The Arrow #103

Hello everyone.

Greetings from Montecito.

And a Merry Christmas to all!

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the copy editing of the previous Arrow. MD usually doesn’t miss that many typos, but she had an excuse last week.

Right after her last concert performance, she got sick. Just a little cough and headache to start. But it got worse and worse. She self-diagnosed influenza, based on her symptoms. We tried to find someplace here in the Santa Barbara area that provided flu testing (such places are everywhere in Dallas), but couldn’t. Since MD and I take care of one another, we don’t have a primary care physician. So I called a so-called urgent care center here in Montecito to see if they performed tests for the flu.

Yes, they do. But you have to set an appointment and see the doctor. MD wanted to go, because she wanted to get the test to decide whether or not to take Tamiflu. The idea of taking Tamiflu is one of the very few areas in medicine in which she and I hold differing opinions. She believes Tamiflu both prevents and treats influenza. I don’t think it does either. Tamiflu is outrageously expensive, and she didn’t want to fork over the cost of it if she didn’t really have the flu.

We go to the place, she sees, the doc, they hit it off and tell medical stories to one another. They both agree that having had Covid and with a series of documented antibodies against both the n- and the s-proteins, it’s not likely to be Covid, but it’s all one test collection. He does the test and tells her it will be up on her online chart the next day.

The next day at about noon, the results are in. And she doesn’t have the flu. But she did test positive for Covid. As the doc told her, they use is a combo Covid, Influenza A, Influenza B test.

She didn’t believe it, because she didn’t feel anywhere near as sick as she had when she had Covid about a year ago. She figured they used a PCR test, which gins up a lot of false positives. We had some laminar flow antigen tests laying around, so she tested with one of those. Unlike PCR tests, antigen tests have no false positives, but do have a small percent that are false negatives. Which is why they come in twos. If you have symptoms and your test is negative, you’re supposed to repeat in 48 hours.

Her antigen test turned positive immediately. So she really did have the Vid. Again.

As I’ve written about previously, we’re both part of a University of Texas medical school Covid study. We’ve had antibodies checked multiple times. We were negative until we both got Covid in January of this year. Twice since then we’ve been tested and have been positive for both the S- and N-protein antigens.

Given our antibody status, I didn’t figure we could get Covid again. But MD showed that we can. Or at least that she can.

She’s really been burning the candle at both ends over the last few weeks. She’s had one brutal choral rehearsal after another. Even on concert days she had long rehearsals earlier the same day. Also, she’s doing a regular strenuous workout. I’ve mentioned before how she has a thing for Sam Heughan, the star of the Outlander series. Well, Sam’s fitness coach has a workout program called MCP (My Peak Challenge), and it’s pretty brutal. MD does it thrice per week, rain or shine. Hot or cold. Home or away.

I think she was just beaten down a bit, had her immune system a little suppressed and got Covid from one of the concert singers—several came down with it after the concert.

One of the issues virologist Geert Vanden Bossche writes about is the rapid mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus thanks to the enormous selection pressure being put on it by widespread, repeated vaccinations. Even though MD is unvaccinated (nearly all the members of the chorus she sings in are multiply vaccinated), she probably got hold of a strain that has been run through the vaccinated immune system of the person she got it from.

When she got it the first time, she took Ivermectin, and got over it in two days. When I got it, I took Ivermectin and got over it in a day and a half.

This time we had no Ivermectin (we thought), and it never occurred to her she might have Covid, since she had already had it, so she didn’t think about any drug but Tamiflu. When she got her Covid diagnosis, she was already two days into it. She was talking to our son about it, and he said, I have a bunch of Ivermectin, which he brought to her. She took it and was much better by the next day, and the day after that she tested negative.

I was in close quarters with her the whole time, and I never came down with it. All my tests were negative.

She wasn’t anywhere near as sick this second time as she was the first, but it lasted a little longer. But she took Ivermectin immediately at the onset the first time.

The take home message is that if you are unvaccinated and have had Covid already, you can get it again. At least that’s what MD’s n=1 would indicate. And don’t beat yourself to a frazzle.

I will admit I didn’t believe this could happen. An unvaccinated person who was antibody positive for both the S- and N-proteins getting Covid again would have been almost an impossibility in my mind. But it happened.

The Alchemy of Personal Experience

Sometimes something just has to happen to you personally to transform the base metal of your thinking into the glittering gold of truth.

Such a transformative event befell the former head of the Australian Medical Association shown below (left) with her wife.

Almost a year ago Dr. Phelps penned an article for The Guardian decrying the softening of brutal Covid restrictions that were starting to loosen in Australia. She squealed with outrage because the authorities were loosening restrictions and trying to restore some measure of normalcy on a citizenry that had been locked down in a dozen different ways. (Her article was published in Jan 2022, which is in the middle of the Australian summer.)

15 December 2021 was a pivotal moment in the pandemic.

The population was softened up with a false narrative that “Omicron causes mild disease”, “this could be the gift we have been waiting for”, and “this could end the pandemic”.

Perhaps the most insidious piece of messaging was the pronouncement that “everyone in Australia is going to get it”. In other words, why bother trying to prevent transmission?

In one previously unimaginable act, the premier, in a double act with Scott Morrison, announced a lifting of all restrictions including mandatory mask wearing and QR code check-ins.

Despite the warnings that the health system was under pressure and that party season was about to kick off, the message to the community was: “Go out there and spend, head to the pub and get back to normal.”

Meanwhile, Covid-infected NSW residents were expected to do their own testing, contact tracing, and home Covid care.

“Personal responsibility,” they said.

Obviously she wanted mask mandates, lockdowns, and further restrictions, none of which have been proven to be effective.

Concerning the vaccines, she wrote:

While vaccines were, and remain, an important part of the response, we were warned not to rely on vaccines alone.

We learned that two-dose vaccine immunity was only temporary and that a third dose or a “booster” would be needed. Even that is likely to wane within months.

She didn’t mention, however, that at the time she wrote these words, both she and her wife were suffering from vaccine-related injuries. Incredibly, she was still promoting the vaccines.

This month, however, reality finally set in. She came out in news.com.au and told the world of her situation as a consequence of the vaccine both she and her wife received.

“This is an issue that I have witnessed first-hand with my wife who suffered a severe neurological reaction to her first Pfizer vaccine within minutes, including burning face and gums, paraesethesiae, and numb hands and feet, while under observation by myself, another doctor and a registered nurse at the time of immunisation,” the 65-year-old said.

“I continue to observe the devastating effects a year-and-a-half later with the addition of fatigue and additional neurological symptoms including nerve pains, altered sense of smell, visual disturbance and musculoskeletal inflammation. The diagnosis and causation has been confirmed by several specialists who have told me that they have seen ‘a lot’ of patients in a similar situation.”

She also told of her own vaccine issues:

Dr Phelps revealed she was also diagnosed with a vaccine injury from her second dose of Pfizer in July 2021, “with the diagnosis and causation confirmed by specialist colleagues”.

“I have had CT pulmonary angiogram, ECG, blood tests, cardiac echogram, transthoracic cardiac stress echo, Holter monitor, blood pressure monitoring and autonomic testing,” she said.

“In my case the injury resulted in dysautonomia with intermittent fevers and cardiovascular implications including breathlessness, inappropriate sinus tachycardia and blood pressure fluctuations.”

She was out there promoting vaccinations and, I’m sure, ignoring those doctors brave enough to report the mounting levels of vaccine-related disorders they were seeing in their own practices.

Finally, she was mugged enough by reality to go public. Which it takes great bravery to do given the situation. She risked being called a charlatan in much the same way I suspect she called others charlatans prior to her own misfortune.

Another person who falls into this category is my friend Aseem Malhotra. He got vaccinated on national TV in the UK and recommended the jabs for all. Then his own father died from a vaccine-related heart issue. Aseem was absolutely devastated, and, as a consequence, began looking closely into the entire mRNA vaccine issue.

Here is a comprehensive conversation with Aseem, John Leake, and Dr. Peter McCullough on Rumble. It’s well worth a watch.

It takes enormous courage to go against the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry. But it shouldn’t be that way.

We have regulatory agencies whose job it is to vet these pharmaceuticals for safety and efficacy before they are released to the public. When these pharmaceuticals don’t live up to their promise, or when they cause serious side effects, it’s usually the practicing physicians who see them first. They must not be canceled for reporting them.

If you were a doc, and you made any noise about patients having issues with the vaccines, you were canceled. You couldn’t tweet about it, put it on Facebook, or make a YouTube video. If you did so, your account was closed or suspended. If you made it in a public forum, you were called an anti-vaxxer and a quack. In some instances your license to practice might be threatened. These issues kept Dr. Phelps above from speaking out even though both she and her wife were affected.

This should never happen again.

While we’re on the subject of vaccines…

More Vaccinations = Greater Risk for Covid

You may well have seen something about this already, as I read about it from multiple sources yesterday.

The Cleveland Clinic released a study looking at the efficacy of the new bivalent vaccines. Of the 51,000+ subjects studied, only about 20 percent had actually taken the new vaccines. The data on these 10,000+ subjects showed the new vaccines to have about a 30 percent efficacy in preventing infection.

As eugyppias writes

In another blow to the logic of perpetual vaccination with subpar ineffective products, the authors note that their cohort had “too few severe illnesses for the study to be able to determine if the vaccine decreased severity of illness.” Because it’s severe outcomes and death, rather than infections, which matter, this is the same as saying the bivalent vaccines are totally pointless, especially in the younger cohort (mean age 42) studied here.

The more important part of this study was the inadvertent finding that the more times one got vaccinated, the greater the risk of coming down with Covid. In fact, those who got every vaccine that came down the pike ended up with the most cases of Covid. Think Fauci. He took every vaccine that came down the pike. After he got Covid the first time, he got it again every time he turned around.

As the authors of the study write:

The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19. [My bold for emphasis]

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. … This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. … We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.

Really makes you want to run right out there and get vaccinated again, doesn’t it?

If You’re Going to Be Near Boca Raton Mid-Jan…

Come see us at LowCarbUSA. I’m going to be speaking on Saturday Jan 14 in the late afternoon. MD and I will be there for the whole meeting, so come say Hi.

Authoritarians Gotta Authoritate

What is it in people who have positions of authority that makes them want to use it unnecessarily? And when they’re in the wrong, what makes them keep on authoritating?

We’ve all seen the videos of people screaming at other people to pull up their masks, or people shouting at others to put on masks. We’ve all seen people berating others for the most minor offenses, and we all kind of think, Boy, I’m glad that person isn’t in charge.

But sometimes those people are in charge. And they don’t back down. Even when they’re in error.

Here is a video showing one such encounter. Makes my blood boil every time I watch it.

In this case, a police officer mistakes a folded walking stick in this man’s back pocket for a firearm. He shows her it’s a walking stick and tells both officers he is legally blind and is returning from jury duty. During the encounter and after he has produced the walking stick, the female officer asks him for his name and ID. He says he doesn’t have to give it to her. The situation escalates from there with his ending up being arrested and taken to the station. Now he has filed a lawsuit against the department and the officers have been disciplined.

But the whole case is authoritarianism in action. When he produced the walking stick, why didn’t the deputy simply say, “OK, sir, sorry for the bother. Have a nice day.” The answer is: they simply couldn’t. It’s not in their authoritarian nature to be refused. By God we asked him for his ID, and despite the fact that he’s done nothing wrong, we’re going to get it. They ended up getting it alright…and a lot more.

Until I saw this video, I assumed anyone could refuse to provide an ID if asked for it by the police, unless, of course, you’re pulled over for a traffic violation, which assumes a “crime” has been committed. Of the 50 states, only 22—the so-called stop and identify states—require you to provide an ID to police if asked. One of those states is Florida, but even there it’s not required if there is no suspicion of a crime. Which there wasn’t as soon as the guy showed his walking stick.

What does "stop and identify" mean? It's a simple concept. In states where this statute is enacted, a person suspected of committing a crime is legally obligated to identify themselves to authorities. Even in states with this statute, a person is not required to provide identification without a reasonable belief that: a crime has been committed, a crime is currently being committed, or a crime was committed. [My bold for emphasis.]

As these things go, this one was pretty minor. No one was injured. The sheriff’s department is probably going to settle with the blind guy. And the deputies were disciplined. Granted, the blind guy could have handled it better. Had he said, Oh, it’s just a walking stick and showed it to them, it would probably not have escalated. But he made the Are you a tyrant? remark, which set the female cop off. It shouldn’t have. They are public servants, and even if the guy acted like sort of a prick, he didn’t deserve to be arrested. The police should be trained to not be triggered by those kinds of remarks.

But the following one wasn’t so minor. It’s yet another case of ‘all authoritarians have to be obeyed, even when there is no reason for it’.

You may have read about the family in New Zealand whose child required life-saving surgery to repair a congenital heart problem. The surgery would require a blood transfusion, and the parents were worried about their child receiving blood from vaccinated donors. The parents had rounded up “dozens” of people who had not been vaccinated and were willing to donate blood for the child.

Not just anyone is a match for another person, so one person volunteering doesn’t necessarily mean their blood will be compatible. But if dozens are volunteering, a match should easily be found among them.

So, what’s the issue? Why not just accommodate these parents? Just imagine the stress they’re under having a child go through open heart surgery. And then the fear—justified or not—as to the source of the blood. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is authoritarians can’t be defied. The blood is fine, they say. If you don’t get the kid surgery using the blood banked blood, we’re going to take him away from you and do it anyway. We don’t care that you’ve got donors lined up. We must be obeyed.

And they took the kid away. I almost can’t bear to watch this.

Okay, enough of these downers. Let’s look at something fun.

Wegovy in a Jar?

After last week’s Arrow, I got an email from Richard Nikoley, an expat blogger and friend of mine now living in Thailand. He wrote:

Stumbled onto something. Thought it might interest you.

One afternoon a couple of weeks ago, my Thai neighbor’s boyfriend (who recently arrived from Germany) was munching on something that looked like a raw potato. Asked him what it was, he had no idea, but he gave me one. Looks just like a dark brown sweet potato on the outside.

When you peel it, whole different look. Looks like honeydew melon a little.

It was already chilled (recommended) so I peeled it and tried. Jesus. I found a pretty apt description.

“...it's like a sweet cross between early apples, watermelon and very mild celery, with a touch of pear.”

It’s so weird. But delicious and only mildly sweet. Best is the texture. Chilled, it has the crisp and snap of a perfect apple.

Turns out it’s native to S. America like Columbia, Peru, Argentina. But it’s grown up north in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai. Guy shipped me a 5 Kilo box of them 1000 miles for 160 baht ($4.65), including the shipping! So the lower bin in my fridge is filled with yacon (auto-correct want to change that to bacon, LOL).

I’m eating about 2 per day because delicious and also very easy on the carb counter.

I noticed something. HUGE suppression in appetite and particularly noticeable because no appetite was the issue that got me to knock off the booze and since then I’m ravenous 24/7.

Richard found an article in Healthline.com about Yacon syrup and included it in the email.

The article linked to a study, which Richard had also read.

The study is pretty amazing. In fact, it’s beyond amazing. But before I get on with it, I’ve got to enumerate a list of caveats. First, it is one study and one study only. I couldn’t find another that replicated the results in this one. Second, the number of subjects is small. Third, this was kind of a set it and forget it study in that the subject were evaluated once then sent on their way. They came back in four months for a recheck of all the parameters, and that was it. Fourth, the results were astounding. And when you see results this astounding, it should give you pause. Fifth, because the results were so phenomenal, it makes me wonder if others studied the same thing, couldn’t reproduce the results, and abandoned the study. Or couldn’t get it published because it was a negative study. And Sixth, there were a few scientific errors in the study in terms of how the authors described certain metabolic processes.

Here is a link to the full study.

The researchers were from Argentina and Peru, which makes sense as that is where the Yacon plant is native. The agent used in the study was Yacon syrup, made by concentrating the juice from the root of the Yacon plant. The same root Richard describes eating in his email above.

Yacon syrup contains about 41 percent fructooligosaccharides (FOS). According to the authors

FOS are sugars found naturally in many types of plants but never in concentrations as high as in yacon roots. FOS are able to resist the hydrolysis of enzymes in the upper part of the human gastro-intestinal tract. For this reason, they have a low caloric value for humans.

The part about FOS being able to resist hydrolysis means these compounds make it through the upper GI tract into the area where they can stimulate the release of GLP-1. GLP-1 inhibits gastric emptying, decreases the release of glucagon, increases the release of insulin and improves insulin sensitivity.

The researchers reported that 35 out of 55 subjects completed the study, which is a small sample. Especially since randomization sent 15 subjects to placebo and 20 to each of two groups getting different doses of the syrup.

The subjects were obese women 31-49 years old with no menopausal disorders and mild dyslipidemia and a history of constipation. Their body weights were a little lower, and their BMIs were smaller than those subjects in the Wegovy study we discussed last week. The average weight of those in the Wegovy study were ~106 kg (244 pounds), but that study included both males and females. The average weight in this study was ~90kg (198 pounds). The average BMI in the Wegovy study was ~38.5, while that in the Yacon syrup study was 33.5. So, the subjects in the Yacon study were smaller, which makes the results even more amazing as it’s more difficult for smaller people to lose than it is for those much larger. And it’s especially more difficult for women to lose weight than it is for men.

During the experimental period, the subjects maintained a healthful slightly hypocaloric diet (carbohydrates 50%, fat 30%, protein 15% of total energy intake, and 10 g dietary fibre/day, as calculated using the Argentine table of food composition). All patients excluded food products containing large amounts of FOS such as onions and leeks from their diet. They were instructed to maintain their habitual lifestyle behavior with moderate physical activity (45 min walks twice a week). None of the subjects used medication throughout the study.

The study subjects were divided into two groups of 20, one of which got a 0.14g/FOS per kg dose while the other got double that. Those on placebo got a “placebo syrup,” which wasn’t defined. Molasses, maybe?

As it turned out, those getting the double dose of FOS had significant symptoms, which led to

significant gastrointestinal adverse effects reported by the patients such as diarrhea, severe abdominal distention, flatulence and nausea. The subjects considered the flatulence severe and unacceptable and no adaptation in symptoms occurred over time. Therefore, this group was excluded from the present study.

Which left 20 subjects on the lower dose to compare with the 15 on placebo syrup. As I said, a small study.

But 120 days later the results were astounding.

Here is the chart for weight loss and waist circumference.

We’ll see just how astounding that is in a moment.

And here is the chart showing changes in blood sugar and other parameters.

Pay particular attention to the area I’ve put the red rectangle around. HOMA is a method of measuring insulin sensitivity in use by many researchers. The lower, the better. Take a look at how much it changed in the study group. A drop of that magnitude is impressive.

You can see the weight loss in the first chart, but it’s difficult to put it in perspective. I created the graphic below to show how Yacon syrup compares to Wegovy. Remember, folks fork over $1,500 per month to get weekly injections of Wegovy because it works so well.

The Wegovy study went on for two years. The Yacon syrup study lasted for ~17 weeks. The lines above represent the body weight percentage change over time, which I calculated for the Yacon syrup. The absolute amount of weight loss was 15 kg (33 pounds) over the 17 weeks. Pretty impressive!

All we have are a starting point and an ending point, so we don’t know how the curve really looks. Was most of the weight loss early on? We don’t know. Or did it start slow and accelerate? Again, no idea.

But a 33 pound weight loss in 120 days is an impressive feat, especially considering the subjects were on basically a high-carb (50% of calories) diet, which generally doesn’t lead to such a dramatic weight loss.

We also don’t know what the results would be on a low-carb or ketogenic diet. More weight loss? Don’t know.

As you might imagine, this study prompted me to search for Yacon syrup, of which I found many brands on Amazon. I purchased this one simply because it was the least expensive, though not by much. All of them are within a buck or so in price.

The syrup is a golden brownish color and mildly sweet. I was expecting it to be much sweeter than it is. Once opened, it should be refrigerated. Some commenters said if it isn’t refrigerated, it grows mold. So we tried it out and popped it in the fridge. I figured it would be hard as a rock when we got it out, but it pretty much retains its consistency.

I don’t have anything to compare it to taste-wise. But it is not unpleasant. MD thinks it tastes a bit like brown rice syrup. I couldn’t tell you what brown rice syrup tastes like.

MD, to a greater extent, and I, to a lesser extent, noticed a diminution in appetite. After taking it for a few days, we went out to dinner at one of our regular spots. MD always gets the Philly cheesesteak sandwich without a bun and a Caesar salad no croutons. And she always eats every bite. She quit about two thirds of the way through and said she was full. I can’t even remember what I had, but I ate it all.

Other than a reduced appetite, I can’t really report anything else as we haven’t been on it for that long. We have got a few friends on it, but haven’t had feedback yet. I was going to wait to write about this till I had some more data, but then I realized that right after Christmas is when everyone plans to start dieting. So, I decided to throw it out there for anyone who might want to give it a try.

If you do give it a try, keep me posted with your results.

Here is how we dose it.

The study used 0.14g of FOS per kg of body weight. Based on some reading I did, it looks like Yacon syrup contains between 45-50 percent FOS. Going through the calculations and conversions, it turns out that it takes about a teaspoon per every 30 pounds of body weight to hit the 0.14g per kg used in the study. So, if you weigh 150 pounds, you take 5 teaspoons of the syrup per day.

MD divides the dose and takes it twice per day, morning and evening. I take mine whenever I think of it throughout the day. Neither of us have experienced symptoms of any kind. Your mileage may vary.

The paper is far from clear as to when it is to be taken. Here’s what the authors wrote:

The subjects were instructed to consume the syrup 1 h before meals. The intake of 0.14 or 0.29 g FOS/kg body weight of the syrup or of the placebo was spread over the day as a half-dose after breakfast and another after dinner.

So, the study is far from clear on this. One hour before meals? Or after meals. How did the editors miss that one?

You may be able to find bulk Yacon syrup somewhere, but if you order the stuff we did or similar, you’ll find that it will take you three to four jars per month, depending upon your weight. Each jar costs about $15, so it will run $45 to $60 per month, which is significantly less expensive than the $1,500 you would shell out for Wegovy.

My Favorite Christmas Story

I’ve got a favorite Christmas novel, a favorite Christmas movie (two, actually) and a favorite Christmas story.

My favorite novel is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. I read it from cover to cover about every third Christmas. My favorite movies are A Christmas Story and The Ref. I’m sure most of you have seen A Christmas Story about how Ralphie is desperate for a BB gun, but maybe not so many have seen The Ref. If you haven’t, give it a watch this Christmas. It’s hilarious, slightly dark comedy. We watch those every couple of Christmases or so.

The one thing I read every single Christmas is Christmas Day in the Morning by Pearl Buck. If you haven’t read it, click here and get started. It’s wonderful. When I first read it, I didn’t notice the author. After I read it and discovered the author was Pearl Buck, I was astounded. It seemed so un Pearl Buckian. It is a great read. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.

Stanford University English

Have you seen the latest from Stanford University? If not, take a look at this article about it in the Wall Street Journal from a couple of days ago.

Here’s a taste:

Call yourself an “American”? Please don’t. Better to say “U.S. citizen,” per the bias hunters, lest you slight the rest of the Americas. “Immigrant” is also out, with “person who has immigrated” as the approved alternative. It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one word when four will do?

You can’t “master” your subject at Stanford any longer; in case you hadn’t heard, the school instructs that “historically, masters enslaved people.” And don’t dare design a “blind study,” which “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.” Blind studies are good and useful, but never mind; “masked study” is to be preferred. Follow the science.

“Gangbusters” is banned because the index says it “invokes the notion of police action against ‘gangs’ in a positive light, which may have racial undertones.” Not to beat a dead horse (a phrase that the index says “normalizes violence against animals”), but you used to have to get a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.

In reading this again, I can see that I sinned mightily by calling the blind guy in the section above a blind guy. Geez…

This document is unbelievable. I took a run through it just dipping in here and there. It’s set up like this. The phrase in common use, then the phrase they want you to use instead, and, finally, the reason the common phrase is offensive.

Here are a couple of examples.

Bad phrase: Rule of thumb

More politically appropriate phrase: Standard rule, general rule

Reason first phrase is bad: Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.

Bad phrase: more than one way to skin a cat

More politically appropriate phrase: multiple ways to accomplish the task

Reason first phrase is bad: This expression normalizes violence against animals.

And then this one, which is unbelievable as this phrase came to life on university campuses.

Bad Phrase: Trigger warning

More politically appropriate phrase: content note

Reason first phrase is bad: The phrase can cause stress about what's to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.

Well, since I hate political correctness, I’m ready to get really politically incorrect in the video of the week.

And since I did some of my medical training at Stanford, I’ll say this about the video below: Content note.

Video of the Week

As I wrote last week, I had never heard this Christmas song until I moved to Texas. I’ve heard it countless times since.

It’s by legendary Texas singer and songwriter Robert Earl Keen. He wrote it about 30 years ago and tells an hilarious story about how he came to pen it. He was struggling getting his creative juices going trying to write songs for a new album. So just to get him into flow, he started fooling around trying to come up with a funny Christmas song. He had no intention of recording it. He just wanted to jump start his brain.

When he finally got the other songs written, he took them to his producer. The producer listened, but wasn’t thrilled. He said, “Is that it? Do you have anything else?”

Robert Earl says, well, I have this Christmas song I threw together. The producer says, Let me hear it. Keen plays it and the producer goes ape. He says that’s a hit. Let’s do it.

So, here is Robert Earl and his song about a redneck Christmas get together 30 years ago. I get nicotine toxic every time I listen to it.

Posting it here lets me fight back against Stanford idiocy. Without further ado, here is Robert Earl Keen’s Merry Christmas from the Family.

Enjoy!

Strangely enough, this is the official video version, and Keen’s last name is misspelled.

Okay, that’s about it.

Everyone have a safe and enjoyable holiday. Keep in good cheer, and I’ll see you here next Thursday.

Please come see us at LowcarbUSA in Boca if you’re in the neighborhood and can make it.

And don’t forget to take a look at what our sponsors have to offer. Dry Farm Wines, HLTH Code, and Precision Health Reports.