@zack-vegas
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, the GLP 1 agonists are new drugs, and carry a host of very negative potential side effects, even from what we’ve already seen, like stomach paralysis. I think crash dieting, extreme fasting, exhaustive exercise, low carb/keto diets, and extreme vegan diets are all safer, even though they all carry a lot of potential issues as well. Even risky medications like Orlistat, HCG, and phentermine are likely safer. Pretty much the only intervention that seems riskier to me is gastric bypass. So, while incredibly popular right now, I don’t think the GLP 1 agonists are very good benchmarks for safety.
Niacinamide, even in higher doses, is very safe. We have a long history of people using higher doses of Niacinamide and Niacin, thanks to Abram Hoffer and the orthomolecular doctors. I’m not sure exactly what line of thinking of Dr. Peat’s you are referring to. He did generally recommend a hundred milligrams a few times a day, but again, that was mostly general advice. He talked about experimentation with safe substances, like aspirin, and noted that a person could experiment with just aspirin in various doses, from a baby aspirin up to several grams a day. I don’t see why Niacinamide would be any different, and if anything, it would be safer than aspirin. Even taking a larger dose at once, it tends to be absorbed from the gut over time, so I don’t think the slow sipping of niacinamide in dissolved water would be necessary. It seems like it would be more of a complication, causing issues with compliance. Plus, niacinamide powder tastes very bitter, so that would be another issue.
Adding thiamine would be a very good thing, and there are studies also showing higher doses of thiamine helping to prevent weight gain on a high fat diet as well. In Haidut’s classic post on the NAD+/NADH ratio, he mentions that a combo of Niacinamide, Thiamine, Biotin and maybe Methylene Blue would be a very useful combo for practically all conditions, as they all help to stimulate metabolism.
https://lowtoxinforum.com/threads/nad-nadh-ratio-the-one-metabolic-cause-to-rule-them-all.20089/
MB can cause some potential issues of its own, likely to the MAO-A inhibition and interactions with red light. There are other things that can help oxidize NADH back to NAD+, like Alpha Lipoic Acid, Inosine, Pyruvate, CoQ10, and Pyrucet. Red Light itself may oxidize NADH back to NAD+, since it seems to lower lactate, and the pyruvate/lactate ratio is a good surrogate for the NAD+/NADH ratio.
Dr. Shiong seems to put a lot of faith in virology. I put zero faith in that belief, as I have looked up the so called “isolation” procedures, where virologists do no real isolation. I know that direct detection of “viruses” is an impossibility, which even virologists readily admit, and know that all so called detection tests are really surrogate tests. This brings up the question….. how can a surrogate test ever be of ANY value, when there is no direct way to ever detect a virus? At some point, the presence of a virus is just “assumed.” He seems to base his talk and research on a foundation that I know to be false.
He also makes some provably false statements, even if you do believe in virology. He states that if you get hepatitis, you get liver cancer, despite the fact that not everyone diagnosed with hepatitis gets liver cancer, and he states that if you get HPV, you get cervical cancer, despite the fact that many women diagnosed HPV do not get cervical cancer. And even in those that are diagnosed with both, there is still no proof that one condition caused the other.
I also thought it was interesting that Tucker brought up a 13 year old boy who died of pancreatic cancer, and said “something” was suppressing his immune system. Well, radiation and chemotherapy are routine cancer treatments, and both suppress the immune system. So why doesn’t anyone ask the question if the “treatments” were the cause of death, or at least a major factor?
Morley Robbins certainly has some good ideas. Every time I’ve heard him, his main focus seems to be on keeping iron near deficiency, which in itself will likely improve health and likely extend life for many. He also advocates for extra magnesium, and warns of the dangers of seed oils and fluoride. Those four steps would probably benefit almost everyone these days.
Some of the other parts of his protocol I question. He warns against vitamin D supplements. Yet D3 supplements seem widely beneficial, both in studies and the real world. Doctors used to prescribe massive vitamin D doses (on the order of 300,000 IU a day), and Dr. Coimbra uses similar type doses (from 50,000 to 300,000 IU a day) and gets excellent improvements in people suffering from “Auto Immune” conditions. So, most D3 supplements are likely very safe and beneficial or neutral for the vast majority of the population.
He also warns against Ascorbic Acid, but Linus Pauling was 100% fine with Ascorbic Acid, and the beneficial effects that Pauling found, both anecdotally and in studies, all used either Ascorbic Acid or Sodium Ascorbate. This isn’t to say that Pauling was right about everything, but I do think if you are going to contradict someone like Pauling, you should have either solid reasoning or solid evidence, and I have never seen enough of either from Robbins to make his opinion on this more solid than Pauling’s.
He also recommends against other supplements, but I have personally seen benefits from some of the types of supplements that Robbins says to avoid.
Because of this, I am wary of his “Root Cause Protocol” as a blanket sort of recommendation to all. Dr. Peat did give sort of general advice, but always encouraged experimentation, and didn’t recommend any sort of protocol except “Perceive, Think, Act.” I think the way Dr. Peat gave advice was the wiser way.
I agree, definite improvement. I continue to be impressed by the job Secretary Kennedy has done. He has made some positive changes, has at least planted some seeds that many things considered “healthy,” like seed oils, need to at least be reexamined. When you consider the opposition he has faced so far, from some industry groups, the MSM (or the Mass Satanic Media as I like to call them), and many politicians, he has proven to me that he is one of the best possible candidates for the job, he has absolutely accomplished Herculean tasks so far. Easily the best Secretary of HHS in my lifetime, maybe ever. So long as those agencies exist, it’s good that a man like RFK Jr. is at the helm.
It doesn’t seem like Dr. Peat contradicted himself. This seems to be the longer quote-
Therapeutically, even powerful toxins that block the glycolytic enzymes can improve functions in a variety of organic disturbances “associated with” (caused by) excessive production of lactic acid. Unfortunately, the toxin that has become standard treatment for lactic acidosis—dichloroacetic acid—is a carcinogen, and eventually produces liver damage and acidosis. But several nontoxic therapies can do the same things: Palmitate (formed from sugar under the influence of thyroid hormone, and found in coconut oil), vitamin Bl, biotin, lipoic acid, carbon dioxide, thyroid, naloxone, acetazolamide, for example. Progesterone, by blocking estrogen’s disruptive effects on the mitochondria, ranks along with thyroid and a diet free of polyunsaturate fats, for importance in mitochondrial maintenance.
Even in the quotes you posted, he calls DCA a carcinogen that can cause liver damage. When talking about Omega 3s, Peat has repeatedly called them toxic, but acknowledged that they can have some beneficial effects, like lowering inflammation. Still, there are better ways to do that (like aspirin).
Back on the old RPF, there was a thread on carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. Some were very beneficial (like acetazolamide and thiamine) and others were highly toxic.
Haidut just recently posted a study about this drug, and it’s affects and alternatives- https://haidut.me/?p=2931
If you are going with the standard treatments for cancer, there’s probably no getting away from toxins, because that’s all that modern medicine seems to use. Their official goal is to kill the cancer before killing the patient, although it seems to me that they often overlook that second part.
No vaccines EVER? That’s a tall order these days. I (foolishly) took one flu shot in my adult life, but that was well over 15 years ago. I also believe I had the standard shots when I was a kid, but it was only like 6-8 or so, not the 72 like are given to today’s kids.
I had not heard about that study, so can’t comment on it.
Also, remember, even though the Covid vaccines are called “vaccines,” they aren’t like any other vaccine in history. They are really more of a novel drug. I don’t think vaccines are safe, and after looking into all the fraud around virology, think any “viral” vaccine couldn’t possibly do anything positive, health wise. But the more novel Covid “Vaccines” are far more dangerous, as proven by the VAERS data alone.
I tend to think that vaccines, when they have issues, would be similar to other poisons- their affect would be acute, and long term issues would be triggered in a fairly short amount of time, likely as a result of some short term effect. Like, if you broke a bone, that is an acute injury, but it could potentially have effects for months/years/decades depending on how it is set, heals, and so forth.
While this certainly would suggests that avoiding the shots is a good thing, I would hardly consider the results “alarming.” This study uses the same Relative Risk Reduction chicanery that other studies do. The quote attributed to Mark Twain still rings in my head- Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
If you look at the overall cancer chart, 30 people per 10,000 get cancer in the unvaccinated group, while 40 people per 10,000 got cancer in the vaccinated group. This is a difference of 10 per 10,000, or a paltry 0.1% Absolute Risk Reduction in the unvaccinated. Hardly earth shattering. It may be statistically significant, but it really isn’t clinically significant. The fact remains that 9960 people per 10,000 in each group remained cancer free, while an additional 10 remained cancer free in the unvaxxed group.
Vitamin C is finally being recognized as a cancer treatment. The cancer drug Apatone is just Vitamin C and K3, with the K3 being there to oxidize Vitamin C into DHAA (Dehydroascorbic Acid). Linus Pauling was one of the big promoters of Vitamin C for many things, including cancer. In Paulings book “How to Live Longer and Feel Better,” he dedicates a whole chapter to cancer, and beneficial studies with Vitamin C, and discusses the ways that follow up studies were flawed (most likely deliberately so). Highly recommeded.
I also just came across Catherine Ponder’s “The Dynamic Laws of Healing.” She discusses things like release and forgiveness, and the importance of attitude in any sort of healing. Just a few chapters in, but I would already feel confident recommending it. Her advice can be utilized in conjuction with ANY sort of treatment you decide on (be that radiation and chemo, alternative treatments, or even none at all).
To that point, its a good idea of looking at your day to day life and thoughts. We know cortisol can stimulate cancer, and it’s released in response to stress, among other things. It’s best to eliminate any stressful things, if at all possible. Don’t watch horror movies, the news, or anything “negative.” If you are going to watch something, make it something fun, like a good comedy. As per Ponders book, if you are holding things like negative thoughts or grudges against others, do your best to forgive and release them. Mindset is critically important, maybe more so than any other treatment.
A few thoughts….
First, how comparable is an MRI to a PET scan? From what I’ve read, all cancer screenings have issues. I think they all have to be surrogate tests, unless it’s a clearly visible tumor. So in those surrogate tests, can you really compare one test to another, with any sort of accuracy?
Second, if you are going to risk a clinical trial, make sure it is a later phase trial, like 2 or 3. Phase 1 trials are insanely risky, as they are trying to figure out what people can tolerate from a medication or treatment. Phase 1 trials always carry the most chance of injury or death, and least upside. Phase 2 and 3, less so, but remember…. it’s still a test. I think doing nothing would be a better option in 90-95% percent of cases. Seeing as that AVA6000 trial is a Phase 1, I would run as far away from that trial as humanly possible. Check out this quote from the “Purpose” section-
The purpose of this study is to find the highest dose of the investigational drug AVA6000 that can be given safely in people with advanced solid tumors that are not responding to treatment.
Since they are “finding” the highest dose that can be safely given, that means, by definition, some or all participants are GUARANTEED to get an UNSAFE DOSE. Because, how else do you find a limit?
Third, if you are going to pursue genetic markers or oncogenes, do you believe they play some role, any role, in cancer? After learning so much from Peat and Haidut, I believe that genes play little to no role in cancer, and that any treatments based upon them are a dead end. I think doing nothing may be a better option than this, but depending on how long the treatment has been around, it’s probably safer than some of the clinical trials being run. Then again, handling a rattlesnake may be safer than some of the phase 1 clinical trials out there.
Lastly, don’t know anything about Histotripsy, but if it’s using ultrasound, that sounds like the safest and most promising of any option. Peat mentioned a few times that ultrasound tests themselves not only were generally safe, but usually beneficial to health in general.
I think Ferritin is the best marker for total body iron stores. The lab range for men is 30 to 400 ng/mL, and I think it’s 25 to 300ng/mL for women.
The Zacharski trials showed a lower mortality rate for men with ferritin levels at 80ng/mL or below. So, a good target range would probably be about 25-80ng/mL. I tend to favor the lower end of that range. I’ve heard some people say that the lower end might be too low, and that a ferritin target of about 40-60ng/mL might be better, especially if you are highly active. Although I have tested as low as 18 ng/mL, and felt great, and showed no anemia symptoms. My hemoglobin number was above 13.5, and that seems to be the most important number in regards to anemia concerns.
So, 25 to 80 ng/mL is a good target.
Author
