Today we look at the top 20 iTunes hit chart, doctors and Covid misinformation, the new awful drug approval process, how Big Pharma combines drugs to drive profits, how a meat diet enhances longevity, why a veg diet might cause hip fractures, how processed meat can hurt you, a new source of lithium, and much, much more.
Aug 18, 2023·edited Aug 18, 2023Liked by Michael Eades
This morning after reading The Arrow, I found this article on Fox News ("Heart drug combining 3 medications in one is added to World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines"):
Just like you said! Toward the end of the article it says, "The three drugs contained in the polypill include acetylsalicylic acid, which helps thin the blood to prevent blood clots; ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor that lowers blood pressure; and a cholesterol-lowering drug called atorvastatin."
So, aspirin, a common blood pressure med, and a statin (aka Lipitor). As you would say, "Jesus wept."
Big Pharma combining off-patent drugs is the movie-industry equivalent of making on Rambo movie after another. Instead of spending the money to create something new, they simply recycle the old and bump the price.
I look forward each week and get a reliable 'woo-hoo' when it hits my mailbox. Dr. Eades, thank you for your weekly distillations. I recognize that they take a significant amount of your time and I'm really glad you enjoy sharing it. You're an American treasure, at least to me! Looking forward to PP 2.0 :-)
Aug 18, 2023·edited Aug 18, 2023Liked by Michael Eades
I just posted a comment that appeared twice and when I tried to delete one of them they both disappeared.
Anyhow, what I said was that Ozempic et. al are drugs that act on the monoamine neurotransmitters which is why people feel full. For the last 65 years, other drugs have been approved that also work in this way, but most have been withdrawn due to adverse effects.
I suspect many more issues will arise over time. And I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies making these drugs are stockpiling money for the legal fees and claims they will ultimately have to pay. Before then, though, they will harvest billions of dollars and come out way ahead. The losers will be the people who paid thousands of dollars, then regained all their lost weight. And the biggest losers of all will be those who suffer some sort of permanent injury.
So. The truth about processed meats had me on the floor laughing! Also thank you for peeling back the onion revealing the truth about the hot diet drugs. Some woman in Louisiana is suing the Wegovy drug company because she barfed her way to thinness and subsequently lost her teeth too. Ya never know what miracles the human body can conjure up.
Yep, loss of teeth is a common side effect of people who binge and purge. I would assume that anything causing frequent vomiting would do the same thing.
Yikes - it seems it's more bad news for truth every day. Also loved the fact that you said this one would be short . . . hardly! But loved every bit of it. Seems that you've combined The Arrow and the Quiver in positive ways. Maybe do that more often? Whatever you do - just keep on keepin' on. You're a source of sanity in an increasingly insane world. Thanks, Mike - and good luck with the talk. Looking forward to hearing it.
Thanks for the typos. Fixed them days ago. I've just been immersed in the big low-carb meeting in San Diego and haven't had time till this morning to answer all the comments. Had to drove home last night through Hillary, which was a bit harrowing. Took forever.
I'm curious about this: "patients on Wegovy had a 20% lower incidence of heart attack, stroke or death from heart disease compared to those on a placebo." How long are people ON the drug? I thought it was short term? Do people stay on it after they lose weight? Do they ever get their appetites back? And as for the "set point" idea -- Wegovy changes the "Set point?" I thought it mostly made people nauseated? What a load of rubbish....
This study has been in the works for a while. According to what I read about it, they started this five years ago. I suspect they knew the drug would work for weight loss, so this was an attempt to find some other health benefit, so they could get it on the list for insurance approval.
I'm also a big fan of Bastiat, and getting increasingly disappointed in the Wall Street Journal.
Do you think it would improve things if the FDA's mandate would be changed from safe and effective to just safe? If they focused on safety only perhaps they would do a better job. Efficacy seems the more controversial or troublesome concept, and keeps drugs useful for some people in some situations off the market. "Off label use" seems to recognize that safety should be the only concern.
The way the FDA works in the approval process is that they won't approve a new drug that works as well as an old drug. The new drug has to demonstrate at least a minimal increase in efficacy to get approval. I'm not sure about this, but I suspect efficacy trumps safety.
Yes, I understand. What I am suggesting is that it would be better for the public if the FDA was only concerned about safety, and let others decide the issue of efficacy. This is especially relevant since efficacy might vary depending on the population involved. Age, sex, or normal variability in response might affect how efficacious a drug is in a particular situation, and the variability in experienced side effects might also be different. What would be the argument for the FDA requiring proof of efficacy before granting approval?
I'm not sure I understand your question. The new drug approval process is already incredibly expensive. If new drugs had to make there way through TWO bumbling, disorganized, inefficient bureaucracies before receiving approval it would make them even more expensive than they are now. I agree that safety trumps efficacy, but I don't know you one could check for both without creating another bureaucracy to do so.
Let me try again. Why check for efficacy? Why not ONLY check for safety? It would eliminate the most expensive part of the current FDA procedure and make drugs approvals easier and quicker as well as eliminate the FDA deciding trade-offs between safety and efficacy. Half the bureaucracy not twice.
In the case of the Covid vaccines, it's not clear that they really checked for either safety or efficacy. I guess with an EUA it doesn't seem to matter.
Your confirmation bias is once again showing on climate change, picking Judith Curry being interviewed by John Stossel no less.
Interestingly Judith Curry was hired as an expert witness by the state of Montana in their defense of a lawsuit, brought by young people, claiming that Montana was violating their rights by not addressing climate change. Apparently the state never even put her on the witness stand and the judge, a Montana judge! ruled decisively in favor of the young people thank goodness.
Perhaps you should address the documented fact that even the big oil companies like Exxon asked their scientists to project what the temperature impacts of climate change would be in the decades to come back in the 1970s. The scientists of course, came up with accurate projections and warned Exxon of the disastrous consequences of the continued burning of oil.
Exxon being more interested in bucks than human Life proceeded to use this information to Climate proof their rigs and other machinery, and hide their scientists conclusions from the public. They then poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the exact same kind of PR as the cigarette manufactures did. Doubt, doubt doubt was their mantra and it’s succeeded.
And so folks like you support an industry that is documented to prematurely kill close to 10 million people a year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning alone.
Exactly how is that compatible with the Hippocratic oath?
I truly don’t understand why you and so many of the other doctors who I admire for their independence and fresh thinking on health and an appropriate distrust of big Pharma and big medicine fall for the distortions and lies and propaganda of the carbon combustion complex, the most powerful richest, most profitable, and most venal industry in the history of the world.
Never before seen in modern history, marine heat waves covering 40% of the oceans are killing, literally billions of sea creatures as I write this, Antarctic ice loss never imagined record-breaking heat on every continent, glaciers rapidly melting on every continent (do you also deny that is happening) apparently mean obviously mean nothing to you.
I will continue to read your columns because they’re entertaining and informative. Yet I will continue to grimace every time I see your utterly biased and uninformed takes on climate change.
Too much question-begging nonsense, abject lies, and banal ignorance in this one.
Also, when someone says "documented" at least twice, cites nothing, yet makes a bullshit assertion (Exon predicted 2023 temps in 1970), then it's not only that they are lying, it's that Herb knows he's lying, and thus, Herb is a liar. His defining characteristic.
Finally, on the subject of laughable ignorance, the ocean temps.
Don't let him in on the known and now acknowledged cause of those, Mike.
.....and the other problem with "documentation" is that it is mostly the output of models which in the case of global temperatures cannot be made to conform to observations.
Aug 18, 2023·edited Aug 18, 2023Liked by Michael Eades
Climate models can NEVER predict accurately, and this was known a LONG time ago (1961, my birth year, so 62 years ago) when they first began trying. IN FACT, it was the attempt to do so and seeing that the exact same model can toss off wildly different results just by miniscule rounding "errors" in decimal places out to the thousandths and beyond...that led to what's called Chaos Theory.
"The first real experiment in chaos theory was conducted by a meteorologist, Edward Lorenz. Lorenz worked with a system of equations to predict the weather. In 1961, Lorenz wanted to recreate a past weather sequence using a computer model based on 12 variables, including wind speed and temperature. These variables, or values, were graphed with lines that rose and fell over time. Lorenz was repeating an earlier simulation in 1961.
"However, on this day, Lorenz rounded his variable values to just three decimal places instead of six. This tiny change drastically transformed the whole pattern of two months of simulated weather. Thus, Lorenz proved that seemingly insignificant factors can have a huge effect on the overall outcome.
"Chaos theory explores the effects of small occurrences that can dramatically affect the results of seemingly unrelated events."
There are many irrational numbers in nature (numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of integers, like pie, 3.141....off into infinity with no repeating sequences) that are needed to ESTIMATE natural phenomenon. But the estimates are always wrong in absolute terms, and often WILDLY wrong.
Any person saying "the climate model predicts," is either so ignorant as to be stupid, or just plain stupid...and probably an abject automatic liar. Like what's-his-face up there.
FYI climate change may be real but the cause remains elusive. I do not believe the carbon hypotheses and neither should you. Actually I think few really believe it. If they did...don't you think we would be doing more? Look how they treated us under Covid? Why push everything onto electricity when the Grid is not close to being able to handle it?... and when it is clear you cannot generate enough green energy to do that using current green sources! Green cars even with subsidies are unaffordable for the common man!!! C' mon man. How is that a solution?
If 'they' were serious we'd be 'all in' for nuclear and we'd solve the storage/disposal problem when we had to. Moreover, with China such a huge polluter why not just put massive tariffs on Chinese goods? Why does Biden block carbon in the US and try to help Venezuela and Iran to pump more -they are not even our Friends!!! . Its all STUPID!! Of course its not a real threat.. This is not how any reasonable official would treat an exigent health -survival - issue. This is a is a bogus woke mind control game. And I'm Not playing!!! Good luck! Let see Who Dunnit? Colonel Exxon in the oil field with the drill derrick! Yeah that's it...
real scientists do not see this carbon thing as that damaging. The models do not work. they do not fit PAST data. In this paper the scientists assert there is a carbon saturation point for climate and we are already near it. its a very good long through paper. Climate changer believers never mention the positive aspect of more carbon like that it stimulates plant growth - a sort of automatic stabilizer. .
The Montana case rested on the vaguely feel-good phrase in the Montana Constitution that requires that the state "shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Whoever authored that phrase was either not very bright or very devious.
As to the rest, the global warming crowd is bigger and better funded by orders of magnitude than any "carbon combustion complex" could even imagine. Additionally, and far more important these days, the "global warming" crowd is better connected to the politically powerful, because "global warming" is the pretext for a theoretically unlimited concentration of power. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state", and any issue that can be presented as a "war" justifies, once again, enormous concentrations of power. Think of the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. Facts don't matter in these passionate endeavors, only the desire to "do something".
Regarding the vaxxed/unvaxed deaths, as I recall it, the unvaccinated deaths appeared to be higher because a dose of vaccine wasn’t counted as such until two weeks after it was injected. The shot depressed the immune system for two weeks and the patient was more likely to get Covid during that time.
If you received a dose, but caught Covid and died within two weeks, you were counted as an unvaccinated death.
I’m not sure if that trend was continued into the second dose because technically, one was not fully vaccinated until two weeks after second dose.
You are correct. Statistically, they consider the first two weeks AFTER the vaccination as being unvaccinated. Since most of the symptoms occur close to the time of vaccination, I think statistical manipulation is extremely disingenuous.
An off-topic YouTube video that I think of as Metabolism 101. It's only basic information, but the elementary approach (pun intended :) is a pretty good one.
I've talked about this guy and posted another video of his on The Arrow years ago. The mass balance equation was the topic of my talk in San Diego yesterday morning. I've been in contact with the guy in the video and may meet up with him in Australia in a couple of months if our schedules coincide.
I don't know anything about top pop songs but in every area of activity there are paradigms that develop that people follow, until suddenly a disruptor appears. That's a lovely photo of MD.
"Big Pharma Never Misses a Trick" just wait till they find a way to patent breathing when wearing a mask.
"Do Acid Reflux Meds Cause Dementia? I read this article aloud to MD, and she responded with, “Well, it might not be the drugs directly. It could well be all the stuff the drugs allow people to eat".” I think this is a world view that MD has: always think of alternative explanations. In quantitative science I always do a rough estimate to confirm a detailed answer. Always find some way to check an answer.
"GLP-1 Agonists in the News. "It isn’t so much about willpower: It’s about biology"." I think we agree with this though not the analysis that follows. You have often posted pictures of people from 50+ years ago. The big question should be why that "set point" has changed.
Thanks for the commentary. It is true that MD has an alternative way of looking at things, which doesn't help when I come up with a lame excuse for something I screwed up.
I agree about the set point issue. Genes can't change that quickly, so the photos from 50 years ago tell us something has happened environmentally to drive the massive increase in obesity.
Even after a meal of steak and a vegetable, I desire something with a sweet taste. Instead of consuming something with too much sugar, I consume one scoop of HLTH meal replacement powder with added berries, and psyllium husks with water or whole milk. That satisfies my craving. What are your thoughts regarding this product as a desert?
I think it's fine. I doesn't have any junk in it, and it is a complete protein. A complete meal replacement, in fact. Go for it. There are a lot of desert recipes on the site. I've never used one myself, so I can't vouch for them from personal experience. But I do use the supplements as shakes often.
Dr. Eades: You are definitely on to something regarding the issue of climate change. It appears that there are few, if any, modern day issues in society that cannot be laid at the feet of climate change, In reality, we know very little about what's actually happening. And in the context of Jason Crawfords article on science, there is very little actual scientific inquiry occurring, For example, none of these questions can be answered:
1. Why throughout history is there no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature?
2. What amount of the (questionable?) rise in global temperature that is being alleged is anthropengic versus the result of natural phenomena
3. Why is the Great Barrier Reef coral growing?
4. Why is the effect of atmospheric H2O and clouds not considered a driver of global temperature when it is a more significant green house gas than CO2?
5. Why does actual NOAA and NASA global ocean and atmospheric data not reported by the media? Could it be because this raw data does not show any warming trends,?
6 What are the benefits of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?
7. How much of sea level rise being measured in various locations is the result of tectconic or local land subsidence issues as opposed to sea level rises purported from loss of glaciers?
These are just a few--there are many more. Alarmists sceintitst are the Big Pharma of this issue?
I agree. I love what Matt Briggs writes about climate change. Not only is he a major statistician, he is a climatologist as well. https://wmbriggs.substack.com/
There is a ton of money to be made in the whole climate change arena. Politicians shovel money to various "green" energy companies, many of which they own a piece of the action. Which is why most politicians get rich over their years in office despite receiving fairly meager salaries. Find me people in any private industry who make $164,000 per year and retire will millions after 6-8 years. It's not just "green" energy that makes them rich, that's just what's in vogue among the group currently in power.
I wish I could, but I never wrote the two follow up pieces. For whatever reason, life got in the way. And I wasn't on a weekly schedule like I am with The Arrow. Had I been writing these pieces now, I would have certainly done the follow ups. Sorry.
This morning after reading The Arrow, I found this article on Fox News ("Heart drug combining 3 medications in one is added to World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines"):
https://www.foxnews.com/health/heart-drug-combining-3-medications-one-added-world-health-organizations-list-essential-medicines
Just like you said! Toward the end of the article it says, "The three drugs contained in the polypill include acetylsalicylic acid, which helps thin the blood to prevent blood clots; ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor that lowers blood pressure; and a cholesterol-lowering drug called atorvastatin."
So, aspirin, a common blood pressure med, and a statin (aka Lipitor). As you would say, "Jesus wept."
Big Pharma combining off-patent drugs is the movie-industry equivalent of making on Rambo movie after another. Instead of spending the money to create something new, they simply recycle the old and bump the price.
I look forward each week and get a reliable 'woo-hoo' when it hits my mailbox. Dr. Eades, thank you for your weekly distillations. I recognize that they take a significant amount of your time and I'm really glad you enjoy sharing it. You're an American treasure, at least to me! Looking forward to PP 2.0 :-)
Cheers,
Allan
Thanks very much for the kind words. I appreciate them.
I just posted a comment that appeared twice and when I tried to delete one of them they both disappeared.
Anyhow, what I said was that Ozempic et. al are drugs that act on the monoamine neurotransmitters which is why people feel full. For the last 65 years, other drugs have been approved that also work in this way, but most have been withdrawn due to adverse effects.
https://thehighwire.com/editorial/suicidal-behavior-and-other-devastating-side-effects-of-ozempic/
I suspect many more issues will arise over time. And I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies making these drugs are stockpiling money for the legal fees and claims they will ultimately have to pay. Before then, though, they will harvest billions of dollars and come out way ahead. The losers will be the people who paid thousands of dollars, then regained all their lost weight. And the biggest losers of all will be those who suffer some sort of permanent injury.
They reduce your appetite for life itself?
So. The truth about processed meats had me on the floor laughing! Also thank you for peeling back the onion revealing the truth about the hot diet drugs. Some woman in Louisiana is suing the Wegovy drug company because she barfed her way to thinness and subsequently lost her teeth too. Ya never know what miracles the human body can conjure up.
Yep, loss of teeth is a common side effect of people who binge and purge. I would assume that anything causing frequent vomiting would do the same thing.
The one thing that you haven't covered about Ozempic yet is it's apparent psychological effects:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I030YFyV74
Going through the comments were very eye-opening.
Wow! Thanks for sending this my way. The comments are devastating.
Yikes - it seems it's more bad news for truth every day. Also loved the fact that you said this one would be short . . . hardly! But loved every bit of it. Seems that you've combined The Arrow and the Quiver in positive ways. Maybe do that more often? Whatever you do - just keep on keepin' on. You're a source of sanity in an increasingly insane world. Thanks, Mike - and good luck with the talk. Looking forward to hearing it.
Only one that I saw:
after my talk if finished,
talk is finished
Thanks for the typos. Fixed them days ago. I've just been immersed in the big low-carb meeting in San Diego and haven't had time till this morning to answer all the comments. Had to drove home last night through Hillary, which was a bit harrowing. Took forever.
Ouch - the drive through Hilary . . . glad you made it.
Hope we get to hear your talk!
I'll post it when the video is up.
Great stuff as always!
I'm curious about this: "patients on Wegovy had a 20% lower incidence of heart attack, stroke or death from heart disease compared to those on a placebo." How long are people ON the drug? I thought it was short term? Do people stay on it after they lose weight? Do they ever get their appetites back? And as for the "set point" idea -- Wegovy changes the "Set point?" I thought it mostly made people nauseated? What a load of rubbish....
This study has been in the works for a while. According to what I read about it, they started this five years ago. I suspect they knew the drug would work for weight loss, so this was an attempt to find some other health benefit, so they could get it on the list for insurance approval.
I'm also a big fan of Bastiat, and getting increasingly disappointed in the Wall Street Journal.
Do you think it would improve things if the FDA's mandate would be changed from safe and effective to just safe? If they focused on safety only perhaps they would do a better job. Efficacy seems the more controversial or troublesome concept, and keeps drugs useful for some people in some situations off the market. "Off label use" seems to recognize that safety should be the only concern.
The way the FDA works in the approval process is that they won't approve a new drug that works as well as an old drug. The new drug has to demonstrate at least a minimal increase in efficacy to get approval. I'm not sure about this, but I suspect efficacy trumps safety.
Yes, I understand. What I am suggesting is that it would be better for the public if the FDA was only concerned about safety, and let others decide the issue of efficacy. This is especially relevant since efficacy might vary depending on the population involved. Age, sex, or normal variability in response might affect how efficacious a drug is in a particular situation, and the variability in experienced side effects might also be different. What would be the argument for the FDA requiring proof of efficacy before granting approval?
I'm not sure I understand your question. The new drug approval process is already incredibly expensive. If new drugs had to make there way through TWO bumbling, disorganized, inefficient bureaucracies before receiving approval it would make them even more expensive than they are now. I agree that safety trumps efficacy, but I don't know you one could check for both without creating another bureaucracy to do so.
Let me try again. Why check for efficacy? Why not ONLY check for safety? It would eliminate the most expensive part of the current FDA procedure and make drugs approvals easier and quicker as well as eliminate the FDA deciding trade-offs between safety and efficacy. Half the bureaucracy not twice.
In the case of the Covid vaccines, it's not clear that they really checked for either safety or efficacy. I guess with an EUA it doesn't seem to matter.
I suppose if we did that Big Pharma would focus totally on safety and the drugs would be useless, but safe. Somehow efficacy needs to be established.
so you want to 'Eff' efficacy? Just checking...
Your confirmation bias is once again showing on climate change, picking Judith Curry being interviewed by John Stossel no less.
Interestingly Judith Curry was hired as an expert witness by the state of Montana in their defense of a lawsuit, brought by young people, claiming that Montana was violating their rights by not addressing climate change. Apparently the state never even put her on the witness stand and the judge, a Montana judge! ruled decisively in favor of the young people thank goodness.
Perhaps you should address the documented fact that even the big oil companies like Exxon asked their scientists to project what the temperature impacts of climate change would be in the decades to come back in the 1970s. The scientists of course, came up with accurate projections and warned Exxon of the disastrous consequences of the continued burning of oil.
Exxon being more interested in bucks than human Life proceeded to use this information to Climate proof their rigs and other machinery, and hide their scientists conclusions from the public. They then poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the exact same kind of PR as the cigarette manufactures did. Doubt, doubt doubt was their mantra and it’s succeeded.
And so folks like you support an industry that is documented to prematurely kill close to 10 million people a year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning alone.
Exactly how is that compatible with the Hippocratic oath?
I truly don’t understand why you and so many of the other doctors who I admire for their independence and fresh thinking on health and an appropriate distrust of big Pharma and big medicine fall for the distortions and lies and propaganda of the carbon combustion complex, the most powerful richest, most profitable, and most venal industry in the history of the world.
Never before seen in modern history, marine heat waves covering 40% of the oceans are killing, literally billions of sea creatures as I write this, Antarctic ice loss never imagined record-breaking heat on every continent, glaciers rapidly melting on every continent (do you also deny that is happening) apparently mean obviously mean nothing to you.
I will continue to read your columns because they’re entertaining and informative. Yet I will continue to grimace every time I see your utterly biased and uninformed takes on climate change.
Too much question-begging nonsense, abject lies, and banal ignorance in this one.
Also, when someone says "documented" at least twice, cites nothing, yet makes a bullshit assertion (Exon predicted 2023 temps in 1970), then it's not only that they are lying, it's that Herb knows he's lying, and thus, Herb is a liar. His defining characteristic.
Finally, on the subject of laughable ignorance, the ocean temps.
Don't let him in on the known and now acknowledged cause of those, Mike.
You've got a true-believer-liar on your hands.
.....and the other problem with "documentation" is that it is mostly the output of models which in the case of global temperatures cannot be made to conform to observations.
Climate models can NEVER predict accurately, and this was known a LONG time ago (1961, my birth year, so 62 years ago) when they first began trying. IN FACT, it was the attempt to do so and seeing that the exact same model can toss off wildly different results just by miniscule rounding "errors" in decimal places out to the thousandths and beyond...that led to what's called Chaos Theory.
"The first real experiment in chaos theory was conducted by a meteorologist, Edward Lorenz. Lorenz worked with a system of equations to predict the weather. In 1961, Lorenz wanted to recreate a past weather sequence using a computer model based on 12 variables, including wind speed and temperature. These variables, or values, were graphed with lines that rose and fell over time. Lorenz was repeating an earlier simulation in 1961.
"However, on this day, Lorenz rounded his variable values to just three decimal places instead of six. This tiny change drastically transformed the whole pattern of two months of simulated weather. Thus, Lorenz proved that seemingly insignificant factors can have a huge effect on the overall outcome.
"Chaos theory explores the effects of small occurrences that can dramatically affect the results of seemingly unrelated events."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/chaos-theory.asp
There are many irrational numbers in nature (numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of integers, like pie, 3.141....off into infinity with no repeating sequences) that are needed to ESTIMATE natural phenomenon. But the estimates are always wrong in absolute terms, and often WILDLY wrong.
Any person saying "the climate model predicts," is either so ignorant as to be stupid, or just plain stupid...and probably an abject automatic liar. Like what's-his-face up there.
FYI climate change may be real but the cause remains elusive. I do not believe the carbon hypotheses and neither should you. Actually I think few really believe it. If they did...don't you think we would be doing more? Look how they treated us under Covid? Why push everything onto electricity when the Grid is not close to being able to handle it?... and when it is clear you cannot generate enough green energy to do that using current green sources! Green cars even with subsidies are unaffordable for the common man!!! C' mon man. How is that a solution?
If 'they' were serious we'd be 'all in' for nuclear and we'd solve the storage/disposal problem when we had to. Moreover, with China such a huge polluter why not just put massive tariffs on Chinese goods? Why does Biden block carbon in the US and try to help Venezuela and Iran to pump more -they are not even our Friends!!! . Its all STUPID!! Of course its not a real threat.. This is not how any reasonable official would treat an exigent health -survival - issue. This is a is a bogus woke mind control game. And I'm Not playing!!! Good luck! Let see Who Dunnit? Colonel Exxon in the oil field with the drill derrick! Yeah that's it...
really?
read this https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
real scientists do not see this carbon thing as that damaging. The models do not work. they do not fit PAST data. In this paper the scientists assert there is a carbon saturation point for climate and we are already near it. its a very good long through paper. Climate changer believers never mention the positive aspect of more carbon like that it stimulates plant growth - a sort of automatic stabilizer. .
This documentation you talk about (to kill 10 million people) is the output of models...which will all know are 100% accurate (not).
I think Victoria's Secret models do have blood on their hands...never trust a model...
Maybe, but you just can't tell a Victoria's Secret what you want it to do and have it happen--
How would you argue with this clip? https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y
When I like a comment, that doesn't mean I agree with it. Only that I have read it.
The Montana case rested on the vaguely feel-good phrase in the Montana Constitution that requires that the state "shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Whoever authored that phrase was either not very bright or very devious.
As to the rest, the global warming crowd is bigger and better funded by orders of magnitude than any "carbon combustion complex" could even imagine. Additionally, and far more important these days, the "global warming" crowd is better connected to the politically powerful, because "global warming" is the pretext for a theoretically unlimited concentration of power. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state", and any issue that can be presented as a "war" justifies, once again, enormous concentrations of power. Think of the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. Facts don't matter in these passionate endeavors, only the desire to "do something".
Regarding the vaxxed/unvaxed deaths, as I recall it, the unvaccinated deaths appeared to be higher because a dose of vaccine wasn’t counted as such until two weeks after it was injected. The shot depressed the immune system for two weeks and the patient was more likely to get Covid during that time.
If you received a dose, but caught Covid and died within two weeks, you were counted as an unvaccinated death.
I’m not sure if that trend was continued into the second dose because technically, one was not fully vaccinated until two weeks after second dose.
You are correct. Statistically, they consider the first two weeks AFTER the vaccination as being unvaccinated. Since most of the symptoms occur close to the time of vaccination, I think statistical manipulation is extremely disingenuous.
An off-topic YouTube video that I think of as Metabolism 101. It's only basic information, but the elementary approach (pun intended :) is a pretty good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM-ySWyID9o (17:52).
I've talked about this guy and posted another video of his on The Arrow years ago. The mass balance equation was the topic of my talk in San Diego yesterday morning. I've been in contact with the guy in the video and may meet up with him in Australia in a couple of months if our schedules coincide.
A few comments.
I don't know anything about top pop songs but in every area of activity there are paradigms that develop that people follow, until suddenly a disruptor appears. That's a lovely photo of MD.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808358: How can anyone who thinks not see this as stupid? If you use wrong filters on structured searches you get wrong answers.
"Big Pharma Never Misses a Trick" just wait till they find a way to patent breathing when wearing a mask.
"Do Acid Reflux Meds Cause Dementia? I read this article aloud to MD, and she responded with, “Well, it might not be the drugs directly. It could well be all the stuff the drugs allow people to eat".” I think this is a world view that MD has: always think of alternative explanations. In quantitative science I always do a rough estimate to confirm a detailed answer. Always find some way to check an answer.
"GLP-1 Agonists in the News. "It isn’t so much about willpower: It’s about biology"." I think we agree with this though not the analysis that follows. You have often posted pictures of people from 50+ years ago. The big question should be why that "set point" has changed.
Thanks for the commentary. It is true that MD has an alternative way of looking at things, which doesn't help when I come up with a lame excuse for something I screwed up.
I agree about the set point issue. Genes can't change that quickly, so the photos from 50 years ago tell us something has happened environmentally to drive the massive increase in obesity.
You and MD are a good team. It could be that there are epigenetic set points. The Dutch Hunger Winter (44–45) illustrates that; again, environmental.
Lots of laughs, which I need! The analysis of iTunes is particularly interesting.
Even after a meal of steak and a vegetable, I desire something with a sweet taste. Instead of consuming something with too much sugar, I consume one scoop of HLTH meal replacement powder with added berries, and psyllium husks with water or whole milk. That satisfies my craving. What are your thoughts regarding this product as a desert?
I think it's fine. I doesn't have any junk in it, and it is a complete protein. A complete meal replacement, in fact. Go for it. There are a lot of desert recipes on the site. I've never used one myself, so I can't vouch for them from personal experience. But I do use the supplements as shakes often.
Dr. Eades: You are definitely on to something regarding the issue of climate change. It appears that there are few, if any, modern day issues in society that cannot be laid at the feet of climate change, In reality, we know very little about what's actually happening. And in the context of Jason Crawfords article on science, there is very little actual scientific inquiry occurring, For example, none of these questions can be answered:
1. Why throughout history is there no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature?
2. What amount of the (questionable?) rise in global temperature that is being alleged is anthropengic versus the result of natural phenomena
3. Why is the Great Barrier Reef coral growing?
4. Why is the effect of atmospheric H2O and clouds not considered a driver of global temperature when it is a more significant green house gas than CO2?
5. Why does actual NOAA and NASA global ocean and atmospheric data not reported by the media? Could it be because this raw data does not show any warming trends,?
6 What are the benefits of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?
7. How much of sea level rise being measured in various locations is the result of tectconic or local land subsidence issues as opposed to sea level rises purported from loss of glaciers?
These are just a few--there are many more. Alarmists sceintitst are the Big Pharma of this issue?
I agree. I love what Matt Briggs writes about climate change. Not only is he a major statistician, he is a climatologist as well. https://wmbriggs.substack.com/
There is a ton of money to be made in the whole climate change arena. Politicians shovel money to various "green" energy companies, many of which they own a piece of the action. Which is why most politicians get rich over their years in office despite receiving fairly meager salaries. Find me people in any private industry who make $164,000 per year and retire will millions after 6-8 years. It's not just "green" energy that makes them rich, that's just what's in vogue among the group currently in power.
Could you please give us the links to the rest of your hog butchering experience?
I wish I could, but I never wrote the two follow up pieces. For whatever reason, life got in the way. And I wasn't on a weekly schedule like I am with The Arrow. Had I been writing these pieces now, I would have certainly done the follow ups. Sorry.