• A better way to challenge scientific consensus
    Are COVID vaccines safe? I think not, but the "scientific consensus" is that they are. How can we definitively determine who is right? I suggest a way using science!

    Steve Kirsch
    David Douglass quote: Truth in science is always determined from observational facts.
    Executive summary

    In this article, I suggest a simple way to resolve scientific disagreements on important issues.

    The method is simple:

    The two parties mutually agree on a series of experiments to resolve the conflict.

    The experiments are designed so the results are reproducible, for example, by having several independent efforts doing the same thing.

    Win or lose, the “mainstream view” party (who should be led by a prominent scientist in the field being explored) agrees to write up the results of the experiment(s) and submit it to a prominent peer-reviewed technical journal.

    The “mainstream” party gets a large monetary award (a research grant) upon publication. The more prestigious the author, the higher the reward.

    We pay all costs in addition to the reward for people’s time and to fund the experiment(s).

    The idea is to make this “an offer that nobody can refuse.”

    For example…

    Suppose we want to prove whether vaccines cause autism.

    The two parties could agree on two experiments and how they are carried out such as:

    Gather data from a randomly selected list of parents of autistic kids which looks at the date the parents first noticed symptoms of ASD vs. the date of the most recent vaccination prior to the diagnosis.

    Gather the same data from doctors who treat autistic kids.

    The parties agree in advance what success (for each hypothesis) looks like.

    The parties agree that if both experiments agree with each other on deciding the question that they will publicly accept the result as scientific truth going forward, until such time as there is more persuasive data showing otherwise.

    If we set the reward at $1M and there are no takers, the question is resolved by default.

    Did the COVID vaccines save lives?

    This question is even easier to test. We pick hospitals at random and look at the vaccination rates of people hospitalized for COVID vs. the flu.

    This is a simple, fair test.

    Anyone rejecting attempts like this to expose the truth is not acting in good faith.

    Summary

    The problem with challenging scientific consensus is that the party with the mainstream beliefs simply ignores anyone who challenges them.

    So it’s up to the challengers to get their attention.

    By providing a large monetary incentive to create and execute a set of mutually agreeable scientific experiments to answer the question, we may be able to make progress on these intractable issues which have been unresolved for decades.

    What’s new here is large monetary incentives combined with a mutually agreeable set of experiments.

    This resolves the issue under investigation definitively.

    Either: 1) the mainstream party accepts and we do the experiments or 2) the mainstream party refuses to engage in which case it is a tacit admission of defeat.

    Either way, there is finally resolution on each issue explored.

    Let me know what you think of this idea in the comments.

    Share


    https://kirschsubstack.com/p/a-better-way-to-challenge-scientific
    A better way to challenge scientific consensus Are COVID vaccines safe? I think not, but the "scientific consensus" is that they are. How can we definitively determine who is right? I suggest a way using science! Steve Kirsch David Douglass quote: Truth in science is always determined from observational facts. Executive summary In this article, I suggest a simple way to resolve scientific disagreements on important issues. The method is simple: The two parties mutually agree on a series of experiments to resolve the conflict. The experiments are designed so the results are reproducible, for example, by having several independent efforts doing the same thing. Win or lose, the “mainstream view” party (who should be led by a prominent scientist in the field being explored) agrees to write up the results of the experiment(s) and submit it to a prominent peer-reviewed technical journal. The “mainstream” party gets a large monetary award (a research grant) upon publication. The more prestigious the author, the higher the reward. We pay all costs in addition to the reward for people’s time and to fund the experiment(s). The idea is to make this “an offer that nobody can refuse.” For example… Suppose we want to prove whether vaccines cause autism. The two parties could agree on two experiments and how they are carried out such as: Gather data from a randomly selected list of parents of autistic kids which looks at the date the parents first noticed symptoms of ASD vs. the date of the most recent vaccination prior to the diagnosis. Gather the same data from doctors who treat autistic kids. The parties agree in advance what success (for each hypothesis) looks like. The parties agree that if both experiments agree with each other on deciding the question that they will publicly accept the result as scientific truth going forward, until such time as there is more persuasive data showing otherwise. If we set the reward at $1M and there are no takers, the question is resolved by default. Did the COVID vaccines save lives? This question is even easier to test. We pick hospitals at random and look at the vaccination rates of people hospitalized for COVID vs. the flu. This is a simple, fair test. Anyone rejecting attempts like this to expose the truth is not acting in good faith. Summary The problem with challenging scientific consensus is that the party with the mainstream beliefs simply ignores anyone who challenges them. So it’s up to the challengers to get their attention. By providing a large monetary incentive to create and execute a set of mutually agreeable scientific experiments to answer the question, we may be able to make progress on these intractable issues which have been unresolved for decades. What’s new here is large monetary incentives combined with a mutually agreeable set of experiments. This resolves the issue under investigation definitively. Either: 1) the mainstream party accepts and we do the experiments or 2) the mainstream party refuses to engage in which case it is a tacit admission of defeat. Either way, there is finally resolution on each issue explored. Let me know what you think of this idea in the comments. Share https://kirschsubstack.com/p/a-better-way-to-challenge-scientific
    KIRSCHSUBSTACK.COM
    A better way to challenge scientific consensus
    Are COVID vaccines safe? I think not, but the "scientific consensus" is that they are. How can we definitively determine who is right? I suggest a way using science!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7100 Views
  • Are You an Anti-Paxxer?

    As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers."

    Don't fall for it!


    Are You an Anti-Paxxer?
    As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers."

    Linda Bonvie

    Pfizer has a big public relations push on for its controversial drug Paxlovid. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.”
    When an article by Los Angeles Times metro reporter Rong-Gong Lin II recommended last month that practically everyone who tests positive for Covid takes Pfizer’s Paxlovid, some media veterans may have wondered what had become of the traditional wall between news reporting and advertising.

    The story, which appeared on January 28, swept away almost all of the reservations that have been raised about the safety and effectiveness of this patent medicine, assuring us that “Paxlovid rebound” is a non-issue and fear of serious side effects is “erroneous.” It even went so far as to suggest that if your doctor won’t prescribe this “highly effective” medication, it’s time to go doctor shopping.

    So why is this LA Times writer so desperately trying to sell us this fast-tracked antiviral that comes with a black box warning?

    The article appeared at a particularly critical time for Pfizer just as it transitions from Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA Paxlovid, to FDA-approved Paxlovid. Originally free to patients, the medication was stockpiled by the U.S. government to the tune of 24 million treatment courses at a cost to taxpayers of $530 a box. Now, the FDA-approved version (same drug, different box) sells for a list price of up to $1,500. (According to an analysis by researchers at Harvard University, the actual cost to Pfizer for a five-day Paxlovid course is $13).

    But to Pfizer’s chagrin, it now doesn’t seem to be able to even give the stuff away, let alone sell it at a premium price. Last fall Pfizer accepted a return of nearly 8 million boxes sent back by the U.S. government.

    What’s a drugmaker to do when both patients and doctors shun a product that was anticipated to be the better half of Pfizer’s post-Covid “multibillion-dollar franchise?

    Flush with all that Covid cash and new Paxlovid FDA approval last May, Pfizer went shopping for partners to help promote its products.

    No stranger to top-tier PR firms such as Edelman and Ogilvy, the drugmaker tagged two of the biggest names in contemporary communications companies, Publicis Groupe, a Paris-based giant PR and ad agency, and the humongous Interpublic Group. These high-level agencies come at a big price tag, but what they can offer is priceless—a way to get your story told by respected media outlets.

    That’s right, if you have enough money to hire the folks with all the right contacts, you too can create your own “news!” And these special contacts are something that PR firms, such as Edelman, are very proud of. Many agency hires, in fact, are recruited directly from major media outlets, such as Edelman NYC Brand Director Nancy Jeffrey, who spent a decade at the Wall Street Journal.

    As quoted in an Edelman website blog, Jeffrey recalls how Richard Edelman (son of founder Dan) would call her during her time working at the paper “to meet a client with a story to tell.” As Jeffrey says, “No one at Edelman ever rises too high to pitch a reporter.”

    So was our LA Times reporter “pitched,” or does he just have an evangelical connection with Paxlovid?

    Let’s take a close look at his story and see what we find.

    Side effects be gone!

    First, there’s the article’s headline, which began: “If it’s COVID, Paxlovid”? Getting your oft-advertised product’s rhyming tagline in a headline—now that’s branding! And we don’t have to tell any of the side effects in this venue. The LA Times piece was off to a great start.

    Why aren’t more people being given Paxlovid, the reporter wanted to know. It’s “cheap or even free for many,” he said. And then he delivered his first rave review, calling it “highly effective.”

    By paragraph four, however, our intrepid reporter had uncovered the bad news that “a number of doctors are still declining to prescribe it.” But why? It must be those pesky “outdated arguments” about “Paxlovid rebound.” Anyone who gets Covid “has a similar rare chance of rebound,” he told us. For extra punch, he called on Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, professor of medicine at UCSF, to back up that statement. Rebound is “like, bogus” and “just dumb,” Chin-Hong said.

    What Lin didn’t report is that a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2023, by researchers from Mass General Brigham, found that in Covid patients taking Paxlovid, rebound was “much more common” and often without symptoms. Nearly 21 percent had virologic rebound versus under 2 percent not on the drug. Of perhaps even more significance, prolonged viral shedding for an average of fourteen days was noted in those who rebounded, indicating that they “were potentially still contagious for much longer.” The virologic rebound “phenomenon,” in Paxlovid patients, the authors noted, “has implications for post-N-R (Paxlovid) monitoring and isolation recommendations.” This study closely monitored patients with follow-ups three times a week “sometimes for months.”

    After quoting from several Paxlovid-positive FDA and CDC statements and referencing a California Public Health commercial where people dance to an upbeat tune singing “Test it, treat it, beat it, California you know you need it,” Lin got around to some serious stuff—side effects.

    Not mentioned by Lin, but good to know anyway, Paxlovid bears an FDA-required black-box warning about drug interactions, cautioning of “potentially severe, life-threatening, or fatal events.” But the article carefully danced around this inconvenient issue, simply mentioning that some Paxlovid takers may need to have their medications adjusted. The fear of “serious side effects . . . is largely erroneous,” it claimed.

    Really?

    “There are 125 drug interactions (for Paxlovid) across twenty-five different classes of medicines,” author and FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory said in a phone interview. “I’ve never used any medicine that had that number and degree of drug interactions, and I find it absurd,” added Kory, who is an expert in early Covid treatment.

    And this is no secret. The Paxlovid package insert lists thirty-nine specific drugs that interact with this anti-viral (which is not a complete list, we’re warned) including medications that treat conditions such as an enlarged prostate, gout, migraines, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arrhythmias, and angina.

    With side effects out of the way, our reporter moved on to an interesting idea—doctor shopping.

    If your doctor turns you down for Paxlovid, “what other options are there?” How about “reaching out to another healthcare provider” we’re advised, one “who might be more knowledgeable about Paxlovid . . .”

    Don’t be an ‘Anti-Paxxer!’

    The LA Times isn’t alone in this timely pushing of Paxlovid. The New York Times also ran a glowing Paxlovid piece at the beginning of January. The black-box warning was glossed over by simply saying that some “doctors balk” over the “long list of medications not to be mixed with Paxlovid,” referring to the drug as being “stunningly effective.” The NYT reporter also added five mentions of a study—actually a preprint (not yet peer reviewed or published)—which through the use of statistical magic concluded that during the course of the research had only half of the eligible Covid patients in the U.S. taken Paxlovid, 48,000 lives would have been saved.

    The server where the research was posted warns journalists and others when discussing preprints to “emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and information presented may be erroneous.”

    Paxlovid is not the only drug that gets special treatment by the media. Last January, a 60 Minutes segment was called out by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as “an unlawful weight loss drug ad” for the med Wegovy. The piece, it noted, “looked like a news story, but it was effectively a drug ad,” the group said in a press release. PCRM also stated that Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy, paid over $100,000 to the doctors CBS interviewed for the segment.

    With this new frenzy to sell Paxlovid, one can’t help but compare it to the campaign against ivermectin. Kicked off by the FDA in August 2021, it successfully branded this Nobel Prize-winning, FDA-approved drug as nothing more than a horse dewormer endorsed by fanatical outlier doctors and accepted by gullible patients. Despite being found to be an extremely safe treatment as well as an effective one for Covid, the FDA, CDC, and its media “partners” made ivermectin the subject of false accusations and warnings about the supposed risks of using it.

    But early on in the game it was decided, as Dr. Kory pointed out, “to keep the market open for their novel pricey Paxlovid pill.” And to that effect, nothing was going to stand in the way. In an interview last summer with the head of the UCSF Department of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf admitted that he helped promote Paxlovid—something he acknowledged is explicitly against the rules.

    “In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader . . .” Califf said. But since back then EUA drugs could not be advertised (a policy that changed in the fall of 2022) he went ahead and pitched it himself.

    The Paxlovid campaign is far from over. In fact, it may now be revving up to full throttle. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.”

    And if we can take any insight from the new Pfizer tagline (just filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office), “Outdo Yesterday,” there are even more spurious strategies in its pharmaceutical pipeline.

    Full story:
    https://rescue.substack.com/p/are-you-an-anti-paxxer

    Join @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/are-you-anti-paxxer-as-doctors-drop.html
    Are You an Anti-Paxxer? πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ’ŠAs doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers." Don't fall for it! Are You an Anti-Paxxer? As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers." Linda Bonvie Pfizer has a big public relations push on for its controversial drug Paxlovid. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.” When an article by Los Angeles Times metro reporter Rong-Gong Lin II recommended last month that practically everyone who tests positive for Covid takes Pfizer’s Paxlovid, some media veterans may have wondered what had become of the traditional wall between news reporting and advertising. The story, which appeared on January 28, swept away almost all of the reservations that have been raised about the safety and effectiveness of this patent medicine, assuring us that “Paxlovid rebound” is a non-issue and fear of serious side effects is “erroneous.” It even went so far as to suggest that if your doctor won’t prescribe this “highly effective” medication, it’s time to go doctor shopping. So why is this LA Times writer so desperately trying to sell us this fast-tracked antiviral that comes with a black box warning? The article appeared at a particularly critical time for Pfizer just as it transitions from Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA Paxlovid, to FDA-approved Paxlovid. Originally free to patients, the medication was stockpiled by the U.S. government to the tune of 24 million treatment courses at a cost to taxpayers of $530 a box. Now, the FDA-approved version (same drug, different box) sells for a list price of up to $1,500. (According to an analysis by researchers at Harvard University, the actual cost to Pfizer for a five-day Paxlovid course is $13). But to Pfizer’s chagrin, it now doesn’t seem to be able to even give the stuff away, let alone sell it at a premium price. Last fall Pfizer accepted a return of nearly 8 million boxes sent back by the U.S. government. What’s a drugmaker to do when both patients and doctors shun a product that was anticipated to be the better half of Pfizer’s post-Covid “multibillion-dollar franchise? Flush with all that Covid cash and new Paxlovid FDA approval last May, Pfizer went shopping for partners to help promote its products. No stranger to top-tier PR firms such as Edelman and Ogilvy, the drugmaker tagged two of the biggest names in contemporary communications companies, Publicis Groupe, a Paris-based giant PR and ad agency, and the humongous Interpublic Group. These high-level agencies come at a big price tag, but what they can offer is priceless—a way to get your story told by respected media outlets. That’s right, if you have enough money to hire the folks with all the right contacts, you too can create your own “news!” And these special contacts are something that PR firms, such as Edelman, are very proud of. Many agency hires, in fact, are recruited directly from major media outlets, such as Edelman NYC Brand Director Nancy Jeffrey, who spent a decade at the Wall Street Journal. As quoted in an Edelman website blog, Jeffrey recalls how Richard Edelman (son of founder Dan) would call her during her time working at the paper “to meet a client with a story to tell.” As Jeffrey says, “No one at Edelman ever rises too high to pitch a reporter.” So was our LA Times reporter “pitched,” or does he just have an evangelical connection with Paxlovid? Let’s take a close look at his story and see what we find. Side effects be gone! First, there’s the article’s headline, which began: “If it’s COVID, Paxlovid”? Getting your oft-advertised product’s rhyming tagline in a headline—now that’s branding! And we don’t have to tell any of the side effects in this venue. The LA Times piece was off to a great start. Why aren’t more people being given Paxlovid, the reporter wanted to know. It’s “cheap or even free for many,” he said. And then he delivered his first rave review, calling it “highly effective.” By paragraph four, however, our intrepid reporter had uncovered the bad news that “a number of doctors are still declining to prescribe it.” But why? It must be those pesky “outdated arguments” about “Paxlovid rebound.” Anyone who gets Covid “has a similar rare chance of rebound,” he told us. For extra punch, he called on Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, professor of medicine at UCSF, to back up that statement. Rebound is “like, bogus” and “just dumb,” Chin-Hong said. What Lin didn’t report is that a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2023, by researchers from Mass General Brigham, found that in Covid patients taking Paxlovid, rebound was “much more common” and often without symptoms. Nearly 21 percent had virologic rebound versus under 2 percent not on the drug. Of perhaps even more significance, prolonged viral shedding for an average of fourteen days was noted in those who rebounded, indicating that they “were potentially still contagious for much longer.” The virologic rebound “phenomenon,” in Paxlovid patients, the authors noted, “has implications for post-N-R (Paxlovid) monitoring and isolation recommendations.” This study closely monitored patients with follow-ups three times a week “sometimes for months.” After quoting from several Paxlovid-positive FDA and CDC statements and referencing a California Public Health commercial where people dance to an upbeat tune singing “Test it, treat it, beat it, California you know you need it,” Lin got around to some serious stuff—side effects. Not mentioned by Lin, but good to know anyway, Paxlovid bears an FDA-required black-box warning about drug interactions, cautioning of “potentially severe, life-threatening, or fatal events.” But the article carefully danced around this inconvenient issue, simply mentioning that some Paxlovid takers may need to have their medications adjusted. The fear of “serious side effects . . . is largely erroneous,” it claimed. Really? “There are 125 drug interactions (for Paxlovid) across twenty-five different classes of medicines,” author and FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory said in a phone interview. “I’ve never used any medicine that had that number and degree of drug interactions, and I find it absurd,” added Kory, who is an expert in early Covid treatment. And this is no secret. The Paxlovid package insert lists thirty-nine specific drugs that interact with this anti-viral (which is not a complete list, we’re warned) including medications that treat conditions such as an enlarged prostate, gout, migraines, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arrhythmias, and angina. With side effects out of the way, our reporter moved on to an interesting idea—doctor shopping. If your doctor turns you down for Paxlovid, “what other options are there?” How about “reaching out to another healthcare provider” we’re advised, one “who might be more knowledgeable about Paxlovid . . .” Don’t be an ‘Anti-Paxxer!’ The LA Times isn’t alone in this timely pushing of Paxlovid. The New York Times also ran a glowing Paxlovid piece at the beginning of January. The black-box warning was glossed over by simply saying that some “doctors balk” over the “long list of medications not to be mixed with Paxlovid,” referring to the drug as being “stunningly effective.” The NYT reporter also added five mentions of a study—actually a preprint (not yet peer reviewed or published)—which through the use of statistical magic concluded that during the course of the research had only half of the eligible Covid patients in the U.S. taken Paxlovid, 48,000 lives would have been saved. The server where the research was posted warns journalists and others when discussing preprints to “emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and information presented may be erroneous.” Paxlovid is not the only drug that gets special treatment by the media. Last January, a 60 Minutes segment was called out by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as “an unlawful weight loss drug ad” for the med Wegovy. The piece, it noted, “looked like a news story, but it was effectively a drug ad,” the group said in a press release. PCRM also stated that Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy, paid over $100,000 to the doctors CBS interviewed for the segment. With this new frenzy to sell Paxlovid, one can’t help but compare it to the campaign against ivermectin. Kicked off by the FDA in August 2021, it successfully branded this Nobel Prize-winning, FDA-approved drug as nothing more than a horse dewormer endorsed by fanatical outlier doctors and accepted by gullible patients. Despite being found to be an extremely safe treatment as well as an effective one for Covid, the FDA, CDC, and its media “partners” made ivermectin the subject of false accusations and warnings about the supposed risks of using it. But early on in the game it was decided, as Dr. Kory pointed out, “to keep the market open for their novel pricey Paxlovid pill.” And to that effect, nothing was going to stand in the way. In an interview last summer with the head of the UCSF Department of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf admitted that he helped promote Paxlovid—something he acknowledged is explicitly against the rules. “In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader . . .” Califf said. But since back then EUA drugs could not be advertised (a policy that changed in the fall of 2022) he went ahead and pitched it himself. The Paxlovid campaign is far from over. In fact, it may now be revving up to full throttle. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.” And if we can take any insight from the new Pfizer tagline (just filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office), “Outdo Yesterday,” there are even more spurious strategies in its pharmaceutical pipeline. Full story:πŸ‘‡ https://rescue.substack.com/p/are-you-an-anti-paxxer Join ➑️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/are-you-anti-paxxer-as-doctors-drop.html
    RESCUE.SUBSTACK.COM
    Are You an Anti-Paxxer?
    As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers."
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 20942 Views
  • HUGE CAVEAT TO HABITUAL PILL TAKERS!
    Posted on January 29, 2024 by State of the Nation
    By Marina Zhang
    The Epoch Times

    It is well-known that dementia is often a result of aging. However, sometimes it can be caused by medications.


    (Life science/Shutterstock)
    Drug-induced dementia, the late neurologist and neurosurgeon K.K. Jain wrote, is a type of reversible dementia different from common neurodegenerative disorders.

    Several drugs increase the risks of dementia, the most prominent being anticholinergic drugs, anti-epileptics, oncology drugs, and sedative-hypnotic drugs. These are all common prescriptions for older people.

    In recent years, antidepressants have also been linked with dementia risks.

    The Link Between Dementia and Common Drugs

    Psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, who has published several books on psychopharmacology, told The Epoch Times that most drugs on the market have some degree of neurotoxicity, which can lead to cognitive and neurological side effects.

    Not everyone will be affected by a drug’s neurotoxic effects, though older people and those with brain deficits are more vulnerable.

    With illnesses that surface in old age and the pills prescribed to treat each symptom, older people also tend to be the most likely cohort to be prescribed drugs that damage their cognition.

    For example, many drugs prescribed to treat Parkinson’s disease are linked with dementia risks since they block acetylcholine in the brain as a way of preventing tremors and sudden movements in patients. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that also facilitates cognitive function.

    Proton pump inhibitors, often prescribed to treat heartburn, have also been shown in studies to increase people’s risks of dementia by 44 percent.

    Within the literature, the most well-known class of drugs that can induce dementia are anticholinergic drugs.

    Anticholinergics block the release of acetylcholine. As early as 1977, experiments using the anticholinergic drug scopolamine showed that 40 minutes after drug administration, young medical volunteers in their 20s manifested dementia-like symptoms and had a harder time recalling things they had just learned.

    Anticholinergic drugs block autonomic muscle movements and various bodily functions and are often prescribed for cramping and spasms in various organs. They also function as a sedative.

    Neuroscientist Dayan Goodenowe, who has a doctorate in medicine and psychiatry, explained on Epoch TV’s “Vital Signs” program that the acetylcholine system is the same system that controls cognition and mobility, two major functions impaired in dementia.

    When neurons become unable to release acetylcholine, either due to age or drug effects, their contact with other neurons is reduced. The neurons and brain then start to shrink.

    This has also been observed in research published by Indiana University professor Shannon Risacher, who has a doctorate in medical neuroscience. She found that people taking anticholinergic drugs have greater shrinkage of overall brain volume.

    “Use of medication with significant anticholinergic activity should likely be discouraged in older adults if alternative therapies are available,” Ms. Risacher and her co-authors wrote in a JAMA Neurology study.

    Examples of anticholinergic drugs include diphenhydramine, the active compound in Benadryl, Tylenol PM, and Advil PM. They also include common medications for Parkinson’s disease, such as benztropine, trihexyphenidyl, etc.

    Acetylcholine naturally decreases with aging, so Mr. Goodenowe and his team have been attempting to find therapeutics that increase the brain’s acetylcholine levels without compromising overall brain function.

    Antidepressants, Other Drugs, and Polypharmacy

    Antidepressants, anti-epileptics, hypnotic sedatives, and opioids have also been shown to increase a person’s risk of dementia. These, along with anti-parkinsonian drugs, are all psychoactive.

    The primary function of antidepressants is to block neurotransmitters such as serotonin instead of acetylcholine. However, these drugs still have potent anticholinergic properties and, when taken with other anticholinergics, could add to the overall load, potentially inducing side effects of delirium and dementia.

    Older people with dementia are often prescribed antidepressants, anti-epileptics, and sedative drugs to help manage depression and aggression that can arise.

    However, Dr. Breggin highlighted that an irony is that the drugs prescribed to patients to improve these conditions may very well exacerbate their illness.

    Drugs not prescribed for psychoactive treatment have also been linked to dementia.

    Type 1 histamine (H1) blockers, prescribed to control allergies, have been shown to increase the risk of dementia in some people. Compared to type 2 histamine (H2) blockers, some H1 blockers can cross the blood-brain barrier and prevent acetylcholine release.

    Furthermore, prescribing multiple drugs to a patient—a practice known as polypharmacy—may cause cumulative adverse effects.

    “Whether a patient will develop cognitive impairment or not when prescribed a particular drug with anticholinergic properties is unpredictable and depends on factors such as co-medications which may have anticholinergic effects,” Drs. Alan Moore and Shaun O’Keefe, professors of geriatric medicine, wrote in their paper discussing drug-induced neurological effects.

    “Studies have suggested that it is often the total burden of anticholinergic drugs that determines development of delirium rather than any single agent,” they added.

    The Complex Brain

    While many psychoactive drugs on the market attempt to “fix” the brain, how the organ is supposed to function at baseline largely remains a mystery.

    Psychoactive drugs are often prescribed to correct brain chemical imbalances, but researchers do not know what the brain’s normal state truly looks like, as Yale University professor Avram Holmes illustrated in his 2018 comment about the brain having “no fixed normal” state.

    “There are hundreds of neurotransmitters we don’t know about and maybe thousands of transmitters,” Dr. Breggin said. “We just have a few that are deeply affected by psych drugs, and [those are the ones we] could study because the drug companies in the pharmaceutical industry pay for that.”

    Dr. Breggin argues that psychoactive drugs, which aim to address biochemical imbalances within the brain, actually cause the brain to become further maladapted.

    He gave the example of SSRIs, which increase serotonin levels by blocking serotonin removal.

    He has observed that the brain experiences two changes while on the drug: It reduces serotonin production and reduces the power of the serotonin removal system.

    ___
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/several-common-drugs-are-linked-to-dementia-5574311?utm


    http://stateofthenation.co/?p=207794

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/huge-caveat-to-habitual-pill-takers.html
    HUGE CAVEAT TO HABITUAL PILL TAKERS! Posted on January 29, 2024 by State of the Nation By Marina Zhang The Epoch Times It is well-known that dementia is often a result of aging. However, sometimes it can be caused by medications. (Life science/Shutterstock) Drug-induced dementia, the late neurologist and neurosurgeon K.K. Jain wrote, is a type of reversible dementia different from common neurodegenerative disorders. Several drugs increase the risks of dementia, the most prominent being anticholinergic drugs, anti-epileptics, oncology drugs, and sedative-hypnotic drugs. These are all common prescriptions for older people. In recent years, antidepressants have also been linked with dementia risks. The Link Between Dementia and Common Drugs Psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, who has published several books on psychopharmacology, told The Epoch Times that most drugs on the market have some degree of neurotoxicity, which can lead to cognitive and neurological side effects. Not everyone will be affected by a drug’s neurotoxic effects, though older people and those with brain deficits are more vulnerable. With illnesses that surface in old age and the pills prescribed to treat each symptom, older people also tend to be the most likely cohort to be prescribed drugs that damage their cognition. For example, many drugs prescribed to treat Parkinson’s disease are linked with dementia risks since they block acetylcholine in the brain as a way of preventing tremors and sudden movements in patients. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter that also facilitates cognitive function. Proton pump inhibitors, often prescribed to treat heartburn, have also been shown in studies to increase people’s risks of dementia by 44 percent. Within the literature, the most well-known class of drugs that can induce dementia are anticholinergic drugs. Anticholinergics block the release of acetylcholine. As early as 1977, experiments using the anticholinergic drug scopolamine showed that 40 minutes after drug administration, young medical volunteers in their 20s manifested dementia-like symptoms and had a harder time recalling things they had just learned. Anticholinergic drugs block autonomic muscle movements and various bodily functions and are often prescribed for cramping and spasms in various organs. They also function as a sedative. Neuroscientist Dayan Goodenowe, who has a doctorate in medicine and psychiatry, explained on Epoch TV’s “Vital Signs” program that the acetylcholine system is the same system that controls cognition and mobility, two major functions impaired in dementia. When neurons become unable to release acetylcholine, either due to age or drug effects, their contact with other neurons is reduced. The neurons and brain then start to shrink. This has also been observed in research published by Indiana University professor Shannon Risacher, who has a doctorate in medical neuroscience. She found that people taking anticholinergic drugs have greater shrinkage of overall brain volume. “Use of medication with significant anticholinergic activity should likely be discouraged in older adults if alternative therapies are available,” Ms. Risacher and her co-authors wrote in a JAMA Neurology study. Examples of anticholinergic drugs include diphenhydramine, the active compound in Benadryl, Tylenol PM, and Advil PM. They also include common medications for Parkinson’s disease, such as benztropine, trihexyphenidyl, etc. Acetylcholine naturally decreases with aging, so Mr. Goodenowe and his team have been attempting to find therapeutics that increase the brain’s acetylcholine levels without compromising overall brain function. Antidepressants, Other Drugs, and Polypharmacy Antidepressants, anti-epileptics, hypnotic sedatives, and opioids have also been shown to increase a person’s risk of dementia. These, along with anti-parkinsonian drugs, are all psychoactive. The primary function of antidepressants is to block neurotransmitters such as serotonin instead of acetylcholine. However, these drugs still have potent anticholinergic properties and, when taken with other anticholinergics, could add to the overall load, potentially inducing side effects of delirium and dementia. Older people with dementia are often prescribed antidepressants, anti-epileptics, and sedative drugs to help manage depression and aggression that can arise. However, Dr. Breggin highlighted that an irony is that the drugs prescribed to patients to improve these conditions may very well exacerbate their illness. Drugs not prescribed for psychoactive treatment have also been linked to dementia. Type 1 histamine (H1) blockers, prescribed to control allergies, have been shown to increase the risk of dementia in some people. Compared to type 2 histamine (H2) blockers, some H1 blockers can cross the blood-brain barrier and prevent acetylcholine release. Furthermore, prescribing multiple drugs to a patient—a practice known as polypharmacy—may cause cumulative adverse effects. “Whether a patient will develop cognitive impairment or not when prescribed a particular drug with anticholinergic properties is unpredictable and depends on factors such as co-medications which may have anticholinergic effects,” Drs. Alan Moore and Shaun O’Keefe, professors of geriatric medicine, wrote in their paper discussing drug-induced neurological effects. “Studies have suggested that it is often the total burden of anticholinergic drugs that determines development of delirium rather than any single agent,” they added. The Complex Brain While many psychoactive drugs on the market attempt to “fix” the brain, how the organ is supposed to function at baseline largely remains a mystery. Psychoactive drugs are often prescribed to correct brain chemical imbalances, but researchers do not know what the brain’s normal state truly looks like, as Yale University professor Avram Holmes illustrated in his 2018 comment about the brain having “no fixed normal” state. “There are hundreds of neurotransmitters we don’t know about and maybe thousands of transmitters,” Dr. Breggin said. “We just have a few that are deeply affected by psych drugs, and [those are the ones we] could study because the drug companies in the pharmaceutical industry pay for that.” Dr. Breggin argues that psychoactive drugs, which aim to address biochemical imbalances within the brain, actually cause the brain to become further maladapted. He gave the example of SSRIs, which increase serotonin levels by blocking serotonin removal. He has observed that the brain experiences two changes while on the drug: It reduces serotonin production and reduces the power of the serotonin removal system. ___ https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/several-common-drugs-are-linked-to-dementia-5574311?utm http://stateofthenation.co/?p=207794 https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/huge-caveat-to-habitual-pill-takers.html
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10551 Views
  • ATLAS is a Certificate of Deposit token designed from the ground up for price performance. It integrates best-of-breed tokenomics and first of its kind liquidity depth management.

    The majority of the Atlas supply will be distributed through daily auctions starting on April 9th. During this period only the auction contract will be able to buy and burn from the DEX. Starting on auction day 3 on April 11th the DEX will open to the public and trading will commence.

    With dividends in BUSD paid to stakers daily and bonuses for long term stakers ATLAS will be an easy token to HODL. Thanks to the buyback and burns and the burns on sells we expect some really nice price action during the 90 day auction phase as those who buy from the auction will have to stake for a minimum of 90 days so there will be no sells from the auction until then.

    Website: https://atlas-token.com
    Telegram: https://t.me/atlas_equinox
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/atlas_equinox
    More Info and tools: https://LinkTree.ee/atlas_equinox
    ATLAS is a Certificate of Deposit token designed from the ground up for price performance. It integrates best-of-breed tokenomics and first of its kind liquidity depth management. The majority of the Atlas supply will be distributed through daily auctions starting on April 9th. During this period only the auction contract will be able to buy and burn from the DEX. Starting on auction day 3 on April 11th the DEX will open to the public and trading will commence. With dividends in BUSD paid to stakers daily and bonuses for long term stakers ATLAS will be an easy token to HODL. Thanks to the buyback and burns and the burns on sells we expect some really nice price action during the 90 day auction phase as those who buy from the auction will have to stake for a minimum of 90 days so there will be no sells from the auction until then. Website: https://atlas-token.com Telegram: https://t.me/atlas_equinox Twitter: https://twitter.com/atlas_equinox More Info and tools: https://LinkTree.ee/atlas_equinox
    Like
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5353 Views
  • I really hope that this is the calm before the storm, because an economy with only takers cannot sustain itself.

    #SoMee #someeofficial #someeunofficial #shitpostcentral #onlytakers #nocommunity #grift #milkinit #shortsighted #noengagement #boring
    I really hope that this is the calm before the storm, because an economy with only takers cannot sustain itself. #SoMee #someeofficial #someeunofficial #shitpostcentral #onlytakers #nocommunity #grift #milkinit #shortsighted #noengagement #boring
    Like
    Love
    21
    1 Comments 0 Shares 7180 Views
  • Who are the biggest sellers of SME while the market is down and further hurting the value of the coin by selling low? I did not include the AMM Bots or those trading it back and forth to increase their stake. In my opinion these users are extracting more value than they're adding. Do you want to support that? Support the Buyers!

    Osmi, TheTyper, Roxycan, Pulubendugs, LJQuimpo, Yulimarchirino, tahirazaman, haseeb-asif-khan...
    #SoMee #someeofficial #SMEsellers #takers #greed #selfserving #TakingNotGiving #ExtractingValue #NotStaking #market #NotAddingValue
    Who are the biggest sellers of SME while the market is down and further hurting the value of the coin by selling low? I did not include the AMM Bots or those trading it back and forth to increase their stake. In my opinion these users are extracting more value than they're adding. Do you want to support that? Support the Buyers! Osmi, TheTyper, Roxycan, Pulubendugs, LJQuimpo, Yulimarchirino, tahirazaman, haseeb-asif-khan... #SoMee #someeofficial #SMEsellers #takers #greed #selfserving #TakingNotGiving #ExtractingValue #NotStaking #market #NotAddingValue
    Like
    Love
    45
    31 Comments 0 Shares 6278 Views
  • #HEX is getting better and stronger day by day! - How come, when nothing is being changed or developed on it? - Proof of time and a steadily growing number of Stakers simply manifest the project and proof its safety and stability. Finally true crypto with no middlemen & no hacks.
    #HEX is getting better and stronger day by day! - How come, when nothing is being changed or developed on it? - Proof of time and a steadily growing number of Stakers simply manifest the project and proof its safety and stability. Finally true crypto with no middlemen & no hacks.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1785 Views
  • Sandra, the orangutan, started to clean her enclosure and wash her hands after observing her caretakers do the same thing.
    Sandra, the orangutan, started to clean her enclosure and wash her hands after observing her caretakers do the same thing.
    Like
    14
    0 Comments 0 Shares 989 Views 99
  • Kujira KUJI at its current price is really a great buy. The total supply of 122.5M has been reached, although a big portion is locked for vesting and community. There is no more inflation of supply.
    So how are stakers and validators rewarded? Simple, fees! A significant portion of protocol fees is rewarded to validators and stakers. Currently, it is just .5% APY coming from one dApp (Fin Orderbook DEX) but it is real earnings, not through supply inflation that dilutes the holding of other users.
    Kujira will also launch Orca in the coming weeks. It is a liquidation market and will first support Karura KAR and Acala ACA. Orca will surely increase the rewards that validators and stakers are getting. There are three more dApps that are sure to launch on Kujira soon.
    Kujira KUJI at its current price is really a great buy. The total supply of 122.5M has been reached, although a big portion is locked for vesting and community. There is no more inflation of supply. So how are stakers and validators rewarded? Simple, fees! A significant portion of protocol fees is rewarded to validators and stakers. Currently, it is just .5% APY coming from one dApp (Fin Orderbook DEX) but it is real earnings, not through supply inflation that dilutes the holding of other users. Kujira will also launch Orca in the coming weeks. It is a liquidation market and will first support Karura KAR and Acala ACA. Orca will surely increase the rewards that validators and stakers are getting. There are three more dApps that are sure to launch on Kujira soon.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 878 Views
  • Kujira $KUJI is a new project which is part of the Cosmos ecosystem that is hard to ignore.
    The project was previously on Terra 1.0 but decided to launch their own chain early this month. There was a snapshot that was made and new coins were airdropped to previous holders. The supply is very low and stakers are getting rewards out of the fees on the network, not through supply inflation.
    Kujira $KUJI is a new project which is part of the Cosmos ecosystem that is hard to ignore. The project was previously on Terra 1.0 but decided to launch their own chain early this month. There was a snapshot that was made and new coins were airdropped to previous holders. The supply is very low and stakers are getting rewards out of the fees on the network, not through supply inflation.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 817 Views
  • Another airdrop for Cosmos ATOM, Juno JUNO and Osmosis OSMO and Ki KI stakers,
    Check and claim if you are eligible at https://cosmon.ki.
    Another airdrop for Cosmos ATOM, Juno JUNO and Osmosis OSMO and Ki KI stakers, Check and claim if you are eligible at https://cosmon.ki.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1578 Views
  • There are currently two big airdrops within the Cosmos ecosystem.
    Cerberus CRBRS just recently launch. Holders and stakers of the Chihuahua HUAHUA coin got their airdrop early today. There are more airdrops coming for holders of ATOM, OSMO and other chains within the Cosmos ecosystem.
    If you stake HUAHUA, you can check your allocation at stake.cerberus.zone.
    Asset Mantle MNTL, an NFT-specific chain also launched their stakedrop to staker of various coins within the Cosmos ecosystem as well as airdrops to liquidity providers of Osmosis and Open Sea users. Asset Mantle is from the same team who developed Persistence, PStake and Comdex.
    If you are a holder of coins within Cosmos you can visit airdrop.assetmantle.one.
    There are currently two big airdrops within the Cosmos ecosystem. Cerberus CRBRS just recently launch. Holders and stakers of the Chihuahua HUAHUA coin got their airdrop early today. There are more airdrops coming for holders of ATOM, OSMO and other chains within the Cosmos ecosystem. If you stake HUAHUA, you can check your allocation at stake.cerberus.zone. Asset Mantle MNTL, an NFT-specific chain also launched their stakedrop to staker of various coins within the Cosmos ecosystem as well as airdrops to liquidity providers of Osmosis and Open Sea users. Asset Mantle is from the same team who developed Persistence, PStake and Comdex. If you are a holder of coins within Cosmos you can visit airdrop.assetmantle.one.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1474 Views
  • HANSUM airdrop snapshot took place yesterday, March 1!
    HANSUM tokens are coming to ATOM and JUNO stakers, JunoSwap and Osmosis liquidity providers!
    HANSUM airdrop snapshot took place yesterday, March 1! HANSUM tokens are coming to ATOM and JUNO stakers, JunoSwap and Osmosis liquidity providers!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1605 Views
  • Diffusion Finance took the last snapshot today for its fairdrop.
    A total of 5 million DIFF is allotted to Osmosis OSMO stakers. A total of 4 snapshots for Binary Holdings and Frens Validator are taken until the launch of Evmos today, March 2nd.
    The Cosmos ecosystem is filled with fairdrops, stakedrops, rektdrops and airdrops since last year. If you are not yet on Cosmos, then you are missing a lot!
    Diffusion Finance took the last snapshot today for its fairdrop. A total of 5 million DIFF is allotted to Osmosis OSMO stakers. A total of 4 snapshots for Binary Holdings and Frens Validator are taken until the launch of Evmos today, March 2nd. The Cosmos ecosystem is filled with fairdrops, stakedrops, rektdrops and airdrops since last year. If you are not yet on Cosmos, then you are missing a lot!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1192 Views
  • Fortis Oeconomia, a DeFi project on the Juno Network, will be airdropping its $FOT tokens soon to stakers of $ATOM and $JUNO.
    Also, those who are actively participating in the governance of Cosmos and Juno chain will receive a small bonus of $FOT tokens.
    ???? Website: https://t.co/vw2FTvdDqH
    ???? Telegram: https://t.co/QCSV99QqLk
    ???? Medium: https://t.co/kTpoZ8tR6Q
    Fortis Oeconomia, a DeFi project on the Juno Network, will be airdropping its $FOT tokens soon to stakers of $ATOM and $JUNO. Also, those who are actively participating in the governance of Cosmos and Juno chain will receive a small bonus of $FOT tokens. ???? Website: https://t.co/vw2FTvdDqH ???? Telegram: https://t.co/QCSV99QqLk ???? Medium: https://t.co/kTpoZ8tR6Q
    0 Comments 0 Shares 749 Views
More Results