the various gene modification therapies against Covid-19, have been vastly understated by their manufacturers, who were eager to prove their safety.

Thank you for attention to this critically urgent public health matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Charles Hoffe



It was recently reported that when cardiologists met in Washington DC for a long conference- so they were away from their practices, not treating people- that the fatality rate for heart disease fell. And it’s not the first time that’s happened. And it’s happened in other countries besides the U.S., including Israel.

The explanation goes that that the reduction in elective cardiac procedures, which can be fatal, saved lives. But, my take on it is that just about everything that cardiologists do is detrimental, and the world would be better off without them. Seriously.

Now, I realize that it would mean that some individuals would die from lack of care. But, what I’m saying is that a much greater number of people would live from a lack of care; that they kill more than they save.

So, let’s look at Cardiology in the aggregate. First, there is all the cholesterol treating, where they are drugging people just for having a high cholesterol number, and for no other reason, that is, for no other sign of heart disease except a high cholesterol number. Cholesterol is a vital substance with a broad array of functions, and you can’t possibly live without it. The idea that there is anything inherently toxic about having more cholesterol in your blood is ridiculous. But, let’s look at it mathematically. If your total cholesterol is say 210, you’re likely to be put on a statin. If it’s 160, you’re likely to be told that it’s about right. Why should a 25% reduction of the level of cholesterol in your blood make any difference to whether or not plaquing is going on in your arteries? If there is enough cholesterol in your blood to promote plaquing at 210, I guarantee you there’s enough there to promote plaquing at 160. Plaquing is a pathological process that involves inflammation and a lot more cholesterol. The idea that the quantitative level of cholesterol in the blood is what’s driving the pathogenicity is ridiculous. And the statin drugs that they use for it are very harmful. They promote diabetes and dementia, among other things. All this is malpractice on a massive scale.

What about coronary bypass operations? On angiogram, they see a complete blockage in one or more coronary arteries, so immediately they want to get the person under the knife. But wait! If the person is sitting there and not keeling over, and often not even having chest pain, then obviously, the body has found a way to get blood to that part of the heart. It’s called collateral circulation involving small vessels that don’t show up on an angiogram.

The coronary bypass operation is a Frankensteinian procedure where they split your chest open, stop your heart and lungs, where your blood is circulated through a heart/lung machine while the surgeon is operating. However, the lining of the heart/lung machine can’t prevent blood clots as well as the endothelium, and as a result little clots form, a lot of them, which go on to give you strokes.

Put it this way: I would never submit to that operation no matter what was going on with me and no matter what they told me. I would flip them the bird and walk out

Just recently we learned that elective stenting that is done to open blood vessels is a complete waste, that the death rate is as high or higher in those who get stented than in those who don’t get stented. Those who had sham operations did no worse than those who got the real thing.

What about arrhythmias? There are NO good arrhythmia drugs. You are better off living with your arrhythmia than taking any of them. A very common arrhythmia is atrial fibrillation, and that they usually treat with powerful blood thinners. But, keep in mind that it’s just a prophylactic thing. The way the blood swirls when you have a-fib increases the risk of clot formation, which is why they prescribe these blood thinners. However, plenty of people live with a-fib for years without taking blood thinners and without suffering; without having any catastrophes.

I don’t have a-fib, and hopefully, I never will. But, if I did have it, I certainly wouldn’t take any prescription blood thinners. I might take a baby aspirin. I’d be open to that; but nothing stronger. And obviously, I don’t need a doctor to get that. I can just buy it at Walmart for $6. And of course, I would eat a healthy plant-based diet: fruits, vegetables, greens, nuts, beans.  That’s it. The rest of their drugs they can shove.

What about treating high blood pressure? Well, it depends on how high it is. If it’s just say 20 points high, say in the 140s systolic, you don’t need to treat that with drugs. That should be a wake-up call to start living right, with your diet, exercise, weight control, ditching bad habits, etc. The only time to even consider taking drugs for blood pressure is if it is dangerously high, where it’s obvious that the symptomatic person is on the verge of a stroke. That’s just a tiny percentage of the people with hypertension. Most of them can access the lifestyle approach, and it will be much better for them than starting drugs. I’m talking about the middle-aged person for whom hypertension is diagnosed at a routine checkup, where there is no emergency, nothing dire going on, and perhaps nothing at all going on, and yet, the doctor starts the person on anti-hypertensive drugs with the intention of keeping them on them for the rest of their life. I cannot adequately express my outrage at that kind of medical practice.

So, Cardiologists! Take lots of vacations. Retire early. Take up golf. The less you have to do with people the better. Whether you know it or not, you’re a menace. I can live without your miracles. I can live a hell of a lot better with them.


It was announced today that 89 vaccinated people in Minnesota came down with Covid. Right away, of course, damage control set in, and the excuses were hurled. So far, one  them have died, but some are in the hospital.

Now, keep in mind that this is among people who were “fully” vaccinated. What that means is that they received both doses of the vaccine, and two weeks had passed after the second one, to give the body time to make antibodies.

The state director of infectious diseases,  Kris Ehresmann, said that since the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 95% effective, we should expect to see about 5 cases among every 100 people who are fully vaccinated.  Here is exactly what she said:

"Remember, a 95% effective vaccine still means we could expect to see infections in around 5 of every 100 people who get the vaccine."

But wait! That is ridiculous! It’s ridiculous because it assumes that all 100 people were destined to get Covid. But, that’s not true.

According to the CDC, the latest percent positive rate, which is for last week, was 4.2%. So, that means that out of 100 random people, right around 4 would test positive for Covid. And even before there was any vaccine, the typical percent positive rate was around 5 percent.

In Minnesota, the positivity rate was only 3.5% a month ago, and it has jumped to 4.6%, despite a month of vaccinating.  

Remember: the vast majority of people don’t get Covid- even without a vaccine.

So, if 5 out of every 100 vaccinated people get Covid, that means that it isn’t protecting at all.

A state epidemiologist tried to put the blame on a variant. “A more infectious viral variant known as B.1.1.7 is widespread in Minnesota, threatening to undermine the state's vaccination progress,” said Dr. Ruth Lynfield, state epidemiologist. "At this point, it is a race to vaccinate more people vs. the growth of variant cases."

But, there are many variants, and who is to say that there won’t be more? Do you know about the arcade game Whac-A-Mole? That’s what they’re playing.

Covid hospitalizations have also increased in Minnesota over the last month, despite the vaccination campaign.

We are in the Bizarro World. The Freak Bizarro World. The testing is bogus. The vaccinating is bogus. It is doing nothing but harm. The diagnosing is bogus. They are attributing anything and everything to Covid- a respiratory virus- so long as there’s a positive test result.

This is lunacy. Heaven help us.







More Articles...