The Arrow #144

Hello friends.

Greetings from Dallas.

We’re still in the throes of all the preparation to head Down Under in a few days.

I’m pretty sure tickets are still available to the Low Carb Down Under conference if anyone wants to go, whether in person or virtually. Looks like a great lineup this year. You can check it out here. If you can’t attend in person, you can get the streaming video of all the talks, and you can watch them whenever you want. The cost for that is $99, but that’s Australian dollars. Calculates to only about $62 US. Click the link above and sign up. I get no cut of the proceeds; they all go to LowCarbDownUnder.

I can’t wait to see the harbor in Sydney and the iconic Sydney Opera House, which I just read about today. I didn’t realize what a fiasco the building of the thing was. It was supposed to take five years; it took fourteen. It came in 1400 percent over budget and basically killed the architect’s (Jørn Utzon) career. And now it, along with the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, which came in on time and under budget (kudos to Frank Gehry), are considered the two architectural masterpieces of the 20th century. And I haven’t seen either one of them in the flesh… or the bricks and mortar.

So, I’m eager to see this one and at least be batting .500 on 20th century architectural masterpieces viewed.

Once we take off on this trip, much of our time will not be our own. And we’ll be a day ahead (I think), so I’m not sure about the amount of content I’ll be able to put together and the timing of next week’s Arrow. Just a heads up…

A few of days ago I watched a couple of videos that I’m going to put up here. These are both well worth watching. I’ll kind of summarize the important findings, but you really need to watch them to get the full complement of information.

Harvey Risch On Vaccine Injuries and Turbo Cancer

This video hasn’t made it to YouTube yet, so I can’t embed it. It is in an article that has one other video. Make sure to watch the one with Dr. Risch.

You can get to the article (which comes before you get to the video) and video by clicking the graphic above or by clicking the link below.

Dr. Harvey Risch on vaccine injuries.

In the video, Dr. Risch makes four points that I feel are of great importance. I’ve discussed three of these issues in these pages—I got two correct and one wrong.

Turbo Cancer

A couple of years ago someone sent me an email with a link to an article about a middle-aged lady who had taken the Covid mRNA vaccine and had cancer swarm on her in a period of just a few months. The implication of the article, of course, was that the cancer rapidly enlarged as a consequence of the vaccine she had taken. I posted the article and wrote that I thought it highly improbable that a cancer could grow that quickly irrespective of vaccination status.

The reason I wrote this is that normally cancer doesn’t just appear overnight. It starts with a malignant cell that has to double, then those two cells have to double to get to four cells. And so on. It can take a lot of doubling before the growing cancer can even be visualized as a tiny dot. Ultimately it reaches the point where one last doubling increases it to a size that ends up causing symptoms. But that can take years.

As it turns out, there are now many, many reports of accelerated growth of cancers post-Covid-vaccination. In the video, Dr. Risch makes the case that enough doctors have sent him reports on this extreme growth that it’s more than just noise. He thinks it is a major signal. He’s not ready to go all-in on it, but he thinks the growing evidence cannot be ignored.

I have read about these so-called Turbo cancers here and there, but I’ve been pretty skeptical about them. Dr. Risch has seen a lot more than I have, and he, as you will see when you watch the video, is not one to jump to a conclusion without a lot of evidence.

Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed and Safety and Efficacy

One of the issues he discusses in the video is that of how those doing the vaccine studies set the parameters. As I have written here and there, the people designing the trials (who pretty much do so in a way that benefits the drug companies) set them up so that those vaccinated would not be considered vaccinated until 14 days after they received their first jab.

As outrageous as that seems, there is a certain logic to it. It takes some time for the vaccine to work to make the cells generate spike proteins, then have the body develop immunity against them. If the actual day of vaccination were considered to be the same day for study purposes, then any Covid infection incurred by the subject within a week or two after the vaccination would be an infection that might not have occurred had the vaccine had time to establish immunity. So the two-week delay between the actual date of the vaccination and the study date for the vaccination makes sense. From an efficacy standpoint.

But, as it turns out, most of the severe adverse events associated with the vaccine occur within the first week or so. Which means those adverse events would be reported as happening to an unvaccinated subject. These would then offset many adverse events occurring after the two-week delay in considering a subject vaccinated. Consequently the data would show that there wasn’t nearly as large a difference in adverse effects between the vaccinated and unvaccinated as there really was.

As Dr. Risch points out, there should be two different start dates for those in the study. One start date, which begins 14 days after the actual jab, to determine efficacy. And another date, which starts on the day of the actual jab, to determine safety.

But our vaunted FDA, to which we pay vast sums of money to keep us safe, lets the process slide using just one parameter: that which determines efficacy. This is really a boneheaded move on the FDA’s part. It wouldn’t complicate the study much at all to add this bit of extra bookkeeping, which would greatly increase the understanding of safety issues.

But, then, maybe they didn’t just overlook it. Maybe it was by design.

Case-Control Studies

Dr. Risch makes the case that now that we know what to look for in terms of vaccine injuries and serious adverse events, we should do a case-control study to determine the extent of these injuries.

In these kinds of studies, researchers gather, say, a thousand subjects selected at random who were vaccinated and compare them with a thousand non-vaccinated subjects of the same age, sex, race, and other demographics. The object would be to look at the difference healthwise in these two groups and determine what, if any, differences there were in terms of known vaccine issues.

He said they are so good at these kinds of studies now that they can be more accurate than randomized-control studies. Which I don’t believe for a minute, but they are the best we’ve got at this point.

Problem is, it would be impossible to get funding. According to him, in order to get this kind of study funded, the researchers would have to come up with some unique finding they were looking for. Just looking to see the difference in vaccine-induced issues — ie, safety — would not be enough to get the NIH to fund it. Probably because the NIH does not want to know the outcome, since it would doubtless be bad news for the FDA, CDC, and all the agencies promoting the vaccines.

Serious Adverse Events

Based on the data he has collected, Dr. Risch estimates that the rate of serious adverse events (SAE) due to the vaccine will end up running at about 1 in 140 vaccinated people. As he mentions, if you’re going to belly up to the bar for the jab and the odds are just 1 out of 140 that you’ll have a bad outcome, that may not sound too risky. I mean, after all, those are pretty good odds, especially if you are elderly and have multiple co-morbidities.

On an individual level, the odds aren’t all that bad, but on a population level, they are dreadful. If we’ve had 300M people get the vaccine, that would mean that over 2 million folks are going to have SEA. Which is no good.

I encourage you to watch the entire video. You will learn a lot.

J.J. Couey and the Immunology of Covid

I had never heard of J.J. Couey until I found a paper of his that wasn’t even listed on PubMed. I was looking for a graphic showing the difference between a sterilizing and non-sterilizing vaccine when I came across it. I got the graphic (below) and read the paper, which I found quite good. The only quibble I had with it was that the first citation I looked up (#46) was to a paper that did not confirm what the cited statement said. Which is always a bad sign. But it can easily happen, especially when the paper isn’t published in a journal, so has no one to go through a double check. I looked at a number of others, and they all were as they should be, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Once I read the paper, I looked him up and found out that he was at the University of Pittsburgh and had published a number of papers, several of which were in prestigious journals. Most did not deal with virology. But, if you’re trained in research, it’s a lot easier to begin studying another topic than if you aren’t trained in research.

I looked to see if he, by chance, had any videos, and, Bingo! I found a bunch. Then I ran into my first issue. It shouldn’t be a problem, but it is a bit of one for me. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

Once, years ago, I was flipping through channels from one NFL game to another and came across a trailer for the cartoon show King of the Hill. In it Hank Hill, the red-neck, conservative lead ‘toon of the show said something along the lines of, “You may be surprised to learn that I love it when people tattoo and pierce themselves. It saves time. You don’t have to waste a lot of time getting to know them. You just have to give them a quick look to know there’s something wrong with them.”

Sad to say, but I guess I’ve got a little of the Hank Hill in me. Or maybe I’m just a major conformist, though I would hate to admit that since I’m unapologetically weird in so many other ways. But when I see a guy who is wild-eyed and has hair halfway down his back, I admit to being a little put off. And J.J. Couey qualifies. But based on his really good paper, I didn’t let that deter me. I’m glad I didn’t because his video is excellent. The way he lays out the situation re the mRNA vaccines is superb. Once you see it, you’ll understand why they (along with other—perhaps all—vaccines, in my opinion) are problematic.

Okay, first the graphic, then the video.

In the part labeled A, he shows the measles virus, which is a stable virus, i.e., it mutates little, if any. There are spots all over the virus showing what are called epitopes, which are little strips of protein the immune system keys on. Why these particular strips? Who knows? I certainly don’t. These epitopes are portrayed in the graphic by the colored dots, triangles, etc. The immune cells attacking (for lack of a better word) or perhaps better attaching to the epitopes are shown as the little Y-shaped antibodies.

When a person is infected by measles, the immune system keys on all these epitopes and ends up killing all the viruses.

Part B shows non-sterilizing immunity. Since the only part of the virus the mRNA codes for is the spike protein, the only epitopes presented to the immune system are those on the spike protein. But there are a number of epitopes on the body of the virus as well, which never get presented to the immune system…unless there is a Covid infection. Not just a vaccine.

Corona viruses in general tend to mutate like crazy, which is why no one has made a vaccine for the common cold, many of which are caused by corona viruses. As it turns out, SARS-CoV-2 also mutates at a pretty good rate. We’ve seen how many variants have come along since the original strain.

So, if all you can do is mount an immune response to the epitopes on the spike and not on the nucleocapsid (the body of the virus), you don’t get complete immunity. And the fact that only the epitopes on the spike protein are targeted by the immune system in the vaccinated, the spike protein, which is the dangerous part of the virus, is forced to mutate even faster.

Since the immune systems in the vaccinated are trained to key only to the spike protein as it was presented in the vaccine, once that part of the virus has mutated, they don’t recognize it any longer. Which is why many of the vaccinated end up getting Covid over and over whereas those who are unvaccinated and got Covid do not. Natural immunity keys on both the spike and the nucleocapsid, which mutates much more slowly. The nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 is 90 percent the same as that of SARS-CoV-1.

I mentioned way back in the day that recent infections with a cold caused by a corona virus would probably help prevent infection with Covid, or, at the very least, make the infection milder. Strangely enough, the citation (#46) mentioned above that was incorrect actually referenced a paper showing this very thing.

On to the video

The video is on Rumble, and it is a group of doctors of one kind or another having an online get together. Dr. Couey is presenting to the group. The entire video is pretty long, and I’ll admit I did not watch anything but Dr. Couey’s part of it. But his part is excellent.

It starts early in the video, but if you just want to watch the crux of it, start at 39:05 (I’ve got it queued there) and go to about 1:10:11. He draws diagrams to show exactly what happens, and why the vaccines are so ineffective. He’s showing the other docs how to present it to their friends, family, and patients.

I’m not really going to go over it, because you need to see the diagrams he draws to make sense of it.

One point he does make that I’ve pounded into the heads of my own children is that the GI tract and the lungs are really outside the body. They are the organs that extract stuff from the outside world: air in the case of the lungs and food in the GI tract. Dr. Couey makes this same case in his diagrams, so you can see why the immune system is so arrayed around these organs. That’s where it first comes into contact with viruses, bacteria, fungi and other agents that might pose a threat to us.

When our eldest son was in college, he obtained a bag of powdered-sugar-covered mini-donuts. He was racked out in bed studying (I’m sure) or perhaps on the floor after some party somewhere and woke up in the middle of the night. (Doubtless with a hangover.) He reached into the bag in the dark, pulled out a donut and ate it. The next morning, in the daylight, he reached in to get another and noticed they were covered with fluffy white mold. He told us he was about to puke, but then he remembered Dad saying that your GI tract was outside your body, so he was okay. If only he had remembered Dad saying that you shouldn’t eat powdered-sugar-covered donuts… Ah, youth.

Here is the link to the Rumble video (or click the graphic above) queued to the spot. Feel free to watch the whole thing and let me know in the comments how it was.

Oh, and speaking of King of the Hill, here is my absolute favorite ten seconds of Hank Hill, when he drives through Hot Springs, Arkansas. MD’s home town. And the place where Bill Clinton grew up.

Okay, let’s move on to something a little more fun.

How Would You Like To Have Your Own Zip Code?

Well, you can. Not your own personal zip code as in a zip code for your person. But you can have a unique code for your house. And not just your house, but even the front door to your house. Or even the back door. Or your dog’s house, if it wants one.

And you don’t have to live in any specific state or country to get your code. You can be anywhere in the world and get it. If you’re in the middle of the jungle or savannah in Africa, you can have a code to give people that will lead them right to the front flap of your tent. Or in the Australian Outback.

How do you get it? And how much does it cost?

The good news is that it costs zero. The bad news is…well, there really isn’t any bad news.

Here’s the deal.

A guy in the UK got tired of showing up at the wrong place after being given an address. And of having packages and band equipment end up being delivered to the wrong address. He was complaining to a friend of his who is a math wizard, so they set out to find a better way. They recruited a few other friends and set to work. They ended up dividing the entire globe into roughly ten foot squares. Not ten feet by ten feet, but ten square feet of area.

The entire globe.

As you might imagine, that’s a lot of little ten square foot boxes. Then they gave each one of these boxes a three word name. Every frigging one of them the entire globe over.

Then they founded a company called What3Words and are working to monetize it. Primarily through selling it to businesses.

But you can use it free.

I wish it had been around a few years ago. MD and I formerly lived on Lake Tahoe in Incline Village, Nevada. We lived in a condo complex on the lake, but there was a screwy way the streets were named. And we couldn’t get mail there, so we had to have a private mailbox. It was always difficult to tell people where we lived. Even if they put it into GPS it took them down the road about a half a mile beyond where we lived.

Now, all we would have to do is give them our three words, and they could navigate not just to the condo complex, but right to our front door. Our words would be: packaging envelope cubs

I could give you this address: https://w3w.co/packaging.envelope.cubs You could click on it and find us on a map and have several navigation tools at hand.

Click on it and give it a try. Go to the little round globe/map in the far lower right, click on it, and you’ll see that you’re right at our old front door. All you would have to do is walk down the stairs and knock.

You can then go to the address box in the upper left and put in your own address. Or go to this link. From there, you can navigate all around your property until you find the very spot at which you would like guests (or deliveries) to show up. Maybe your front door?

Once you’ve decided where, you’ll have your own three word zip code. And you’ll have a web address you can send to anyone you want to get to your house.

How about that!

Every Profession Has Its Morbid Aspects

I guess.

When I was in engineering school, my best friend, who was a chemical engineering major, worked in a mortuary. He had a pretty good gig. He and another guy split up the days, so my friend worked every other night and every other weekend.

He would show up after class at about 5 PM, put on his dress suit, and if there were visitors to view the dearly departed, he would let them in and out. All that was over at about 8 pm, so then he would ditch the suit and study for his course work. He slept there so he could be available to admit any fresh corpses that might come in during the night. Which was fairly rare. He made a good bit of money for very little effort, so other than working every other night, it was a great job.

I used to go there, hang out with him, and study. Once while I was there, I came across a magazine called Mortuary Management, which was the industry rag. In flipping through it, I came across all kinds of ads for caskets, monuments, gravestones of one kind or another, and embalming equipment. I remember one ad for a specific casket company that used as a testimonial the fact that their caskets had been used exclusively for the mass burial of victims of a big commercial airliner crash. It had a photo of them all lined up. [Creepy I’ll admit.]

The one that got to me the most was a full page ad by a company that provided financing for funerals, caskets, etc. At the top of the ad was the upper half of a guy in a suit with a toothy ear-to-ear grin holding up both his hands that were filled with money. The caption said, The Face of a Happy Funeral Director.

Funeral homes are a business like any other. They have all kinds of overhead and expenses they have to cover before they make any money. So, I’m sure they’re always on the lookout for ways to cut overhead and increase revenue. That’s what businesses do. But it does seem morbid to see a happy funeral director with two fists full of dollars.

But it’s not only funeral homes. My own profession is not exempt. What prompted me to write this section was an email I got today from Medscape, a service physicians subscribe to to keep them up to date. Here was today’s serving.

Made me feel the same way I did when I saw the face of the happy funeral director.

3.4 Percent

Great video. I love these things that show just how out of touch the so-called elites really are. It’s short. You’ll enjoy it.

While we’re on a roll, here is another short video showing people flip flopping all over the place. This one is about the rationale for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It was still, at least in my opinion, an abysmally stupid move on his part, which, I suspect, he has come to regret. But still…

While we’re on the subject of the Ukraine war, here is some interesting news.

Did you know that Zelensky purchased a luxury estate on the coast in Egypt? Looks like he purchased it through his mother-in-law. Now why would he do that, do you think? Maybe to keep it from the public? Or is it to get his MIL away from him? You be the judge.

You would think that if he is able to peel off $4.85M from the money the US and other countries are sending him, he would at least be able to afford a cheap suit to wear when addressing the congress to beg for more.

No One Is Safe

I just can’t quit. Here is one more. A bit longer than the others. You can easily see that the mainstream media get their talking points from above. They all use the same script. Where is David Brinkley when we need him?

The best part is somewhere near the middle when the harpies on The View turn on one of their own when she espouses a different view than the approved one.

Nobel Prize in Medicine for mRNA Vaccine

You may have read that this year’s Nobel price in medicine was awarded to two researchers involved in developing the mRNA vaccines for Covid that have caused so many problems.

One of my favorite Substack reads is eugyppius, who is a German academic. His post today tells the tale of why the award was given to these two researchers. At the top of his post is the graphic below with his scathing, but true, commentary:

The idea of a Nobel for the mRNA vaccines has been in the air for a while now, but by traditional standards, Karikó and Weissman were not obvious candidates. Neither their publications nor their citations were sufficient to place them among the front-runners. In a backhanded acknowledgement of this fact, the awarding Committee have explained that they hope their reward will help to combat vaccine hesitancy (h/t Michael Esders). I am not making this up:

The Nobel Prize for Karikó and Weissman may boost confidence in mRNA vaccine research. The Nobel Committee hopes so, too: a Nobel Prize for these vaccines against Covid-19 could encourage hesitant people to opt for vaccination in the reassurance that it is effective and safe, explained panel member Olle Kämpe. Not only do mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 remain relevant – the virus continues to circulate, after all – but in the future they could also be used for other diseases such as influenza or even cancer. [Links and bold in the original.]

SOURCE

Also, today, Robert Malone weighed in. Dr. Malone was one of the early pioneers in mRNA vaccine research. He did the first work on these types of vaccines and basically was the inventor of them.

But, he became very public about the problems with these vaccines, which was not a popular thing to do. Consequently, he was banned from LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social media. The gatekeepers couldn’t have the inventor of mRNA vaccines dissing them publicly, so he had to go.

Even Wikipedia erased his contributions.

Here is the Wikipedia page on the history of mRNA vaccines from back in the pre-pandemic days courtesy of the Wayback machine. As you can see, Dr. Malone was a prominent figure in the development of these vaccines.

Now compare the above with the current Wikipedia entry below I just pulled down.

You can go to the links and check them yourself. It’s incredible. But not so much when you consider that according to the co-founder of Wikipedia, the US intelligence community is heavily involved in its content. Which, if true, would make sense. According to the Twitter file release, the US intelligence community played a huge role in monitoring and stamping out what it considered dis- and misinformation. As history has revealed, most of this has turned out to be true.

But it would make sense the intelligence folks wouldn’t want to have the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccine going around telling people it was dangerous. That just wouldn’t do at all.

Robert Malone posted today on the substitution of pseudouridine for uridine in the vaccine that garnered the Nobel prize. Here is his take on the situation.

Kariko and Weissman recently received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their their discovery that replacement of synthetic pseudouridine for uridine throughout synthetic mRNA reduces the inflammation triggered when this synthetic mRNA is delivered into the cells of animals using self-assembling cationic lipid delivery particles, and specifically the use of that discovery to enable the rapid development of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines” that have been deployed throughout the world.

In a break with standard regulatory practice, under the EUA process the FDA did not require rigorous assessment of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, toxicity, reproductive toxicity or any other aspect of synthetic mRNA incorporating pseudouridine for human (or animal) use. Furthermore, the synthetic pseudo-mRNA (which is very different in many ways from naturally produced mRNA) manufactured and dosed into humans throughout the globe does not even contain pseudouridine. Instead, it incorporates a synthetic molecule which is even more potent that [sic] naturally occurring pseudouridine, called N1 Methyl pseudouridine, which is structurally more closely related to the molecule Thymidine, which is found in DNA (not RNA).

After discussing in detail what this substitution involves and what it does, he delves into the lack of appropriate oversight and testing demands of the regulatory agencies involved.

He concludes

What is clear is that, for some reason, the FDA suspended its normal processes and procedures which would typically require that a biologically active new chemical entity be thoroughly investigated prior to use in humans. The reason and logic behind this gross negligence should be thoroughly investigated and disclosed to the public. 

Both those who have received these poorly characterized products, often after being subjected to a wide range of psychological manipulation, propaganda, compulsion and coercion (mandates), and all too often with dosing-associated adverse events (including severe AE including death) deserve to know what happened and why.

You can read his entire discussion below:

Pseudouridine: What is it and Why Should you Care?

Low-Carb Diets, Diabetes, and Longevity

If you have diabetes or pre-diabetes, will following a low-carb diet help you live longer?

According to a new study out of Harvard, the answer is a resounding YES.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the study is a total piece of crap.

Here is how the study was done. The researchers followed 10,101 subjects with diabetes or pre-diabetes for ~30 years. In that time almost half the subjects died (4,595 to be exact).

During the period in which they were followed, these subjects showed up once every four years and provided answers to a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), a notoriously unreliable means of collecting dietary data. The subjects were to report what they had eaten over a 7-day period. Based on this, the researchers sliced and diced the data and came up with five different categories of low-carb diets some of these subjects followed based on their FFQs. These categories were then scored by the researchers based on, I’m assuming, their understanding of what is good nutrition and what isn’t.

Here are the categories:

• TLCDS: Total low-carb score

• VLCDS: Vegetable low-carb score

• ALCDS: Animal low-carb score

• HLCDS: Healthy low-carb score

• ULCDS: Unhealthy low-carb score

Aside from the grammatically incorrect use of the word “healthy,” which drives me up a wall, my opinion is that these scores are meaningless.

I’m sure you can guess what goes into the healthy vs unhealthy terminology. Here in their own words is how they did it.

We derived five LCDS which reflected different compositions and quality of macronutrients. Based on the percent- age contributions to total energy, the in- takes of fat and protein were ranked into 11 equal-sized categories in ascending order, while carbohydrate intake level was ranked in the same way but in de- scending order. The carbohydrate categories were scored from 10 (lowest intake) to 0 (highest intake), whereas protein and fat categories were scored from 0 (lowest intake) to 10 (highest intake). We then summed the rank from three macro-nutrients to create the total LCDS (TLCDS). Animal LCDS (ALCDS) and vegetable LCDS (VLCDS) were calculated in the same manner but using animal fat/protein and vegetable fat/protein instead of total fat/protein. Two additional LCDS were created to further account for the quality of carbohydrates. The unhealthy LCDS (ULCDS) was derived by summing the rank of animal protein, the rank of animal fat, and the reverse rank of high-quality carbohydrates which were defined as the sum of carbohydrate intake from nonstarchy vegetables (excluding potatoes and French fries), fruits (excluding added sugar from fruit juice), legumes, and whole grains. Conversely, the healthy LCDS (HLCDS) was calculated as the sum of rank of vegetable protein, rank of vegetable fat, and reverse rank of low-quality carbohydrates defined as the sum of carbohydrates from potato, added sugar, and refined grain from foods. All LCDS had a range of 0 (highest carbohydrates intake) to 30 (lowest carbohydrates intake).

Since Walter Willett’s name is on this study, you can be sure that foods of animal origin will be bashed. And, sure enough, they are.

As you can see from the word salad above, the animal low-carb diet contains animal fat and protein, while the vegetable low-carb diet contains vegetable fat and protein. The unhealthy low-carb diet contains, of course, animal protein, animal fat, and a lot of carbs from non-starchy vegetables, refined grains, and sugar. The assumption is that the foods of animal origin are what makes it unhealthful. The healthy low-carb diet is made of vegetable protein and fat plus “high-quality” vegetables. Jesus wept.

Anyway, they get these FFQs every four years, look at what the subjects declared they ate, divided it into the various diet categories, then scored them. Then they analyzed the bejesus out of them and came up with these scores.

In my view, the original data was shit. And no matter how much you dissect and analyze it, it is still shit. Just shit cut into smaller pieces.

Over the past decade or so, I’ve seen two or three other studies like this one that showed those subjects on low-carb diets had shorter lives than those on higher-carb diets. Or those who ate more animal protein died sooner. These were all shitty studies, too, as I never tired of telling people who asked me about them.

At least now we’ve got our own shitty study to counter the others. Dueling shitty studies as it were. What’s better, however, is that our shitty study is from Harvard, so that gives it more status.

In case you want to read this study in its entirety, here is my dropbox link. If you think I’m wrong in my analysis, let me know in the comments.

But if someone flashes one of those other crappy studies at you, one up them with this one. It is from Harvard, after all.

For what it’s worth, if there ever were an RTC on this—which there won’t be—I would bet the subjects following the low-carb diet would live longer.

Flight Delays

I’ve got to apologize for getting this out a little late today. MD and I have had a nightmare day of airline issues. We were supposed to fly out of DFW to Santa Barbara at 10:27 this morning. It is now a little after 5 PM, and we’re still in DFW. I don’t know that I’ve ever had such a weird experience.

We boarded the plane at about 10 am, but it didn’t leave the gate. Finally, the pilot comes on and tells us that during the walk around check on the plane, they found a crack in one of the tires. We all had to get off the plane, so they could jack it up and replace the tire. I figured it would take forever, but it didn’t. An hour or so later we’re back on the plane.

We pull away from the gate and sit. And sit, and sit, and sit. Finally, the pilot comes back on and says, Well, when it rains, it pours. Now we’ve got an instrument that won’t work, so we’ve got to go back to the gate. He said the maintenance crew would fix it, then we would be on our way.

We all unloaded yet again, and MD and I went to the lounge. I kept looking at my app, and it kept saying we were leaving at 4 PM, so we head back to the gate. The time keeps getting pushed back. First, it’s 4:30, then it’s 5:00. Finally, the lady at the gate comes on the overhead and tells us that when the maintenance guy opened the box for the replacement part, he found that it was damaged.

So, now, we’ve moved to a different gate and are waiting for another plane to come in. Who knows what time that will be.

I’m taking this with great equanimity for a couple of reasons. First, they haven’t canceled the flight and are doing everything in their power to get us there. Second, all the employees have been exceedingly nice. And, third, I have had so many flights over the past several years, and all of them have been on time. I’ve had zero issues in terms of getting where I needed to go on schedule. I guess the law of averages caught up with me today, but that’s how the law of averages works.

Ah, they just announced that our plane is here. It needs to unload the other passengers and then get cleaned and all that. Then, presumably, we’ll be ready to go.

Update: On the plane. MD has vetted. I’m going to try to send it via my iPhone. Fingers crossed. I don’t have time now, but someone remind me in the comments to tell MD’s tale in next week’s Arrow. A hilarious misadventure. If you happen to run into her in Sydney, call her 10F.

Video of the Week

I haven’t read this anywhere else, so I can’t corroborate it. But if it is true, it is a travesty.

According to The People’s Voice

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health granted vaccine exemptions to key staff while hypocritically rolling out the world’s most draconian vaccine mandates and insisting the public be vaccinated.

The hypocritical vaccine exemptions for the elite were granted by former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s government before she stood down and accepted a new role as the World Economic Forum’s global “disinformation czar.”

Ardern’s decision to allow the elite to refuse the vaccine while forcing the vax on normal people was revealed by an Official Information Act (OIA) request HNZ00023978 dated 2 August 2023…

Here she is at her smuggest best.

This is why people hate the so-called elites.

H/T to Tim Noakes. Link to his Tweet where I found this.

Well, that’s about it for this week. Keep in good cheer, and I’ll be back next Thursday.

If you did enjoy this issue of The Arrow, give the like button a quick click before you go.

Thanks for reading all the way to the end. If you got something out of it, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I would really appreciate it.

Finally, don’t forget to take a look at what our kind sponsors have to offer. Dry Farm Wines, HLTH Code, Precision Health Reports,and The Hustle (free).