An unserious man would be a figurehead a HHS, giving industry free rein to further reduce regulations that ensure our food is safe and new drugs and devices are effective.
Terrific piece that captures much of what has not appeared in the mainstream media, at least in the initial reports today. That includes the likely shambles and the financial squeeze on research in every state. Here in California, scientists are worried about GOP proposals in the House and the Senate to "reform" the NIH. For more on that, see this article on the California Stem Cell Report: https://david293.substack.com/p/going-wild-after-the-election-a-look
You are so very one-sided that it sickens me. You’re not exactly in the shape of someone I’d trust, follow, or take fitness advice from. *unsubscribing my paid subscription*
I have no record of you paying for my newsletter. My paying subscribers are supporters who understand it costs money to buy subscriptions to all the publications I have to read in order to keep up to date on what's going on in the medical-industrial complex. As for being one-sided, I find myself today stretching for seldom-used perjoratives when describing a man like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has some useful thoughts about the state of public health in America and dietary antecedents, but surrounds that with transparently unscientific and harmful recommendations. We'll see if the Republicans in the Senate go along. I can almost guarantee there will be nary a Democrat to vote for him at his confirmation hearing.
You and your left leaning subscribers don’t have a corner on science. There are legitimate concerns with the COVID jabs that half the public has been made aware of including drug companies liability, nanoparticles, spoke proteins and an epidemic increase in cardiac arrest among young people since the mRNA rollout. This is a more honest assessment of the incoming HHS head. https://open.substack.com/pub/popularrationalism/p/reply-to-medpage-today-is-robert?r=r6d17&utm_medium=ios
"Epidemic increase in cardiac arrest among young people since the mRNA (Covid-19 vaccine) rollout"? If you want to make scientific claims, please cite your sources.
Here are links to two large epidemiologic studies in Italy and England, respectively, that show no or minimal linkage. In Italy: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.066270 ("In conclusion, our analysis did not demonstrate increased rates of SCD [sudden cardiac death] in young people both during the pandemic and after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination.") and a review of 43 million health records in England (where they have a National Health Service that makes such research easier and quicker): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49634-x (Its conclusion: "The incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications was generally lower after each dose of each vaccine brand."
In response to the latter study, the British Heart Foundation (the equivalent of the American Heart Assn.) put out the following guidelines: "The risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after a Covid-19 vaccine is very low. ... up to 1 in 10,000 ... Covid-19 itself is much more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccine. ... People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 also have a much lower risk of getting other serious heart complications caused by the virus, including heart attack and stroke."
A recent peer reviewed study stated… “They found that brain clots (cerebral thromboembolism adverse events) are 112,000% more likely to occur after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine than after receiving an influenza vaccine.”…..and as a result are calling for a moratorium’s on mRNA jabs.
The author is a Dallas-based clinician who has set up his own personal non-profit foundation, the McCullough Foundation, to question public health pronouncements. Now to the study. It uses data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system (VAERS), which is run by the CDC and FDA. It is a database composed of self-reported incidents, which are not the basis for scientific comparisons (see: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vaers/index.html). Self-reported adverse events spiked during Covid because of growing opposition to the vaccines during the shutdowns. Since shutdowns were not a factor influencing self- and physician reports of adverse vaccine events prior to COVID, comparing COVID VAERS reports to pre-COVID VAERS reports on other vaccines is highly biased. Sorry. Show me a real study.
Scientists disagree on many things. Science by itself says nothing. So just because you say you’re a scientist doesn’t add anything to your agreement with the article.
I agree with everything she has to say about the food supply, obesity and chronic disease. Read my articles on this website. But if you think RFK jr will do anything beyond talking about it, you are living in a fool’s paradise. The food industry lobbyists will get what they want: no regulation from the FDA .
I have more hope. My wife daughter and I spent two weeks in Italy and we all felt better because their food doesn’t have the enzymes and other garbage our food has. I’ll take a read.
Like too many things it is easy and quick to burn something down that has taken years or decades to design and build. Our health and human services systems certainly have lots of room to improve, but meaningful change that affect 340 million people takes time and thought and experimentation - it should be incremental.
A very good piece. I shared it in Facebook also.
Terrific piece that captures much of what has not appeared in the mainstream media, at least in the initial reports today. That includes the likely shambles and the financial squeeze on research in every state. Here in California, scientists are worried about GOP proposals in the House and the Senate to "reform" the NIH. For more on that, see this article on the California Stem Cell Report: https://david293.substack.com/p/going-wild-after-the-election-a-look
You are so very one-sided that it sickens me. You’re not exactly in the shape of someone I’d trust, follow, or take fitness advice from. *unsubscribing my paid subscription*
I have no record of you paying for my newsletter. My paying subscribers are supporters who understand it costs money to buy subscriptions to all the publications I have to read in order to keep up to date on what's going on in the medical-industrial complex. As for being one-sided, I find myself today stretching for seldom-used perjoratives when describing a man like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has some useful thoughts about the state of public health in America and dietary antecedents, but surrounds that with transparently unscientific and harmful recommendations. We'll see if the Republicans in the Senate go along. I can almost guarantee there will be nary a Democrat to vote for him at his confirmation hearing.
You and your left leaning subscribers don’t have a corner on science. There are legitimate concerns with the COVID jabs that half the public has been made aware of including drug companies liability, nanoparticles, spoke proteins and an epidemic increase in cardiac arrest among young people since the mRNA rollout. This is a more honest assessment of the incoming HHS head. https://open.substack.com/pub/popularrationalism/p/reply-to-medpage-today-is-robert?r=r6d17&utm_medium=ios
"Epidemic increase in cardiac arrest among young people since the mRNA (Covid-19 vaccine) rollout"? If you want to make scientific claims, please cite your sources.
Here are links to two large epidemiologic studies in Italy and England, respectively, that show no or minimal linkage. In Italy: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.066270 ("In conclusion, our analysis did not demonstrate increased rates of SCD [sudden cardiac death] in young people both during the pandemic and after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination.") and a review of 43 million health records in England (where they have a National Health Service that makes such research easier and quicker): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49634-x (Its conclusion: "The incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications was generally lower after each dose of each vaccine brand."
In response to the latter study, the British Heart Foundation (the equivalent of the American Heart Assn.) put out the following guidelines: "The risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after a Covid-19 vaccine is very low. ... up to 1 in 10,000 ... Covid-19 itself is much more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccine. ... People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 also have a much lower risk of getting other serious heart complications caused by the virus, including heart attack and stroke."
A recent peer reviewed study stated… “They found that brain clots (cerebral thromboembolism adverse events) are 112,000% more likely to occur after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine than after receiving an influenza vaccine.”…..and as a result are calling for a moratorium’s on mRNA jabs.
Here is the study https://open.substack.com/pub/petermcculloughmd/p/breaking-new-peer-reviewed-study?r=r6d17&utm_medium=ios
The author is a Dallas-based clinician who has set up his own personal non-profit foundation, the McCullough Foundation, to question public health pronouncements. Now to the study. It uses data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system (VAERS), which is run by the CDC and FDA. It is a database composed of self-reported incidents, which are not the basis for scientific comparisons (see: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vaers/index.html). Self-reported adverse events spiked during Covid because of growing opposition to the vaccines during the shutdowns. Since shutdowns were not a factor influencing self- and physician reports of adverse vaccine events prior to COVID, comparing COVID VAERS reports to pre-COVID VAERS reports on other vaccines is highly biased. Sorry. Show me a real study.
And this study shows all cardiac arrest types not just myocarditis and pericarditis. https://open.substack.com/pub/petermcculloughmd/p/peer-reviewed-study-reveals-1236?r=r6d17&utm_medium=ios
Scientist here. Thanks for this.
Scientists disagree on many things. Science by itself says nothing. So just because you say you’re a scientist doesn’t add anything to your agreement with the article.
Great interview https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jeanee-rose-andrewartha-42417b252_if-youre-afraid-of-rfk-youve-lost-your-ugcPost-7263296957291347968-BS4c?utm_medium=ios_app&utm_source=social_share_video_v2&utm_campaign=copy_link
I agree with everything she has to say about the food supply, obesity and chronic disease. Read my articles on this website. But if you think RFK jr will do anything beyond talking about it, you are living in a fool’s paradise. The food industry lobbyists will get what they want: no regulation from the FDA .
I have more hope. My wife daughter and I spent two weeks in Italy and we all felt better because their food doesn’t have the enzymes and other garbage our food has. I’ll take a read.
Also read Michael Pollan’s Omnivore Dilemma.
Like too many things it is easy and quick to burn something down that has taken years or decades to design and build. Our health and human services systems certainly have lots of room to improve, but meaningful change that affect 340 million people takes time and thought and experimentation - it should be incremental.