THE LATEST NEWS ON
GROSS FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
MERCOLA INTERVIEWS DR GOLOMB
MORE PROOFS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR MICROBIOME AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE TOO CLEAN: THUMB-SUCKING AND NAIL-BITINGRead Now
CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS....
EXCEPT WHEN IT'S NOT
Why Thumb-sucking and Nail-biting Can Actually Improve One's Microbiome & Immune System
Researchers quizzed parents to see if their children (over 1,000 children born in 1972-73 were part of New Zealand's Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study) were thumb-suckers or nail-biters (approximately 1/3 were) when they were young. They then looked at medical records to see what sort of problems these individuals were prone to as adults. After controlling for pets, parents with allergies, breast-feeding, and numerous other factors, the authors concluded that, "Children who suck their thumbs or bite their nails are less likely to have atopic sensitization [allergies] in childhood and adulthood."
How does the Hygiene Hypothesis work? Babies are born relatively sterile. Their first environmental bacterial exposure comes from MOTHER'S VAGINA & MOTHER'S MILK (as well as skin-to-skin contact with family members). Without exposure to a wide array of bacteria and other microorganisms from a young age, the Immune System --- 80% of which RESIDES IN THE GUT --- is much more likely to view non-pathological organisms as a threat. This ramps up the Immune System to the point that people (both children and adults) start reacting against things they should not react to; mounting Immune System responses against dust, pollen, animal dander, etc, etc, etc. The end result is increased amounts of eczema (atopy), asthma and allergy.
Are we too clean as a people --- as a nation? For many of us, the answer is a resounding yes (HERE). There are any number of articles floating around the world wide web of people who are "curing" allergies, eczema, dandruff, as well as a wide array of SKIN PROBLEMS simply by bathing / showering way less frequently, for a much shorter duration, and / or not using soap or shampoo when they do bathe.
This concept of "over-cleanliness" affects you on the inside as well, and is a big reason why giving your children / babies antibiotics can destroy their health --- potentially for the rest of their lives (HERE). It also helps explain why the absurd numbers of VACCINES being given today --- particularly worthless vaccines such as those for the FLU --- not to mention the DRAMATICALLY INCREASING NUMBERS of vaccines on the horizon, while certainly helping contain short-term childhood illnesses (measles, mumps, WHOOPING COUGH, etc, etc) are unfortunately trading them for long term CHRONIC DEGENERATIVE INFLAMMATORY DISEASES. Allow me to show you some interesting studies on Atopic Sensitization as it relates to the Hygiene Hypothesis.
- Let's hit Atopic Sensitivity as it pertains to Vaccines first. A 2009 study (Allergic Disease and Atopic Sensitization in Children in Relation to Measles Vaccination and Measles Infection) that was published in the journal Pediatrics came to some rather amazing conclusions. After comparing the rate of allergies in nearly 15,000 children who contracted the measles to children who did not (these are the same 15,000 you'll see in the next study), the authors determined that, "In the whole group of children, atopic sensitization was inversely associated with measles infection..... .....inverse associations were observed between measles infection and "any allergic symptom" and "any diagnosis of allergy by a physician."" In other words, Measles is protective against Atopic Sensitization.
- In the April, 2006 journal Allergy (Allergic Diseases and Atopic Sensitization in Children Related to Farming...), children who grew up on farms were compared to children who did not. After looking at at almost 15,000 children from the same general parts of Europe, researchers concluded that, "The prevalence of allergic diseases has increased rapidly in recent decades, particularly in children. Growing up on a farm was found to have a protective effect against all outcomes studied, both self-reported, such as rhinoconjunctivitis, wheezing, atopic eczema and asthma and sensitization. This study indicates that growing up on a farm..... may confer protection from both sensitization and allergic diseases in childhood."
- This is not surprising after looking at a study that came out two years later, in August of 2008. Researchers published their study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology called Prenatal Exposure to a Farm Environment Modifies Atopic Sensitization at Birth. This study of almost 1,000 Austrian, Finnish, French, German, and Swiss women / babies, compared the cord blood from those who lived on farms to those who did not. "Previous cross-sectional surveys have suggested that maternal exposure to animal sheds during pregnancy exerted a protective effect on atopic sensitization in children lasting until school age. There was an inverse relationship between maternal exposure to animal sheds and cord blood IgE levels against seasonal allergens. Maternal exposure during pregnancy influences atopic sensitization patterns in cord blood. The (microbial) context of allergen contact possibly modifies the risk of atopic sensitization."
- Probably no study shows the Hygiene Hypotheseis clearer than The Role of Atopic Sensitization in Flexural Eczema: Findings from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, which was published in a 2008 issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Researchers compared rates of asthma, eczema, and allergies in people from third world nations, to those in Westernized nations. Although people from the third world might have any number of other health-related problems, "The age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios for a positive association between eczema and atopy [had] a significantly stronger association in affluent compared with nonaffluent countries. The combined population attributable fraction for atopy in flexural eczema was 27.9% for affluent and 1.2% for nonaffluent-country centers." This is more than a 2,300% difference!
- Not quite three years ago, the Dermatology Times published an article called Probiotics May Decrease Atopic Sensitization, which dealt with a study from the journal Pediatrics. In their article the authors stated, "When administered prenatally and postnatally, probiotics significantly reduced the risk of atopic sensitization. Probiotics effectively reduced total immunoglobin E." Interesting to be sure, but pay very close attention to this next sentence. "Administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus was associated with increased risk of atopic sensitization compared to other strains, researchers noted." This helps explain why people can actually develop DYSBIOSIS from taking too much of one strain of good bacteria, including acidophilus (HERE and HERE). It's also why people with a really messed up Gut might have to look into FMT in order to improve their health.
What to do next? THIS POST gives a few pointers on things to do in order to normalize your immune system. By "normalize," I mean normalize. We see lots of articles on supplements or diets that claim to "boost" one's Immune System. In some cases, this is well and good. However, never forget that it is an overactive Immune System that attacks things it should not, including your own body. It's why TREGS (T-Regulatory Cells, previously known as T-Suppressor Cells) are such a critical part of a properly-functioning Immune System.
SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW HOW NUMEROUS POPULAR DRUGS WORK, AND IT'S PROBABLY AFFECTING YOUR HEALTH
"More than 150 million people around the world take the antidiabetic drug metformin each year. Despite its widespread use, the drug's mechanism of action is poorly understood and controversial." From a 2014 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry (Antidiabetic Drug Metformin Suppresses Gluconeogenesis)
"Antidepressants are widely prescribed in the treatment of depression, although the mechanism of how they exert their therapeutic effects is poorly understood." From the March 2004 issue of Brain Research (Mechanisms of Action of the Antidepressants Fluoxetine......)
"Diprivan Injectable Emulsion is an intravenous sedative-hypnotic agent for use in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia or sedation. As with other rapidly acting intravenous anesthetic agents, the mechanism of action, like all general anesthetics, is poorly understood." From the Rx List's header for Diprivan
"Beyond this, its relatively low efficacy, high risk of side effects (especially when taken with alcohol) and lack of knowledge about how it works has given some experts pause. For women who are trying to decide whether the benefits will outweigh the risks, they’ll certainly have their work cut out for them, as they sift through the hype to get to the science. Sprout and its fans are celebrating a drug with low efficacy, significant side effects, and a poorly understood mechanism of action." From an August 2015 issue of Forbes (Why Libido Drug Addyi Is Not The 'Female Viagra')
"Malaria is a major health burden in tropical and subtropical countries. The antimalarial drug primaquine is extremely useful for killing the transmissible gametocyte forms of Plasmodium falciparum and the hepatic quiescent forms of P. vivax. Yet its mechanism of action is still poorly understood." From April's issue of Redox Biology (The Antimalarial Drug Primaquine......)
"Combination chemotherapies have been a mainstay in the treatment of disseminated malignancies for almost 60 years, yet even successful regimens fail to cure many patients. Although their single-drug components are well studied, the mechanisms by which drugs work together in clinical combination regimens are poorly understood." From the January 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Defining Principles of Combination Drug Mechanisms of Action)
"Diuretics are drugs that increase the rate of urine flow. There are several classes of diuretic drugs. These agents are used in the management of edema and hypertension. Thiazide diuretics.... cause Ca2+ excretion to be decreased via a poorly understood mechanism." From the online syllabus for Dr. Piascik's advanced pharmacology class at the University of Kentucky (The Pharmacology of Diuretic Drugs)
"Pyrazinamide is an important sterilizing drug that shortens tuberculosis (TB) therapy. However, the mechanism of action of pyrazinamide is poorly understood." From a 2003 issue of the Journal of Antimicrobial Therapy
"How confident are you that the drugs you take, whether they're over-the-counter or prescription, are totally understood by the companies who make them? After all; drug makers know what their products do when they enter your body, right? You shouldn't assume that. Today we are going to talk about everything from Tylenol to fen-phen to Viagra and why you should probably think hard before you take any drug at all." Luke Timmerman and Meg Tirrell from STAT's daily podcast, Signal (Before You Pop that Tylenol, Tune in to this Podcast) --- the article we are discussing today
"Not understanding a drug's mechanism of action sets the table for a vast array of side effects." Dr. Russell Schierling
I receive several different daily medical news publications in my inbox. My two favorite are MedPage Today and STAT. Make no mistake about it, both are medical publications, meaning they routinely pick on alternative medicine, while spending their time, energies, and money (think advertising dollars here) extolling the virtues of drugs, surgeries, and tests. So when I saw the title of STAT's recent podcast, I had to have a listen.
Timmerman & Tirrell start out by talking about ACETAMINOPHEN (Tylenol), revealing that even though it has been around for over six decades, no one really knows how it works. We shouldn't be surprised that John Q Public has no idea how it works, but the real surprise is that no one --- including the drug companies themselves ---- knows what its mechanism of action is. Furthermore, the authors went on to say that this is not an uncommon phenomenon --- not surprising after looking at the quotes above. In fact, they described the mechanisms of many of the drugs we use as, "mysterious and unpredictable". Probably why Tylenol no longer uses their old slogan, 'Nothing Safer'. None of this is new information.
"A jury found Tylenol to be a cause of 5-year-old Lacy Keele's death, but it let Tylenol’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, off because her parents were adequately informed of the risks. Risks with Tylenol? The product’s advertising slogan, after all, was: “Nothing’s safer.” In the eight years since Lacy died, there have been hundreds of fatalities and serious liver injuries attributed to acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. J&J has paid out millions of dollars in legal settlements. A handful of these cases have drawn coverage in newspaper and television stories. The word is beginning to get out that, safe though it is in proper doses, Tylenol can be very dangerous indeed in doses not much greater." From Thomas Easton's piece in Forbes (Johnson & Johnson's Dirty Little Secret) written almost two decades ago (Jan of 1998).
Part of the problem is that as I have shown you repeatedly (including just THE OTHER DAY), drug reactions are absurdly under-reported. In fact, Underreporting has become such a huge problem, that it has actually become it's own entity known as (drum roll please) UNDERREPORTING. But this is far from the only reason that drugs aren't as safe as we've been led to believe. Another reason is that people are just plain different, not only from each other, but from lab animals and test tubes. Listen to what T&T said on their podcast (I am loosely quoting here)..... "The sheer unpredictability of biology is the reason so many drugs fail.... The fact is, we don't know how drugs are going to react in the body until we give them to lots of people."
But 60 years? Think about the sheer numbers of people who have taken Acetaminophen in that time period, not realizing what it's doing to them. In the words of the Fox Football crew, "C'mon Man". What does all this really mean for you, the consumer? Plain and simple; you are the GUINEA PIG. Some of the reasons the authors give for this are some of the same things I talk about regularly on my site --- GENETICS, MICROBIOME, DIET, etc, etc. Viagra was an example they used of this sort of 'guinea pigging'.
When Viagra was being developed as a vasodilator (blood vessel opener) for people with congestive heart failure back in the early-mid 1990's, the animal studies were so poor that, "it almost did not make it to human trials". But make it it did, and when researchers found out it caused raging erections in the college-aged males who volunteered (they were paid) to test the drug for short-term side-effects, the company got a proverbial "erection" of its own. Interestingly, it seems that accidents are the norm in this arena --- probably why the podcast said, "There's still a huge amount of luck at work in drug discovery." The example I always tend to think of when discussing this all-too-common phenomenon is Rogaine (Minoxidil); a drug that was originally developed to treat ULCERS back in the 1950's.
Later on (in the 1970's), it was used to treat high blood pressure. The doctors who worked on it for this purpose "discovered" that this new BP DRUG had the ability to grow hair (HERE) in a certain percentage of the population. Oh; and by the way, if you read Wikipedia's entry on the stuff, it says "The mechanism by which minoxidil promotes hair growth is not fully understood." When mechanisms are not understood, according to the authors you are much more likely to end up with drugs like, "Thalidomide, Fen-Phen, or Vioxx". Another drug they mentioned by name was Enbrel.
Enbrel is a drug given to suppress one of the markers of inflammation called Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha or TNF-α. When Enbrel first hit the market, it was considered a wonder drug. According to the authors, the side-effect profile was "pristine". But as time went on, increasing numbers of serious problems came to light (a common theme in this podcast).
INFLAMMATION is a vital and necessary part of the healing process. Certain things, however, cause it to climb to exceedingly high levels. This is commonly seen in RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, as well as other AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES. However, suppressing TNF-α carries it's own set of side-effects --- one of the chief being CANCER. If your body can't kill (necrosis) mutating cells that can become cancer, they tend to become just that. Thus, it's not surprising that Enbrel's side effect profile has gone from "pristine" to something VERY DIFFERENT.
WHAT DOES FDA APPROVAL OF A DRUG REALLY MEAN?
The first thing you have to understand is that just like other governmental regulatory agencies, the FDA is prone to all sorts of bribery and cannot be trusted (HERE and HERE). Related to this is the fact that the drug companies are doing their own research (i.e. the fox is guarding the hen house). This is how debacles like THIS and THIS can occur. If you want a picture of how corrupt this system is from top to bottom, simply take a moment and browse the titles of THESE POSTS.
The authors go on to say that, "The evidence evolves over time. It happens with a lot of drugs. We could sit here listing them all night. Lab models are inherently flawed. A Petri dish is not the same as a cell in a live human being." What might this sort of "evolution" lead to? It often leads to drugs being taken off the market years, or even decades, after they were released to the public. But just as often, dangerous drugs are never removed from the public.
The authors mentioned that some drugs are almost impossible to pull off the market or even have their safety label changed. In similar fashion to the way certain substances were approved for human use decades ago (think MSG under GRAS --- Generally Regarded As Safe, or MERCURY / ALUMINUM IN VACCINES), doing much of anything about drugs like Acetaminophen is all but impossible. Ultimately, this means that you cannot trust the drug companies --- or the government --- to to look after your best interests as far as your health is concerned (or anything else for that matter). They are too busy figuring out new ways to fleece and control you.
ANOTHER WAY YOU ARE BEING CONNED CONCERNING YOUR MEDICATIONS
ABSOLUTE RISK -vs- RELATIVE RISK
In the shell game, three or more identical containers are placed face-down on a surface. A small ball is placed beneath one of these containers so that it cannot be seen, and they are then shuffled by the operator in plain view. One or more players are invited to bet on which container holds the ball – typically, the operator offers to double the player's stake if they guess correctly. The shell game is notorious for its use by confidence tricksters who will typically rig the game using sleight of hand to move or hide the ball during play and replace it as required.
Shades of the 'Shell Game' can be seen in Sharon Begley's fantastic June 15th article in STAT called What are the Odds that your Medication will Help you get Better? I've frequently written about the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. If you want to understand this concept better, which will help you understand the potential risks of certain medications, as well as how effective (or ineffective) they might be, you need to read Begley's article.
One of the things she spends ample time on is the concept of NNT (Number Needed to Treat). This is the number of people who will have to take a particular medication in order to see a benefit. Begley says (cherry-picked).....
"An NNT of 5 or less was probably associated with a meaningful health benefit, while an NNT of 15 or more was quite certain to be associated with at most a small net health benefit. Yet interventions with NNTs above 15 are common. Statins, which have become synonymous with heart-attack-and-stroke-preventing have an NNT of 104 for heart attack and 154 for stroke: That’s how many healthy people have to take statins for five years for those respective outcomes to be prevented. The NNT for aspirin to prevent cardiovascular calamities is even higher. A whopping 1,667 healthy people need to take aspirin every day for a year to prevent one stroke or heart attack."
Again, none of this is new information. If you follow my STATIN POSTS or what I've written about ASPIRIN, you have seen this any number of times --- a nightmare once you understand the magnitude and seriousness of side effects and their GROSS UNDERREPORTING. If you are curious about the difference in relative risk and absolute risk for drugs that you or your family are taking, you can take a look at THE NNT SITE. The more you learn about "EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE", the easier it is to recognize BIG PHARMA'S tricks. After all, figures never lie but liars figure.
ROUTINE PELVIC EXAMS
ANOTHER RELIC FROM THE PAST
"The exams can also cause harm (in addition to discomfort, for some women). Their rate of “false positives” — finding an apparent problem that isn’t there — ranges up to 46 percent. For instance, when a pelvic exam “detects” ovarian cancer, the chance that the woman actually has that often-fatal disease is 0 percent to 3.6 percent. But a woman given that frightening news, or the less dire news that she has a less serious condition such as ovarian cysts or fibroids, will typically undergo additional, sometimes risky, tests, including biopsies and even surgery for something that might never have affected her." Ibid
There are few things that women --- especially young women or adolescents --- look forward to less than their "annual" (annual pelvic exam). Not surprisingly, the medical community no longer recommends annual pelvic exams for women who are not having visible / tangible female problems. It seems that the "annual" has gone the way of the ANNUAL PHYSICAL EXAM, regular PROSTATE EXAMINATIONS, annual MAMMOGRAMS, REGULAR COLONOSCOPIES, and others.
Two years ago this month, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a study (Screening Pelvic Examination in Adult Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians) revealing the 'The Annual' had gone the way of the Dodo Bird. Crunching all data on the subject since WWII ended (1946), the authors concluded that (all results are cherry-picked).....
"The American College of Physicians recommends against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, non-pregnant, adult women..... With the available evidence, we conclude that screening pelvic examination exposes women to unnecessary and avoidable harms with no benefit (reduced mortality or morbidity rates). The total annual cost of preventive gynecologic examinations and associated laboratory and radiologic services in the United States is estimated to be $2.6 billion. These costs may be amplified by expenses incurred by additional follow-up tests, including follow-up tests as a result of false-positive screening results; increased medical visits; and costs of keeping or obtaining health insurance. The studies combined found only 4 cases of ovarian cancer over 1 year, with positive predictive values from 0% to 3.6% indicating that 96.7% to 100% of abnormal pelvic examinations did not identify ovarian cancer. The evaluated harms included false reassurance, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and diagnostic procedure–related harms. Indirect evidence from 1 study on the use of pelvic examination to detect ovarian cancer showed that pelvic examination led to unnecessary surgery in 1.5% of women screened (29 out of 2000)."
The second to the last sentence sums up the reason(s) that these exams are no longer recommended for women who are exhibiting no outward problems.
- FALSE REASSURANCE: Simple; even though a routine pelvic exam provides virtually no valuable information as far as scary diseases like ovarian cancer are concerned, because the test is negative your doctor tells you that everything is fine, which may or may not be the truth.
- OVERDIAGNOSIS & OVERTREATMENT: Because "False Positives" are such a common occurrence across the board in medicine, lots of people end up being treated for problems they don't really have. Many of these people (way more than you ever would have dreamed) actually end up dying from their medical treatment. When you factor out the death rate for OVERDIAGNOSIS & OVERTREATMENT for any number of health-related preventative screenings (see the short list at the top of the post), we see that said screenings are not really saving lives.
- DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE-RELATED HARMS: You can go online and read more about these, but this particular study mentioned several. "Many false-positive findings are associated with pelvic examination, with attendant psychological and physical harms, as well as harms associated with the examination itself. Harms of pelvic examination include unnecessary laparoscopies or laparotomies, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. Women with a history of sexual violence, and particularly those with PTSD, may experience more pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety, or embarrassment during pelvic examination."
But it's not like any of this is new information. Just days ago, the United States Preventative Services Task Force published their recommended guidelines (Draft Recommendation Statement: Gynecological Conditions: Screening With the Pelvic Examination) --- guidelines that will soon be officially recognized, even if your doctor decries them --- WHICH THEY WILL. Below are their cherry-picked conclusions and recommendations.
"Pelvic examination is a common part of the physical examination; in 2010, 62.8 million pelvic examinations were performed in the United States. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence on the accuracy of pelvic examination to detect a range of gynecologic conditions. Limited evidence from studies evaluating the use of screening pelvic examination alone for ovarian cancer detection generally reported low positive predictive values. A few studies reported on false-positive rates for ovarian cancer, ranging from 1.2% to 8.6%, and false-negative rates, ranging from 0% to 100%. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of performing screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women for the early detection and treatment of a range of gynecologic conditions."
Did you catch that? With false positive rates of almost one in ten, and false negatives potentially in the 100% range, it's no wonder doctors aren't able to determine much from these tests. CANCER is a complete bummer. But the medical community may finally be starting to realize that "PREVENTION" entails much more than trying to perpetuate the myth of early detection by foisting unnecessary tests on you and your family. If you are interested in cutting the root of most pain and disease from your life and getting healthier, you may want to take a look at THIS POST.
THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUGS
WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS TO GIVE IT TO YOU
Just give me somethin', somethin' I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out what's goin' on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone, eat your dirty laundry
- Eagles front man, Don Henley, from 1982's solo effort, Can't Stand Still (Dirty Laundry)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A free press is critical to the political process. That way, we the public can (hopefully) be properly informed about the important events that shape our nation. The problem is that our press is not really free. Beyond being beholden to certain ideologies or causes (conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, socialism / communism, capitalism, etc, etc, etc), the big media outlets are all in bed with corporate America. Don't believe me? Let's talk advertising dollars for a moment.
Whether you're a fan of Fox News, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, or something similar, they're all beholden to their corporate sponsors. Sponsors pay to play via direct to consumer advertising,ridiculous PSA'S, and PRESS RELEASES disguised as news stories. Although estimates vary wildly, if you thumb back through my posts on EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, you'll see that BIG PHARMA'S annual spending on advertising is thought to be twenty times more than what they spend on research and development --- an estimated 60 billion dollars.
Sure, the press might run a story about a new study showing HOW DANGEROUS a certain drugs is, while rubbing their pointer fingers together and saying, 'shame, shame, shame'. But doggedly sticking with it and following the money trails to THE GOVERNMENT; not so much. They know that in our short-attention-span society, nothing says yesterday's news like "yesterday's news". There's always that next story to make people forget about what happened today. And after all, few people or business have enough integrity to bite the hand that feeds them too hard. Here are a few of those "forgotten" stories.
- A study published 12 years ago (HERE) said that medicine is the number one cause of death in America. Just two months ago, one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals on the planet (British Medical Journal) admitted that these numbers are at least in the ball park. The truth is, the practice of medicine is dangerous to your health (HERE), but you're hearing very little about this.
- Researchers continue to manipulate their endgame by publishing only those studies that show their products in a good light, while burying the rest (HERE).
- The medical community is weighted down by a constant stream of BRIBERY.
- As few as 1% of medical errors or adverse events are ever reported to the proper authorities (HERE and HERE).
- Evidence-Based Medicine is decreasingly based on science, and increasingly based on the highest bid (HERE or HERE).
- The individuals that run the government entities created to protect the public from BIG PHARMA have their collective hands in the cookie jar (HERE).
Simply browse titles on my EBM PAGE and you'll see that this is just scratching the surface. If you want the truth about drugs, you'll have to dig a bit. And if you want to solve your health issues or lose that weight without drugs, I have just the thing for you --- and it's completely free (HERE).
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