Stan Bleszynski's heretical ideas on science, optimal human nutrition etc.
@stanble
2008 - Age of Awakening / 2016 - Age of disclosures / 2021 - Age of Making Choices & Separation / Next Stage - Age of Reconnection and Transition! / 2024 - Two millenia-old Rational Collectivist societal cycle gives way to the Self-Empowered Individualism. / 2025 Golden Age begins Global narratives and "theories of everything" are always false! Only Personal Narrative is true!
Showing posts with label medical-conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medical-conspiracy. Show all posts
By Hillary Thornton
Published: Jan. 26, 2017 at 2:10 PM PST
Since October of 2015 Amish farmer, Samuel Girod has been facing a 12-count federal indictment. The charges against him include conspiracy, distributing misbranded drugs, and threatening a witness.
Girod's troubles started back in 2013 when someone reported his products to the state health department in Missouri.
A federal judge in Missouri put an injunction in place, banning Girod from making some of his products until he met certain conditions. Part of those conditions were inspections of the property where Girod made his products which is where Kentucky comes into play.
Girod's makes his products on the family farm along Satterfield Lane in Bath County. The farm is home to Girod and his wife, along with their 12 children and 25 grandchildren.
"They are just devastated. I mean when they brought him out in handcuffs. It was awful," said family friend, Sally Oh.
One product at the center of the lengthy indictment is Girod's Chickweed salve.
"Its ingredients include rosemary, beeswax, olive oil," explained Oh.
"It said 'Chickweed Salve' up top, then on down said 'Cures Cancer.' Which for some people it did, but he can't say that. So he changed it to say 'Healing Chickweed,' but they said no you can't say healing. So now it just says 'Original Chickweed,'" explained Oh.
Moody said, "I mean do you go to jail because you've messed up a label on a product? I thought you went to jail because you did something bad. I mean he mislabeled something? I doubt he knew any better."
The FDA says Girod also passed out pamphlets touting his products' effectiveness in treating various conditions. It is because of those claims that under the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act the FDA says the products are defined as a drug even though multiple tests confirm the products do not contain drugs.
Please take a minute to understand that increasing the strength of association, as time passes after the event causing the association (vaccination), is very unusual very worrisome
What is going on? The clock is ticking; unvaccinated people are not really getting vaccinated anymore. And yet, as time goes on, more and more excess deaths are explained by vaccination rate (49% in weeks 20-44, instead of 27% 10 weeks prior). Vaccination rate, for the most part, refers to vaccinations that happened in the relatively distant past, a year ago or so. Something is happening in the bodies of people who were mostly vaccinated over a year ago that increases the degree of that association of vaccines vs. deaths as time goes on!
Stop. This is NOT normal.
Consider a typical poison like rat poison. Let’s say that a careless cook accidentally sprinkled varying amounts of rat poison over the salads of restaurant visitors. Some received more, some less, so some would die of rat poison. It would be understandable to expect that “restaurant visit” was associated with “excess mortality” of unfortunate diners within the first week or two after the visit. A year later, though, we would not be expecting any such relationship as the effects of poison wear off.
However, the association of vaccination (distant past event) with mortality (present event) is increasing as time goes on!
What could explain it? To be honest, I am not certain. I can offer two explanations:
Vaccination has a delayed effect that causes excess mortality to increase. Regular poisons do not do that. Carcinogens do exactly that. They set a chain of biological processes in motion that lead to increased mortality down the road.
Vaccination had negative AND positive effects on mortality, and the positive effects are wearing out. Covid vaccines did, a while ago, provide some protection from Covid deaths. However, as time went on, that protection dwindled. So, as protective effects dwindle and negative effects continue, the explanatory power of vaccinations may be increasing.
Abstract
Objective: To describe outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the outpatient setting after early treatment with zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin (the triple therapy) dependent on risk stratification. Design: Retrospective case series study. Setting: General practice. Participants: 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the year 2020. Main Outcome Measures: Risk-stratified treatment decision, rate of hospitalization and all-cause death. Results: Of 335 positively PCR-tested COVID-19 patients, 127 were treated with the triple therapy. 104 of 127 met the defined risk stratification criteria and were included in the analysis. In addition, 37 treated and eligible patients who were confirmed by IgG tests were included in the treatment group (total N=141). 208 of the 335 patients did not meet the risk stratification criteria and were not treated. After 4 days (median, IQR 3-6, available for N=66/141) of onset of symptoms, 141 patients (median age 58 years, IQR 40-60; 73% male) got a prescription for the triple therapy for 5 days. Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients of the same community were used as untreated control. 4 of 141 treated patients (2.8%) were hospitalized, which was significantly less (p less than 0.001) compared with 58 of 377 untreated patients (15.4%) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5). Therefore, the odds of hospitalization of treated patients were 84% less than in the untreated group. One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16). There were no cardiac side effects. Conclusions: Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset with the used triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.
(CNN)A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed.
A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said Thursday their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die.
Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. The team looked back at everyone treated in the hospital system since the first patient in March.
"Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the azithromycin alone group, and 26.4% for neither drug," the team wrote in a report published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
...
It's a surprising finding because several other studies have found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, a drug originally developed to treat and prevent malaria. President Donald Trump touted the drug heavily, but later studies found not only did patients not do better if they got the drug, they were more likely to suffer cardiac side effects....
Comment (by Heretic): some of those negative studies that resulted in governments of many countries and WHO abandoning this line of therapies, most notably the one published recently by The Lancet were based on fraud and has since been recalled. (P.S., CNN - "purveyors of fake news" as they say, when I find a more credible link I will post it, but for now, sorry...)
------------------ Follow up story (5-July-2020 -------------------------
Medical establishment has been recently attempting to suppress a common drug against the recent flu outbreak. The drug that was recommended by the US president - hydroxychloroquine. The suppression involved publishing a completely fabricated negative trial paper using fraudulent data (see the recently super-quickly published and equally quickly retracted Lancet paper) while promoting some alternative drugs and hypothetical (future) vaccines by the top US health official Dr. Fauci.
One of such drug is Remdesivir produced by Gilead Sciences. Now it turns out that Remdesivir seems to be ineffective, see below:
... and the company or their backers in the medical establishment attempted to cover it up:
... but there are also some new doubts cast on the Remdesivir trial conducted by Dr. Fauci's company itself.
One such doubt is the trial specification removing "Death" from the set of sought outcomes.
At the same time, the two recently disclosed or published studies on hydroxychloroquine showed dramatic and positive outcome on patients' recovery. As you can see in the original section posted above. For example mortality reductions by 2 to 5 times!
So it turns out, the president of the United states was correct while his top medical advisor was wrong (at best) or may even end up proven malfaisant in the future.
Youtube video:
"BREAKING: REMDESIVIR STUDY MANIPULATED?",
posted May 4, 2020
by "The HighWire with Del Bigtree"
(Note: I recommend watching it soon, it might not remain for very long!) Update 1-Aug-2020 - Youtube just "torched" Dell Bigtree's account last week! I hope He Will be Back!
...Treatment with HCQ-AZ was associated with a decreased risk of transfer to ICU or death (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.18 0.11–0.27), decreased risk of hospitalization ≥10 days (odds ratios 95% CI 0.38 0.27–0.54) and shorter duration of viral shedding (time to negative PCR: HR 1.29 1.17–1.42). QTc prolongation (greater than 60 ms) was observed in 25 patients (0.67%) leading to the cessation of treatment in 12 cases including 3 cases with QTc greater than 500 ms. No cases of torsade de pointe or sudden death were observed.
Conclusion
Although this is a retrospective analysis, results suggest that early diagnosis, early isolation and early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.
As Doctor Jim Meehan conjectures, these studies are designed to fail. He believes this is being done to contrive a message to manipulate, mislead and deceive the masses, and that public health is being subverted by commercial bias and political agendas. ...
And these excessive doses are not only making it impossible to assess the therapeutic benefits of HCQ for COVID-19 patients accurately. They are clearly hastening the deaths of many in the study who have been unaccountably administered dangerous amounts of a highly effective drug with a 70-year record of safety and efficacy. A highly salient point made by Del Bigtree of ICAN is that well over 5 million doses of hydroxychloroquine were taken in the United States in 2107 [2017?] for the treatment of lupus, arthritis, and malaria. If the FDA is so concerned about adverse effects associated with HCQ, why wait until now to revoke its use when it was used so widely and so effectively just a few years ago? ...
--------------------- Update 1-Sep-2020 ----------------------------------
Link to the article: "Covid Analysis" This is a compilation of 84 published studies, 49 of them peer-reviewed (all referenced and linked):
Small early terminated late stage (60% on oxygen) RCT in France showing 46% lower mortality.
mortality at 28 days relative risk RR 0.54 [0.21-1.42]
combined mortality/intubation at 28 days relative risk RR 0.74 [0.33-1.70]
The hypothesis that high TC or LDL-C causes atherosclerosis and CVD has been shown to be false by numerous observations and experiments.
The fact that high LDL-C is beneficial in terms of overall lifespan has been ignored by researchers who support the lipid hypothesis.
The assertion that statin treatment is beneficial has been kept alive by individuals who have ignored the results from trials with negative outcomes and by using deceptive statistics.
That statin treatment has many serious side effects has been minimized by individuals who have used a misleading trial design and have ignored reports from independent researchers.
That high LDL-C is the cause of CVD in FH is questionable because LDL-C does not differ between untreated FH individuals with and without CVD.
Millions of people all over the world, including many with no history of heart disease, are taking statins, and PCSK-9 inhibitors to lower LDL-C further are now being promoted, despite unproven benefits and serious side effects.
We suggest that clinicians should abandon the use of statins and PCSK-9 inhibitors, and instead identify and target the actual causes of CVD.
More Quotes (chapter headlines):
2.1 No association between TC and degree of atherosclerosis
2.2 No exposure-response
3.1 An idea supported by fraudulent reviews of the literature
4. Does high LDL-C cause atherosclerosis? 4.1 An idea based on selected patient groups
5.1 LDL-C of patients with acute myocardial infarction is lower than normal
5.2 Elderly people with high LDL-C live the longest
6.1 No exposure-response in the statin trials
6.2 The benefit of statin treatment is exaggerated
6.3 The benefit from statin treatment has been questioned
6.4 Adverse effects from statin treatment
6.5 Does treatment with PCSK-9 inhibitors improve the outcome? A new cholesterol-lowering drug has recently been introduced. It is an antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which lowers LDL-C by approximately 60%. In FOURIER, the largest and longest PCSK-9 inhibitor trial, Evolocumab was compared with placebo in more than 27,000 statin-treated patients with CVD [92]. The trial was stopped after 2.2 years because the number of MVE was reduced with statistical significance (9.8% vs. 11.3%). However, both CVD mortality and total mortality had increased, although not with statistical significance. A relevant question is therefore, why the trial, the sponsor of which (Amgen) was responsible for data collection, was ended after only 2.2 years. Furthermore, this trial is yet another proof that there is no exposure-response between LDL-C and total or CVD mortality.
7. Does FH prove that high LDL-C causes CVD?
7.1 A low percent of FH [Familial Hypercholesterolemia] individuals die prematurely
7.2 No LDL-C difference between FH individuals with and without CVD
8. Has CVD mortality decreased after the introduction of statin treatment? ... American National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [103] found that during the period 1999-2006 the number of AMI and strokes increased from 3.4 to 3.7%, and from 2.0 to 2.9%, respectively. During the same period mean LDL-C level decreased from 126.1 to 114.8 mg/dL, and the self-reported use of lipid-lowering drugs increased from 8 to 13.4%. Furthermore, statin utilization in 12 European countries between 2000 and 2012 was not associated with reduced CHD mortality or its rate of change over the years [104].
9. Conclusion The idea that high cholesterol levels in the blood are the main cause of CVD is impossible because people with low levels become just as atherosclerotic as people with high levels and their risk of suffering from CVD is the same or higher. The cholesterol hypothesis has been kept alive for decades by reviewers who have used misleading statistics, excluded the results from unsuccessful trials and ignored numerous contradictory observations.
Quoting the captions for the figures!
Figure 2. The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of total mortality (per cent per year) in 26 statin trials, where total mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 11 ignored trials. ARR is weakly associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.28x + 0.06), but inversely associated in the excluded trials (y = - 0.49x - 0.81). Symbols: see figure 1.
According to Ference et al. [3] the most compelling clinical evidence for causality is provided by “the presence of more than 30 randomized cholesterol-lowering trials that consistently demonstrate that reducing LDL-C reduces the risk of CVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C.” As previously noted, this is not true exposure-response. Furthermore, in their figure 5A, that illustrates the association, the authors have only included data from12 of the 30 trials they refer to. If all of the trials in table 1 are included, as we have done in figure 3, there is no association between LDL-C lowering and coronary event rate.
Figure 5. The association between the absolute risk reduction of total mortality in 26 statin trials included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 11 ignored trials; and the year where the trial protocols were published. The vertical line indicates the year where the new trial regulations were introduced. [penalizing publication of false results - the new trials show no risk reduction! commented by S.B.]
The association between mean sodium intake and major cardiovascular events showed significant deviations from linearity (p=0.043) due to a significant inverse association in the lowest tertile of sodium intake (lowest tertile <4.43 g/day, mean intake 4.04 g/day, range 3.42-4.43; change -1.00 events per 1000 years,...
Sodium intake was associated with cardiovascular disease and strokes only in communities where mean intake was greater than 5 g/day.
Note: "inverse" association means that lower sodium INCREASES the rate of disease. In this case the cutoff threshold for the inverse relation is about 4g per day. The recommended daily dose of sodium by the fake (I love it) medical authorities is about 2g/day. Also, the usage of the unit "minus one event per 1000 years" has to be interpreted such that statistically there is one event less than the average, per 1000 patients per year rather than having to wait 1000 years for one patient event.
The study suggests that very low levels of salt could lead to more heart attacks and suggests that moderate salt consumption may be protective.
...
The World Health Organization recommends cutting sodium intake to no more than 2g a day - the equivalent of 5g of salt - because of the link to increased blood pressure, which is in turn implicated in stroke.
. "Carbohydrates are killing us"
By Eric Thorn - (cardiologist affiliated with the Virginia Hospital Center)- Sunday, July 8, 2018
Quote:
Consider a report published last year in The Lancet that studied nutrition among more than 135,000 people across 18 different countries — making it the largest-ever observational study of its kind. The researchers found that people who ate the least saturated fat — about the same amount currently recommended for heart patients — had the highest rates of heart disease and mortality. Meanwhile, people who consumed the most saturated fat had the lowest rate of strokes.
Ramsden, of the National Institutes of Health, unearthed raw data from a 40-year-old study, which challenges the dogma that eating vegetable fats instead of animal fats is good for the heart. The study, the largest gold-standard experiment testing that idea, found the opposite, Ramsden and his colleagues reported on Tuesday in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).
Although the study is more than just another entry in the long-running nutrition wars—it is more rigorous than the vast majority of research on the topic—Ramsden makes no claims that it settles the question. Instead, he said, his discovery and analysis of long-lost data underline how the failure to publish the results of clinical trials can undermine truth.
...
The coleader of the project was Dr. Ancel Keys, author of the Seven Countries Study, Time cover subject, and the most prominent advocate of replacing saturated fat with vegetable fat. “The idea that there might be something adverse about lowering cholesterol [via vegetable oils] was really antithetical to the dogma of the day,” Bob Frantz said.
His father, he said, “was always committed to discovering the truth. He would be pleased this is finally coming out.”
I beg to differ. I doubt if Dr. Ivan Frantz would be proud of publishing the truth, because he could have but he didn't! I think he was afraid of the truth! Like many academics, intellectuals and most people I knew worked with. Not only Dr. I. Frantz kept the study's most important data unpublished but also actively obfuscated it by publishing a misleading partial summaries and whitewashed watered-down inconclusive "conclusions".
Half-truth = full lie!
Because of Dr. Ivan Frantz' and other fake scientists' failure to publish the truth, What followed was 40-more years of suffering by millions of people from preventable diseases, due to bad dietary advise and corporate self-served food marketing that was based on the academically-supported half-truth, lies and distortions!
United Stated needs no external enemy - it is being destroyed by their own luminaries and the establishment through half-truth, lies and deception.
Bob Frantz, Dr. Franz's son, who rediscovered the hidden records and got them published, can't really feel proud of his father, but he definitely deserves to be proud of himself and be praised for bringing the truth! He is also lucky to have survived his father's bad diet at home, as a child.
Much of the following information, studies, links and inspiration is based on Jerzy Zięba's 2015 book "Ukryte Terapie" ("Hidden Cures"). Highly recommended!
Basically, Wolff and Chaikoff (Wolff J, Chaikoff IL "Plasma inorganic iodide as a homeostatic regulator of thyroid function", J.Biol Chem, 1948) destroyed the previously widespread and largely successful thyroid disease therapies based on iodine supplementation (*) by claiming that the excess iodine blocks thyroid hormone production. However, what their study did actually measure was the effect of stopped absorption of radioactive iodine in to iodine-saturated rat's thyroid tissue. They did not measure thyroid hormones production! Furtheromre, they used unrealistically high iodine tissue dosage, corresponding to an oral intake of 50 grams of Iodine a day (if it were done for humans)
This one study has became the basis of discontinuation of the time-proven previous iodine supplementation therapies in favor of treating thyroid disorders with thyroid hormonal supplements or with surgery.
*) Using Iodine in Potassium-Iodide (Lugol) solution, for both hypothyroid and hyperthyroid conditions. The claimed success rate was close to 90% of the cases!
A compilation/review study of prior thyroid therapies using inorganic iodine supplementation can be read here:
Kelly FC, "Iodine in medicine and pharmacy since its discovery - 1811-1961", Proc R Soc Med, 1961, 54:831-836
Interesting overview of the conspiratorial aspect of the story can be found here:
From Guy E. Abraham "The History of Iodine in Medicine Part III
.
-------------------
Updated 26/07/2018
References:
1) "Nutrition, evolution and thyroid hormone levels –
a link to iodine deficiency disorders?", Wolfgang Kopp*, Medical Hypotheses (2004) 62, 871–875
Quote:
An increased iodine requirement as a result of significant changes in human nutrition rather than a decreased environmental iodine supply is suggested to represent the main cause of the iodine deficiency disorders (IDD). The pathomechanism proposed is based on the fact that serum concentrations of thyroid hormones, especially of trijodothyronine (T3), are dependent on the amount of dietary carbohydrate. High-carbohydrate diets are associated with significantly higher serum T3 concentrations, compared with very low- carbohydrate diets. While our Paleolithic ancestors subsisted on a very low carbohydrate/high protein diet, the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago brought about a significant increase in dietary carbohydrate. These nutritional changes have increased T3 levels significantly. Higher T3 levels are associated with an enhanced T3 production and an increased iodine requirement. The higher iodine requirement exceeds the availability of iodine from environmental sources in many regions of the world, resulting in the development of IDD.
.
The title is not an exaggeration! - Manslaughter being defined as an action causing death. This is fully supported by many years of published data!
This is a very sad story that appears to explain the true cause behind the last couple of decades' "epidemics" of severe cases of PTSD (post-traumatic stress-disorder) among soldiers returning home from active duty. It appears that the US, British and probably other governments' officials were putting their own soldiers over many years, on anti-malaria drug Lariam (mefloquine, manufactured originally by Hoffmann–La Roche), ignoring the drug's known neurological side effects. The less severe neurological side effects seem to occur in about a quarter of the soldiers taking them, according to some unconfirmed reports, but in some smaller percentage cases the drug is known to induce what looks like a permanent brain damage triggering homicidal and suicidal psychotic episodes, lasting long after discontinuation of taking the drug, causing death or requiring patient's lock-up in a psychiatric azylum!
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been accused of knowingly risking the mental health of its own soldiers after new figures showed that nearly 1,000 British servicemen and women have required psychiatric treatment after taking a discredited anti-malarial drug.
Psychosis, suicidal thoughts, depression and hallucinations are among the mental-health problems associated with Lariam, also known as mefloquine.
But the MoD has rejected all appeals to stop giving the drug to troops posted overseas – to the mounting fury of relatives, politicians and retired military figures who fear it could be responsible for an epidemic of psychiatric illness in Britain’s Armed Forces.
The Independent can reveal that a retired major-general who was given Lariam prior to a deployment to Sierra Leone is among those struggling with the after-effects.
Maj-Gen Alastair Duncan, who commanded British forces in Bosnia, is currently in a secure psychiatric unit after a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) episode over Christmas.
His wife, Ellen, told The Independent: “Like others, I believe that this is a scandal. If 1,000 troops have reported the effects then you can be sure there are others who have not.
It makes me wonder since it does look to me as if some government officials of the countries involved appear to be above the law since almost nothing is being done in spite of the repetitive warnings. As if there were an intention to cover it up. For example, there is an article published on the same subject over a year ago (September 2013):
Amid mounting concerns about the dangers of the drug – which has been linked with a string of suicides and murders – the US military acted this month to ban its use among special forces. The decision came after it was linked to the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a US soldier.
Speaking to The Independent, a former senior medical officer accused the MoD of ignoring repeated warnings over the dangers of the drug. Lt-Col Ashley Croft, who served for more than 25 years in the Royal Army Medical Corps and is an expert on malaria, said: “For the past 12 years I was saying this is potentially a dangerous drug – most people can take it without problems but a few people will experience difficulties and of those a small number will become psychotic and because there are other alternatives that are safer and just as effective we should move to them but my words fell on deaf ears.”
Lt Col Ashcroft, who retired in April, accused the MoD of being in “denial mode”. He added: “The problem is that it can make people have psychotic thoughts and therefore act in an irrational manner and potentially a manner that is dangerous to themselves or their colleagues, or civilians.”
Doxycycline and malarone are safer drugs which are as effective in preventing malaria, according to the retired officer. “Really the only people that get it [Lariam] now are the poor old soldiers and they have no choice.”
An order issued earlier this month by the US Special Forces Command states: “medical personnel will immediately cease the prescribing and use of mefloquine for malaria prophylaxis”. It adds: “Hallucinations and psychotic behaviour can occur and continue for months or years after mefloquine use; cases of suicidal ideation and suicide have been reported.”
The neurotoxicity of Lariam has been known for years and written about in the media, yet nothing has been done to stop it! Going back in time, see for example this 2003 article: The dark side of Lariam
Last summer, four soldiers from Ft. Bragg were accused of killing their wives. Two of the men committed suicide, and the other two await trial. So many brutal crimes, so similar, so close in time – raised questions, and the army sent a team to investigate.
One possible suspect was mefloquine - brand name Lariam, an anti-malarial drug. It was invented by the U.S. Army and is routinely given to soldiers deployed overseas. In scientific terms, Lariam can cause neuropsychiatric adverse events. In plain language, it can make lose your mind.
First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet. On Thursday, that committee’s report was released, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol.
...
Instead of accepting that this evidence was inadequate to give sound advice, strong-willed scientists overstated the significance of their studies. Much of the epidemiological data underpinning the government’s dietary advice comes from studies run by Harvard’s school of public health. In 2011, directors of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences analyzed many of Harvard’s most important findings and found that they could not be reproduced in clinical trials.
...
In 2013, government advice to reduce salt intake (which remains in the current report) was contradicted by an authoritative Institute of Medicine study[*]. And several recent meta-analyses have cast serious doubt on whether saturated fats are linked to heart disease, as the dietary guidelines continue to assert.
Uncertain science should no longer guide our nutrition policy. Indeed, cutting fat and cholesterol, as Americans have conscientiously done, may have even worsened our health. In clearing our plates of meat, eggs and cheese (fat and protein), we ate more grains, pasta and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates). Over the past 50 years, we cut fat intake by 25 percent and increased carbohydrates by more than 30 percent, according to a new analysis of government data. Yet recent science has increasingly shown that a high-carb diet rich in sugar and refined grains increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — much more so than a diet high in fat and cholesterol.
It’s not that health authorities weren’t warned. “They are not acting on the basis of scientific evidence, but on the basis of a plausible but untested idea,” Dr. Edward H. Ahrens Jr., a top specialist at Rockefeller University and prominent critic of the growing doctrine on dietary fats and cholesterol, cautioned back in the ’80s.
...
Since the very first nutritional guidelines to restrict saturated fat and cholesterol were released by the American Heart Association in 1961, Americans have been the subjects of a vast, uncontrolled diet experiment with disastrous consequences. We have to start looking more skeptically at epidemiological studies and rethinking nutrition policy from the ground up.
Until then, we would be wise to return to what worked better for previous generations: a diet that included fewer grains, less sugar and more animal foods like meat, full-fat dairy and eggs.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. advisory panel reviewing national dietary guidelines has decided to drop its caution against eating cholesterol-laden food, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
At a December meeting, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee discussed its decision to no longer deem cholesterol a "nutrient of concern," according to the Washington Post.
...
What happened to those scientists and medical doctors who, for many decades have been signing and propagating the anti-cholesterol guidelines? I wonder, what could be the overall health damage estimate, caused by those recommendations, to date? .
Objectives National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) by reducing fat intake. ...
Conclusions
Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs.
Discussion
The main findings of the present meta-analysis of the six RCTs [Randomized Controlled Trials] available at the time of issuing dietary guidelines in the US and UK indicate that all-cause mortality was identical at 370 in the intervention and control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in deaths from CHD. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality.
It is a widely held view that reductions in cholesterol are healthful per se. The original RCTs did not find any relationship between dietary fat intake and deaths from CHD or all-causes, despite significant reductions in cholesterol levels in the intervention and control groups. This undermines the role of serum cholesterol levels as an intermediary to the development of CHD and contravenes the theory that reducing dietary fat generally and saturated fat particularly potentiates a reduction in CHD.
...
There was best practice, randomised controlled trial, evidence available to the dietary committees, which was not considered and should have been. The results of the present meta-analysis support the hypothesis that the available RCTs did not support the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in order to reduce CHD risk or related mortality. Two recent publications have questioned the alleged relationship between saturated fat and CHD and called for dietary guidelines to be reconsidered.31 ,32 The present review concludes that dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.
Interestingly, the original studies at that time produced similar similar conclusions of non-supporting the reduction of dietary fat. The following quotes are from Zoë Harcombe's blog (one of the main author of the above quoted study):
The studies’ own conclusions. These are the verbatim conclusions from each of the studies:
1965 Rose Corn and olive oil: “It is concluded that under the circumstances of this trial corn oil cannot be recommended as a treatment of ischaemic heart disease. It is most unlikely to be beneficial, and it is possibly harmful.” (ref 9)
1965 Research Committee Low-fat diet: “A low-fat diet has no place in the treatment of myocardial infarction” (ref 10) [heart attack].
1968 MRC soya-bean oil: “There is no evidence from the London trial that the relapse-rate in myocardial infarction is materially affected by the unsaturated fat content of the diet used.” (ref 11)
1969 Dayton LA Veterans study: “Total longevity was not affected favorably in any measurable or significant degree… For this reason, and because of the unresolved question concerning toxicity, we consider our own trial, with or without the support of other published data, to have fallen short of providing a definitive and final answer concerning dietary prevention of heart disease.” (ref 12)
1970 Leren Oslo Diet Heart study: “Epidemiological studies have demonstrated several factors associated with the risk of developing first manifestations of coronary heart disease. Blood lipids, blood pressure and cigarette smoking are such risk variables… In spite of the small numbers this observation lends some support to the view that the multi-factorial approach is the best way to the solution of the coronary heart disease problem.”(ref 13)
1978 Woodhill Sydney Diet Heart Study: “Survival was significantly better in the P [control] Group.” “It must be concluded that the lipid hypothesis has gained little support from secondary intervention studies.” (ref 14)
...
.
Also a mystery of some "missing data" etc. I am reposting this quote from Barry Groves' blog:
Quote:
...
The new research, published online in the British Medical Journal, was carried out by experts from the US Government’s National Institutes of Health in Maryland. They recovered missing data from a study in the 1960s involving 458 men aged 30-59 who had suffered a heart attack or angina. Using modern statistical methods to compare death rates, they found there was no evidence of the benefit of replacing saturated fats with omega-6 linoleic acid, found in vegetable fats. In fact, they said replacing the animal fats with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) from vegetable fats increased risk of death in those patients with cardiovascular disease. Those who increased their intake of the “healthy” fats over three years were almost twice as likely to die. The omega-6 linoleic acid group in the study had a higher risk of death from all causes (62 per cent), as well as from cardiovascular disease (70 per cent) and coronary heart disease (74 per cent), compared to others. Linoleic acid is present in high amounts in some commonly used vegetable oils such as corn, sunflower, safflower and soya bean.
...
More quotes (from the study, the highlights and the capitalized comments in [] brackets are mine):
Advice to substitute vegetable oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for animal fats rich in saturated fatty acids (SFAs) has been a cornerstone of worldwide dietary guidelines for the past half century.1 When this advice originated in the 1960s, PUFAs were regarded as a uniform molecular category with one relevant biological mechanism—the reduction in blood cholesterol.1 2 Omega 6 (n-6) linoleic acid (LA) was the best known dietary PUFA at the time.
...
Diet intervention
The intervention group received instructions to increase their PUFA intake to about 15% of food energy, and to reduce their intake of SFA and dietary cholesterol to less than 10% of food energy and 300 mg per day, respectively.10 To achieve these targets, intervention participants were provided with liquid safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine (“Miracle” brand, Marrickville Margarine). Liquid safflower oil was substituted for animal fats, common margarines and shortenings in cooking oils, salad dressings, baked goods, and other products, and was also taken as a supplement. Safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine was used in place of butter and common margarines.
Control
The control group received no specific dietary instruction. However, some participants began substituting polyunsaturated margarine for butter after their coronary event.33 Because the research team made no effort to alter the PUFA or SFA content of control diets, such dietary changes were allowed to continue.
...
In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats.[IF THEY HAD BEEN PUBLISHED RATHER THAN GONE MISSING, AT THE TIME, FOURTY YEARS AGO!]
...
Increased all cause mortality in the safflower oil group was reported in 1978,10 although deaths due to cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease were not reported by group.[BECAUSE THE DATA WENT MISSING!] Clinical outcomes for cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease have been considered to be more relevant than all cause mortality when evaluating the evidence base25 and formulating dietary guidelines.26 Therefore, previous meta-analyses of PUFA intervention trials and risk of cardiovascular disease25 27 28 have been incomplete because they were not able to include these missing data from the SDHS. [SDHS=SYDNEY DIET HEART STUDY. CONCIDENTALLY, THE MISSING HEART MORTALITY DATA HAPPENED TO CONTRADICT, BY A LARGE FACTOR, THE EXPECTED OUTCOME! HAD THE HEART MORTALITY DATA NOT GONE "MISSING" FOURTY YEARS AGO, THE ENTIRE VEGETABLE OIL INDUSTRY WOULD PROBABLY NOT EXIST BY NOW!]
Interestingly, since the control group was found also shifting towards substituting all animal fats with vegetable oils and spreads, the degree of dietary change between the study group and the control group was most likely smaller than the nominal goal for PUFA intake increase to 15%. Yet, such a small difference of probably much less than 15% in PUFA (in absolute calories) have created a huge increase in cardiovascular disease, by about 70%. It indicates that the relative risk of cardiovascular disease rises proportionally to the absolute PUFA caloric intake, with a proportionality factor of about 5 or higher! (If the linear interpolation model holds true). Furthermore, an increase due to PUFA was even higher than an increase in cardiovascular mortality due to smoking (see Table 6)!
This high multiple factor seems to be confirm by the data from Table 5 indicating that for every 5% PUFA increase (in absolute energy%) the All cause mortality, the Cardiovascular disease mortality and the Coronary heart disease mortality increased by 31%, 35% and 26% respectively (relative risk factor). This implies a proportionality factor of about 5-7. That is, for every 1% added Poly-Unsaturated Fatty Acids ( PUFA) in absolute calories % of the total, cardiovascular mortality INCREASED by 5 to 7%. This is big news!
There is an even bigger news: Saturated fat is good for us! Table 5 exonerates the much maligned saturated fats from being implicated in heart disease (Dr. Ornish, please listen). For every 5% added saturated fat (in % of absolute total calories) the risk of mortality defined in the same categories as above DECREASED by 30%, 28% and 28% respectively! With the proportionality factor being also about 6, that is for every +1% of absolute saturated fat intake, mortality decreased by 6%!
This study has also neatly killed the second "bird" - the infamous cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, quote:
As expected, increasing n-6 LA from safflower oil in the SDHS significantly reduced total cholesterol; however, these reductions were not associated with mortality outcomes (results not shown). Moreover, the increased risk of death in the intervention group presented fairly rapidly and persisted throughout the trial. These observations, combined with recent progress in the field of fatty acid metabolism, point to a mechanism of cardiovascular disease pathogenesis independent of our traditional understanding of cholesterol lowering.
It is interesting to observe the exact moment, around year 3.5 into the study on the graph Fig.2c below. I am speculating here, but a dramatic fall of mortality rates in both the intervention and in the control group coincidental with a sudden increase in quitting the study, may indicate a point when the participants and doctors realized that something is wrong and begun reverting to their previous diet. Butter, anyone?
Fig.2 (bottom) from the study.
Notice how the number of deaths dropped to zero after year 3.5, and a dramatically higher rate of study-quitting by the patients. About 30 people used to leave the intervention group per year (out of which 5-16 were due to death) until year 3.5. Subsequently 49 and 36 patients quit but none died! There is probably more to be told that wasn't discussed in the paper, but the numbers reveal enough...
My current research project is Clifford Algebra. My current engineering work involves embedded software and hardware design of high end audio preamps and amplifiers for Bryston/Axiom. My old engineering projects: (hires)
(website), (old picture of my lab). My old consulting company: website and resume. This blog contains also the essays, articles and debates on human nutrition (high animal fat low carb since 1999), science and other interesting topics and heresies (all of which hugely beneficial). I welcome debates and discourage conformity of any kind. Other interesting topic: human -to-primate social regression mediated by regressive collectivism (link), and fraud cases in medical and other research.
The best study ever?
-
10th October 2026 The ethical issues preventing black and white clinical
studies Medical research is very difficult. Always has been, always will.
One of t...
Quantised Inertia & Galactic Lensing
-
One of the most frequent criticisms of quantised inertia is that it does
not predict galactic lensing. The good news it that it does, at least
qualitativ...
Quantised Inertia & Galactic Lensing
-
One of the most frequent criticisms of quantised inertia is that it does
not predict galactic lensing. The good news it that it does, at least
qualitativ...
Book: Dramatis Personae
-
New posts will be at Substack. Book: Dramatis Personae Please subscribe
there, or the feed is here. from Tucker Goodrich: yelling Stop Book:
Dramatis Perso...
Insulin resistance (19) The blue line
-
First an apology. I thought this post through weeks ago, helped by emails
exchanged with Tucker, from which there are various rather exciting studies
still...
there is no “reset” – just live forward!
-
If you’re an intense person by nature, it’s likely that up to 75% of your
life energy every minute, every hour, every day is automatically…
The Prostate and its Discontents
-
This post originally appeared for subscribers only on my Patreon blog
(October 31). If you appreciate my occasional writing on science and stuff subscribe...
Akathisia
-
I recently recorded an episode of my podcast with my dad Jordan Peterson to
talk about what happened to him and my family in the last year. The
following...
Iron: an underrated factor in aging
-
My article, “Iron: an underrated factor in aging” has been published by the
journal Aging. The abstract: Iron is an essential element for virtually all
l...
Farewell, for now
-
“Ah, what an age it is When to speak of trees is almost a crime For it is a
kind of silence against injustice.” –Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) In my
professio...
Leaving Facebook After ~11 years
-
This past week my wife and I engaged in the following activity:
#deletefacebook
Here’s excepts from text shared with friends and family:
You are being f-...
Twitter jail!
-
Well hello everyone :)
I have not blogged in a year! Feels rather odd to be honest; and to think,
this used to be MY platform.
While i have been consider...
Warning to Gay and Lesbian Movements
-
*Warning to Gay and Lesbian Movements.*
(Polish version - see below. Wersja Polska - poniżej)
As LGBT movement became radicalized and more visible than ever...
Ketosis Without Starvation: the human advantage
-
I recently had the honour to speak at Low Carb Breckenridge 2018. You can
find the video here. Below are my slides, notes, and references.
--------------...
Fasting Insulin
-
A blood test for fasting insulin can be one of the most important that you
get. It’s important because it shows the degree of insulin resistance: […]
Delegalize compulsory purchase of all types of insurance, including car and health service!
Delegalize health overseeing authorities and ban anti-competitive practices in the health services!
Delegalize manipulation of interest rate that robs the savers and enriches the large banks and governments.
Down with the dictate of shallow superficial people!
A critical period for children's education is age 7-14. Anything they learn during that period will be "weaponized" for the rest of their lives. Do not let them socialize during this period. Slow down their puberty past the age of 14 using low carb high animal fat diet!
Total Pageviews
Lunar Calendar 13
...
...
Moon Calendar: 13 months of 4 weeks of 7 days
Upper table: normal calendar dates (red numbers)
and the corresponding Moon Calendar dates (black) and (blue)
Lower table: Moon Months (1-13) and Moon Calendar dates
_-_Kopalnia_soli_Wieliczka%2C_Polska.jpg)
