Israel Commits Massive Ethnic Cleansing in Palestine

by Steven Sahiounie,

he current government ruling Israel is the most far-right Jewish extremist in history. Senior members in power have been asking for the forced deportation of Palestinians, in a frightening echo of the Nakba of 1948, when three-fourths of the Palestinian population was expelled in a massive ethnic cleansing while the US and western nations stood by in silent complicity.

The Israeli Defense Forces have repeatedly attacked refugee camps in the West Bank, especially Jenin. Meanwhile, the Jewish citizens of Israel have been in the street protesting their own issues, which have nothing to do with the apartheid state of Israel, and the human rights abuses and war crimes committed almost daily by the Israeli government against the Palestinians held without any form of human rights or justice.

The UN and many members of the international community have voiced their support of the Palestinian cause and the right to resist occupation, and yet there is no end in sight, or even a peace plan to discuss.

In an effort to gain some insight into the present situation in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Fra Hughes.

Hughes’ book, ‘My Walk With Palestine’ catalogues the Palestinian solidarity work that he and others have been involved in since 2010, when he took a trip to Gaza.  Hughes, is a Belfast native, and felt similarities between Northern Ireland and Palestine. The siege-busting convoy to Gaza in 2010 is only really the beginning of Fra’s story, and his work has seen him visit Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): The Saudi envoy to Jordan, Nayef Al-Sudairi, has been appointed to serve as the nonresident ambassador to the State of Palestine. In your view, what is the significance of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin-Salman’s choosing to make this important appointment at the time?

Fra Hughes (FH): It’s difficult to know for sure. while obviously a very important step, is it too little too late? What power does he have, what influence can he bring to bear on the continued illegal occupation of the West Bank Jerusalem?  The ongoing ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population with the continued, indeed accelerated construction of more illegal Jewish settlements, and the ongoing siege of Gaza and the apparent shoot to kill policy carried out on behalf of the Israeli government and by extension Israeli society who elected it. At this stage it is a symbolic appointment, but taken together with the Saudi-Iran rapprochement, the potential ending of the war in Yemen and Syria’s inclusion into the Arab league, it certainly has America the EU and Israel concerned.

SS: President Sisi of Egypt hosted King Abdullah, II of Jordan and President Abbas of Palestine yesterday in a meeting to discuss the need to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In your opinion, is there international consensus on getting back to peace negotiations?

FH: There will never be real peace negotiations. The Israeli apartheid government talks peace as a stalling tactic to buy time while it attempts to absorbs all of Palestine under its racist control.

If Sisi is real, he should open the Gazan border fully, and allow fuel, building equipment and medicine into Gaza.

Egypt must end the pivotal role it plays in forcing Palestinians to live under a blanket of fear disease and poverty.

Abbas is unelected and in my opinion he is a collaborator with the occupation.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia wish to join BRICS and as they move away from the influence and control of the western hegemonic powers perhaps we are witnessing a renaissance of rapport with Russia, and by extension China, via the belt and road initiative, and a new energy cartel to rival OPEC.

SS: The Palestinian resistance groups in Jenin have been repeatedly attacked by Israeli Defense Forces.  After the massive destruction in Jenin, can you explain the status of Jenin now, and is there any help being offered?

FH: The Israelis achieved their short term goals: not the extermination of the Resistance fighters, but the devastation of homes, centres of employment, and the destruction of the infrastructure leaving those living in Jenin in dire need of support from the international community. Help which I believe will not be forthcoming unless there are political strings attached.

SS: There are Israeli citizens who publically complain that Israel is an apartheid state.  Are there enough Jews in Israel who recognize the occupation and apartheid to make a deference in the government’s policy?

FH  We have witnessed the internal contradictions within Israeli society when it comes to the new far right government elected by Israeli voters.

There’s an old saying: you get the government you deserve.

They complain about judicial reforms and hundreds of thousands have come onto the streets, yet they attacked some activists who had the temerity to fly Palestinian flags at these protests.

Israeli society cares nothing for dead, injured, maimed, and imprisoned Palestinians.

They are beneath contempt as quasi fascist ideological fundamentalists.

SS: There are serious differences among the various political factions in Palestine.  In your view, is there any compromise among the groups, and can it help to find a solution for the Palestinian people?

FH: Scrap the Palestinian Authority; they are nothing short of corrupt politicians collaborating on the demise of their own people, their culture, and their future for money, power, prestige, and the illusion of government.

All groups must embrace the choice of resistance. End division in the interests of self-preservation and strike out against the occupation before it’s too late.



More Modern ‘Art’ for the Wall of Shame

Examples of the late Cy Twombly’s modernist “art” style.

In the movie ‘Full Metal Jacket,’ Gunny says to Vincent Dinofrio, ‘You’re so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!’

Another touchstone moment in Modern “Art” degeneracy occurred in late 2017 at Christie’s in New York. While the world and media focused full-court attention on the sale of renowned artist Leonardo da Vinci‘s “Salvator Mundi” (c. 1500) for $785.9 million, a lesser-known late “artist’s” modernist crap raked in a whopping total of $73.7 million.

Cy Twombly’s (1928-2011) huge looping red scrawls (see below) titled “Untitled” (2005) sold for $46.4 million with premium. Another Twombly painting titled “Sunset” (1957) featuring the artist’s signature scribblings on a white background sold for $27.3 million. This comes from what is referred to as the “deskilled school of art”.

Wag rag bloviates about Twombley’s work thusly:

Red is the colour of wine, but also of blood, and these canvases encompass both the sensual pleasure and violent debauchery associated with the god. This contrast is echoed in the paintings’ combination of euphoric loops that soar upwards and vermilion floods of paint that ooze and cascade down the canvas. The unfurling gestures of these paintings were made, like Henri Matisse’s works in old age, with a brush affixed to the end of a pole, which lends them their vitality and scale.

I’m sure you made a tidy commission on this. My mother has some of my work from my legendary kindergarten series that could fetch a princely sum.

— tracy1000 (@tracy1000) November 17, 2017

The exorbitant price that the red scrawls fetched wasn’t a fluke. In fact, it could even be called a bargain. In 2015, another of Twombly’s works — also called “Untitled” and resembles scribbles on a chalkboard (see below) — sold at auction for $70.5 million. The funds raised from the sale financed the construction of the 55,000-square-foot Jewish-center entertainment pavilion for Koreatown’s Wilshire Boulevard Temple, Los Angeles’ oldest Jewish congregation. Isn’t it curious how inflated assets are “monetized” to benefit “certain elites”? What a scam!

L.A. arts patron selling Cy Twombly painting to fund synagogue events center
Cy Twombly’s “Untitled (New York City)” brought in $70.5 million. PHOTO: LA Times/Cy Twombly/Sotheby’s

In the following humorous and astute critique, Paul Joseph Watson eviscerates the Modern Art movement.

Art Donation as Tax Fraud

In January 2018, federal agents raided four Southern California museums while investigating an alleged tax fraud scheme involving the donation of overvalued Asian and Native American artifacts.

Since the raids, federal agents have seized more than 10,750 objects from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena, the Bowers Museum of Cultural Art in Santa Ana, the Mingei International Museum in San Diego and nine other locations in California and Chicago.

It’s the appraisers — not museums — who determine the value of donated art. But the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles is investigating whether museum officials furthered the scheme by knowingly accepting donations of overvalued art from suspect dealers and collectors over a decade, according to affidavits.

The allegations mirror past tax-fraud scandals in which museums such as LACMA, the Smithsonian and the J. Paul Getty Museum accepted donations of art with grossly inflated values.

Robert Reich, an economist and former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, recently argued, “We’ve created a giant loophole right now through which the rich reduce their taxes by supporting culture palaces frequented primarily by themselves.” In the interview, he added, “This is not the way the tax code was intended to be used.”

Collectors and their agents have continually found creative ways to use their art holdings to defer paying taxes. Some establish private museums and foundations. In some countries, airport-based storage “freeports” allow international “collectors” to store artwork offshore and exchanged without incurring customs duties or VAT taxes, as well as facilitate international money laundering. E.U. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker enabled the establishment of freeports in Belgium airports when he was the country’s prime minister — and now he’s under investigation for it.

Another exploited loophole in the tax code is “like-kind” exchanges. Originally set up in the 1920s to aid farmers by enabling them to defer taxes on livestock trades, “like-kind exchanges” are now regularly invoked by art collectors in order to avoid paying taxes on the sale of artworks — so long as a collector uses the proceeds of the sale of one work to purchase another within 180 days, the tax obligation can be perpetually kicked down the road.

Art as Leveraged Ponzi Units and Fictitious Capital

Robert Reich, in addition to discussing tax fraud, could just as easily been talking about easy credit conditions fostered by the crooks who run the big central banks. This has cleared the way for speculative and maladjusted artificial wealth for the benefit of super wealthy and their criminal networks.

Art auction houses have expanded into financial services for a range of “UHNWI” clients, offering collectors lines of credit, allowing them to borrow against the value of their collections, and sometimes selling works with third-party guarantees, in which the house effectively pre-sells a lot before the auction and may split some share of the proceeds with the guarantor, if it ultimately goes for more than the agreed-upon price.

Read “The Promotion of Pyramid Scheme Inversion Art”

Art as a Vehicle for Dark World Money Laundering

Georgina Adam, author of “Dark Side of the Boom: The Excesses of the Art Market in the Twenty-First Century,” longtime editor at the Art Newspaper and contributor to the Financial Times, sees artworks often used as a vehicle to hide or launder money. Anonymity in art sales has intensified such conduct.

Art purchasing adviser Maria Baibakova, says, “You don’t really know who they are … because they’re very private. So, buying art as a status symbol falls apart right there because, if you’re buying art for status, you’d want people to know.”

Many auction houses don’t even know who’s art they’re selling. According to the New York Times, if a painting at an auction sells for millions of dollars, the auction house doesn’t get a cent from that sale. Instead, they make their money from the fees charged to the seller for brokering sales. There isn’t a lot of background checking into such sellers or the pieces they want to auction, according to Rashbaum Bowley.

In China, which consistently ranks among the top three largest art markets by value since 2009, demand is being boosted by a government-sponsored museum-building boom. More than 1,000 new museums — a combination of state-run and private institutions — have opened in the past decade. There are approximately 200 privately owned museums devoted to contemporary art. Crucially, building private museums serves not only as a status symbol for the country’s elite but as means of gaining state approval for lucrative real estate development deals.

In Defense of Low-Fat Eating


  • Ancel Keys is typically credited with starting the low-fat movement. Critics say he cherry picked data to show that the more saturated fat a population ate, the higher the rate of heart disease. However, by then, doctors had already been using low-fat diets in clinical practice for decades, with good success

  • The first “Dietary Goals for the United States” were published in 1977. For the first time, government was making recommendations about what to eat to maintain good health, and they specifically recommended that people increase consumption of carbohydrates and reduce saturated fat intake

  • However, while low-fat diets were pushed, Americans did not lower their fat intake. Americans did raise their carb intake after the guidelines were released, but they did not cut their fat intake. Portion sizes also went up, and sugary snacks were coming onto the scene

  • In the 1930s through the late 1950s, several doctors achieved stunning successes treating chronic diseases with extremely low-fat diets. The reason low-fat diets don’t seem to work anymore is because the term “low fat” was redefined from 10% of calories or less, to 30%, which is too high to achieve metabolic benefits

  • Author and health consultant Denise Minger has proposed a hypothesis that “metabolic magic” occurs on two ends of the dietary fat spectrum: at or above 65% fat, and at or below 10%. Most dietary recommendations call for 30% fat, which is where fat becomes problematic

Visit Mercola Market


The video above features a lecture by health consultant and author Denise Minger at the 2016 Icelandic Health Symposium. Her 2014 book, “Death by Food Pyramid,” explores the roots of our beliefs about food and provides readers with tools to navigate conflicting dietary claims, and she does so in this lecture as well.

While Minger’s presentation primarily challenges our beliefs about low-fat diets, more broadly she also encourages everyone to keep an open mind, to question everything, to avoid group-think and premature assumptions based on the illusion of consensus. This is good advice for all of us.

As you may have noticed, I’ve made several U-turns myself over the years, as I delved deeper into various metabolic issues and gained a deeper understanding about how the human body works.

Optimal health is not a one-and-done, but rather an ongoing journey. New information surfaces. Your body changes with age, and new environmental factors come into play. So, we must adapt to changing circumstances and learn to listen to our bodies.

For many years, I was convinced a long-term, high-fat diet was the way to go, and that fat burned “cleaner” than glucose. I’m now coming to understand that there’s far more to this equation than I had previously appreciated, and that carbs, fructose in particular, have been wrongly blamed for damage that actually isn’t the fault of sugar itself.

I’m presenting Minger’s lecture here as food for thought. It’s not a wholesale endorsement of her views, but an opportunity to hear the other side of the high-fat/low-fat argument.

As noted by Minger, the history we’re told is not necessarily the whole truth. It’s typically curated to create a particular narrative, and this applies to the history of dietary recommendations as well. I think you’ll really enjoy it, as she presents a rather revolutionary hypothesis that, indeed, may clear up much of the confusion surrounding high- versus low-fat.

The Prevailing History of Low-Fat Diets

Minger starts out by reviewing the history of low-fat diets because, according to her, this is where most get off track. Physiologist Ancel Keys — creator of Army K rations — is typically credited with starting the low-fat movement in the 1950s.1

According to the prevailing narrative, he cherry picked data to show that the more saturated fat a population ate, the higher the rate of heart disease. He then used his charisma and influence to convince the American Heart Association to adopt low-fat dietary guidelines and promote that for cardiovascular health.

The first “Dietary Goals for the United States” were published in 1977 by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Sen. George McGovern.2 This report eventually grew into what today is known as the U.S. Dietary Guidelines.

For the first time, the government was making recommendations about what to eat to maintain good health, and they specifically recommended that people increase consumption of carbohydrates and reduce saturated fat intake.

However, as the low-fat recommendation took hold, obesity skyrocketed. The subsequent obesity epidemic has long been viewed as evidence that the low-fat recommendation was in error.

Did Low-Fat Diets Cause the Obesity Epidemic?

But not so fast, Minger says. While low-fat diets were in fact pushed, did Americans really follow that recommendation? Looking at macronutrient intake data, Minger points out that while Americans did raise their carb intake after the guidelines were released, they did not cut their fat intake. Portion sizes also went up, and sugary snacks were coming onto the scene.

Interestingly, though, if you look at macronutrient intake data from the early 1900s, carb intake (in terms of grams per day) at that time was quite similar to what it was in 2000.

“So, we can’t really even say that our diet was higher carb than it has ever been,” she says. “Not only that, but things look very interesting on a global level when we consider what other countries are eating.

We can see that as the percent of total calories, America actually has a very, very low, relatively speaking, intake of carbohydrate compared to a lot of other countries.

Other countries with low carbohydrate intakes, relatively speaking, include Australia, Iceland, a lot of different parts of Europe, many places that are also experiencing obesity epidemics.

And if we look at relative fat intake, we can see that America, Australia, Europe, Iceland — again many of the same areas experiencing obesity epidemics — actually have the highest intake of fat. So, bottom line here is that you do not eat a low-fat diet in the West at all. We can’t really blame anything that’s going on, on … low-fat [diets].”

The Forgotten Timeline of the Low-Fat Movement: Dr. Kempner

Menger goes on to review how, in 1939, Walter Kempner, a medical doctor and research scientist, used low-fat diets to successfully treat a wide array of chronic disease, including kidney disease and kidney failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, psoriasis and more.

He’s been referred to as the father of modern diet therapy, and is the creator of the Rice Diet, which was based on 250 grams to 350 grams of white rice (dry weight), unlimited fresh fruit and fruit juice, and, shockingly, unlimited white sugar. On average, his patients consumed between 100 grams to 400 grams of refined sugar a day. This diet is basically 94% carbs and only 2% fat.

The result? Patients with a range of diseases (listed above) dramatically improved, including diabetics. In a study that followed patients for up to 11 years, Kempner found that only 15% of diabetics experienced a rise in fasting blood sugar on the Rice Diet; 22% had no change; and 63% experienced a decrease, with an average drop of 101 mg/dL.

Insulin usage also decreased by 58% and 1 in 4 were able to cease taking insulin because their levels were completely normalized. A quote from a conference paper reviewing the Rice Diet reads:3

“Patients … were able to transition into a more flexible diet over time, while leading a normal, active life, without medications, indicating that the disease state [i.e., diabetes] had been permanently modified.”

The Forgotten Timeline: Drs. Morrison and Swank

In the 1940s, Dr. Lester Morrison, another pioneer of the low-fat diet, used a low-fat diet to treat heart disease in people who had already experienced a heart attack. The “Morrison Diet-Heart Study,”4 begun in 1946, found that people in the low-fat diet group had about half the mortality rate of controls after three years (14% compared to 30%).

Fat was the only macronutrient that was limited. The test group maintained daily fat intake between 20 grams and 25 grams, while eating as much sugar and refined grains as they wanted. After eight years, the low-fat group still had a lower mortality rate — 44% — compared to controls at 76%.

In the late 1940s, Dr. Roy Swank was a neurologist who not only advocated a low-fat diet, but also treated multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with it.5 He developed a theory that MS was the result of genetics combined with dietary triggers, saturated fat in particular. He put 150 MS patients on a low-fat diet (max 10 grams to 15 grams of saturated fat a day, primarily from meat and dairy). Sugar and refined grains were not limited.

Swank followed his patients for up to 50 years. Follow-up after 34 years showed that disease progression stabilized among those who adhered to the low-fat recommendation, while worsening among those who went back to eating more fat.

Mortality statistics confirmed this, showing that 31% of those who had died during the 34th year of follow-up had been eating less than 20 grams of saturated fat a day, while 80% of those who had died had been eating more than 20 grams.

The Forgotten Timeline: Drs. Pritikin and Esselstyn

Keys doesn’t enter the low-fat scene until the mid-1950s. By then, doctors had already been using low-fat diets in clinical practice for decades, with good success.

“So, Ancel Keys is not really the beginning of the low-fat movement,” Minger says. “There are a few people who have been swept under the rug of history, whom we’ve forgotten about.”

In the late 1950s, Dr. Nathan Pritikin founded a longevity center and became well-known for treating obesity and heart disease with a very low-fat diet based on vegetables, grains and fruits.

Then, in 1977, the first U.S. dietary guidelines recommending low fat came out. So, these guidelines were not necessarily the result of Keys’ alleged charisma, but did in fact have a long history of clinical successes to back them up.

Minger also reviews more recent research by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, a cardiac surgeon who in 2014 published the results of a five-year study using an extremely low-fat, plant-based diet on 198 patients with advanced heart disease. Of those, 177 adhered to Esselstyn’s strict diet. The rest ended up serving as an accidental control group.

Among adherents, 22% completely reversed their heart disease, and only one person — 0.6% — had a cardiac event (stroke), compared to 62% of nonadherents.

“So, can we really say that low-fat, high-carb diets categorically are bad for cardiovascular health when … very, very, very low-fat [diets] have been shown —with evidence in clinical settings — to reverse heart disease? We need to refine the way we’re looking at these things,” Minger says.

Why Don’t Low-Fat Diets Work Today?

All of this brings us to an important question. If low-fat diets were so effective in decades past, why don’t they work today? Most modern research suggests low fat isn’t effective. The answer, Minger says, is that we’ve redefined the term “low fat.”

Between 1930 and 1970, “low fat” meant fat accounted for 10% of calories or less. Since the 1980s, “low fat” has been redefined as 30% of calories, which by all accounts is more like “moderate fat,” or even “relatively high fat,” based on the average global fat consumption. Minger then presents a rather intriguing, if not revolutionary, hypothesis.

We know that when your diet is 65% or more fat, you enter a metabolic state called ketosis, which has a long list of health benefits. “What if,” Minger says, “on the other end of the spectrum there’s a mirror metabolic state that happens when you restrict fat to [10% or less]?” The image below, from her slide show, illustrates her novel hypothesis.

minger novel hypothesis

Minger has dubbed this low-fat metabolic state “carbosis,” because there’s no official name for it. She explains:

“We got ketosis on one end; we got carbosis on the other end, and my thought is that what’s in the middle is the macronutrient ‘swamp land.’ And this swamp land, unfortunately, is where most of our obesity-producing diets tend to fall.

We see that a toxic combination [of] very processed carbohydrates with industrial vegetable oils … mixed with some salt, become highly addictive, maybe cause some changes in appetite regulation …

But the important thing here is … we have USDA guidelines that fall here, American Heart Association guidelines that fall here, American Diabetes Association guidelines that fall here, American Dietetic Association guidelines that fall here.

And, most importantly, if you look at almost any ‘low-fat’ study that has been conducted in recent years, it is also going to use a fat intake of about 30% — swampland values.

Of course, it’s not going to [produce] that therapeutic effect that we saw in some of this older research. That also brings us to a new question, which is why does [fat] need to be so low in order for that magic to happen?”

Dietary Fat Reduces Insulin Sensitivity

Minger goes on to review evidence suggesting that fat can reduce insulin sensitivity. Importantly, many experiments try to extrapolate the effects of macronutrients based on processed foods loaded with unnatural ingredients like hydrogenated soybean oil. That’s not a reliable way to ascertain the effects of fats and carbs found in whole foods.

One study, however, used just two basic ingredients: potato and butter. Metabolically healthy, nondiabetic, lean adults were fed a baked potato (50 grams of carbohydrate) either alone, or with 50 grams of butter. There’s a belief that eating fat with a high-carbohydrate meal will result in a lower blood sugar spike and insulin response, and this is what they wanted to test.

“As predicted, adding the fat to the potato did lower the glucose response, but it did not dramatically, significantly lower the insulin response. In fact, adding fat to the potato caused insulin levels to stay elevated for an hour longer than eating the potato alone.

It took a longer time for that level to return to baseline … and there was actually a potentiating effect on insulin from the fat. What that means is, more insulin was needed to handle the same amount of blood sugar when fat was added to the potato … So, for some reason the insulin was not being as effective, or it was circulating abnormally …”

They then repeated the experiment using patients with untreated Type 2 diabetes. They ate either a baked potato alone, or with varying amounts of fat from butter, ranging from 5 grams to 50 grams.

Interestingly, in diabetics, adding fat did not lower the blood sugar response. The insulin response to potato alone was also lower than it was for potato with as little as 5 grams of fat. The effect leveled off at 15 grams of fat, but all insulin responses were higher with fat than with potato alone.

“So, there’s something about adding butter to a high carbohydrate meal that increases insulin levels relative to the carb food being eaten alone,” Minger says.

This could explain why the Rice Diet, which was 94% carbohydrate and only 2% fat, improved insulin levels in diabetics. Kempner himself observed that even minimal additions of fat spoiled the therapeutic effect.

Dietary Fat Reduces Blood Oxygen

There’s also evidence suggesting that dietary fat can reduce the ability of oxygen to reach different tissues, including your brain and heart. Minger cites a 1955 study in which 14 patients with angina (a form of heart disease that causes severe chest pain) fasted overnight and were then given a glass of heavy cream to drink the next morning.

They then measured the plasma lactescence,6 a marker for fat flooding the blood stream during the process of digestion. Plasma lactescence started rising after two hours of ingestion, peaking at Hour 3. And, right as plasma lactescence peaked, that’s when patients began to experience bouts of angina and abnormal EKGs.

There were 14 angina attacks among the 14 patients, but some experienced multiple attacks while others had none. During peak lactescence, there was also a reduction in oxygen carrying capacity, meaning less oxygen was reaching their hearts. On top of that, platelets and red blood cells started clumping together, so blood flow was impaired.

They then replicated the experiment using an isolated protein powder drink with dextrin and maltose that had the same calorie content as the heavy cream. And, while this drink objectively contains less healthy ingredients, after five hours, none of the patients had experienced an angina attack and none had abnormal EKG.

“So, something to think about: There might be … certain susceptibilities among certain people to be sensitive to a high saturated fat intake,” Minger says.

“I’m not going to draw conclusions right now. This is still something I’m researching. But for anybody who does have any type of heart condition, consuming a lot of saturated fat in one meal might not be the best idea.”


In conclusion, Minger notes:

“… we sometimes blame carbohydrates for breaking our carbohydrate metabolism … We have another option though … This is what I’m thinking: Low carbohydrate diets are amazing for managing the symptoms and expressions of insulin resistance.

If you’re diabetic, you can go on a low carbohydrate diet, normalize your blood sugar, normalize your a1c, do great on the Surface, but if you ever go back to eating carbohydrates, you will be in trouble. There is still something about the body that is broken …

For some people, [their] bodies may be permanently broken beyond repair. I’ll definitely acknowledge that. But for some people, there may be the potential to actually restore glucose control … restore metabolic flexibility, and actually heal things like diabetes.

And right now, there is more evidence that a very low-fat diet can do that than a very high fat diet can … So, it’s a matter of, what are we willing to risk? What are we willing to play around with? …

So, I would like to leave with this one thought, which is that we have been engaged in a macronutrient war for a very, very long time — decades. The first victim was fat. We decided that was bad … [E]ventually we started realizing that that strategy didn’t work so well. Then we started targeting carbohydrates …

In my opinion this is also very narrow-minded. Both of these macronutrients operate in ways that are context-dependent. Fat can make carbohydrates look bad. Carbohydrates can make fat look bad. But in reality, we have these two different worlds that, most of the time, we consider irreconcilable, mutually exclusive.

We can’t figure out why one would work and the other one would work. So we tend to choose sides and root for just one. I would like to offer the idea that maybe these two things are not in fact at odds.”

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

What Happens to Doctors Who Innovate?

what happens to doctors who innovate

By: A Midwestern Doctor

  • The medical community has a longstanding bias against acknowledging new evidence which shows existing practices harm patients, and doctors who present it often experience professional repercussions for doing so

  • The final part of a doctor’s training is done so they can earn a board certification. That certification is often necessary for doctors to perform things specific to their specialty (e.g., surgeries)

  • ABIM is a private “nonprofit” organization that grants most of the board certifications hospitals require a doctor to hold in order to see patients within them. Longstanding concerns exist that ABIM has abused its monopoly to milk as much money as it can from America’s doctors (which is then spent on “executive compensation”)

  • During COVID, ABIM chose to revoke the board certifications of numerous doctors who saved lives by publishing effective treatment protocols for COVID-19 no one could make money off of. ABIM’s conduct illustrates how the modern medical system suppresses anything which competes with its business

Visit Mercola Market


I chose “The Forgotten Side of Medicine” as the name for my publication on Substack because it touches upon the three critical facets of medicine:

  • The art of medicine and depth of doctor-patient relationship — both which are becoming lost as we switch to an increasingly technological and algorithmic practice of medicine.

  • The forgotten victims of medicine who suffered much of what the current generation is now also experiencing at the hands of a greedy industry which values profits over human beings.

  • Forgotten medical innovations that got lost to history because they challenged the current medical orthodoxy or threatened the medical monopoly.

I recently completed an article discussing how grant system (which only funds orthodox research) has played a pivotal role in causing innovation to disappear from medicine. When I reviewed Pierre Kory’s pending de-certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), I realized those events illustrate another common way critical innovations are prevented from ever seeing the light of day.

Almost all of my time in the educational system has followed the same pattern. Information gets thrown at students, like spaghetti being thrown against a wall again and again, in the hope some of it will eventually stick.

In my own case, since I tried to learn and understand the information when it first was presented, I “got it” and had the surreal experience of seeing what I was taught in eighth grade be thrown at the wall again and again well into my undergraduate degree. Presently, I believe education should do some combination of the following:

  • Force students to learn the foundational material everything else is based upon and drill that into students until it becomes an unconscious competency (e.g., I was fortunate to have this done for me with arithmetic in 3rd grade by a teacher people complained was “too strict,” whereas the majority of adults I meet still struggle with many of the concepts I learned then).

  • Find ways to make the concepts understandable, relatable, and interesting so that students who do not do this innately have a bridge to self-learning the concepts.

  • Encourage students to critically examine the concepts so they can decide if they agree with the material, be motivated to further explore what they are curious or unsure about and in the process teach themselves to think critically.

Since none of this is prioritized by the modern educational system, we have more and more years of schooling added on that give less and less. For example, a good case can be made that current college students know less (and are tested to a less rigorous standard) than 8th graders were a century ago.

In many ways, the purpose of the educational system now seems to be primarily to support the educational industry, socially condition students who are in it (e.g., by keeping them out of a broader society which would challenge their beliefs), and make everyone be invested in becoming a lifelong cog in the system.

To overcome the understandable resistance many would have to spending years of their life (and tons of money) in learning something of questionable value, a carrot and stick model is used — students are constantly kept under significant pressure to succeed academically so they can make it through each successive hoop and end up where they “need” to be in society.

Most people would agree that the most elusive carrot dangled before students in the educational system is the chance to become a doctor if they do everything right and work for years and years to be at the top of their class. As a result, many students who go into medicine quite literally spend years of their lives doing nothing but trying to be able to get into medical school.

However, once they get there, something needs to be done to continue to motivate them to give everything they have to continue being trained. The carrot then becomes not simply getting to be a doctor (which is no longer a big deal once they make it medical school) but rather making it into their preferred speciality.

In essence each specialty’s “merit” comes from how much it pays, how many years of training it takes to complete (e.g., family medicine [general practice] takes three years, while neurosurgery takes seven), and how hard the lifestyle is for the specialty (e.g., do you have to work long hours with high risk surgeries and have to sleep at the hospital in case emergencies come in).

Typically, the harder a specialty is, the more it pays. When there is a more favorable ratio between a speciality’s difficulty and salary it becomes more desirable. For example, dermatology only requires completing a four year residency and has a very laid back lifestyle, but pays as much as far more difficult specialities.

average salary by medical specialty 2023

Because of this, students go to extreme lengths to get into dermatology and do everything they possibly can to chase the carrots that are given to them throughout medical school.

Likewise, many of other the desired specialities (e.g., cardiology) require completing a fellowship after residency and hence motivate trainees who already made it to their desired residency to continue doing everything they can to chase the carrots presented to them.

Whenever I give students advice on what specialty to go into, my advice is always the same: “you will make more money than you’ll ever need regardless of your speciality — pick the one you actually enjoy rather than the ‘better’ one that burns you out.” Unfortunately, most of them never follow my advice.

As a result, many of classmates have reached their wits ends with medicine and often share how they are wondering when they can afford to retire, whereas I love what I do, I plan to practice until the end of my life, and I even have the bandwidth to take on the immense side-project of writing millions of words online to help set things right with COVID-19.

Note: A close friend who is one of the smartest people I know chose to be a dermatologist. I felt my friend had an immense degree of talent and could have created numerous medical breakthroughs, but instead they chose to go into dermatology so they could be make a lot of money, support their family and not have to work too hard. I share this because this is one of the many ways those who could innovate are incentivized not too.

If you take a step back and look at all the specialization within medicine, an interesting phenomenon emerges — doctors keep on needing to train for more and more years, but it’s hard to say how much there is to show for it. A century ago, medical graduates entered practice after completing four years of medical school.

Then internships (a year of hospital training after graduating medical schools) got gradually phased in. After that, medical residencies gradually got phased in, and finally fellowships got phased in (and in some cases multiple fellowships).

Yet, the benefits of this proliferation of medical education are somewhat questionable — for example doctors during COVID-19 demonstrated less ingenuity and ability to adapt to the needs of their patients than doctors did a century ago during the 1918 influenza. Likewise, many of us (e.g., Pierre Kory) have noticed that the specialists are less able to help patients than general practitioners and typically all just say the exact same thing — especially within a hospital setting.

Since most states only require completing one year of residency to practice medicine (although this is starting to change at the state level), something needs to be done to ensure the carrot to pursue a medical residency can still be dangled in front of doctors long after they graduate medical school.

This is done by tying a lot of privileges to being board certified, and having it (for the most part) only be possible to become board certified if you complete a residency or post-residency fellowship. Some of those privileges include:

  • Being able to see patients in a hospital (board certifications are typically required for hospital privileges).

  • Being able to receive insurance reimbursements for the procedures your speciality has monopolized (e.g., the high paying ones a lucrative specialty has monopolized).

  • Being less likely to lose a malpractice case and hence having lower malpractice insurance.

  • The social status a board certification provides (e.g., being a “cardiologist”).

Nonetheless, many eventually opt to relinquish their board certifications because they realize they hate working within the conventional medical system and maintaining the certification is expensive and a lot of pointless hassle.

One of the important but under appreciated distinctions in law are “de facto laws,” things that were never formally made into law but are nonetheless treated as law. De facto laws essentially make it possible for people to bypass the legal process (which is meant to protect the public from tyranny) but nonetheless still have the force of the law behind them.

For example, as we all saw during COVID-19, a coordinated effort was made to censor any information which suggested treatments (that no one could make any money off of) existed for SARS-CoV-2, and to outlaw the administration of drugs that could treat it. This was all illegal, but since everyone (e.g., law enforcement, hospitals and insurance companies) deferred to the authorities advocating those positions, they became law.

Likewise, there has been a longstanding issue where corrupt panels are appointed to provide guidelines for treating diseases which always end up supporting the interests of the sponsors of those panels. This was best illustrated by the NIH panel that officially decided what treatments were appropriate to treat COVID-19 in the hospital which then became a de-facto law.

In the case of that panel, its members were directly appointed by Fauci (who was heavily invested in remdesivir), most of them had significant financial ties to remdesivir’s manufacturer, and not surprisingly, despite a lot of against remdesivir, they voted for their drug to be the standard of care for COVID-19, a decision that cost thousands of American lives.

Sadly, this is not by any means an isolated case and there are many other cases of corrupt panels pushing unjustifiable guidelines into medical practice (e.g., consider the recent decision to add the COVID-19 vaccine to childhood vaccine schedule despite children having a real risk of a vaccine injury but no risk of COVID-19).

Likewise, prior to COVID-19, one of the most impactful examples was paid-off panel that decided everyone needed to be on statins even though an independent group using the same set of studies reached the opposite conclusion.

One of the most important things about these de facto laws came from a 2017 lawsuit filed by Lyme patients against the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), an authoritative group which publishes guidelines I frequently don’t agree with (e.g., they argued for remdesivir to treat COVID-19) The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by a judge because:

“IDSA’s guidelines [for Lyme disease] … make clear that adherence to the guidelines is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances.”

I feel this ruling is noteworthy because IDSA’s guidelines were a de-facto law for Lyme patients but the judge allowed the IDSA to argue they were not and hence have the lawsuit dismissed.

This for context was the exact same argument the FDA used to dismiss the lawsuits against it for illegally suppressing ivermectin (the FDA claimed it never prohibited the use of drugs like ivermectin; rather it simply gave suggestions people could chose to follow or to not follow that were not legally binding).

Since the IDSA ruling has not been challenged, it is the current precedent which should guide these types of cases and may explain why the FDA recently reversed its position:

“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, said during oral arguments on Aug. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Note: They may have also reversed their position because COVID-19 is over, so there is no longer a financial incentive to suppress treatments that compete with commercial interests.

Try to keep the premise that that guidelines should not constitute de facto laws in mind as we look at the ABIM’s justification for targeting physicians with dissenting opinions.

In order for doctors to practice medicine, they need to have a medical license, which requires completing medical school, passing some exams, and successfully completing at least one year of a medical residency within the United States. Doctors are always in fear of losing their medical license (as there are a lot of technicalities a medical board can chose to target a doctor’s license with).

In turn, the threat of industry sponsored medical boards has been one of the main things that has kept doctors from ever going too far out of the box (e.g., very few physicians I know will do integrative cancer treatments for this reason — and those that do so do as discretely as possible).

However, while there are serious issues with the medical boards, their conduct varies state by state (e.g., only the highly liberal states went after doctors who dissented from the COVID narrative — leading to many doctors relocating to red states so they could still practice medicine) and there are certain laws they are all required to follow.

The speciality boards, by virtue of being private entities that were never inshrined by a law they are accountable to have much more latitude to do whatever they want. Since most doctors need a board certification from a specialty board to practice, this allows speciality boards to make a variety of de-facto laws.

Prior to COVID-19, most of these laws were primarily motivated by greed — the specialty boards kept on charging doctors more and more to maintain their board certifications and then keeping the money for themselves.

In response to this, many physicians have left their board certifications go. Conversely, others have begun to file more and more lawsuits against the speciality boards (and other related groups feeding off the same trough) for this monopolistic exploitation.

One of the more egregious offenders has been the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) the group responsible for certifying each doctor who works in the hospital and the various organ specialists (e.g., cardiologists). To quote Pierre Kory:

“I think that I had to pay upwards of $1,800 for my last Board re-certification [along with all the time needed to prepare for it]. And get this – that money essentially goes to ABIM executive salaries and pensions and other dubious private investments as described by Eichenwald where he details the insane lengths the ABIM goes to “hide” the compensation and pension data on its executives.”

As hard as this is to believe, Kory’s description underplays the ABIM’s malfeasance. Eichenwald’s investigation for Newsweek in 2015 found:

  • ABIM executives were receiving between 1-2 million dollars in annual salaries (which should be in the 100k-200k range).

  • That the ABIM, a nonprofit, was doing everything it could to hide that compensation.

  • That ABIM was aggressively pushing physicians to do onerous and completely pointless things to maintain their board certifications so they could milk more money from them.

  • That the ABIM was engaging in anti-competitive practices against anyone who tried to create an alternative to their model.

In short, the investigation called for Congress to investigate ABIM and break up its monopoly because of how many physicians were adversely affected by its greed.

As you might have guessed, ABIM was one of the more inclined parties to push for the pharmaceutical narrative. So once doctors began dissenting against the COVID-19 narrative, ABIM moved to revoke their board certifications (e.g., this was done to Peter McCullough, Paul Marik and Pierre Kory last June).

This was an interesting move on ABIM’s part because the doctors it targeted were highly respected leaders in their field (e.g., Paul Marik is considered by many to be the leading author in the field of critical care [ICU] medicine), so if anything, the targeted doctors should have been the experts the specialty deferred to rather than the ones it kicked out.

Some of the doctors eventually decided to fight back (e.g., AAPS sued the speciality boards last year). Pierre Kory likewise has tried to work through ABIM’s onerous and futile appeal process. When I asked him what was motivating him and Marik to go through the grueling process to challenge their decertification (e.g., producing a 60 page response), he told me:

“I’m done with these people. I don’t need the board certification because I never want to work in a hospital again. However, on principle I need to fight this because a lot of other doctor do and they are trying to make an example out of us so all those doctors stay in line and comply.”

Additionally, Kory also shared an important point Meryl Nass had pointed out:

“Suddenly claiming that using licensed drugs for COVID, criticizing federal policies for COVID or criticizing the value of COVID vaccines is “unprofessional” gives the specialty board the right to revoke a certification — well, that was never part of its contract with me.

So pulling my certification for issues that were never specified in the original contract is breach of contract. Well, that is if contracts, like constitutional amendments and medical ethical principles were still “a thing.””

Given how much work doctors make to become board certified (and then maintain the certification), what Nass highlights is a serious infraction on the ABIM’s end. This is something I believe all physicians, including those who completely support the COVID-19 narrative should oppose, as it is simply another facet of how doctors in this country have all been increasingly exploited by the specialty boards.

Since the ABIM is a private group that can make de facto laws as they please, to some extent, the reasons they chose to go after the COVID dissidents are ultimately arbitrary. Nonetheless, I think there is still quite a bit to be learned from their allegations (which can viewed here).

The crux of their argument is that alternative treatment protocols authored for COVID-19 (e.g., the use of ivermectin) were harmful misinformation and thus justified a revoking board certifications.

This reasoning is interesting, because as far as I know, while I’ve frequently seen cases of a doctor losing their state medical license for conduct that endangers the public, I’ve never seen a physician have a board certification be revoked as a punishment (even in cases where the physician was caught being a serial sexual predator or doing countless unnecessary surgeries that severely injured or killed numerous patients).

Rather, a board revocation typically only happens when a doctor didn’t give the speciality board all the money it wanted. One of the passages in the ABIM’s letter is particularly illuminating:

“[ABIM] concluded that your statements about the purported dangers of, or lack of justification for, COVID-19 vaccines are false and inaccurate because they, too, are not supported by factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus driven scientific evidence.

In fact, the overwhelming body of factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven evidence – at and since the time you made those statements – shows that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for children and for adults.”

Kory and Marik submitted a litany of evidence to support their protocols. All of that evidence was ridiculed and ignored, with the ABIM instead cited a few questionable studies to support its position and then argued it was right because its position was “the consensus.” After seeing the ABIM’s rationale for their conduct, a few issues jumped out at me.

First, some of the information (discussed below) the ABIM cited to defend their position appears to be misinformation. This creates a catch-22, since by the standards ABIM is putting forward, the physicians in ABIM leveling these charges against others need to be dismissed by the ABIM for conveying misinformation and thus should not be able to present those charges in the first place.

Second, the consensus with COVID-19 has changed multiple times, and the ABIM’s position will likely be viewed as erroneous by the mainstream medical community within a few years as there is already significant scientific evidence challenging it. Since that evidence already exists, once public opinion shifts and it becomes the consensus, ABIM’s decision to provide a willful dismissal of this evidence (in writing) will likely become a huge issue for the organization.

Third, consensus based medicine is not the same as evidence based medicine.

When I first entered the medical profession, a mentor told me that the medical field was remarkably stubborn and frequently resisted changing bad ideas for decades.

In the 1980s, the need to overturn entrenched dogmas with scientific evidence began to gain traction, and in 1990, Gordon Guyatt coined the term “evidence based medicine,” (EBM). Then in 1996, David L Sackett, published a widely cited article defining exactly what EBM was:

“The conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”

Put differently, Sackett, proposed that three different considerations needed to be weighted equally in evidence based clinical practice:

  • Patient Values

  • Clinical Expertise

  • Relevant Research

So if for example, a patient did not want to be vaccinated, it would not be evidence based practice to pressure them to vaccinate and deny them care them if they did not vaccinate (something that as whistleblowers have testified happened throughout the pandemic).

Likewise, if a doctor’s clinical experience told them one therapy that was not supported by the guidelines was the safest and most effective therapy for a patient, the doctor would not have to risk their medical career being destroyed or having to sue their hospital to administer it (both of which happened to Paul Marik).

Note: As detailed in The War on Ivermectin, there were 80 lawsuits where families with a relative being subjected to Fauci’s hospital COVID protocols and was expected to die had lawyer Ralph Lorigo sue the hospital for ivermectin to be administered to their relative.

Of those 80 lawsuits, in 40 the judge sided with the family, and in 40 with the hospital (initially the lawsuits were successful, but as they mounted, the hospitals banded together to develop an effective apparatus to dismiss further lawsuits).

Of the 40 cases where ivermectin was given, 38 of the 40 patients survived. Of the 40 cases where the hospitals were allowed to withhold ivermectin, 2 of the 40 patients survived. Beyond the fact this is insane, like the vaccine mandates, it is also a perfect example of not following the three pillars of EBM.

Since Sackett’s 1996 article had such a large influence on the practice of medicine, I think it is helpful to cite of it:

“Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients’ predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care.

Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannised by evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient. Without current best evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients.

Evidence based medicine is neither old hat nor impossible to practice. The argument that “everyone already is doing it” falls before evidence of striking variations in both the integration of patient values into our clinical behaviour and in the rates with which clinicians provide interventions to their patients.

The argument that evidence based medicine can be conducted only from ivory towers and armchairs is refuted by audits from the front lines of clinical care where at least some inpatient clinical teams in general medicine, psychiatry, and surgery have provided evidence based care to the vast majority of their patients.

Evidence based medicine is not “cookbook” medicine. Because it requires a bottom up approach that integrates the best external evidence with individual clinical expertise and patients’ choice, it cannot result in slavish, cookbook approaches to individual patient care.

External clinical evidence can inform, but can never replace, individual clinical expertise, and it is this expertise that decides whether the external evidence applies to the individual patient at all and, if so, how it should be integrated into a clinical decision.

Similarly, any external guideline must be integrated with individual clinical expertise in deciding whether and how it matches the patient’s clinical state, predicament, and preferences, and thus whether it should be applied. Clinicians who fear top down cookbooks will find the advocates of evidence based medicine joining them at the barricades.

Some fear that evidence based medicine will be hijacked by purchasers and managers to cut the costs of health care. This would not only be a misuse of evidence based medicine but suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of its financial consequences.

Doctors practising evidence based medicine will identify and apply the most efficacious interventions to maximise the quality and quantity of life for individual patients; this may raise rather than lower the cost of their care. Evidence based medicine is not restricted to randomised trials and meta-analyses. It involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions.

Because the randomised trial, and especially the systematic review of several randomised trials, is so much more likely to inform us and so much less likely to mislead us, it has become the “gold standard” for judging whether a treatment does more good than harm. However, some questions about therapy do not require randomised trials (successful interventions for otherwise fatal conditions) or cannot wait for the trials to be conducted.”

I would thus argue that the response to COVID-19 was not evidence-based medicine.

Throughout COVID-19 we saw consensus-based medicine (CBM) masquerading as evidence-based medicine be forced upon America and had our eyes opened to exactly why EBM is so important the practice of medicine.

CBM is why doctors were not allowed to utilize protocols they saw were keeping their patients alive and instead were forced to use protocols created by corrupt committees that killed thousands of Americans and created the urgent need for a vaccine to end the pandemic.

Likewise, CBM was why an unproven, dangerous, and ineffective vaccine was allowed to remain on the market, why every doctor who challenged it was cancelled, and why the response to all these concerns was instead to mandate the vaccine and gaslight everyone who was injured by it.

Since you are already familiar with many of the examples, I would like to cite one that was raised by ABIM to Dr. Kory:

concern raised by ABIM to Dr. Kory

Every drug is toxic (hence why I use them sparingly), and while ivermectin is not 100% safe (reversible symptoms will occur in sensitive patients), it is one of the safest drugs in existence. For example, I do not know of any documented cases where someone has died from an ivermectin overdose (I only know of three “suspected” cases where more information was not provided). This is a distinction very few other drugs hold as virtually any drug can be deadly at a high dose.

Since ivermectin (a Nobel Prize winning drug) threatened the money the pandemic profiteers were going to make from COVID-19, it needed to be rebranded as deadly and ineffective. One of the initial strategies employed for this was to create a barrage of sensational media reports like this one:

rolling stone gunshot victims

What was so amazing about this story was that despite its patent absurdity (e.g., all of it was fake — including the above picture), it was nonetheless taken up by media outlets around the world, and to this day most people are still unaware it was made up. The NPR article cited by the ABIM cited made a few important points:

First, it restated Rolling Stone’s position that ivermectin overdoses were flooding ERs.

Second, without stating it explicitly, it acknowledged that all of the extra cases of ivermectin overdoses came from people incorrectly self-medicating with the veterinary formulation (the paste) since there was a 70% increase in overdoses and 70% of the overdoses were thought to have come from the paste. This is important because that is entirely different from the precise dose of the pills made for humans Kory and others advocated for appropriately prescribing to patients.

Third, the source the NPR article cited indicated that for the first 8 months of 2021, compared to 2020 or 2019, of the approximately 728 extra cases, 0 died, 1% (roughly 7) had a “major” effect, 8% had a “moderate” effect (roughly 58), 13% (roughly 95) had a “minor” effect, 20% had no effect, and of the 58% not followed, the majority were not thought to have had a significant effect from the ivermectin.

What this means is that there was an understandable increase in calls to poison control centers by people who had decided to take veterinary ivermectin and then became were worried they’d misdosed it. Nonetheless, nothing of consequence happened (seven people in the entire country had “major” reactions).

Conversely, there are slightly over 2 million calls to poison control each year, 567,035 of which come from just seven types of pharmaceutical drugs. One category (responsible for 136,380 calls), “analgesics” is predominantly comprised of the same drugs (e.g., ibuprofen or Tylenol) that doctors around the country (along with healthcare authorities and the media) told patients take if they came down with COVID-19 to pass the time until they needed to be hospitalized and possibly die.

Note: In addition to their inherent dangers, I and colleagues consistently saw fever-suppressing analgesics worsen the course of COVID-19 infections and France went so far as issue a formal warning against using ibuprofen for the disease.

Compared to ivermectin “poisonings” (which have resulted in 0 deaths), each year in America, preparations of Tylenol intended for human use result in 26,000 hospitalizations, 56,000 emergency department visits and 500 deaths annually. As you all know, no one was ever punished for telling patients to self-medicate with these drugs.

I share this example to illustrate why consensus based medicine is so problematic. If evidence based medicine was followed, none of this would have ever happened.

Medicine’s history is marked by bad medical practice after bad medical practice being medical dogma for decades if not centuries. In turn, there are countless cases of a physician challenging the bad medical practice being viscously attacked by their peers for years and often only acknowledged long after their death.

Since this is the “culture” of medicine it has allowed things like the current disastrous medical practice — mandating a deadly and ineffective vaccine for an extinct virus (the strain the vaccine “protects” against no longer exists) upon the population — to be accepted and largely unchallenged.

Since history is often extremely instructive for understanding where we are now, I’d like to review some of the previous medical dogmas my profession did everything it could to hold onto:

  • Not washing hands after dissecting corpses and then delivering babies. The doctor who pointed out this was killing thousands of mothers grievously offended his peers, was attacked by them, and was eventually committed to a mental asylum where he suffered a fatal beating.

  • Frontal lobotomies for mental illness became such a common medical practice they won the inventor a Nobel Prize.

  • Long ago, a cardiologist I knew who believed it was necessary to give anticoagulants for heart attacks was relentlessly attacked by his peers for endangering his patients and suffered severe professional consequences. His approach is now the standard of care in cardiology.

  • Long ago, there was a belief that anyone who survived a heart attack needed 4-6 weeks of complete bed rest enforced by the hospital so their heart would not be stressed. This was torturous for the patients and appeared to make them much more likely to develop severe complications or die. A cardiologist who felt terrible for what these people were going through eventually decided to test this approach:

    “Little did I realize that violating firmly held traditions can raise a tsunami of opposition. The idea of moving critically ill patients into a chair was regarded as off‑the‑wall. Initially the house staff refused to cooperate and strenuously resisted getting patients out of bed.

    They accused me of planning to commit crimes not unlike those of the heinous Nazi experimentations in concentration camps. Arriving on the medical ward one morning I was greeted by interns and residents lined up with hands stretched out in a Nazi salute and a “Heil Hitler!” shouted in unison.”

The experiment was a success and dramatically reduced the death rate (to a third of what it had been), making it still be the most successful measure in history for reducing the death from heart attacks.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick did the math and concluded that the old approach was responsible for more deaths the first and second world wars, Stalin’s pogroms, and the Holocaust, added together. Once the dust settles, I can only imagine how the COVID-19 guidelines will compare to that down the road.

Note: There are countless other examples of a disastrous consensus being medical dogma that similarly resisted all attempts to overturn it. For length considerations, I avoided listing 25 other notorious examples compiled by the FLCCC which can be viewed here.

I believe the ABIM’s conduct is extremely short sighted — both for the organization since it shines a bright light on their unscrupulous business practices that no practicing physician supports and for the medical industry in general.

One of the major fears a significant segment of the public has now is if it’s safe to go to hospitals because they understandably believe the hospital and the doctors there will prioritize what makes the hospital money over what keeps the patient alive.

The fact that many patients chose to sue their hospital to get what they believed to be a lifesaving treatment be administered (or bypassed the hospital entirely and secretly administered it) indicates much of the trust my profession spent decades building has been lost.

Everyone loses from this — the hospitals have less visits and hence take in less money, the doctors have much more difficult interactions with their patients, and patients who need hospital care avoid it. An important point to emphasize is that while I disagree with some standard hospital practices (e.g., beyond COVID, its unforgivable vitamin C is almost never given to septic patients) many others are excellent and consistently lifesaving.

Likewise, I’ve known famous natural medicine advocates who were deathly afraid of being murdered at a hospital that refused to seek hospital care for a very easy to treat condition and died as a result of that decision.

Making examples out of the public figures Americans would most want to be their hospital doctor is the exact opposite of what the medical industry should be wanting to do right now — especially when it is done by the group that determines if doctors can work in hospitals. Recently, a national survey conducted since 1972 found the same thing:

  • Only 39% of Americans (and 22% of Republicans) now have “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community (down from 48% collectively in 2018).

  • 13% of Americans have “hardly any” confidence in the scientific community now.

  • Only 34% of Americans (and 26% of Republicans) now have a “great deal of confidence” in medicine (down from 39% in 2018).

I believe if we allowed doctors who had the best intentions of their patients to innovate, the public would have much more confidence in the medical profession.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Teflon — The Devil We Know

  • What was not in existence a century ago is now found in the blood samples of over 99% of Americans and is responsible for the rising rate of cancer in the Ohio Valley

  • DuPont willfully dumped thousands of pounds of C8 into the waterways around their plant in West Virginia, effectively poisoning residents, employees and farm animals

  • A Sundance Film Festival release chronicles the fight for justice against the manipulation and deception of DuPont, who chose financial gain over the health of their community

  • Studies demonstrate your risk of obesity rises as you may absorb C8 from products in your home, such as nonstick cookware and stain-resistant products

Visit Mercola Market


Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published February 28, 2018.

While C8 was not in existence a century ago, it is now found in over 99% of American blood samples, according to analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This chemical has been found in newborn babies, umbilical cord blood and breast milk. Many animals have suffered the consequences as the chemical is ubiquitous in the environment and does not degrade. In fact, scientists expect it will remain on the planet well after humans are all gone.

C8, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), is man-made and used in the process of producing Teflon, known for its nonstick qualities.

Following a barrage of lawsuits against DuPont for the release of C8 into the environment, production ended in 2015.

However, C8 continues to be released into the air and water through use of products that are already on the market. Additionally, DuPont and other companies have only substituted a shorter chain version of C8 in the production of stain-resistant materials and Teflon-coated pans.

DuPont has been a master of deceptive and manipulative public relations strategies that have helped ensure their financial success, while at the same time creating chemicals that are destroying the environment and your health. What’s worse, the company has known of the effects on the environment and human health and has repeatedly lied to federal and local regulators, consumers and even their own employees about toxicity from exposure.

The film “The Devil We Know,” released at the Sundance Film Festival in 2018, depicts the struggle employees and residents of the Ohio Valley went through to ensure DuPont chemical company takes responsibility for their actions, which will be experienced for centuries to come.

One of the largest experiments performed on humans began in the postwar era of 1935, when DuPont invented the slogan “Better Living Through Chemistry.” It wasn’t until 1982 that the tagline “Through Chemistry” was dropped. Ultimately, the intent of the slogan was to change public opinion and perception about the role of chemical industry in society. If you aren’t afraid of the product, you’re more likely to use it on a daily basis.

However, most health experts and advocates believe nonstick pans should have been banned many years ago to mitigate risks, as both animal and human diseases have been linked to exposure.

Many Americans are exposed to Teflon-coated pans either at home or in meals prepared at restaurants. The epic legal battles fought against DuPont have shed some light on the deceptive practices the company used in order to keep their product on the market.

PFOA is not only an ingredient in nonstick cookware, but can also be found in stain-resistant products, microwave popcorn bags and fast food wrappers. Waterproof clothing and soil-repellent carpet and furniture treatments also contain PFOA.

C8 is a fluorinated chemical. It is the fluorine atoms that provide the nonstick slipperiness that gives Teflon its unique qualities. During the legal process of suing DuPont, hundreds of internal documents were uncovered showing the company knew about the chemical’s danger to the public and employees, likely as early as 1961.

Although this information is only recently reaching the courts, over a decade ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined DuPont $16.5 million for withholding decade’s worth of information about health hazards. Although it was the largest fine the EPA had ever assessed, it did not act as a deterrent to the company and DuPont continue to manufacture and release C8 into the environment.

the teflon toxin part 2

Sensitive viewers beware; this video contains graphic imagery of sick and dead animals.

DuPont had evidence of harm to livestock ranging from liver toxicity and kidney damage to death. Company workers gave birth to children with birth defects, while DuPont merely tracked the health effects in their workers without informing regulators of their findings. As they continued to study the effect on their workers they were also tracking the spread of the chemical into nearby waterways, and emissions through their smokestacks. According to The Intercept:

“… [F]rom that point on, DuPont increased its use and emissions of the chemical… the plant put an estimated 19,000 pounds of C8 into the air in 1984, the year of the meeting. By 1999, the peak of its air emissions, the West Virginia plant put some 87,000 pounds of C8 into local air and water. That same year, the company emitted more than 25,000 pounds of the chemical into the air and water around its New Jersey plant …

The executives, while conscious of probable future liability, did not act with great urgency about the potential legal predicament they faced. If they did decide to reduce emissions or stop using the chemical altogether, they still couldn’t undo the years of damage already done. As the meeting summary noted, ‘We are already liable for the past 32 years of operation.'”

Although DuPont would like you to believe that switching from the longer chain C8 to a shorter chain version of the chemical in the production of their nonstick pans is healthier for the environment, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries disagree.

In May 2015, these scientists signed the Madrid Statement that warned about the harms of all fluorochemicals and listed many of the health effects. At the heart of the statement, the scientists point out:

  • Although some of the long-chain PFASs are being regulated or phased out, the most common replacements are short-chain PFASs with similar structures, or compounds with fluorinated segments joined by ether linkages.

  • While some shorter-chain fluorinated alternatives seem to be less bioaccumulative, they are still as environmentally persistent as long-chain substances or have persistent degradation products. Thus, a switch to short-chain and other fluorinated alternatives may not reduce the amounts of PFASs in the environment. In addition, because some of the shorter-chain PFASs are less effective, larger quantities may be needed to provide the same performance.

  • While many fluorinated alternatives are being marketed, little information is publicly available on their chemical structures, properties, uses and toxicological profiles.

  • Increasing use of fluorinated alternatives will lead to increasing levels of stable perfluorinated degradation products in the environment, and possibly also in biota and humans. This would increase the risks of adverse effects on human health and the environment.

However, while independent studies have linked PFOAs and C8 to appalling damage to human and animal health, including cancers, the American Cancer Society continues to sit on the fence:

“Some of these studies have suggested an increased risk of testicular cancer with increased PFOA exposure. Studies have also suggested possible links to kidney cancer and thyroid cancer, but the increases in risk have been small and could have been due to chance.

Other studies have suggested possible links to other cancers, including prostate, bladder and ovarian cancer. But not all studies have found such links, and more research is needed to clarify these findings.”

Tracey Woodruff, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco, explained that while PFOAs are being replaced with shorter-chained chemicals, there aren’t many studies that support the idea that these chemicals are nontoxic.

Unfortunately, Trump appointee to the EPA’s Office of Water has rewritten a rule to make it more difficult to track health consequences of PFOAs and therefore to regulate use.

The appointee, Nancy Beck, joined the EPA in May last year after spending the previous five years as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s main trade association.

These changes may result in underestimating the potential risk to health and the environment, but are part of a broader initiative by the Trump administration to align the EPA with industry and not protect consumers. In other words, if there was any hope that the federal government would step in to protect your health, it appears it has been erased.

Perfluorinated chemicals kill birds, both in the environment and at home. During a thunderstorm in 2010, lightning struck several oil tankers off the coast of the Caribbean islands. Huge fires resulted that were fought with foam sprays containing perfluorinated chemicals.

Over the next four months, the population of flamingos on the island dropped from several thousand to zero. Woodruff commented on the effect breathing perfluorinated chemicals has on birds in your own home, saying:

“When you use a [nonstick] pan, you shouldn’t heat it without putting anything in it. That will emit fumes. There have been reports of people heating those Teflon pans without adequate ventilation, and the birds in their house dying. When someone in the industry was asked about this, she said something like, ‘people should know better than to cook in an enclosed kitchen.’ Like, blaming the canary for being in the coal mine?”

While the average person is exposed to PFOA in the products they use, firefighters have a unique exposure level. C8 is also found in flame-retardant chemicals that may be used on children’s items, furniture and electronics. Thus, when fighting a fire, firemen are breathing in PFOA released into the air from the burning products. Secondary exposure also occurs when firefighters use flame retardant foam, as it also contains perfluorinated chemicals.

The efforts of Rob Bilott, an environmental attorney who has waged a legal battle against DuPont for over the past 15 years, is chronicled in the Sundance Film Festival release. Following his initial suit in 1999, DuPont and the EPA chose six veterinarians to evaluate a cattle rancher’s claims chemicals from the plant were killing his animals. The veterinarians reported the problems were the result of poor husbandry, poor nutrition and inadequate veterinary care.

PFOA was mentioned in the documentation sent to the EPA. The environmental attorney had never heard of that chemical and after not finding details about the substance, he asked DuPont to share their information. Information was only released after a court ordered the company to send him the documentation. Within a year, Bilott had received more than 110,000 pages of material, some of which dated back 50 years.

Private internal memos, medical reports and studies conducted by scientists at DuPont were included in the documentation that revealed their own disposal recommendations specified the chemical should not be flushed into surface water or sewers. However, over the previous decades this is exactly how the company had disposed of hundreds of thousands of pounds of PFOA powder. They’d simply dumped it into the Ohio River.

The attorney further found documentation showing that for four decades, 3M and DuPont had conducted secret medical studies, revealing potential health problems in rats and rabbits as early as 1961. Thus far, more than 3,500 individuals have sued DuPont for damages.

A panel of scientists convened to determine the chemicals’ effect on human health, resulting in more than three dozen peer-reviewed papers finding PFOA chemicals are linked to ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, thyroid disease and testicular and kidney cancers.

While those living in the Ohio Valley suffer an increased risk of these health conditions, levels of PFOAs in your tap water, stain-repellent clothing and furniture, and absorbed from your nonstick pans may be enough to trigger weight management problems. A study linked perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a close cousin to PFOAs, to weight gain and obesity.

Previous studies have associated the chemicals with immune dysregulation, hormone disruption and cancers.

In this two-year study performed in Massachusetts and Louisiana, researchers examined the effects of calorie-restricted diets compared against measured levels of PFAS in the participants. Over 600 people followed a diet plan for six months, documenting an average weight loss of 14 pounds. The participants were followed for the next 18 months when they averaged gaining 6 pounds.

During the trial, the researchers measured the blood levels of PFAS in the participants and found that while the levels didn’t appear to have an effect on the ability of the individual to lose weight, it was closely correlated with how much weight they regained. The link also appeared to be gender based, as women gained back more than men based on PFAS levels.

The researchers, led by Dr. Qi Sun, a nutritionist specializing in diseases correlated with obesity, found these women also had the slowest metabolism of the participants in the study.

This study was observational, thus the researchers couldn’t say the chemical caused the weight gain, but it is likely the PFAS negatively affected the participant’s metabolism. However, weight gain is just one side effect of exposure to toxic chemicals. The researchers concluded:

“In this diet-induced weight-loss trial, higher baseline plasma PFAS concentrations were associated with a greater weight regain, especially in women … The possible impact of environmental chemicals on the obesity epidemic therefore deserves attention.”

First and foremost, I recommend using a high-quality water filtration system. To be certain you’re getting the purest water you can, filter the water both at the point of entry and at the point of use. This means filtering all the water that comes into the house, and then filtering again at the kitchen sink and shower.

In addition, minimize your use of common products that contain PFCs like PFOA and PFOS. PFCs are used in a wide variety of consumer products, particularly those made to repel water or resist oil stains. Products that may contain these chemicals include:

  • Takeout containers such as pizza boxes and sandwich wrappers

  • Certain cosmetics, particularly eye shadow, foundation, facial powder, bronzer and blush

  • Stain treatments for clothing and furniture

  • Stain-repellent or water-repellent clothing

  • Nonstick pots, pans and utensils

  • Carpeting and carpet treatments

  • Popcorn bags

  • Outdoor clothing

  • Camping tents

It’s important to understand that while PFOA is no longer being used in the U.S., similar replacement chemicals have been added in its place. As recently as 2013, Greenpeace International tested 15 samples of waterproof clothing, shoes and swimsuits and found PFCs in all but one.

Some food wrappers, beverage containers, pizza boxes and other food packaging may also be PFOA-free, but not necessarily safe, as the PFOA replacement chemicals have not been adequately tested for safety.

Also remember that eating organically or biodynamically grown whole foods is a primary strategy to minimize an array of toxic exposures while simultaneously optimizing your body’s natural detoxification system. When your diet is mostly fresh foods, you’ll also minimize exposure to PFCs common in takeout containers.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.