Could New Lower Blood Pressure Guidelines be Lowering You To Your Grave

(0:02) Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and welcome to "Join with Dr. Daniels." This is the Sunday, March 15th, 2020 edition. Today’s topic is, "Could the New Lower Blood Pressure Guidelines Be Lowering You into Your Grave?" Yep, I tell you, you cannot make this stuff up. You can’t make it up. It’s just the way it is.

(0:36) So, I guess first we need to—we did not bring our water with us today. So, we’re going to skip our turpentine, but we’ll get back to it next week. Next, let’s do a quick, quick, quick, quick, quick update on the coronavirus, or who knows, maybe it’s a not-so-quick update.

(1:04) So, what is happening with the coronavirus is, honestly, anybody’s guess. But I’m just going to let you know what the medical industrial complex is saying about the coronavirus and what we can deduce. It’s always nice to deduce things. This is the March 9th, 2020 update: news flash—some patients could show COVID-19 symptoms after quarantine.

(1:27) So, in other words, although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to the novel coronavirus is well supported by evidence, in fact, individuals will not become asymptomatic until after that period. Yeah, I say infected, but the truth of the matter is we have to say exposed because all they knew at the beginning of the quarantine period was exposure. So, some exposed and infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after the 14-day period. They should immediately raise a question in your mind: should the quarantine period be extended, and if so, to what number?

(2:15) Like, 14 days is where it is now, but hey, what about a month? And where should this quarantine take place? So, let’s see what they say. Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), okay, SARS coronavirus is now called SARS 2, so we know what happened to SARS 1, so that should give you some type of premonition here, will develop symptoms by day 12 of infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the CDC.

(2:46) However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases—let’s simplify our math, okay—in other words, one in a hundred could become symptomatic after the end of the 14-day monitoring period. So, our analysis does not preclude that estimate from being higher, said the investigators. In other words, we don’t know what we’re talking about, and that’s okay. They’re gonna keep talking, and that’s okay too. But you just realize they’re saying that their analysis is not accurate.

(3:20) Now, this is based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease that were documented outside the outbreak epicenter, which is Wuhan, and it makes more conservative assumptions. So, change your assumptions. They’ve changed the population you’re looking at. They’re looking at 101 confirmed cases—we don’t know what confirmed means. And again, this is 181 cases, and with that, they are generalizing to a population of about 8 billion. Okay, that would be the earth’s population.

(3:55) So, the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure compared with analysis in previous studies, the researchers wrote, and if you don’t know what that means, that’s okay. You don’t have to. The point is, let’s focus, focus, focus. They are now suggesting that 14 days is not enough, which basically opens the door to a longer quarantine period. Now, remember, they’re quarantining people who have not been tested and have not tested. So, it’s not that they’ve not been tested—they’re just suspicious.

(4:30) So, you have a coronavirus-positive person. Maybe they boarded a plane with, say, I don’t know, 400–800 people on it. And now you’re going to quarantine the whole airplane because they were all exposed, supposedly at some level, to this individual. So, now we have these people who are being detained—mandatory two weeks without due process, without proof that they’re actually infected.

(5:02) Okay, then they kind of backtrack and say, "I think the proper message to give those patients who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine is after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods. But should you get any symptoms, immediately re-quarantine yourself and seek medical care." He said, "That’s an oxymoron, right? If you re-quarantine yourself, that means stay home and close the doors. But if you seek medical care, that means open the doors, leave your house. Which is it, right? Which is it?"

(5:32) The study co-author, a doctorate graduate student—let’s stop right there, right? So, we have a person who’s been going to school for pretty close to 30 years here and hasn’t accomplished much yet and needs to discover something new and different in order to get the PhD accepted. So, this person has a serious conflict of interest with a) the truth, and b) a proportionate or reasonable reaction to what may be the facts.

(6:09) This person said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered. Okay, so that’s this person’s job. In order to get their PhD, this person has got to find something alarming and different, and they have. They found that one person in a hundred who is quarantined might need a longer quarantine. And so, the person says, "Hey, extend the quarantine period."

(6:27) So, this satisfies a lot of needs. First is the need of the individual to find something new and alarming and different and get their PhD—check that box. But it creates more work, business, and revenue for the system. So, had this quarantine, had this PhD student found 14 days quarantine is enough, nothing new here, move along—they would say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, we don’t think you’re ready for your PhD." Hmm, okay. So, that’s where we are here. This person’s under extreme, extreme pressure to come up with scenarios and conclusions that create more revenue for the medical industrial complex.

(7:09) Okay, so quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest risk scenarios—whatever that might be—though the benefits of doing so have to be weighed against the cost of public health and to the individuals under quarantine. So, this person has basically opened the door, cracked the door open for a longer quarantine period of people who have been exposed, not proven positive, and have no symptoms.

(7:42) So, we are depriving people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness here. Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using, she said in an interview. So, first, she says it should be extended, and then she says, "Well, we support whatever the CDC says," and this is the kind of doublespeak that PhD individuals are trained to engage in.

(8:14) So, of course, the 14-day incubation period is just fine, and yes, we should extend it. Which is it? Okay. So, this person emphasized that the estimate of one out of 100 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring—that means this person is basically detained against their will—representing the 99th percentile of cases assumes the most conservative, worst-case scenario in a population that is fully infected.

(8:52) Okay, so they’ve made an incredibly unrealistic assumption. So, they’re guessing that you have 10,000 cases of infected people with symptoms, and of course, that’s an outrageously unrealistic scenario. If you’re looking at following a cohort of 1,000 people that you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected. Excuse me, objective research person, did you count some noses here? No. And only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms, and we know only 1% of those will develop symptoms after quarantine. So again, if you have...

(9:28) Let’s start with the 10,000 number—it’s a bigger number. So, you have 10,000 people exposed. Of those 10,000 exposed, what percent are actually going to be infected? And of those infected, what percent are going to develop symptoms after the 14-day quarantine period? And so, we’re looking at probably less than a percent of a percent. So, we have no idea. But what the study has done is open the door to a longer quarantine period. So, this study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who has an interest in extending the 14-day quarantine period, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, who has an interest in bigger, bigger numbers of being infected or under the care of the system, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

(10:19) Four authors reported disclosures related to these entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest. Okay, so the remaining five have no conflict of interest, but four authors reported disclosures related to those entities. So, in other words, four of the nine authors have a conflict of interest. And so, the remaining five have no reported conflicts of interest, but all you have to do is sway one vote and boom bada-bang, you’ve got your increase. So, look for an increase in the quarantine period—that’s what this one says.

(10:53) Now, the Endocrine Society meeting was canceled. That means a bunch of doctors were gonna get together and meet and discuss your future without you being present, and the meeting was canceled, which, let me tell you, it’s a good thing. So, the Endocrine Society has canceled its annual scientific meeting because of concerns about the novel—that’s new, or novel as in a book of fiction—coronavirus.

(11:14) The conference was scheduled to take place March 28th to 31st in San Francisco. The announcement comes the same day as the American College of Cardiology World Congress also canceled its conference. But wait, let’s—we have information on the cardiology cancellation, let’s look it up. The American College of Cardiology cancels its scientific sessions over novel coronavirus.

(11:37) Listen carefully about the cancellation. Only last week, the American College of Cardiology reported that the meeting would go on despite the coronavirus outbreak. But the college changed its mind following recent updates and recommendations from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and state and local health governments, and after learning that, in the last week, the increasing number of institutional travel restrictions placed on health care providers in the US and globally.

(12:14) So, what they found was their members who were attending would not be able to travel because of the restrictions being placed. That’s number one. Number two, the CDC made different recommendations. So, they didn’t base their cancellation on any objective health concerns, you have to understand. So, this is a political action. Well, because of the travel restrictions, our members can’t really get to the conference, so we’re gonna cancel it. And then the Endocrine people say, "Well, we’re gonna cancel because the Cardiology people canceled." So, there you have it. Okay, science at its best. But it doesn’t stop there.

(12:56) Let’s look at the cardiology hypertension guidelines because that might be, well, a bigger threat to your health. A bigger threat to your health. So, let’s take a look. Now, first of all, we gotta always go back to the source, right? Where’s the source? The source: medical school, where it all began, where it all began.

(13:28) So, in medical school, we are told that half of everything we are taught is wrong—it’s wrong. As of 1979, they taught us this, and guess what? 35 years later, 2014 update, nothing has changed. So, there’s a phrase in medical education which often gets aired at the welcoming lectures to medical school—I got it aired at my welcome: "50% of what we teach you over the next five years will be wrong or inaccurate. Sadly, we don’t know which 50%." Huh. Well, guess what? It is now 2020, and so the half-life of mistakes or errors in medicine, or discovering or uncovering these lies, is actually greatly shortened. Why? We’ve got the internet, and information travels a little more quickly.

(14:23) So, half of everything—every single medical recommendation you receive, just half of it is false. With that low accuracy rate, shouldn’t you be able to just pick and choose which half you want to believe? That’s what I say. But the point is, half of everything that’s being taught is wrong. And so, we now have the hypertensive guidelines, which are being outed after a mere two years.

(14:50) Okay, so what are the guidelines in the categories? You have to understand the degree of disease, the degree of alarm, and what is being touted as a disease, and then I’m going to show you the more recent studies. So, first thing: normal blood pressure is now believed to be less than 120. That’s normal. Elevated is anything between 120 and 129. High blood pressure is between 130 and 139. Hypertension stage two—so that before was stage one—stage two is 140 or higher, and stage three is higher than 180. What’s between 140? I guess from 140 to 179 is simply high blood pressure stage two. So, we have a hypertensive crisis, stage three, which is higher than 180.

(15:57) All right, put that 180 in your mind—etch it in there—because we’re gonna refer back to it. All right, so this is hot off the press. Hot off the press, March 9th, 2020. For the period of 2000 to 2014, there was a study, and they identified individuals aged 75 years or over who had undergone at least three blood pressure measures in the previous three years, and then they separated them by baseline score on the electronic frailty index—like, how frail are these people? And so, the outcome of the study is: low blood pressure increases the death risk in older adults.

(16:39) Let’s put this in English. If you take an older adult and they have a lower blood pressure, they have an increased chance of dying—death. So, do we really want to reach lower blood pressure targets for older people? Starting at age 75, let’s say—but then we can move this down the age scale, but let’s just start with people aged 75.

(17:06) So, in all, 415,980 adults with an average age of 79 years and up to ten years of follow-up were included. So, this is substantially more resources than what they have for the coronavirus. If you will recall, they used a sample size of 181 people—they should be ashamed of themselves. Okay, but for the blood pressure study, 415,980 adults, average age of 79.5 years, were included. Of those, 62% were deemed to be non-frail, and 4.3% were of medium to severe frailty.

(17:59) All right, so a hypertension diagnosis at baseline was found in 55% of non-frail individuals, rising to 65.8% in mildly frail people, and 75.6% in those that are severely frail. So, in a frail—let’s just use the word frail—elderly person, 75.6% of them are going to have hypertension. So, increased age was found to have a greater effect on all-cause mortality than increasing frailty.

(18:32) So, in other words, just because the person is frail actually does not increase your chances of dying—it’s actually more dependent upon their age. Referring back to the present coronavirus situation, the person’s probability of death is dependent more on their age than on the virus. So, the virus is not contributing to death. Just saying. All right. And a hazard ratio with increasing systolic blood pressure of threefold versus fivefold for frailty. So, in other words, the age tripled the death rate, but frailty only increased the death rate by half—by 55%.

(19:17) So, it’s your age that’s going to determine whether or not you die more so than whether you’re frail or not. Yep, okay. However, systolic blood pressure, even if greater than 180—and let’s just look back to our chart. Over 180—180 is hypertensive crisis. So, high blood pressure over 180—hypertensive crisis—was not associated with an increased death risk in adults over age 85 years old or those with severe frailty.

(19:51) So, if you’re younger than 85 and you’re frail, or you’re over 85, a blood pressure of 180 or more is not associated with an increase in death. So, you’re not gonna die any sooner because of your blood pressure. All right, so for example, compared with a systolic blood pressure of 130, adults aged 75 to 84 who had a higher blood pressure had an all-cause mortality of 0.94. So, what does that mean?

(20:27) If the hazard ratio is one, that means your chances of dying are just like anyone else’s. If it’s below one, it means you’re actually gonna live longer. So, they had a ratio of 0.94—it means they had a longer life expectancy when that top blood pressure was between 150 and 159, and their chance of dying fell even further—0.84—if they were frail.

(20:53) So, the last person you want to treat for blood pressure is someone who’s frail. Why? The increased blood pressure, surprise, is actually getting blood to their vital organs, and when the blood pressure is lower, their vital organs are getting less blood, and, well, they die sooner. Makes sense. Totally like easy beans, right? Simple. However, they have to go further here. This is science, right? Dig deeper.

(21:32) Systolic blood pressure of less than 130 and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 180 was associated with an increase in all-cause death in all individuals aged over 75 years, regardless of frailty category. So, as a doctor, if you try and lower someone’s blood pressure to normal who’s over 75 years old, you’re actually gonna kill them. Their chances of death are gonna increase—they’re gonna die basically from your therapy. And a lot of people say, "Well, you know, all these deaths in medicine—you know, the 225,000 deaths a year that the industry admits to are accidents." It’s written right into the guidelines—right into the guidelines.

(22:27) However, the risk of heart disease problems increased across all categories of frailty. So, wait a minute, let’s get this straight: if you have a higher blood pressure, you have a lower chance of dying, but a higher chance of heart disease. Well, you’re dead, you’re dead, right? Who cares what you died of if lowering your blood pressure is going to increase your chances of dying from any and all causes? Like, let’s say, you’re gonna trip and fall, hit your head, bleed into your brain, and die because of your blood pressure medicine. But no, you did not die from heart disease. Well, not much of a consolation though, is it?

(23:17) So, what’s the practice implication? So, the team writes—the team, they had to get together—it took more than one brain to sort this out. The team said the data presented confirms trial evidence from younger groups that systolic blood pressures more than 150 increase the risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Well, well, the data presented—no, no, no—this study didn’t study any younger groups, so it can’t confirm anything about younger groups. We’re just gonna ignore that particular sentence.

(23:46) Okay, however, the data suggests that blood pressure attributable cardiovascular outcomes have a limited impact on overall mortality in frail older people and all above 85 years. Let’s get the English translation: the data suggests that blood pressure, elevated blood pressure, and any consequences of it have nothing to do with death rates.

(24:25) So, if you reduce someone’s blood pressure because you don’t want them to have health outcomes associated with high blood pressure, it’s not going to help them live longer if they’re older—in fact, it will actually shorten their lifetime, literally lowering this person aged 75 to 85 into the grave quicker. So, those of you out there waiting for your inheritance and the old folks living a little bit long, and by the time you get it, you’ll be so old it won’t be any use to you, take them to the doctor and get that blood pressure treated by golly.

(25:07) Okay, so that’s the practical application here. They’re saying this may be due to blah blah blah. The researchers say—and I put in the blah blah blah because I don’t want to be confused by irrelevant information—the point here is: older people live longer when you don’t treat their hypertension, and they die sooner when you treat it. That’s it.

(25:28) Researchers say our findings therefore imply—that means suggest—that the management of non-cardiovascular morbidities may be more important for many older frail patients. In other words, our findings therefore suggest that treating non-blood pressure issues may be more important for older patients. We don’t know that—we do know that the blood pressure treatment is not helpful. We may find with more research that the other treatment is also not helpful.

(26:03) So, they did not study non-blood pressure treatments, so you really can’t comment about that. This is something you have to watch out for with studies: they will actually reach and make conclusions about stuff they did not study, and that’s what they’re doing here.

(26:19) They didn’t study non-cardiovascular morbidities, so that’s not what they studied. They studied blood pressure cardiovascular-related morbidities. So, is adjusting cardiac risk factors going to extend the quality of life or length of life for anyone? Well, we know for people over 75 years of age—if the person’s frail and over 85, for everybody—that this does not make sense from a health point of view. In other words, you’re not helping the person’s health, you’re not extending their life, you’re not extending their quality of life if you treat—or I should say, when you treat—their cardiac risk factor, in this case, hypertension.

(27:24) Why? Because you’re not going to improve their all-cause mortality. And all-cause mortality is a fancy word for "length of life." So, Professor so-and-so said the key issue with the study is by design, the investigators included all patients irrespective of their health status at baseline, and that’s fine because that’s what doctors get—people walk into your office with all types of health statuses. If they have high blood pressure, the doctors at the moment are told, "Treat that, treat that, treat that. Jump on that, jump on that, treat that, treat that."

(27:57) This all-comer design in an observational study is highly prone to bias. Oh, really? And limits the interpretation of the results to a simple association. What’s wrong with that? In other words, when you have a doctor’s office, a doctor is seeing all comers, people are randomly walking into a doctor’s office off the street, and with a high blood pressure reading, some of them have other problems, some of them don’t. So, it’s actually a very real-world study.

(28:34) This all-comer design in an observational study is highly prone to bias and limits the interpretation of the results to a simple association. Therefore, I do not see how this study could challenge the international guideline recommendations. They’re largely based on unbiased evidence from randomized clinical trials.

(28:45) Now, what’s a randomized clinical trial? A randomized clinical trial means you randomly assign people to treatment group or no treatment. It does not mean that you randomly select the participants in the trial. So, the randomized clinical trial—the participants are not at all random. They are carefully, carefully, carefully picked. Just so you understand.

(29:11) In fact, when you read a randomized clinical trial, they will tell you exactly how they carefully pick the participants. So, the randomized clinical trials are actually the ones that are totally unreliable because they don’t look at the population the doctor is going to see when he opens his office doors and checks blood pressures. So, I added that the authors are right in pointing out that randomized evidence in elderly people is limited, but unfortunately, this paper does not provide any new compelling answers to this question.

(29:45) Now, I just want to say that when I entered medicine in medical school in 1975, they were just dumping the guidelines of 150 as a blood pressure to treat, and they were adopting 140 guidelines. So, they knew back in 1975 that treating blood pressures less than 150 was not a reasonable thing to do. And what this study shows is the whole chart of hypertensive disease, of all these blood pressure categories that go up to 180, are bogus. In other words, all these categories should not be treated in anyone over 85 and probably should not be treated anyone over 75, and we have compelling evidence that in people under 75, the treatment is of no benefit.

(30:42) So, we know it’s 75-plus—the treatment is actually harmful. It does shorten people’s life expectancies, but the evidence with the NNT (Number Needed to Treat) of 99—no, it’s 99 people need to take blood pressure medicines for a full year in order for one person to avoid a non-fatal heart attack. Right, so we still haven’t extended anyone’s life.

(31:17) So, we know that this chart is of no benefit for people under 75, and now the latest research is showing that it is absolutely harmful for people over 75. Now, again, to get this in perspective, NNT—that means, how many people will need to take the medicine for one year for one person to benefit, and then what is the benefit? So, for blood pressure medicines, one—99 people need to take this medicine for a year before one person avoids a non-fatal, non-fatal—they don’t die—they would never have died heart attack.

(31:56) So, the measure of benefit with blood pressure therapy is not even the measurement of extending life or prolonging life. Now, the non-fatal heart attacks—it could be a silent heart attack, a silent MI detectable only by a change on EKG and not any symptoms that the person has. So again, the evidence for treating hypertension at all, at any age, is not supported by extended life. But in the elderly, it’s especially dangerous, harmful, and deadly because now we know that lowering your blood pressure apparently below 180, which is hypertensive crisis, creates another crisis, which is simply their death. But again, it’s not a crisis if you’re the one standing in line waiting for your inheritance.

(32:48) He was one of several experts to comment via the Science Media Center. He continued, "While clinical trials remain the gold standard for evaluating the effects of treatment in various patient groups, the results of these trials should be viewed with caution when extrapolating to patients unrepresentative of those recruited into the trials," he said. Exactly, and this is the problem.

(33:14) So, with all of the cardiac trials, or heart trials, they very carefully hand-pick who they’re going to allow to participate in the trial. In this particular trial, they took all comers—415,000—and so they got some results that maybe nobody wants to hear.

(33:43) As my husband would say, it’s kind of like farting in church to say that, whoops, this therapy is actually killing people. And this is really how that number—225,000 deaths per year from people dying of properly prescribed medications and properly prescribed medical care. So, if indeed a 75-year-old person is treated for blood pressure and boom, drops dead as a result of the medication—no malpractice settlement here. Why? Standard of care, Dr. Fowler, the standard of care.

(34:26) Professor Patterson has a bright idea here. So, we need basic research to establish whether auto-regulation of blood flow to essential organs like the heart, brain, and kidney is shifted in the elderly, since the body has a built-in control system to keep blood flow constant to these areas over a range of perfusion pressures. Bingo, bingo. So, when you lower the blood pressure in someone who’s hypertensive, you interfere with the body’s auto-regulation where it’s actually shifting needed blood to the heart, brain, and kidneys, and the higher blood pressure is actually necessary.

(35:10) So, low blood pressure is as dangerous—well, let’s be serious, it’s more dangerous—than high blood pressure. And it is becoming clear that what is normal may be age-dependent. Now, your doctor is in a pickle here. He’s in a serious pickle because, okay, sitting in his office, and following the standard of care, then he reads something like this. The question is—here’s the question—if he switches over and incorporates this new information into his medical practice and stops prescribing blood pressure medicine for people over 85, let’s say, will he lose that malpractice case from the heirs who’ve decided their inheritance is not big enough and they need a malpractice settlement to augment their finances?

(36:21) The sad answer to that question is, nobody knows. The even more devastating or sad answer is the doctor knows that if he plays it safe, sticks with the standard of care, continues to prescribe blood pressure medicines for people over 85 and over 75, and kills a few, he’s not gonna lose any malpractice cases. That is the sadness of it.

(36:51) So, what’s a citizen to do? I mean, like someone without a license who didn’t go to medical school—what to do, what to do? The answer, and again, this is just my opinion, not medical advice—do what you want, all it’s—you know, it’s on you, right? I’m accepting no liability at all for this. But my recommendation—what I would do, what I have done—is to not accept medical therapy for any elevated blood pressure. All the evidence, no matter what study you look at, all the evidence is that medical therapy as it is now presented is not going to extend your life if your blood pressure is elevated.

(37:47) Well, what else can you do? Well, of course, you can always do nothing. I mean, really, doing nothing is—there’s no shame in that. But if you want to do something, the answer, of course, would be to help your body provide blood to the vital organs—that would be the heart, brain, and kidneys—without needing hypertension. And so, simple, simple, simple—increase your water intake. That’s gonna lower your blood pressure. A lot of older people are dehydrated. One thing worse than being dehydrated is being dehydrated and having your doctor lower your blood pressure. As you can see from the study, people are dropping dead.

(38:17) So, hydration is number one. Increase the water intake. What’s number two? Increase the poop. Why? Because there’s actually waste in the blood, and that waste in the blood is making it thicker and making it harder to pump. And so your body has got to have the hypertension, or the high blood pressure, just to get blood to these vital organs. But if you thin the blood by drinking more water and by pooping out the impurities, then the blood’s gonna circulate easier at a lower pressure, and the pressure is just gonna fall.

(38:55) Now, how much do you want the pressure to fall by? Well, it doesn’t need to fall by very much. Again, as we can see here, for an older person, even 160, 170 is absolutely fine blood pressure. What about a younger person—say, someone 45, 50? For that person, they should see their high blood pressure as a symptom of constipation and/or dehydration, and they should definitely correct it. And what they will find is that their blood pressure will actually improve with those things.

(39:37) Then, of course, change your diet to put in fewer poisons and chemicals. Simple, simple, simple—just cook at home. No one’s gonna reach under the sink for a bottle of potassium sorbate to make their dish taste better. Not gonna happen. There’s a limit to how many poisons you’re gonna put in your food. There is a limit. So, simply cooking from scratch with basic ingredients that have an ingredient list of one.

(40:02) So, for example, I’m going to have black-eyed peas today. Yeah. What did I start with? I start with a bag of beans, and I put them in water to soak. Yes, I did. And I changed the water a couple times because I didn’t get around to cooking them as soon as I wanted to. And so, they’re not organic because, well, where I live you can’t get organic black-eyed peas. So, going through soak-rinse cycles, hey, got a lot of toxins out there—easy beans.

(40:34) And yes, so, not canned, right? Not canned—soak your beans, rinse them twice. There you go, ready to go. And you know, I’ll probably chop up some onions, a little bit of vinegar, a splash of oil, mince some parsley, sprinkle some salt and pepper, got some cilantro growing out in the backyard, chop that up—boom, black-eyed pea vinaigrette. Yum, yum, yum—easy, easy, easy.

(40:57) So, that’s what you should do—cook from scratch, leave all the chemicals. It should be the artificial color, artificial flavor, preservatives—just leave them out of your food when you cook your own food. Again, most people don’t have a kitchen full of that stuff, so you’re good to go—off the hook. And again, low blood pressure, which is what your doctor gives you when he treats you, is as dangerous as high blood pressure. And so, basically, your doctor is not contributing to your health, your length of life, or your quality of life. And so, you need to, on this one, just let it go. Let it go.

(41:39) Yes, so this is one of those 50% false information that was outed within a year or two. So, didn’t get to kill too many patients on this one. Yes.

(41:54) Now, let’s see if we can find—well, we’re gonna look over here. I’ll tell you, there are times when technology works and there are times when it doesn’t. Oh, okay. Let’s click over here. We found some questions.

(43:03) Okay, so Carol says, "Thank you for giving us valuable information for our health. Whenever I eat something sweet like a fruit, I get a dizzy movement at the back of my eyes for a few seconds and it goes away. Do you know if that’s a sign for diabetes?" No, it is not, but you don’t have to worry about a sign for diabetes because you can just check your blood sugar. Knock on your neighbor’s door, I assure you there’s a diabetic on your block. What blood sugars should you check? You should check your morning blood sugar when you first get up. If that’s under 135, it may not be normal, but it’s not the cause of any problems. What could be the problem? I don’t think it’s diabetes. I think it’s a lack of cholesterol in your diet—increase your cholesterol, this symptom will go away.

(44:00) Tala Gabe asks, "How often should I apply Vicks Vapor Rub to remove cataracts and cure other ailments affecting my eyes?" Okay, this is not medical advice, it’s just my opinion—entertainment and information only. Generally, nighttime is fine—just once at night does it.

(44:22) Robert asks, "What vitamins and supplements do you recommend people take and how often?" You can go to VitalityCapsules.com and download the Candida Cleaning Report, and all the vitamins I recommend are in that report.

(44:54) DP says, "Do you have any thoughts regarding the current viral issues over the last couple of months?" Yes, I do. There is no coronavirus—or if there is, it’s not contributing to mortality. All the mortality rates that they have revealed have been mortality rates that are equal to or lower for the age category they mentioned.

(45:29) Okay, let’s see how we are doing for time. Billy says, "Hi, Doc. What is the cause and cure for nosebleeds?" Now, he has a whole long essay here, but that—we don’t need that. What is the cause and cure for nosebleeds? So, the cause of nosebleeds is basically parasites in the sinuses and nasal cavities, and they’re literally eating you alive and causing bleeding. So, that’s in a nutshell the cause of nosebleeds. So, how can you stop it? Well, you can stop it actually pretty easily. You can stop it by doing a neti pot rinse, keeping your sinuses rinsed out, and that way the parasites can’t take hold, and you don’t get nosebleeds. That’s one. Number two is, there are certain foods that cause nosebleeds—numero uno is cheese. Yes, cheese, and I do mean cheese—that means cheddar cheese, that means cream cheese, just cheese.

(46:46) So, what is cheese? Cheese is a dairy product where they allow the parasites to grow to an increased number—such an increased number that it creates a flavor that you have been trained to like. So, yeah, stop the cheese. What I do is, I tell people to stop all dairy just to make sure, and generally, the nosebleeds go away. It’s very nice, very simple.

(47:05) So, this person says, "I have a family member who’s 75 years old, has been struggling with symptoms for a long time, and they’re progressively getting worse. The person has a loss of hearing, they have a goiter with normal thyroid test, urinary urge incontinence, and hypertension, and snores terribly. You can’t get to all of these, but the person, of course, is taking hypertensive medication." And how old is this person? 75. And we can deduce from all these symptoms—we’ll just call her frail. Okay, we got this long list of stuff here, so this lady should not be taking blood pressure medicine. And what’s her blood pressure without the medicines or with them? Doesn’t matter—it’s the same. The therapy is ineffective. Sometimes it’s 200 over 100—sometimes—which means she’s usually 180 or less. And so, this is a person we talked about today who should not be on blood pressure medicine.

(48:04) Now, what’s gonna happen if we stop her blood pressure medicine? She’ll probably get more blood to her ears and her hearing will improve. She’ll get more blood to her whole urinary tract, and maybe her incontinence will improve. But the truth of the matter is, urge incontinence, urinary—it’s a lack of fat and connective tissue. So just, if you’re into the trends, eat some bone broth. If you’re not, eat some pig’s feet, and that will fix that urinary incontinence very nicely. The goiter—eat regular iodized table salt. Yep. You see, they got her on a low salt diet. I bet you—bet you dollars to doughnuts—that she’s actually on a low salt diet, and so she’s not getting enough iodine because, one, she’s not getting much salt, and two, the salt she’s getting is probably not iodized. So, switch to iodized salt and put as much as you want to on your food, and that goiter will go away.

(49:06) The hearing—let’s just stop that blood pressure medicine. Urinary incontinence—bone broth or pig’s feet should take care of it, believe it or not. Her snoring? I would increase her bowel movements to three a day. I am shocked at how many people, once they increase their bowel movements, their snoring goes away. Oh, boy. Yeah, so that would be the thing to do. And, Annalise, you might want to schedule an appointment just in case there’s something I missed, or you have questions about what to do with that information.

(49:55) Val says, "Hello, I’m new to your group, but loving the podcast. I don’t know that I’m brave enough to use turpentine, but would like your thoughts on colloidal silver. Is there a podcast I might listen to?" My thoughts on colloidal silver are so brief that it would not fill a podcast. Basically, I don’t use colloidal silver, I don’t recommend colloidal silver. I did try employing colloidal silver back in the 90s—actually early 2000s—it was totally useless. Why was it useless? It was useless because the real benefit was when people poop three times a day. So, once I could get people to poop three times a day, that pretty much handled any colloidal silver benefit. Actually, it’s even more beneficial.

(50:45) So, that’s the colloidal silver story. How do you poop three times a day? Well, you could change your diet, you could change your activity, and you could also get Vitality Capsules at VitalityCapsules.com. We are presently out of stock, but we have located our missing ingredient, we hope to get into production in the next two to three weeks, and so that will get us shipping out product within four weeks. So, that’s where we are with that.

(51:15) All right, let’s see what we got here. Katie says, "What do you recommend for the COVID-19 virus?" Nothing. It’s imaginary. There is no virus.

(51:28) All right, that is—oh, wait, one more. Billy says, "Besides the fact that supplementing with vitamin D3 inhibits the formation of coenzyme Q10 by the body, is there another reason why you don’t like to supplement vitamin D3?" Yeah, so there’s a whole pathway—the DHEA pathway—of incredibly useful nutrients your body manufactures. The final end of the pathway is vitamin D3. So, when you provide D3, you shut down your body making a lot of very useful enzymes that you need to live. So, instead, what makes more sense is to pump in cholesterol at the front end of the pathway, and then your body can, with the cholesterol, make everything else that it needs as well as the D3.

(52:09) So, a little vitamin D deficiency is not only a lack of sunshine, but a lack of circulating cholesterol. So now what we’re finding is people are not able to make enough vitamin D3 even when they sit in the sun. And so the propaganda network has kicked into full gear telling you, "Oh, you’re living at the wrong latitude," "Oh, you’re not getting enough, blah, blah, blah," "The sun rays are too weak where you are." Yeah, forget that, forget that.

(52:36) What’s really going on is people have been hoodwinked and deceived and tricked into lowering their cholesterol levels to the point where the sun cannot hit enough cholesterol molecules through their skin to make vitamin D3. And that is the true affliction. It’s not a sunshine-only issue. And so, by getting people to believe it’s a sunshine-only issue, you get to sell a lot of vitamin D capsules and you get people to shut down their pathways for making a lot of other vital nutrients, which, one, causes incredible disease, or two, leads to the sale of even more nutrients and supplements that they would not need if they raised their cholesterol level.

(53:21) Personally, I keep my cholesterol level as high as I possibly can, and I shoot for 250. Do I measure it? Yeah, I just eat high-cholesterol foods at least twice a week—so liver or brain or testicles—and keep my cholesterol level high. The medical industrial complex takes the position that your diet has nothing to do with your cholesterol levels. It’s been my observation that this is absolutely false.

(53:59) So, in my medical practice, when I practiced medicine from 1990 to 2000, I would take people with high cholesterols, put them on a vegan diet, and within a week—within a week—their cholesterol had dropped literally 40 points. And I was vegan at the time myself, and I did measure my cholesterol levels back then, and my cholesterol was 149 being vegan. And so, if you switch from being vegan to being a meat eater, your cholesterol would jump over 200—not a problem.

(54:41) So, cholesterol is absolutely diet-dependent. Now, your body only makes 70% of what it needs, the rest it has to get from diet. So, cholesterol is actually an essential nutrient, and this is the danger of a long-term vegan diet, which is that the vegan diet has zero—zero—no cholesterol in it.

(55:09) So, this is what happened to me. After 26 years of being vegan, I was actually bedridden—literally, my adrenal glands could not produce enough energy to get me out of bed. And so, a lot of health—no, you don’t, you have a cholesterol deficiency. And so, I had one—just one—high-cholesterol meal, that was liver. Bang! I was able to spring out of bed and get in a full day of activity. So, I was like, "Whoa, that’s pretty scary," that, you know, I was voluntarily restricting my diet, thinking it was healthy, and actually really harming myself.

(55:54) And so, what happens is, instead of letting vegans know what their true nutritional deficiencies are and how to remedy them, they just create another illness—oh, adrenal fatigue. So, of course, the vegans are very happy because, well, I’ve still had the best diet. And so, but this is not just vegans—this is everybody. When people have nutritional deficiencies, what happens is the medical industrial complex just creates a new mysterious disease that could easily be remedied by diet.

(56:36) So, am I saying no one should be vegan? Oh, no, no, no, no. I’m not saying that. I’m saying veganism has its place—there’s a long-term, standalone dietary strategy that’s not it. So, if you have certain afflictions, you can follow a vegan diet and, BAM, you’ll be cured in a week or two. After a week or two, what should you do? You should probably stop being vegan. But that is—that’s the deal.

(57:05) So, the responsible way to be vegan, in terms of your health, is to be vegan, but have a piece of liver as often as you need to, to keep your energy up. And don’t deceive yourself with this adrenal fatigue issue or other nonsense afflictions.

(57:17) Ivy asks, "Is it safe to take Vitality Capsules while pregnant and nursing? And is it safe to take turpentine while nursing? Thanks, love all your good advice." It is not safe to take Vitality Capsules while pregnant. Nursing is another matter. So, with nursing, you have to see what’s going on with your baby. If your baby gets diarrhea—so if your baby is getting too many bowel movements, which the number of bowel movements proper for your baby varies—so what I would do is see what your baby’s bowel movement schedule is without Vitality Capsules, add Vitality Capsules to your intake if you know you personally need them, and see if your baby’s bowel habits change.

(58:21) So, for a newborn, it’s appropriate to have as many as six to eight bowel movements a day—that’s a newborn. Now, once they get older, like say six months, four to six bowel movements a day is appropriate. So, it really depends on the age of your baby what number of bowel movements a day would be appropriate. And so, you have to just monitor that if you’re gonna take Vitality Capsules.

(58:40) What about turpentine while nursing? I do not recommend turpentine while nursing. Now, is it dangerous? I really don’t know, there’s not enough information to say, but I just don’t recommend it, just to be on the safe side.

(59:05) Okay, this brings us to the end of our podcast, and as always, THINK HAPPENS!