WHY IS LANCET NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH CONCERNING VENEZUELA?
"Instead of the roof of the subacromial space (the AC joint) coming down and pressing on the structures, I really think that most of it is that the floor (the glenoid ball of the shoulder) is coming up." This means that inferior glide of the humeral head is a must!
Watch as these same two physical therapists demonstrate four different orthopedic tests used to determine the likelihood that your shoulder problem is an impingement or something else (HERE).
| || |
IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE FOR AUTHORS OF STUDIES OPPOSING MAINSTREAM MEDICAL THOUGHT TO BE HEARD IN THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE?Read Now
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ACADEMICS WITH "CONTRARIAN VIEWS" TO GET A FAIR SHAKE IN THE MEDICAL JOURNALS?
"Earlier this month, Dr Nicola Luigi Bragazzi --- a medical doctor with a Ph.D in nanochemistry and nanobiotechnology --- of Italy's University of Genoa, along with a group of researchers from the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at Israel's Tel-Aviv University, published a study in the journal Vaccine called Debate on Vaccines and Autoimmunity: Do Not Attack the Author, Yet Discuss it Methodologically. As you might imagine from the study's title, Bragazzi and company are tired of taking it on the chin for publishing legitimate research findings that are not in lockstep with standard vaccine propaganda."
Taking it on the chin. Believe me when I tell you that many (many) researchers have taken and continue to "take it on the chin" for their views concerning any number of controversial topics (HERE and HERE are a couple of these individuals). Mind you, we are not talking about opinions here, but about research findings that don't necessarily jibe with current medial dogma (my post titled "MUZZLED" is another good example). For instance, in the comment section of Dr. Packer's article, Sydney Singer (author of a book I read years ago; DRESSED TO KILL) talked about the manner in which research showing health problems associated with bras (including BREAST CANCER) continues to be suppressed. As is typically the case, if you want to see real-time, real-life examples of this phenomenon in action, simply read the article's comment section.
Dr. Packer began his article by revealing something that many people are unaware of unless they regularly follow my EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE COLUMN; the fact that when it comes to medical research and the journals charged with both publishing it and getting it out to the medical community and the public at large, the problems run so deep that nothing, and I do mean nothing, can be trusted without first looking at numerous factors, including who paid for the study or HOW THE RESEARCH WAS DONE. After discussing what modern editorials in today's medical journals have become, Packer asked the question "Who loses?" Below is his CHERRY-PICKED response to this ETHICAL QUAGMIRE.
"All too often, it is the reader who loses. If readers were expecting enlightenment, a different perspective, or a contrary opinion from the editorial, more likely than not, they will be disappointed. What if the study is terribly flawed and the editorialist does not take notice? Can readers submit criticisms or an alternative viewpoint? They can certainly try, and I wish them luck. If you want to raise concerns about a published article, you could write a letter to the editor. But you need to work fast. Most editors will not accept letters that are submitted more than 3-6 weeks following publication. And they decide what letters get published. Many are reluctant to acknowledge errors. If you want to write a longer piece (i.e., an editorial) that is poised to disagree with a published article, you could send a request to the editors. But do not expect a positive reply. Even if you have valid criticism and points to make, the editors may not be receptive. Why would they publish an editorial that challenges their decision to have published the original work in the first place? Of course, you could decide to write a critical editorial and send it to a different journal. But often that will not work. Many journals have a standing policy that they will not consider editorials that are critical of work published in other journals. (Disclosure: I hold editorial positions at Circulation and the European Heart Jour"
Packer went on to discuss numerous other issues with the process, including the fact that the very people who will review your letter-to-the-editor are usually THE VERY PEOPLE WHO REVIEWED THE RESEARCH in the first place. Are they ready to "take it on the chin"? Doubtful. I don't know many people who like like getting punched in the face, including Packer himself. Not to pick on Dr. P because he is undoubtedly a guy I would enjoy shooting the breeze with on the CURRENT RIVER. But as an editor of the prestigious journal of the American Heart Association, Circulation, some would argue that Dr. Packer is doing the very same thing. Just remember not to ask Dr. Vasquez his opinion.
Although in certain circumstances he would fulfill the definition of a "contrarian" (something I've been accused of at times myself); as a person holding naturopathic, chiropractic and medical degrees as well as a post-doctorate fellowship in nutrition (not to mention the several areas of research he is actively involved in), Dr. Alex Vasquez is a sharp guy and formidable debate opponent. It makes me wonder whether at least one of his recent 'disagreements' with both the American College of Cardiology and the AHA (see below) ran through Packer's office. What am I talking about? Using some of Dr. Alex's recent articles, allow me to show you exactly how big journals are squelching "contrarian" opinions that might --- in these cases, "are" would be a better word --- upsetting the medical fruit basket.
- The ASCEND Study on Fish Oil from the New England Journal of Medicine (and touted by the ACC in their article, ASCEND: Use of Aspirin and Fish Oil Supplements in Diabetic Patients) fraudulently and unethically showed fish oil in a bad light for the sole purpose of promoting a new-fangled patented and medicalized version of fish oil (HERE and HERE). In fact, when I Googled "ASCEND Study Fish Oil", the first thing that came up was an ad for --- you guessed it --- the drug Vascepa
- Another study by the ACC, this one concerning nutritional supplements for heart disease, was challenged by Dr. Vasquez on his website. Why on his website? Because their journal refused to publish a rebuttal (HERE).
- Other research that Dr. Vasquez likewise weighed in on heavily was the AHA's 2017 study showing that coconut oil , as well as saturated fats in general, are harmful (HERE). For the record, I should note that my earlier "quagmire" link connects you with Dr. Alex's version of the "echo chamber" mentioned by Dr. Packer in his quote at the top of the page.
The point is this. Be careful who you believe, myself included. Double check everything and assume that online personalities are simply trying to sell you something until proven otherwise. As far as helping yourself with the root of most modern diseases, heart disease included, be sure and learn what it takes to start addressing systemic inflammation in your life (HERE). And if you appreciate what you are finding on our site, be sure and help spread the wealth by liking, sharing, or following on FACEBOOK since it's a viable way to reach the people you love and value most.
OAKLAND RAIDERS ARE PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL'S GREATEST TEAM
SO SAYS MEDICAL RESEARCH
"So it is with much that you read and hear. Averages and relationships and trends and graphs are not always what they seem. There may be more in them than meets the eye, and there may be a good deal less." Darrell Huff from his famous 1954 book, How to Lie With Statistics
Even though the Raiders have the NFL's classiest receiver, Kansas State's Jordy Nelson, the truth is, they stink. Bad. As in get out the Lysol and spray the whole can. Playing in a division that was arguably the cream of this past season's crop --- the AFC West --- the Raiders finished a lowly 4-12. Like I said, they were terrible. But in the same way that REVISIONIST HISTORY has become the new norm in politics, so it has in medical research as well.
Although I have spoken of all of the research community's tricks-of-the-trade at various times in my EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE column; commenting on Dr. Keller's article was too good to pass up. Today you're going to see that TOM BRADY really does have nothing on Derek Carr!
"The Raiders can quickly and easily turn their season around by using the tried-and-true techniques of medical research. If a pharmaceutical company did 16 clinical trials of their new potential blockbuster, Drug X, they would never let a 4-12 outcome get them down. When published, I guarantee those trial results would look a lot better than 4-12. The Oakland Raiders can use the same techniques to improve their season record."
Of course Keller mentioned INVISIBLE & ABANDONED studies, which I have dealt with extensively on my site. This is the ultra-common practice (50% of all medical studies) of simply not finishing or not publishing research that's not conducive to selling your company's products to the public. He also talked about changing primary endpoints midstream. Changing your study's primary endpoint is roughly the equivalent of throwing darts at a dart board, missing the target every time, and then taking the dart board off the wall and painting an extra-large target of your own to make it appear like you are ready for the English Pub-League Championships.
"The Raiders lost 12 games in the 2018 season using the primary outcome of final score. But if we look closely at each of these 12 games, we might be able to find, by chance, another potential outcome we could switch to. Take, for example, when Oakland played the Indianapolis Colts on October 28th. The Raiders lost that game 42-28. But if we were to switch the outcome to the score at the end of three quarters, the Raiders win 28-21! We'll publish that as a victory without saying that we changed the primary outcome. Similarly, in their second game of the season, the Raiders lost to the Denver Broncos 28-20. But if we change the outcome to the score at halftime, we can publish this as a win, 12-0! We can do the same thing for their first game against the Los Angeles Rams."
A similar trick is using composite endpoints. Instead of limiting your study to one premise or hypothesis, you could have dozens (although you would never mention this in the final draft). The result is that if you throw enough darts, you will probably hit upon something. Especially if I add a little twist. If I have 25 dartboards on my wall instead of just one, I can throw my darts and pick the board(s) that the most land on, later claiming that my results were targeted and significant. Using similar tricks, the Raiders would have beat the Patrick Mahome's-led Chiefs --- twice.
"Take, for example, the third game of the season against the Miami Dolphins. Oakland lost that game 28-20, but Oakland had more total yards, more first downs, and a longer time of possession than Miami. Clearly, we can publish this as a victory for Oakland using our composite endpoints. Applying our composite endpoints, we can similarly change five other losses to victories. Oakland's record now is 13-3."
Next is a little trick that is exactly the opposite of the invisible and abandoned studies mentioned earlier --- publish your team's positive findings multiple times in multiple ways. With so many journals, and so many of these many journals desperately vying for what amounts to "breaking news," make sure that the data for each individual (positive) endpoint or hypothesis is published as it's own stand-alone study. Even better if you can mix it up a bit and publish the same findings in a different journal.
"Let's apply this principle to the Oakland Raiders. Their most impressive victory of the entire season was when they upset a very good Pittsburgh Steelers team -- on the road, no less -- on December 9th. We certainly want to publish that twice! Let's also duplicate-publish the Raiders' victories over the Denver Broncos and the Cleveland Browns. The Oakland Raiders' final record after applying the principles of medical research is an undefeated 16-0."
Lest you think that this is an over-hyped absurdity, simply spend some time skimming through titles of my EBM column (see earlier link) and realize that in many cases ---- particularly cases where there is a lot of money at stake ---- this is a perfect description of a few of the ways you are being swindled. Even JOHN Q AVERAGE DOCTOR knows this (Keller is an ER doc with 25 years of experience who works in prisons).
It all goes to prove what I have been telling patients for nearly three decades --- your health is up to you. HERE is a post that might provide some ideas for starting the process of taking your health back. And if you appreciate what you are seeing on our site, be sure and like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK as it's still a good way to reach the people you love and value most.
BRAIN INFECTIONS IMPLICATED IN NUMEROUS DISEASE PROCESSES
"Multiple sclerosis is a serious chronic neurological disorder in which demyelination and inflammation occur in the white matter of the central nervous system. The most likely cause is a virus because more than 90% of patients with MS have high concentrations of IgG in the brain and cerebrospinal fluid. Most chronic inflammatory central nervous system disorders are infectious." Cherry-picked from the March 2005 issue of Lancet Neurology (Infectious Causes of Multiple Sclerosis)
"Multiple sclerosis is a chronic neuroinflammatory disease that is characterized by progressive, inflammatory, and multifocal demyelination of the brain and spinal cord. MS affects approximately 2.5 million people worldwide, with women being afflicted twice as frequently as men. Importantly, young adults are the primary groups afflicted with MS: the average age of diseases onset is 30 years, with half of these patients requiring a wheelchair within 25 years of their diagnosis. Currently, there are three prevalent theories on the pathogenic mechanisms for MS: autoimmune, degenerative, and infectious. These pathogenic mechanisms are not mutually exclusive." From the October 2016 issue of the Journal of Neurology and Neurophysiology (A Review of Multiple Sclerosis as an Infectious Syndrome)
I want to start by addressing something that everyone is already thinking --- just vaccinate people so they don't become infected. No infection, no disease --- right? While vaccines MIGHT prevent overt diseases (emphasis on the word 'might'), because they contain germs, germ parts or germ proteins; thanks to MOLECULAR MIMICRY, one's immune system can begin attacking self if it perceives that the germ-based proteins it's been attacking has a close enough molecular shape to myelin or other human proteins or structures (it's similar to the concept of GLUTEN CROSS-REACTIVITY). This would help explain why even though the number of vaccines has increased exponentially over the past several decades (HERE), we are seeing more autoimmunity than at any time in human history (HERE or HERE).
"The immune siege appears to be a result of something called "molecular mimicry." Normally the body's immune system attacks foreign invaders like viruses and bacteria. If a molecule that's part of the body happens to closely resemble a portion of an intruding microbe, then both molecules can be targeted. Put another way, say a particular protein on the surface of a virus is similar in structure to a protein found in myelin. The immune system ramps up to clear the virus but also attacks the myelin. It's a case of mistaken identity, of collateral damage. The idea of molecular mimicry is one of the most important ones in MS. We and others have shown that mimicry between myelin peptides and viral and bacterial peptides indeed exists."
Here's what's even crazier. When quizzed about which germ was believed to be the culprit, just as you saw in the links provided in the first paragraph, the answer was that it could be just about any of them. In other words, there are large numbers of germs, antigens and other "factors" that can lead to autoimmunity. I've actually spoken of some of those 'factors' HERE. And when asked about what the scientific community is doing to address this, the answer was that rather than relying on the IMMUNO-SUPPRESSING drugs which are almost universally used today, a new form of treatment (immuno-tolerance therapy) is supposed to REDUCE IMMUNE SYSTEM ACTIVITY by acting as (and I quote) "a sort of negative vaccine." A negative vaccine? Huh?
In light of everything we've discussedin this post, coupled with THESE POSTS (not to mention THIS POST), we can't be surprised that constantly amping up immune systems --- especially young and immature immune systems --- with large and constantly-increasing numbers of shots has led to HUGE CONTROVERSY concerning what sorts of SIDE EFFECTS we may be heaping on future generations. If you appreciate what you are finding on our site, be sure to like, share or follow on FACEBOOK. And if you are looking for ways to control systemic inflammation (the root of most chronic illnesses and chronic pain), THIS FREE MOSTLY-DIY POST might provide you with a few ideas.
VIRAL INFECTIONS AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO CHRONIC ILLNESS
"As far back as 1385, doctors in Europe recorded connections between influenza infection and psychosis. That link between the flu and the brain became much more apparent during and after the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic. More direct evidence for the virus-brain link came in the 1970s, when researchers found viral antigens in the brains of deceased people who had been afflicted with a condition known as encephalitis lethargica. One of the earliest links between influenza and neural dysfunction was a correlation between the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by a subtype called H1N1, and an epidemic of Parkinson’s a few decades later. In the 1940s and early 1950s, diagnoses of the neurodegenerative disease appeared to increase abruptly, from 1–2 percent of the US population to 2.5–3 percent, then fell back down to 1–2 percent. 'Basically, 50 percent more people in those years got Parkinson’s.'"
The authors spoke of two different mechanisms whereby this happens. The first involves something we have discussed many times previously; a disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Metabolically and physiologically this is quite similar to what happens in leaky gut syndrome, which is probably why it has a similar name ---- LEAKY BRAIN SYNDROME. The second had to do with an "over-activation" of a type of neurological / immune system cell known as GLIAL CELLS. The end result? "Two different flus, two different mechanisms, but the same effect in a sense. They were both inducing inflammation and death in the parts of the brain that degenerate in Parkinson’s disease." What's doubly interesting is how GUT HEALTH came into play.
The authors went on to talk about a "widely accepted hypothesis" that's been around for nearly two decades. "Parkinson’s disease starts in the gut, manifesting as digestive issues, and then moves into the brain. The progression of the disease from the gut to the forebrain, that takes place over maybe 25 or 30 years in a human." From there the discussion moved on to several other chronic neurological diseases that have can have roots in chronic infections. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, more on PARKINSON'S, and HIV. If you follow my site you already know how common this phenomenon really is (HERE).
What's their recommended solution? You already know the answer. "Vaccination for the flu—or at the very least, taking Tamiflu if a person gets infected—might help prevent neurological complications of influenza infection." Key word here is 'might'. What other issues 'might' their approach lead to? Unfortunately, numerous studies have shown that not only do consecutive years of flu vax make it increasingly ineffective at preventing flu (HERE), but that those same consecutive years of shots can actually lead to significantly increased chances of developing Alzheimer's (HERE). And as for Tamiflu; if there's been a bigger hoax perpetrated on the American people through the concerted efforts of big pharma and the medical community (HERE), I'm not sure what it might be other than possibly STATIN DRUGS.
Although it's impossible to cut your risk of chronic disease to zero; because this short article mentioned the word INFLAMMATION nine times, it would behoove us all to both understand what it really is, and have a plan for diminishing it systemically. My plan is free of charge (HERE), and is in no ways to be considered a "cure" for neurodegenerative diseases. But as far as helping reduce the factor that seems to be the common denominator in virtually all health problems (inflammation) it's a start. Fortunately there are doctors out there (Karim Dhani in Toronto is one of them) who specialize in tracking down and helping chronically ill people with occult infections. Oh, and if you like what you are seeing on our site, be sure to like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK.
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
Brain Based Therapy
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Cold Laser Therapy
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Joint Disease
D's Of Chronic Pain
Evidence Based Medicine
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Ice Or Heat
Jacks Fork River
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Number One Health Problem
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Scar Tissue Removal
Sleeping Pills Kill
Stay Or Go
Stretching Post Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Whole Body Vibration