Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance
Today’s Deal Zone Items... Handpicked deals...
$130 $115
SAVE $15

$100 $40
SAVE $60

$199 $199

$3498 $3198
SAVE $300

$2347 $1897
SAVE $450

$1297 $1097
SAVE $200

$597 $497
SAVE $100

$2297 $1997
SAVE $300

$699 $499
SAVE $200

$4499 $4499

$60 $40
SAVE $20

$1699 $1199
SAVE $500

$950 $950

$1997 $1097
SAVE $900

$1499 $1379
SAVE $120

$400 $400

$372 $247
SAVE $125

$9999 $2999
SAVE $7000

$4500 $3500
SAVE $1000

$1000 $500
SAVE $500

$1398 $898
SAVE $500

$829 $829

$935 $549
SAVE $386

$309 $259
SAVE $49

$1300 $900
SAVE $400

$450 $280
SAVE $170

$1499 $1249
SAVE $250

$700 $600
SAVE $100

$2000 $1270
SAVE $730

$1499 $779
SAVE $720

$450 $120
SAVE $330

$259 $240
SAVE $19

$3998 $3498
SAVE $500

$150 $80
SAVE $70

$369 $175
SAVE $194

$1699 $1199
SAVE $500

$649 $449
SAVE $200

$1498 $998
SAVE $500

$999 $949
SAVE $50

$1099 $999
SAVE $100

$999 $999

$400 $300
SAVE $100

$2399 $2199
SAVE $200

$3399 $2199
SAVE $1200

$1199 $1199

$7697 $4997
SAVE $2700

SAR CoV2 aka COVID-19: CDC and WHO cognitive commitments in relying on 90-year-old science — Respiratory droplet size vs Masks

See all COVID-19 posts.

If you do not measure something properly, or lack the imagination to consider what might be possible, declaring the science settled is the worst kind of anti-science.

Yet this is precisely what the WHO and CDC did at the outset, and the WHO still sticks to its absurd position to this day.

Sciencemag.org: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

...a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1–3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs...

...In the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible that submicron virus-containing aerosols are being transferred deep into the alveolar region of the lungs, where immune responses seem to be temporarily bypassed. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to replicate three times faster than SARS-CoV-1 and thus can rapidly spread to the pharynx from which it can be shed before the innate immune response becomes activated and produces symptoms (6). By the time symptoms occur, the patient has transmitted the virus without knowing.

... In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3).

...The World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for social distancing of 6 ft and hand washing to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are based on studies of respiratory droplets carried out in the 1930s. These studies showed that large, ~100 μm droplets produced in coughs and sneezes quickly underwent gravitational settling (1). However, when these studies were conducted, the technology did not exist for detecting submicron aerosols. As a comparison, calculations predict that in still air, a 100-μm droplet will settle to the ground from 8 ft in 4.6 s whereas a 1-μm aerosol particle will take 12.4 hours (4). Measurements now show that intense coughs and sneezes that propel larger droplets more than 20 ft can also create thousands of aerosols that can travel even further (1). Increasing evidence for SARS-CoV-2 suggests the 6 ft WHO recommendation is likely not enough under many indoor conditions where aerosols can remain airborne for hours, accumulate over time, and follow air flows over distances further than 6 ft (5, 10).

...Given how little is known about the production and airborne behavior of infectious respiratory droplets, it is difficult to define a safe distance for social distancing... Ultimately, the amount of ventilation, number of people, how long one visits an indoor facility, and activities that affect air flow will all modulate viral transmission pathways and exposure (10). For these reasons, it is important to wear properly fitted masks indoors even when 6 ft apart. Airborne transmission could account, in part, for the high secondary transmission rates to medical staff, as well as major outbreaks in nursing facilities

...Masks also protect uninfected individuals from SARS-CoV-2 aerosols...

...From epidemiological data, countries that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking...

WIND: the WHO and CDC and Surgeon General in effect caused the suffering and death of tens of thousands of people, based on the primitive mask science of 90 years ago. Not unlike the practice of modern medicine in every other area—dogmatic and unreceptive to contrary evidence.

What were these “experts” doing to understand droplet transmission in all the years since SARS/MERS broke out? It looks like cognitive bias including confirmation bias, cognitive commitments and rationalizations apply at least as much in the medical field as any other.

Wrecking ball policies have achieved little

So far we have destroyed the livelihood of 30 million or so people in the USA so that COVID-19 can remain a viable deadly threat to high-risk individuals. We now know that the death rate is a tiny fraction of what was assumed.

My prediction is that within a year or two more people will die because of misguided policies on COVID-19 than those infected by it. Lack of medical care for other things, lack of early detection, delays in surgery, spikes in suicide, deaths from mass economic woes, etc. And that is ignoring other needless suffering spawned by bad policy that does not result in death.

So we are kicking the can down the road on national and world policy when what we need to start doing is encouraging low risk people to get infected, while implementing considerably more efforts to protect high-risk people. COVID-19 will remain a serious hazard so long as most of the population can be infected semi-randomly according to risk. Leaders who are adults realize that risk assessment can call for tough decisions across multiple disciplines (far more than medical), which is why these medical organizations have no business declaring policy.

Economic carnage

A government-created split of “haves” and “have nots”: those who have maintained their income and those who have been reduced to poverty. This is not a “shared sacrifice”, but an immolation of an entire class of citizens while another class is either not affected financially or might even gain from it. Worst of all, minimally or entirely untouched salaries and benefits in the public sector are paid for by taxes taken from victims forbidden to work at the implicit point of a gun. That has been unspeakably regressively vicious. How will these people ever be fairly compensated?

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

SAR CoV2 aka COVID-19: Wrecking Ball Public Policy Continues

See all COVID-19 posts.

The good news is that most lockdowns have now been lifted, and the recent riots might do us some good by telling us just how ridiculous or wise the lockdowns were, starting about a week from now in the areas with the riots.


So far we have destroyed the livelihood of 30 million or so people in the USA. Yet COVID-19 remains a viable deadly threat to high-risk groups. We have gained the knowledge that the death rate is a tiny fraction of what was assumed—we knew that a month ago and yet the policies of economic and medical carnage continued.

It is likely that within a year or two more people will die because of misguided policies on COVID-19 than those infected by it.

You heard that right: it is possible that more people may die without ever getting COVID-19 because of public policy: lack of early detection, delays in surgery, spikes in suicide, deaths from mass economic distress, etc. COVID-19 was and is a tiny fraction of total deaths in the population—a statistical blip in California.

We are kicking the can down the road on national and world policy when what we need to start doing is encouraging low risk people to get infected, while implementing considerably more efforts to protect high-risk people. COVID-19 will remain a serious hazard so long as most of the population can be infected semi-randomly according to risk.

Risk assessment calls for tough decisions across multiple disciplines. Medical “experts” are not qualified to decide public policy because they do risk assessment only within their own silo. Total risk includes medical issues and also economic and social issues.

The Have-Nots

A government-created split of “haves” and “have nots” was created and will be the legacy of public policy on COVID-19: those who have maintained their income (and many have increased their savings!) and those who have been reduced to poverty, with their savings drained and businesses shuttered, with some still facing legal repercussions for daring to want to earn a living.

This is not a “shared sacrifice”, but an immolation of an entire class of citizens while another class is either not affected financially or might even gain from it. Adding insult to injury, the minimally or entirely untouched salaries and benefits in the public sector are paid for by taxes taken from victims forbidden to work at the implicit point of a gun. it is unspeakably regressively vicious.

View all handpicked deals...

Sony 256GB SF-M Tough Series UHS-II SDXC Memory Card
$130 $115
SAVE $15

Magnesium Supplementation: Brain, Lungs, Sleep, Urination — No Doubt It Works

Read the books that may save your life; see Your Doctor is NOT Responsible for Your Health—YOU Are! Recommended Reading to Open Your Mind and Ask the Right Questions, Because Your Life Depends On It, in particular, The Magnesium Miracle by Carolyn Dean, MD, ND.


Some readers might think my prior posts on health have been a bit too critical of doctors, to put it mildly. But the more I learn and prove to myself the reality that I was ill served by modern medicine, I am now thinking I was too kind.

So I am now doubling down: I assert that most doctors are grossly ignorant of nutrition and therefore incompetent because they fail to consider nutrient deficiency. No organism can enjoy health when deprived of critical nutrients, yet this is precisely how modern medicine operates. I speak especially of magnesium deficiency, but also of Vitamin D3 and Vitamin K2 and a few others.

Shame on every doctor who fails to consider*, for example, magnesium for hypertension, blood sugar, migraines, neurological protection and repair, coronary artery calcification, and dozens of other conditions before resorting to dangerous drugs. It is medical malpractice when the substantial odds in favor of an underlying nutritional cause are simply ignored.

See: A Prescription for Harm: the Modus Operandi of Modern Medicine

Not trained in nutrition and apparently uninterested in the health robustness that comes from proper nutrition, doctors as a group wallow in their ignorance and have become dispensers of poisons of many types (eg statins), with unjustified cognitive commitments and confirmation biases instilled in medical schools where “knowledge” is regularly debunked and studies are conflicting, weak with statistical manipulation to suit sponsors, and fraught with financial and ethical conflicts—but taken as gospel. Doctors now apply epidemiological pseuedo-science to individuals in so many areas even while ignoring critical nutritional requirements: “here are your drugs, you will never be cured, take them the rest of your life”.

Were I a doctor, I don’t know how I could look myself in the mirror until I thoroughly expanded my knowledge of nutrition, since everything in health rests upon it. If only 10% of my patients could be helped and perhaps cured by simple nutritional means, wouldn’t I have the strongest moral and ethical obligation to do so? So WTF is going on with most doctors that they can rationalize such things away?

It is a very sad state of affairs for anyone with a health problem.

Recent experiences with magnesium supplementation

Correlation is not causation, but supplementing with a high grade magnesium supplement is about as risk-free as it gets and most of the population is deficient in magnesium (very poor food supply these days), so the smart move is to supplement.

Here I detail several health issues in my own life and how doctors failed me.

Reflecting on many past health problems, I assert that magnesium deficiency was the likely cause in whole or at least in part. Everything I detail here is known by scientific study to be strongly correlated with magnesium deficiency yet not one doctor in 35 years ever has even mentioned magnesium to me.

I have been using magnesium supplementation with magnesium citrate and magnesium L-Threonate for 2+ weeks now, building up to 1000 to 1500 mg per day. The results are stunning.

* Or not tested-for, or tests known to be highly unreliable are used, e.g., serum magnesium test.


Since I acquired asthma and allergies from a very bad viral infection at the age of ~21, I have had asthma that for the first 10 years or so after was quite bad. For the past 20 years, it has largely been a “treat as needed” thing with a prescription inhaler, set off by dust or allergies or cold.

Personal experience: magnesium supplementation has calmed my lungs down without any doubt. Stopping the inhaler and switching to magnesium, I observe the bronchospasms go away within 30 minutes of taking 4 capsules of magnesium citrate. This is at least as effective as the prescription inhaler, with no side effects I have noted.

Anecdotal coincidence unsupported by science? That’s what your doctor might say but there is considerable support for it in science.

Brain and memory

After a horrible time last year (lingering issues from concussion ), I resorted to a prescription stimulant, lest I be financially devastated by an inability to focus or concentrate (which is depressing to say the least).

Personal experience: a year of that stimulant was very successful, but about 2 weeks after considerable magnesium supplementation, I not only feel better brain function (attention span, alertness, concentration, etc), I feel no desire for the allegedly additive stimulate and I just don’t need it any more. My memory also seems stronger, a known benefit of magnesium.

Anecdotal coincidence unsupported by science? That’s what your doctor might say but there is considerable support for it in science for magnesium being neuroprotective and neuro-repairative. Yet my ignorant doctors never mentioned magnesium before or after my concussion which I assert damaged me more and longer than was necessary.

Muscle spasms

Muscle spasms (sometimes extremely painful) have been an ongoing problem for some years now, so much so that a prescription muscle relaxant was my only recourse.

Personal experience: muscle spasms GONE and muscles more limber and flexible.

Anecdotal coincidence unsupported by science? No... there is considerable science support the effectiveness of magnesium for muscle relaxation.

Irregular heartbeat

When highly trained in past years, I suffered an irregular heart beat (skipped beat, then extra powerful beat), so annoying that it would keep me from sleeping. I now believe it was caused by magnesium deficiency. To test that theory, I have to attain a comparable level of fitness


I’ve been suffering sleep quality issues ever since my concussion.

Personal experience: waking up far less often.

Frequent urination

Getting up to pee 5 to 10 times a night blows. That has been going on for years.

Personal experience: frequency is down to 2 to 3 times per night. Maybe it might improve further. It is known that calcium can be deposited in the bladder (and elsewhere) due to inadequate magnesium, and in the bladder it results in the need for frequent urination.

Coronary artery calcification / atherosclerosis / cholesterol

This one will take longer to assess and requires therapeutic doses of magnesium via ReMag. At the least, I expect to see a halt to my coronary artery calcification — I was tested and saw a troubling substantial year-over-year worsening vs last year. I hope for reversal and will know in one year when I get retested.

Night vision

This has been a problem for me in recent years, and getting worse.

Personal experience: I was able to see adequately last night using the light of only (roughly) half the moon while hiking back on an 18 mile hike.

Left chest wall pain/tightness

This issue is not cardiac in nature. It has been bad enough to disable me for part of a day with fatigue/pain.

Personal experience: diminishing, have hardly noticed in recent 10 days, no attacks.

Blood pressure

Has been generally good but variable from 116/68 to 130/84. I want to see a consistent 116/68 or so. I don’t have my blood pressure monitor along this trip, so this one is a TBD.

Immune system

Only time will tell. But last year’s nasty prostate infection which resulted in horrible malaise from the nasty antibiotics are not something I care to repeat

Which Camera System 📷 is Best?
Which Lenses to Choose?🌈

Avoid costly mistakes and get the ideal system for your needs: diglloyd photographic consulting.

Computer Display, iPhone, iPad and Similar of Concern for Eye Health? Macular Degeneration Linked to Blue Light (sunlight and most forms of LED lights)

See also eyesight and presbyopia and sunglasses and health and magnesium deficiency.

Use Apple’s “Night Shift” to Reduce Blue Light on Computer Display and iPhone, iPad

Love that iPhone or iPad or other phone or tablet or computer display? Long term, the blue light from cell phones and tablets and computer displays might have serious implications, and that’s no laughing matter, even if it takes 50 years for it to happen. It is particularly concerning since children from a very young age stare at cell phone or tablet screens for many hours. Excessive blue light is also linked to eyestrain and various health problems.

The Apple iMac 5K display and iPad and iPhone and similar displays can be run extremely bright, and looks to contain a lot of blue light. Use Night Shift and similar features even in the daytime.

Macular degeneration (retinal cell death) has been linked to blue light (380nm to 500nm). The term HEV (high energy visible) might also be heard. A sampler:

There is minimal scientific evidence yet that exposure to blue LED light will cause macular degeneration (leading to loss of vision) the same way sunlight does, short of artificially high exposure levels. It is a matter of intensity, duration of exposure, and almost certainly a complex interplay of personal factors (overall health, diet, genetics, etc).

Harvard Medical: Will blue light from electronic devices increase my risk of macular degeneration and blindness?

White LEDs may actually emit more blue light than traditional light sources, even though the blue light might not be perceived by the user. This blue light is unlikely to pose a physical hazard to the retina. But it may stimulate the circadian clock (your internal biological clock) more than traditional light sources, keeping you awake, disrupting sleep, or having other effects on your circadian rhythm.

...consumer electronics are not harmful to the retina because of the amount of light emitted. For example, recent iPhones have a maximum brightness of around 625 candelas per square meter (cd/m2). Brighter still, many retail stores have an ambient illumination twice as great. However, these sources pale in comparison to the sun, which yields an ambient illumination more than 10 times greater!

High-intensity blue light from any source is potentially hazardous to the eye. Industry sources of blue light are purposely filtered or shielded to protect users. However, it may be harmful to look directly at many high-power consumer LEDs simply because they are very bright. These include “military grade” flashlights and other handheld lights. Furthermore, although an LED bulb and an incandescent lamp might both be rated at the same brightness, the light energy from the LED might come from a source the size of the head of a pin compared to the significantly larger surface of the incandescent source. Looking directly at the point of the LED is dangerous for the very same reason it is unwise to look directly at the sun in the sky. Compared to the risk from aging, smoking, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and being overweight, exposure to typical levels of blue light from consumer electronics is negligible in terms of increased risk of macular degeneration or blindness. Furthermore, the current evidence does not support the use of blue light-blocking lenses to protect the health of the retina, and advertisers have even been fined for misleading claims about these types of lenses.

WIND: Science and especially medical science (pseudo science most of the time) have been wrong on so many things so often that “don’t worry” claims are best seen as a sucker’s bet. Scientific data to back up the claims about brightness of consumer devices not being harmful does not yet exist given the relatively short existence of modern displays. When used for long periods of time, particularly at night and for year after year starting at a young age, what then? With reasearch hardly begun, it is irresponsible to categorically reject any blue light hypothesis here in 2020.

Speculation about comparative risks and emphatic claims like “Blue light from electronic devices is not going to increase the risk of macular degeneration or harm any other part of the eye” without even mentioning nutritional deficiences and their role in health makes such claims dubious at best. Remember “masks don’t work” from both the CDC and WHO vs COVID-19? Categorically rejecting a hypothesis is anti-science.

The Effect of Blue-Light Blocking Spectacle Lenses on Visual Performance, Macular Health and the Sleep-Wake Cycle: A Systematic Review of the Literature

In summary, the findings of this systematic review indicate that there is a lack of high quality clinical evidence for a beneficial effect of blue‐blocking spectacle lenses in the general population to improve visual performance or sleep quality, alleviate eye fatigue or conserve macular health...

There is a need for high quality studies to address the effects of blue blocking spectacle lenses on visual performance, and the potential alleviation of symptoms of eyestrain and/or visual fatigue

WIND: small short-term studies vs macular degneration are not very persuasive.

Research progress about the effect and prevention of blue light on eyes

... short-wave blue light with wavelength between 415 nm and 455 nm is closely related to eye light damage. This high energy blue light passes through the cornea and lens to the retina causing diseases such as dry eye, cataract, age-related macular degeneration, even stimulating the brain, inhibiting melatonin secretion, and enhancing adrenocortical hormone production, which will destroy the hormonal balance and directly affect sleep quality. Therefore, the effect of Blu-rays on ocular is becoming an important concern for the future. We describe blue light's effects on eye tissues, summarize the research on eye injury and its physical prevention and medical treatment.

The refractive medium of the human eye's different tissue characteristics have different permeation effects on light when the wavelength is <300 nm. A wavelength between 300 and 400 nm can penetrate the cornea and be absorbed by the iris or the pupil. High energy short wave blue light between 415 and 455 nm is the most harmful. Direct penetration of crystals into the retina causes irreversible photochemical retinal damage[1]. As the harmful effects of blue light are gradually realized by the public, eye discomfort related to blue light is becoming a more prevalent concern. Because of blue light's short wavelength, the focus is not located in the center of the retina but rather in the front of the retina, so that the long exposure time to blue light causes a worsening of visual fatigue and nearsightedness. Symptoms such as diplopia (double vision) and inability to concentrate can affect people's learning and working efficiency...

...screen reading can lead to the occurrence and development of poor eyesight in schoolchildren, and the higher incidence of nearsightedness correlates with the increase in the length of the screen reading time...

It seems likely that nutrition including magnesium deficiency would influence damage to and repair of retinal cells (and everything else in the body). Magnesium is an anti-oxidant and therefore a deficiency speaks directly to the statement in one of the studies: “oxidative damage caused by blue light was shown to be reduced by effective antioxidant extract associated-free radical elimination”.

Removal of the blue component of light significantly decreases retinal damage after high intensity exposure

[WIND: note “high intensity”—this study uses mice along with high intensity light to suggest that blue light might be a concern. But mice are not humans, and this level of exposure misleads more than helps and the last statement is very non-scientific, giving no relative exposure level versus the mice setup]

Light causes damage to the retina (phototoxicity) and decreases photoreceptor responses to light. The most harmful component of visible light is the blue wavelength (400–500 nm). Different filters have been tested, but so far all of them allow passing a lot of this wavelength (70%). The aim of this work has been to prove that a filter that removes 94% of the blue component may protect the function and morphology of the retina significantly...

In conclusion, this blue-blocking filter decreases significantly photoreceptor damage after exposure to high intensity light. Actually, our eyes are exposed for a very long time to high levels of blue light (screens, artificial light LED, neons…). The potential damage caused by blue light can be palliated.

White Light–Emitting Diodes (LEDs) at Domestic Lighting Levels and Retinal Injury in a Rat Model (emphasis added):

LED (or solid-state) lighting sources are designed to emit all energy within the wavelength range of human vision, making LEDs the most energy-efficient commercially manufactured light. However, many current “white-light” LED designs emit much more blue light than conventional lamps, which has a number of health implications, including disruption of circadian rhythms (Holzman 2010).

The most popular LED lighting product, a phosphor-conversion (PC) LED, is an LED chip that emits blue light, which passes through a yellow phosphor-coating layer to generate the ultimate white light (Spivey 2011). Although the white light generated from LEDs appears normal to human vision, a strong peak of blue light ranging from 460 to 500 nm is also emitted within the white light spectrum; this blue light corresponds to a known spectrum for retinal hazards (Behar-Cohen et al. 2011). Some epidemiological studies have suggested that short-wavelength light exposure is a predisposing cause for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) (Wu et al. 2006). Animal models have also been used to determine that excessive exposure to blue light is a critical factor in photochemical retinal injury targeting photoreceptors and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) (Hafezi et al. 1997).

Things are often more complicated; tangled up in all this is the age factor: too little blue light can also be a problem, and age can be a mitigating factor of sorts because the lens of the eye yellows with age (yellow filters out blue). But if the damage accrues from youth to middle age, the yellowing lens is not of much help:

With age, the lens becomes more yellowish, and thus, the spectrum of blue light transmission dramatically decreases through the years. It is suspected that one reason older individuals experience sleep problems is the lack of blue light during the daytime.

Spectral transmission graphs

The closer the light wavelength is to ultraviolet (UV), the more damaging it becomes in general. This is true in general for skin cancer or killing viruses in water or degradation of plastics or paint or anything over time (just find any can or bottle that has been sitting in the sun for a long time). That’s because shorter wavelengths contain much higher energy levels (go beyond UV to X-Rays and killer gamma rays).

To assess UV/violet/blue exposure with a sunglass or contact lens, one would need a spectral transmission chart. Yet when I request spectral transmission charts no vendor has them, even first-class sunglass vendors like REVO. Statements like “blocks blue light” are presumably true, but ought to be backed up by hard 3rd-party evidence, that is, a spectral transmission chart showing just what is blocked—and this varies by the tint and coating of the lens used. Accordingly, I hope to actually measure the spectral transmission of sunglasses that I actually wear sometime soon.

Spectral transmission graph

The link between blue light and macular degeneration

In Macular Degeneration Linked to Sunlight and Low Antioxidants:

Some cases of age-related macular degeneration may arise from a combination of low plasma levels of antioxidants and exposure to blue light from the sun, a multinational European study suggested.

The combination more than tripled the risk of the eye disease among individuals with the lowest combined levels of antioxidants, Astrid E. Fletcher, Ph.D., of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues reported in the October issue of Archives of Ophthalmology.


I’ve also spoken to an optometrist who regularly snapshots the retinas as part of eye exams, and he states (for my eyes and in general) that he has not observed any change in retina health in recent years. Thus theoretical lab tests are no subsitute for real-world scientific evidence as per retinal cells in human eyes, particularly given outdoor light exposure. That said, many of us spend many hours staring at bluish LED displays (cell phones, tablets, computer displays) and/or under LED or CFL lighting in the home or office.

The blue light from LEDs is now associated with retinal cell death. How much is too much is as yet unknown, but the evidence leaves little doubt that blue light kills retinal cells:

The relation between macular degeneration-retinal damage and exposure to light has been known since the middle of the 20th century. Nevertheless, in the last 5 years, the advent of new technology LED along with its massive use in screens of electronic devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops…) has made phototoxicity the main field of our research.

The studies conducted by the Complutense University of Madrid have shown that LED devices emit 5 times more toxic light than light reflected by paper or emitted by the older-style CRT monitors.

In-vitro experiments in which human donated retinal pigmentary epithelium cells were exposed to 36-hour circadian cycles of direct LED light of different intensities have been forceful: without protection, cell death amounted to 93%. However, when a protective element was placed between the cells and LED light, the survival rate of cells increased by 90%... Dr Sánchez-Ramos acknowledges that it may take another 10-15 years for research to demonstrate conclusively that LED light causes macular degeneration in the same way that sunlight does.

See also The Lowdown on Blue Light: Good vs. Bad, and Its Connection to AMD.

Nowadays, there's an increase in the use of digital devices and modern lighting—such as LED lights and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)—most of which emit a high level of blue light. CFLs contain about 25% of harmful blue light and LEDs contain about 35% of harmful blue light. Interestingly, the cooler the white LED, the higher the blue proportion. And by 2020, 90% of all of our light sources are estimated to be LED lighting. So, our exposure to blue light is everywhere and only increasing... Who's going to need the most protection? Those who have high exposure to white LED or fluorescent light bulbs in offices and homes, frequent users of LED computer monitors, tablets, or smart phones, and those at risk for AMD, particularly those at high risk, (those with family history, smokers, etc.).

UV-blocking contact lens

Assessing the risks, protection

Given the lack of nailed-down scientific evidence, one has to make a personal assessment weighing the factors. But there are reasonable precautions to take, even ignoring the macular degeneration theory—sunglasses and blue-light-cut eyeglasses in particular.

Many companies are pushing solutions such as eyeglasses with blue-light-cut coatings, so the vested interests involved need to be considered. That said, blue light filtering eyeglasses might reduce eyestrain and this is easy enough to assess for anyone working at a computer for hours every day. Such solutions are thus appropriate to try, particularly if there is any evaluation period offered.

In my personal case, 10-12 hours daily computer usage seems to put me at high risk, which concerns me greatly. However, I don’t know how much blue light my LED computer displays emit, and I have no basis for knowing whether the risk is zero or something very significant.

Nor do I understand if configuring my NEC professional displays to run slightly warm (yellow) would reduce the risk (I would expect it would).

While I wear UV-blocking contact lenses* as well as sunglasses when outdoors, it’s not clear to me that my contact lenses block blue/violet light at all as when using a computer display. If they did so effectively, it would interfere with my assessment of color balance for photographs. So I suspect that I have no protection for computer work using just contact lenses.

* The Accuvue web site states that “UV-absorbing contact lenses are NOT substitutes for protective UV-absorbing eyewear such as UV-absorbing goggles or sunglasses because they do not completely cover the eye and surrounding area”.

I do a lot of cycling, and high quality sunglasses are very important to me. Hiking at extreme altitude is also considerations. At the least, high quality sunglasses are no-brainer for both comfort and eye protection. See my experience report with the Revo Guide S sunglasses at WindInMyFace.com.

Revo Guide S polarized sunglasses, Open Road lens

Change the display

Professional displays offer the option of custom calibration, so that a display can be set to, say, 5000°K instead of the typical 6500°K. This is one solution that should greatly reduce the amount of blue light.

CLICK TO VIEW: Professional Displays

Upgrade the memory of your 2019 iMac up to 128GB

WSJ: “A Low-Carb Strategy for Fighting the Pandemic’s Toll”

Read the books that may save your life; see Your Doctor is NOT Responsible for Your Health—YOU Are! Recommended Reading to Open Your Mind and Ask the Right Questions, Because Your Life Depends On It.

Federal guidelines in league with the medical establishment guidelines have been injuring and killing people for decades now; the horrible results are evident in the raging epidemics of obesity, heart disease, cancer and just about everything.

Funding for studies that would really improve public health by strengthening the organism as a whole (e.g. nutrtion and eliminating nutrient deficiencies) are rarely if ever done, because there is no funding for improving the health of 300 million people when it is not a drug that can be patented. The government and BigPharma and medical schools and doctors are all complicit in this highly unethical situatinon.

Could a change be slowly emerging?

WSJ: A Low-Carb Strategy for Fighting the Pandemic’s Toll

Federal dietary guidelines don’t reflect the evidence that eating fewer carbohydrates can help to reduce obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

The coronavirus has added a brutal exclamation point to America’s pervasive ill health. Americans with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other diet-related diseases are about three times more likely to suffer worsened outcomes from Covid-19, including death. Had we flattened the still-rising curves of these conditions, it’s quite possible that our fight against the virus would today look very different.

To combat this and future pandemics, we need to talk about not only the masks that go over our mouths but the food that goes into them. Next month, an expert committee will issue its advisory report on the federal government’s official dietary guidelines for the next five years. First published in 1980, the guidelines are meant to encourage healthy eating, but they have self-evidently failed to stem the ever-rising rates of obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases in the U.S.

Pills and surgery can treat the symptoms of such conditions, but diet-related problems require diet-related solutions. The good news is that changes in diet can start to reverse these conditions in a matter of weeks. In one controlled trial at the University of Indiana involving 262 adults with Type 2 diabetes, 56% were able to reverse their diagnosis by following a very low-carbohydrate diet, with support from a mobile app, in just 10 weeks. The results of this continuing study have been sustained for two years, with more than half the study population remaining free of a diabetes diagnosis.


Yet the federal government’s dietary guidelines themselves stand in the way of making low-carb diets a viable option for the 60% of Americans with at least one chronic disease. That’s because the guidelines call for a diet high in grains, with more than 50% of calories coming from carbohydrates. The guidelines aren’t mere advice: They drive the National School Lunch Program, feeding programs for the elderly and the poor, and military food. Many patients learn about the guidelines from their doctors and dietitians... To date, government experts overseeing the dietary guidelines have refused to publicly consider low-carbohydrate alternatives.

... the current committee, whose report is due in June, stated recently that it couldn't find a single study with carbohydrates below 25% of calories. In response, an advocacy group called the Low-Carb Action Network published a list of 52 such trials. One reason that the committee missed these studies is that it decided to exclude all trials on weight loss, even though two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese.

... The reason is that the dietary guidelines focus solely on disease prevention in healthy people. Congress mandated in 1990 that the guidelines should address the “general public,” and in that year, most Americans did not have diet-related conditions. Now a majority of them do, yet federal officials have stated their reluctance to expand the scope of the guidelines.

... The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) warned, in a 2017 report mandated by Congress, that “it will…be essential for the [dietary guidelines]…to include all Americans whose health can benefit by improving their diet…. Without these changes, present and future dietary guidance will not be applicable to a large majority of the general population.”


—Ms. Teicholz is a science journalist and the executive director of the Nutrition Coalition.

WIND: sadly, not one word on nutrient deficiency, which is the flip side of the ydiet/nutrition.

On my recommended reading list, see The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet by Nina Teicholz.

translate “experts” to “ethically bankrupt players with conflicts of interest” and you will be closer to the mark when it comes to government committees. And why is the government involved at all? It guarantees intellectual corruption.

Any time a committe is involved, it is all but certain that its recommendations will be evasive, watered down and disingenuous. Key studies and findings will be hidden, or just left out if they might the money boat.

But maybe it will move things in the right direction.

Why change diet when you can prescribe a profitable drug that doctors are all but mandated to prescribe by the guidelines, a drug that will not cure the patient but one that will usually cause other problems, and thus require still more profitable drugs? It’s a fantastic situation for drug companies and keeping that appointment calendar fully booked.

See A Prescription for Harm: the Modus Operandi of Modern Medicine and Loserthink in Modern Medicine: Goal-Oriented instead of Systems-Oriented.

OWC Easy SSD Upgrade Guide
MacBook Pro and MacBook Air
iMac, Mac Pro, MacMini, more!

Reader Comment: “I went off statins. Feel much better”

Read the books that may save your life; see Your Doctor is NOT Responsible for Your Health—YOU Are! Recommended Reading to Open Your Mind and Ask the Right Questions, Because Your Life Depends On It.

See in particular: The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr. Malcom Kendrick and The Truth about Statins and The Great Cholesterol Myth: Why Lowering Your Cholesterol Won't Prevent Heart Disease - and the Statin-Free Plan That Will and others.

Veganism as referenced below—I also have a vegan daughter (one of three), and I worry that shee is not getting proper nutrition just because it is difficult to get certain nutrients, like Vitamin K2 and magnesium and Vitamin A. And because there is plenty of misinformation out there on how vegans can replace everything with vegetable sources—very hard to do even without being a vegan. The smart move would be to check for nutrient deficiency, such as an magnesium RBC test for magnesium deficiency. Whether or not accurate tests for Vitamin K2 and Vitamin A exist, I don’t know.

Reader Gary J writes:

My vegan cancer-survivor middle-aged daughter has been advising me.

I went off statins. Feel much better. I had most unpleasant muscular aches after outdoor activities like cycling and photography.

Photography for me is an aerobic activity like the hunting I did as a kid in rural Washington State. Muscular aches are gone.

WIND: muscle aches means muscle damage and are a warning sign that other systems in the body are also being steadily degraded. The reason you need regular liver function tests is to rule out liver damage—but every system in the body is steadily damaged by statins and the damage can be cumulative and irreversible. We are talking about a significant possibility of permanent damage, whether it is 3 months or 3 years or right away, it is Russian Roulette with your total health.

Studies have shown that doctors fail to report 75% of side effects from statins, dismissing and ignoring patient complaints. This is grossly unethical and fundamentally undermines the health of everyone, but there it is*.

Statins are recomended for lifelong use. Ask your doctor for any large double blind study of statin use lasting 5 years or longer—you won’t find any. Insist on a a web URL of the study so s/he cannot wave you off with vague claims.

Higher cholesterol for men at 70 and beyond is generally protective in terms of overall mortality and function, while statins are associated with increased mortality in that age group. You heard that right: past a certain age, statins increase your chances of dying, let alone all the other problems they cause. And there is no plausible evidence that statins do anything for women of any age other than that statins poison women.

Statins are a toxic blockbuster money-making group of drugs that degrade every system in the body by reducing one of the most critical building blocks the body needs for virtually everything. Educate yourself and save your life. See the statin books on my suggested reading list noted above.

Statins are based on a debunked cholesterol hypothesis, that hypothesis (never casaully proven!) being repeated as a mantra while ignoring the real causes. Statins are the greatest and most terrible medical fraud in history*. Groupthink and one-size-fits-all guidelines based on corrupt and fraudulent science without even checking for the basics—nutrient deficiency.

The sordid history of statins is a tale of junk science, cognitive bias, financial and ethical corruption backstopped by bodies like the government, and the American Heart Association, which will endorse almost anything as heart healthy, if paid enough money.

The real reason for heart disease is NOT cholesterol (it is an innocent bystander), but almost certainly inflammation together with oxidized cholesterol caused by nutrient deficiency exacerbated by other factors, like environmental pollution and excessive carbohydrate intake. The “low carb” idiocy (long debunked) is still foisted on the public by the medical establishment and government. These policies are literally injuring and killing millions of people. But have no fear—once your body is badly screwed up, you can take a statin, which your doctor will tell you that you must do.

* I know from personal experience just how ruthlessly lazy and professionally/ethically incompetent doctors can be in reporting even extremely serious side effects (see Metronidazole).

** The medical establishment is degrading the lives of tens of millions of people with stations, giving them diabetes (up to 3X increase), polyneuropathy ( up to 27X increase), cognitive damage, strokes (greatly increase risk due to weakened cell walls), etc. With rare exception, such side effects are brushed aside as improbable (an indefensible anti-scientific assertion), with little or no risk assessment being done, as I know from personal experience with three doctors proposing that I use statins, particularly given my personal history of neuropathy and mTBI and my extreme exercise levels.

Grotesquely unethical medical “care”:

The medical malpractice of failing to correct key nutrient deficiencies like magnesium deficiency before proscribing dangerous drugs is the rule.

Since magnesium deficiency is strongly associated with coronary artery calcification, high blood pressure, heart attacks, etc, we have one of the most grotesquely unethical situations in modern medicine: prescribe an expensive poison for lifelong use before even bothering to check that basic nutritional needs are being met.

Furthermore, most statins and many other pharmaceuticals further deplete magnesium, leading to a downward spiral of more and more drugs. Thus statins not only degrade all systems in the body directly, statins actively deplete a critical nutrient—slow acting poison.

OWC Accelsior 4M2 PCIe SSD
6000 MB/sec!
Mac or PC.

Ideal for Lightroom, Photoshop, video.
Capacity up to 16TB!

Magnesium Intake Is Inversely Associated With Coronary Artery Calcification

Read the books that may save your life; see Your Doctor is NOT Responsible for Your Health—YOU Are! Recommended Reading to Open Your Mind and Ask the Right Questions, Because Your Life Depends On It, in particular, The Magnesium Miracle by Carolyn Dean, MD, ND.

Calcium and magnesium in balance are critical. Today’s modern food supply is magnesium-poor and the majority of the population is magnesium deficient. Too little magnesium, and excess calcium (very common) has to end up somewhere and lo—it will precipitate out within the body—such as arteries. Vitamin K2 deficiency is nearly the rule as well, and it is mandatory to carboxylate proteins that allow calcium to enter into bones.

With magnesium deficiency running rampant, it is rarely if ever tested by 99.9% of doctors, or if it is tested-for it is done with a highly misleading test (serum magnesium) instead of an magnesium RBC test (the best test is ionized magnesium but it is not available to the public).

Correlation is not causation. And epidemiological and observational studies can be bunk. But there are thousands of other studies that show magnesium deficiency is strongly tied to hundreds of medical issues and strong evidence that reversing magnesium deficiency can cure all sorts of medical issues.

Magnesium Intake Is Inversely Associated With Coronary Artery Calcification

We observed strong, favorable associations between higher self-reported total (dietary and supplemental) magnesium intake and lower calcification of the coronary arteries, an important, discriminating measure of subclinical atherosclerotic burden that has been shown to reclassify risk of CVD morbidity and mortality.

Our observations suggest that future research may consider magnesium's effect on CAC to be a potential physiological mechanism through which dietary magnesium mitigates risk of stroke, non-fatal MI, and fatal CHD. In addition to further research on magnesium in relation to the number and density of calcified lesions, and calcified and noncalcified plaque burden, prospective research is also required to elucidate magnesium's relationships with these and other sites of vascular calcification, as well as the possible benefits of magnesium supplementation in inhibiting onset and progression of atherosclerosis and calcification, with the goals of identifying magnesium's mechanism of action in lowering the risk of future cardiovascular events, and ultimately lowering the burden of cardiovascular disease.

.. The main finding of this study is that in individuals free of clinically apparent CVD, higher self-reported total (dietary and supplemental) magnesium intake, estimated by food frequency questionnaire, is associated with lower levels of CAC, a sensitive, discriminating measure of subclinical CVD and overall burden of atherosclerosis. Those with the highest self-reported total magnesium intake had approximately one-half the odds of having any detectable CAC, compared to those with the lowest intake, which suggests magnesium intake may have a protective role in inhibiting calcification initiation. The observed associations with CAC were significant after adjusting for a range of cardiometabolic risk factors and potential mediators, as well as after further adjusting for AAC levels, suggesting that magnesium may be acting specifically in the coronary arteries over and above its other known anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive, and antidyslipidemic functions to affect calcification (7–9).

These irresponsible researchers cannot bring themselves to say “magnesium deficiency is common, magnesium supplementation has numerous benefits and is safer than any drug, and dozens of major health issues might be solved by effective dietary supplementation with regular deficiency testing”. Instead these researchers punt, and call for more research (more money for them?) while tens of millions of people have a high probability of positive health outcomes with appropriate magnesium supplementation. Damn them and their ilk for letting millions of people suffer and die because of their callous fucking cowardice to say something meaningful for public health.

The researchers say other heartless callous things, like this:

Longitudinal studies followed by randomized trials will be necessary to confirm the relationship between magnesium intake and calcification.

This doesn’t pass the sniff test for medical ethics: why would any caring responsible person allow someone to remain magnesium deficient?

It is a given that no organism can function with full health when deprived of essential nutrients. So why would anyone competent, responsible or caring not FIRST ensure that key nutrients like magnesium are present in the body in adequate amounts BEFORE prescribing dangerous and expensive drugs? That is in fact how modern medicine operates, a status quo as unethical as it is dangerous.

Failing to test for nutrient deficiency before prescribing heavy-duty drugs is the modus operandi of modern medicine, which has been a huge failure with so many common diseases. It is now more than fair to say that medical malpractice is the norm, and proscribed by official guidelines. Follow the money.

My calcified heart

I have a right to be pissed off at incompetant ignorant doctors: my CT heart calcium scan giving me a miserably bad coronary artery calcification score is most likely the result of being magnesium deficient as an extreme endurance athlete. It is highly unlikely that all that calcium in my coronary arteries could not have precipitated if enough magnesium had been present.

...moderate coronary artery calcification centered within the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Quantitative calcium score provided by the 3D Lab is 91.2, which places the patient in the 81st percentile for age and gender

Hope for halting and maybe reversal

Therapeutic doses of magnesium might actually be able to reverse coronary artery calcification, since magnesium keeps calcium in solution and is antagonistic to calcium, as well as being reuqired for up to 800 enzymatic reactions in the body.

Hence I intend to use therapeutic doses of magnesium via ReMag for the next year. I will have another CT heart calcium scan a year from now in 2021 to determine whether whether I have reversed (at least partially), or at the minimum halted the calcification in my coronary arteries.

The point is not that the calcification and other problems were caused by magnesium deficiency (that can never be proven in retrospect), the point is that magnesium deficiency was all but certain given my intensive exercise and multiple symptoms of magnesium deficiency (for example severe muscle cramps after my events). I reported those to the doctors and not one doctor ever brought up magnesium in 30 years. Incompetent idiots.

Putting it plainly: every doctor I’ve seen is so ignorant and incompetent as to basic nutritional requirements that not one of them ever suggested magnesium testing or supplementation.

This is NOT a gray area—to ignore nutritional needs this basic is horrible medical malpractice, particularly in light of flippantly recommending heavy-duty poisons like statins to me (due to the calcification and spite of zero other risk factors). There are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of studies showing that magnesium deficiency is associated with hundreds of different health issues, both medical and physical. But... you cannot patent magnesium supplementation and doctors learn next to nothing about nutrition in medical school.

Doctors, before prescribing heavy-duty drugs, check for nutritional deficiences, particularly magnesium, with the right tests. Anything else is medical malpractice. If you disagree or assume otherwise, you are engaging in professional malfeasance via rationalization and confirmation bias and cognitive bias and outright nutritional ignorance. If you think the science is unproven, then pause for a moment to consider that failing to test for deficiency in perhaps the most critical nutrient of all is as anti-scientific as it gets. Shame on you.

A Prescription for Harm: the Modus Operandi of Modern Medicine

Most of the population is already deficient or highly deficient in key things, like magnesium, Vitamin D3, Vitamin K2, and others.

It is a given that no organism can function with full health when deprived of essential nutrients. So why would anyone competent, responsible or caring not FIRST ensure that key nutrients like magnesium are present in the body in adequate amounts BEFORE prescribing dangerous and expensive drugs? That is in fact how modern medicine operates, a status quo as unethical as it is dangerous.

Do doctors test for these critically important nutrients? Vitamin D sometimes, magnesium deficiency and Vitamin K2, almost never. Magnesium deficiency in particular is associated with hundreds of maladies, including coronary artery calcification.

So here is how modern medicine works. Repeat for every medical problem with different specialists, never connecting the dots when the true root cause is a simple nutrient deficiency, such as magnesium deficiency.

How medicine works today

To keep this simple, I’ll speak to magnesium deficiency:

  1. Patient arrives with common disease. Run standard and mostly useless tests. Do NOT test for magnesium deficiency as that isn’t in the guidelines.
  2. Inform patient of the need to take a powerful drug to fix the issue, a drug that in many cases might actually directly make the problem worse e.g., drugs with fluorine which permanently bind magnesium and thus exacerbate magnesium deficiency.
  3. The drug doesn’t help and it causes other problems, so prescribe more drugs which in turn exacerbate magnesium deficiency even more. The patient now has 3/4/5/10 drugs which are likely to have at least some side effects. Things are not any better, but the guidelines have been followed.
  4. Inform patient that s/he is pretty much fucked (in so many words) and that s/he will have to take all these drugs for the rest of their life, since the condition is not improving. The meta message becomes “hope is gone, you are hopelessly damaged and you have to keep popping pills, or face a high chance of dying”.
  5. Keep collecting your payments for doing your job irresponsibly. Repeat ad nauseum.

That’s pretty much how it works today.


  1. Evaluate patient for signs of nutrient deficiencies (doctor: go back to school, learn about nutritional deficiencies and stop injuring your patients by your laziness and ignorance).
  2. If any signs of likely nutrient deficiencies are present, take all possible measures to fix those deficiencies along with accurate tests as needed (doctors: know what tests are bunk, and use the right tests).
  3. If after verifying that all nutritional deficiencies have been addressed, then and only then resort to pharmacology.

Doctors, if this is too hard for you (guidelines, insurance, time, etc), get the hell out of the field and stop hurting people.

Ultra Endurance Exercise: Nutrient Deficiency in Magnesium, Iodine, Iron, Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Chromium?

Most of the population is already deficient or highly deficient in key things, like magnesium, Vitamin D3, Vitamin K2, etc.

My working theory (with a considerable amount of science to support it, albeit unfocused science) is that not just some but MOST health issue derive from nutrient deficiency. Pile on insults to the body like high sugar consumption and trans fats, and a myriad of poor health outcomes can be expected from an organism with nutrient deficiency—insult to injury is Bad News. Isn’t it obvious just how poor the health of people is today in the USA in particular? Just walk into any Walmart and it’s a very sad state of affairs to witness.

My hit-and-miss performance

I’ve been an ultra endurance athlete for around 11 years now. During that time I have had on-days and off-days, never quite sure why, but pretty sure it had to do with nutrition.

When things are working well, I am highly competitive in my age group, such as in my decisive solo win (no drafting) in the 2015 Central Coast Double highland route—an exceptional day for me—and I don’t why it all came together so well. If only I could extract that kind of performance every time. Heck, that kind of high-grade performance would be awesomely satisfying even 1/3 of the time—so why have’t I achieved that, ever? It’s more like 1 in 10 at best, and that is not satisfactory.

Many of my doubles (not all), I had gut distress but when I switched to Tailwind for my double centuries, all of my gut distress issues went away for the past 15 or so double centuries, never to return. So clearly the stuff I had been using for the first 37 or so doubles was not a good choice for me and the Tailwind has been beneficial, and I think it is the electrolyte mix in it. Also, the severe muscle cramps are gone now with Tailwind, supporting the idea of electrolyte depletion now being solved. But a symptom averted does not mean it is enough for optimal performance or optimal health or recovery.

Nutrient deficiency in athletes

I’ve been looking at how to maximize recovery and performance so as to have a “good day” reliably. A key step in that process is looking at nutrient deficiency in a host of elements, which are heavily depleted by intensive training and especially during double centuries. I am pretty sure that most of my issues revolve around deficiencies, which impair recovery, lung function, metabolism, and brain function too.

I came across this summary article which tends to confirm my suspicions—there is no way that even the best diet could replace enough of what is lost by intensive exercise, particularly magnesium which is highly deficient in the modern food supply—one just cannot eat enough to get enough of some nutrients, certainly not under extreme exercise loads. Ditto for iodine and other key elements.

Plus, a deficiency in just one element can screw up the critical balance within cells and with numerous metabolic processes. For example, too little magnesium relative to calcium can lead to calcification of the body especially arteries, which might explain my miserable coronary artery calcium score. Moreover, therapeutic magnesium levels might actually be able to reverse coronary artery calcification.

The Effect of Exercise and Heat on Mineral Metabolism and Requirements

Prolonged strenuous exercise can result in marked changes in chromium, copper, iron, magnesium, and zinc metabolism. Evidence of these changes can persist for several days after the exercise is discontinued. Some of the observed changes in plasma mineral concentrations may be attributed in part to an acute-phase response, which occurs as a result of tissue trauma or stress. Reductions in plasma mineral concentrations may also in part reflect an increased loss of these minerals from the body via urine and sweat. The increased rate of mineral loss that occurs in sweat with exercise is amplified by the simultaneous exposure to hot temperatures.

Given the above observations, the following questions emerge: do endurance-associated changes in mineral metabolism result in some or all of the following:

  • a compromised endurance capacity?
  • a compromised immune defense system?
  • a compromised antioxidant defense system?
  • a slower rate of recovery from injury?

Additional work on the influence of prolonged exposure to strenuous exercise and heat is urgently needed. The influence of diet on the above changes in mineral metabolism, or whether dietary manipulations may attenuate some of the negative consequences of these changes, is an area of research that needs to be expanded.

Reading the paper, note well the blood serum levels of nutrients are a very poor way to gauge nutrient deficiency, since they gyrate wildly for many reasons. A good example of this is magnesium, 99% of which is stored in body tissues. So blood serum tests are scientific garbage when it comes to assessing deficiency of key minerals, and why (for example) a magnesium RBC test is far superior.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Science Daily: “Vitamin B diminishes effects of air pollution-induced cardiovascular disease”

Repairing damage is great, but it points out that wearing a vented particular respirator while excercising in polluted air is your smart move.

I’m not clear on what B vitamins are involved here, but a multi-B supplement comes to mind as a likely solid solution.

Vitamin B diminishes effects of air pollution-induced cardiovascular disease

B vitamins can mitigate the impact of fine particle pollution on cardiovascular disease...

Healthy non-smokers who took vitamin B supplements nearly reversed any negative effects on their cardiovascular and immune systems, weakening the effects of air pollution on heart rate by 150 percent, total white blood count by 139 percent, and lymphocyte count by 106 percent.


Ambient fine particulate pollution contributes to 3.7 million premature deaths annually worldwide, predominantly through acute effects on the cardiovascular system. Particulate matter pollution is the most frequent trigger for myocardial infarction at the population level. "Ambient PM2.5 pollution is one of the most common air pollutants and has a negative effect on cardiac function and the immune system," said Jia Zhong, PhD, principal investigator, and postdoctoral research officer in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia's Mailman School. "For the first time, our trial provides evidence that B-vitamin supplementation might attenuate the acute effects of PM2.5 on cardiac dysfunction and inflammatory markers."

The paper builds on research published in March that found B vitamins reduce the negative effects of air pollution as measured by epigenetic markers.

... With ambient PM2.5 levels far exceeding air quality standards in many large urban areas worldwide, pollution regulation remains the backbone of public health protection against its cardiovascular health effects...

Upgrade the memory of your 2019 iMac up to 128GB

Science Daily: “Vitamin D determines severity in COVID-19 so government advice needs to change”

Important: take Vitamin K2 and Vitamin A when supplementing with Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). See Health and Vitality Start with getting Key Nutrients.

The science in this particular article doesn’t even matter: Vitamin D has long been known to have influence on a positive immune system response. Every cell in the body has receptors for Vitamin D, and most people are deficient in Vitamin D. Those with dark skin are particularly at risk in winter and at northern latitudes or just from working inside.

The human body can produce 10000 (ten thousand) IU of Vitamin D via mid-day sun exposure to UV-B rays over a good portion of the body, for fair skin** (expose the body and do NOT use sunblock except on sensitive areas like face)*.

Remember, correlation is NOT causation. But this is all about risk assessment. If you are even little Vitamin D deficient, it’s just insanely bad risk management to not address an actual or probable or unkknown Vitamin D deficiency in the face of COVID-19.

* The ultra-conservative medical advice that more than 1000 IU may be harmful seems out of touch in the context of the body being able to produce 10000 IU in 20 minutes with fair skin, but see the Vitamin K2 discussion below.

** Dark-skinned and well-tanned people need much longer sun/UV-B exposure. Very dark skin might require all day, with some studies showing a 99% attenuation of UV-B rays. Such people are likely to be severely Vitamin D deficient in northern latitudes and/or when working inside most days. Thus if your skin is very dark, deficiency should be a prime concern.

Vitamin D determines severity in COVID-19 so government advice needs to change, experts urge

The authors propose that, whereas optimising vitamin D levels will certainly benefit bone and muscle health, the data suggests that it is also likely to reduce serious COVID-19 complications. This may be because vitamin D is important in regulation and suppression of the inflammatory cytokine response, which causes the severe consequences of COVID-19 and 'acute respiratory distress syndrome' associated with ventilation and death.

If you don’t know, then assume you are Vitamin D deficient: just make sure you get 1000 IU of Vitamin D3 every day, or at least get out in mid-day sun for 20 minutes every day (more for darker skin).

When I supplement, I go with 5000 IU Vitamin D3 as cholecalciferol (such as YounGlo Research Vitamin D3). In years past, I used a lot more (up to 50000 IU), and I think I was both Vitamin K2 deficient and magnesium deficient and the excess calcium may have been harmful to me by contributing to calcium deposits in my heart. So take Vitamin D3 with Vitamin K2 and magnesium. Vitamin K2 activates (carboxylates) key proteins that send that calcium where it belongs—into bones and magnesium is crucial to maintain the calcium/magnesium balance in cells (I use both emu oil and MenaQ7 for K2).

I have fair skin, and I don’t supplement in summer since I get a lot of sun—one bike ride and my body maxes-out on all it needs. But if you work indoors all day, you are almost certainly deficient, though perhaps weekend sun exposure can mitigate that. Also, those with dark skin can need hours of mid-day exposure for the body to produced enough Vitamin D.

Note that Vitamin D is produced naturally by the body from sun exposure using cholesterol, one of the most important life-sustaining substance in the body . It makes me wonder if the millions steadily and inexorably poisoning themselves with statins for no change in mortality are at higher risk of Vitamin D deficiency (not to mention far higher risks of diabetes and some kinds of strokes).

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Health and Vitality Start with getting Key Nutrients

Legal disclaimer: I am not a doctor. Make your own informed opinions and consult with your doctor before making changes, especially if taking medications. Ask pointed questions informed by your own research. Do not blindly follow internet posts like this one! It will take work and time to become informed, so make the time.

See recommended reading in Your Doctor is NOT Responsible for Your Health—YOU Are! Recommended Reading to Open Your Mind and Ask the Right Questions, Because Your Life Depends On It

I want to keep this post a simple read for maximum benefit, so I won’t be going into more than cursory “why” each of these things.

A few general principles first:

  • Health and vitality are impossible when the biological system (you and me) has too little of key nutrients (nutrient deficiency).
  • The negative effects can be short or long term or both, manifesting in myriad ways that can be extremely hard to diagnose via any standard medical approach.
  • Deficiency in a single key nutrient cascades throughout, with complex and poorly understood impacts.
  • The modern food supply is highly deficient in key nutrients. Moreover, a “healthy diet” as it is often described is generally unhealthy, depriving the body of key nutrients or putting them way out of balance.
  • Nutrients are synergistic, working at their optimum and avoiding problems only when present in adequate amounts and balance.
  • Few doctors have meaningful training on nutrition, fewer still follow the current state of it, and fewer still rule out nutritional deficiencies before prescribing the “big guns” of pharmacological drugs. This is true in nearly all medical fields.

Specific baseline recommendations

I am not recommending running out and buying a basketful of supplements in order to make expensive urine. And obviously you can be deficient in other nutrients, but these are key ones.

What I am recommending here are for key nutrient deficiencies that the large majority of the population suffers from. Indeed several of these are not even tested for.


The optimal level of magnesium is poorly understood. But magnesium is about as safe as anything can get, with near nil risk except in special medical situations. It can take months to years to restore body tissue stores of magnesium. Athletes, pregnant and nursing mothers, those with deficiency, stress of all kinds means an extra need for magnesium far beyond the minimum RDA.

Picometer magnesium — no diarrhea
Picometer elements complement

Most of the population is deficient to highly deficient in magnesium.

Critical for up to 800 biological processes. Critical to counteract issues from excess calcium (common). Deficiency can manifest in myriad ways, including atherosclerosis, epilepsy, depression and anxiety, high blood pressure, migraines, muscle spasms, AFIB and PVC heart issues, and many more.

Food: soil depletion means getting enough from food is difficult. It is best to supplement.

Best choice: ReMag, with ReMyte a good complement if other deficiencies are suspected. ReMag is unique in being able to know (1) how much exactly the body is getting due to 96% absorption into cells, (2) no laxative effect.

Other good choices are magnesium citrate and magnesium L-Threonate (bedtime use). But many people may not be able to reach a therapeutic dose with these products due to the laxative effect and bioavailability can vary widly between individuals. Not a smart move.

Avoid magnesium oxide as it is very poorly absorbed (4%), and yields diarrhea far before therapeutic doses can be achieved.

Note that government standards for RDA and similar are NOT about optimum dose but only about the minimum dose to avoid obvious problems. And with poor availabilitiy in modern foods and sketchy absorption on top of that, how much Mg you are getting can be a crap shoot.

Testing for magnesium deficiency is rare, and most doctors are unaware that the serum magnesium test is highly unreliable junk testing. (high serum levels can be due to severe deficiency as the body tries to deal with the need). The magnesium RBC test is the best one available to the public (the very best test is for ionized magnesium but only available in research labs).

I will be going to 2000 that due to my ultra high exercise level, and also because I want to reverse my coronary artery calcification.

Vitamin K2

There is no publicly available test for Vitamin K2 that I wam aware of.

Vitamin K2 MK7 with
Walkabout Emu Oil
for Vitamin K2 MK4

Vitamin K2 is very difficult to get in a modern diet, because the best sources are all in saturated fat from animal sources. Remember also that if is not food grade, you don’t want it on your skin either (many skin-care products have emu oil in them).

Food: grass-fed beef or bison (the real thing ideally should show yellow fat), grass-fed Ghee (Bulletproof and 4th & Heart are both excellent), pasture-raised eggs.

Baseline choice (use in addition to food and/or emu oil): Vitamin K2 MK7 form. So far, I am using YounGlo Research Vitamin K2 MK7.

Vegans: eat natto. The real thing, not stuff with Vitamin K2 lacking or removed.

Best choice for Vitamin K2 MK4: Walkabout Australian Emu Oil. Other emu oil may be found on Amazon but I have not looked into quality. The Walkabout brand tastes great and looks to be very high quality.

Vitamin D3

Natural Vitamin D3 production takes place in the skin, where your body can make up to 10,000 IU in just 20 minutes in mid-day (fair skin) if a good portion of the body is exposed from cholesterol. Mid-Day sunlight is the best way to get Vitamin D3.

When I cannot get adequate sun exposure as in the winter, I supplement.

Best choice: Nordic Naturals Vitamin D3 5000.

Vitamin D3 supplementation (cholecalciferol) should also involve supplementation with Vitamin K2 and magnesium. Calcium from all sources requires K2 in order to activate (carboxylate) certain proteins needed to drive calcium into places it should go. Magnesium is also needed. Excess calcium unbalanced by magnesium is Very Bad.

If you have dark skin, getting adequate Vitamin D may be difficult even in the summer; a person with very dark skin can block 99% of the UV-B rays needed for Vitamin D3 production. This might be one factor in explaining why COVID-19 apparently has hit African Americans particularly hard since Vitamin D3 deficiency is strongly associated with poor outcomes.

Remember, do not supplement with Vitamin D3 unless ALSO supplementing with magnesium and Vitamin K2. That is crucial to avoiding numerous issues with excess calcium unbalanced by magnesium and unable to enter bones due to deficiencies of one or both, e.g. atherosclerosis.

Vitamin A

Vitamin A is mostly animal based. Eat grass-fed liver or take cod liver oil, fermented is possible.

Vegetables are NOT a good source of Vitamin A, and it is legal to list beta carotene as Vitamin A—a serious fraud. Nutritional information is grossly misleading in equating Vitamin A with beta carotene.

While the body can create Vitamin A from beta carotene, it requires a 6X to 50X ratio. And when gut microbiome and genetics get involved, it’s not even clear that some people can ever create enough Vitamin A even if they become a full time rabbit.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

Risk Analysis and Critical Thinking: I am not a Medical Doctor (MD), but a broad skill stack and critical thinking skills are universally applicable

I (Lloyd) love pushback on my posts so long as it legitimately attempts to debunk weaknesses in my arguments, and not to attack me or my qualifications. Hence I block those who write to insult me, or to tell me I am unqualified to to write about medical issues (or whatever the topic may be) and in essence to “stay in my lane”. Such people are in mental prisons of their own making, to be pitied but unworthy of interaction.

I am not an MD and have no medical training, being trained in mathematics, statistics and computational science and operations research at Stanford University.

Advice from me on health might be spot-on and far superior to what you get from some doctors, and it might wrong. Follow my advice entirely at your own risk, and don’t ever take action based on my posts without doing your own research on top of it (and it is always worth consulting your own doctor and asking probing questions).

No one is right all the time, particularly the experts!

I’ve followed many areas of science and many other disciplines my whole life, having a very active mind (that sometimes won’t shut down and let me sleep!). Hence I have a broad skill stack from which ideas cross-pollinate, along with a realistic view of risk assessment* and human nature and the real world. Such things form the core of critical thinking and is the basis for truly independent thought.

* A classic failing in ALL fields is the failure of experts to incorporate risk assessment across disparate fields/concerns. But this happens even within a specialty, and this is scary-bad in medicine. My own personal experience with three doctors (a cardiologist and two internists) is that all of them get an 'F' for failing to ask critical questions before recommending a statin. One reversed himself 180° after I informed him of a basic test he should have asked about (CT heart calcium score). there were several other severe failings that relate directly to risk. And the two internists had never seen the single most important study pertaining to my situation.


I have tracked my own physiological responses for 20 years (hard data for many years, other times just observing and contemplating physiological reactions and puzzles). I am now integrating that knowledge with book after book by various MD’s in many areas. Things are lining up in interesting ways and coming together.

For health in particular, my vested interest is the very best health with long life for myself and my family and for my readers (first help oneself, then others!). At 55, such things take on new meaning that they did not at 40.

For one’s own health, delegating and deferring and assuming could be a fatal error.

Needing to be be right as its own priority is a fatal mistake. Critical to me is the actual right answer, whether or not I got it right at the start. If I get something wrong, it is a huge win to be corrected, a huge loss to not realize it. So making an error and getting pushback that debunks that error is a huge win. And that’s why I constantly monitor myself for false cognitive commitments, rationalizations, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias.

I have written many posts on health including COVID-19 and arteriosclerosis and statins and concussion with more to come on Vitamin K2 and magnesium deficiency, because strong evidence is emerging on those latter two as having been key to various health issues of mine over the years, and apparently for many people.

I don’t have time now to search through all my emails from MDs (many), but here is one recent example for those who need some reassurance that I am not full of shit.

MD (gynecologist) Paul I writes:

Thanks for all your help on this mask stuff. And as a physician who has reviewed for medical journals, I am most impressed with your analysis of the situation.

Although clinical training is definitely needed for hand-on examinations and surgical procedures, critical analysis of scientific studies requires a scientific background.

You are as well equipped to evaluate studies on respiratory protection as most physicians.

WIND: this comment relates to my COVID-19 coverage, including my coverage of masks / particulate respirators. Sad that the experts hurt us all badly. Now MDs are having to seek out and find their own masks!

Loserthink in Modern Medicine: Goal-Oriented instead of Systems-Oriented

Credit goes to Scott Adams for the loserthink and 'systems vs goals' concepts; see Loserthink: How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America and How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life. What Adams fails to recognize is that highly-trained brains are also ruining America, though it is because of willful lack of training in the most relevant area of all—nutrition.


The modern medical establishment* has been spectacularly successful in saving lives when it comes to classic infectious and one-off medical problems. Antibiotics, anesthetics and surgery, repairing broken bones and replacing joints, drastically reducing death in giving childbirth, vaccinations, and many more wonderful things for which all of us should be grateful, but luckily we can instead just take for granted.

With such spectacular 'childhood' success of the medical profession, it now remains in a pubescent state, neither child nor adult:

Modern medicine has failed to mature from knowledge to wisdom, maniacally focusing on one-symptom/one-diagnosis/one-drug instead of a holistic systems approach of fortifying the health of the entire organism (patient). Research and training an patient re care are all oriented that way!

Modern medicine sees any medical issue as an axiomatic primary, as if it were divorced from the health of the organism as a whole**.

One symptom, one diagnosis, one drug... job done.

This approach is needlessly degrading and killing millions of people and has been doing so for many decades. The total health and vitality that results from strong nutrition is all but ignored by the modern medical establishment.

Treat with drugs, ignore nutrition. Send to the next specialist for the next N problems.

Diagnosis and treatment remains a sad bad you’ve-been-had art form to this day: a limited number of dogmatic tests mainly to rule out obvious issues. But you don’t find what you are not looking for!

Or... is it more like willful and arrogant blindness with a big dose of laziness and cowardice and Hyper Needing to be Right in spite of contrary evidence?

Simple examples of outright medical incompetence before getting out the prescription pad are failure to test for magnesium deficiency (and if tested which is rare, the wrong and highly misleading serum magnesium test****) and Vitamin K2 (I’ve never seen a test for it) and Vitamin D. Yet those things might be the two most important indicators of baseline nutrition, being essential to a huge number of biological functions—and it is known that the vast majority or deficient or highly deficient in them!

Treatment guidelines today are groupthink loserthink based on applying epidemiological averages to specific individuals and frequently all about political and financial influence***. Testing games of 20 questions, and the answer is still elusive 20 questions later. The financial costs aside, millions of incorrect diagnoses are made and ~1/4 million deaths per year result from medical errors. And that’s not even counting the injuries from side effects by unwarranted pharmacological treatment, and the resulting physical and psychological harm and loss of vitality. That surely numbers in the millions, if not tens of millions just here in the USA. It is shameful and basically snake oil masquerading as science.

For the unhealthy person with one or more nutritional deficiencies, issues sprout up like mushrooms, and there is a specialist for each! There may be 3 or five or 13 issues to deal with, one by one, half-guessing all the way, piling on cost and danger with pharmacological treatment, which often worsens the underlying nutritional deficiency, which is the root cause. We have here 3 or 5 or 10 doctors, all trying to explain the 'elephant' by examining toenails or tip of the snout or anus, none seeing the whole, and all with cognitive commitments to ignoring what the beast is eating.

* Doctors, medical schools and their faculty, BigPharma, insurance industry, etc.

** Thus to address arteriolosclerosis (almost certainly an inflammatory process caused in good measure by poor diet), modern medicine gives statins (a poison) to degrade one of the most important building blocks in the body (cholesterol), because that’s where the money and status and corrupt guidelines are, causal-science and side effects and root cause and nutrition and total health be damned. It’s like injecting a plant with arsenic-laden water instead of giving it good soil and regular watering.

*** Right now as I write this, I am more fit than 99.99% of the population and yet I am borderline obese according to the know-nothing jackasses that designed BMI, who push it as a valid medical tool, and who never bothered to think about muscle mass or bone density. Yet BMI and similar epidemiological intellectual frauds are the basis for large portions of modern medical treatment and for things life life insurance, statistical measures being applied to individuals, which is intellectual and medical malpractice.

**** One can have high serum magnesium with a dangerous deficiency of ionized magnesium (which is a true indicator of magnesium levels in the body). The serum magnesium test is worse than junk science, it is total medical ignorance and incompetence, which can cause enormous harm to patients.

Loserthink mindset: goals instead of systems

Instead of going back to the basics and asking why the organism (patient) has so many problems (which likely stem from poor organism health overall), modern medicine tackles one issue at a time with different doctors. Rather than a system of optimal nutrition so that all bodily systems can function as designed, because all systems are getting all the nutrients needed and not being overwhelmed by unnatural and toxic inputs.

Most short and long-term health problems are all manifestations of past or present nutritional problems (which environmental and other factors exacerbate, a weak organism cannot repair and maintain itself properly). I would bet that 90% of cancers stem from nutritional problems. Ditto for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, mental illness, etc.

In this context, the systems approach should be an unrelenting focus on understanding and eliminating nutritional deficiencies and excesses, especially in light of the modern food supply. From that, fundamentally good health of the organism follows, with whole packs of dogs that don’t bark.

Thing is, the medical establishment* is intellectually and ethically bankrupt when it comes to nutrition, and that has been true for many decades. It is a cesspool of politics, financial corruption, outright ignorance, cognitive bias and rationalizations with little objective science. And there is no financial incentive to fix it. Who the hell cares about magnesium or Vitamin K2 deficiency or 100 other similar things when there is no money for research and no patents to be granted leading to billions in profit? What self-aggrandizing “expert” wants to study the basics when fame and fortune await designing an awesome poison, like a statin?

As if any organism can continually ingest garbage and poison and remain in good health.

Which brings me back to systems...

In terms of fixing specific one-off straightforward issues, the medical system is fantastic: get in a car crash and highly skilled professionals can do a lot for you. Ditto for many other issues.

But in terms of a system that maximizes health and vitality, the system is broken and incompetent, offering deadly advice on nutrition and largely ignoring critical basics. The sickening off the American public with raging epidemics of obesity, heart disease, mental illness and hundreds of other problems is proof positive of that. Average lifespan has been extended by addressing the classic killers, but overall wellness and vitality is a shitstorm.

Only by changing the system can things get better.

This means research on basic nutrition—causal not the bullshit epidemiological stuff, it means getting the government and BigAg and BigPharma out of the picture (structurally and legally), it means changes to insurance practices, it means a total restructuring of health care to maximize baseline health.

And it means unfucking medical schools, which scarcely bother with nutritional science. And if they did, it would probably be worse, because understanding of nutrition today is worse then ever. Oh, good understanding exists, but it is scattered about in bits and pieces and drowned-out by embedded interests of all sorts.

Maybe it’s impossible? Maybe as a system, but we as patients or doctors or both can make a difference in our spheres of influence—go to it!

OWC Envoy Pro EX SSD
Blazingly fast Thunderbolt 3 SSD!

Up to 4TB capacity, USB-C compatible.

USB-C model also available

Great for travel or for desktop!

A Challenge to Medical Doctors (MDs): if you are not thoroughly investigating patient nutrition BEFORE Prescribing, and also constantly educating yourself on nutrition, you are failing your patients

Modern medicine focuses on goals instead of a systems approach. See Loserthink in Modern Medicine: Goal-Oriented instead of Systems-Oriented.


Health starts with nutrition, which at its core means first and foremost avoiding all nutrient deficiencies, which is hard to do with the modern food supply. My bet is that thousands of medical issues affecting (at least) tens of millions of people in this country are primarily the result of poor nutrition, and especially nutritional deficiencies. Pile on garbage food on top of nutritional deficiencies and all hell breaks loose physiologically, short and medium and long term. You are what you eat, and you are what you do not eat.

I am not saying that nutrition is the root cause of all issues (that would be absurd), but it is almost certainly at the core of the raging scourges in health, and not just the big one of diabetes, mental health, heart disease, etc but the gamut, including neurological and psychological issues, oddball ailments that do not respond to medication, puzzling conditions for which no diagnosis or cure exists, etc.

You cannot have a healthy mind and body if it chronically deficient in even one key nutrient.

It is a shocking idea to me that medicine can be practiced (!) with gaping holes in knowledge about nutrition. After 35 years of my adult life, not one doctor has taken more than a superficial look at nutrition as the root cause of various ailments I have had over my lifespan*. None have had any insight into nutrition that has solved anything. None make a point of rigorously incorporating nutritional considerations as the key to health (“eat a healthy diet”, “take a statin” and similar irresponsible platitudes are the norm). Paint-by-numbers tests good only for obvious malfunctions, a drug for every ailment viewed in isolation, next patient please with industrial disease.

Unfortunately, it has taken me all my life to finally figure out that the one symptom/one diagnosis/one drug mindset that permeates the medical establishment mindset is in reality a form of malpractice, by ignorance. That nearly always, doctors do not see a complex organism, but a specific ailment divorced from its context.

I am now certain beyond any reasonable doubt that most of the issues I’ve had in my life have been nutritional in their root cause. That is fodder for future posts, and if that claim is written off as “anecdotal”, well that’s a rationalization that evades responsibility of asking “what if”. Especially considering that much of what modern medicine tells us about nutrition is toxic bullshit based on politics and money and garbage passed off as science, with so much nutritional “truth” now debunked. We are now a society for which each ailment has its pharmacological treatment—the hell with nutrition as the probable root cause of so many issues.

Of course, doctors cannot shoulder all the blame: there is very little money for research for good health based on nutrition. Who is going to fund a billion dollar study that proves that fixing deficiencies in magnesium or Vitamin K2 cures all sorts of ills? Which might be true, but you cannot patent it, so no funding to find out. And who is going to deal with BigAg and BigFood and BigPharma when their big guns are brought to bear. Rather, billions are spent on single-purpose blockbuster bandaid drugs. Bad for me and you, but very very profitable, the goods being sold being pure human misery.

And yes, I am darn glad I have antibiotics when I need them, and contact lenses. There is a lot of good out there, too.

* Doctors as a group are poorly trained on nutrition, and much of what has been taught is has been debunked over the years. It is incumbent upon all doctors to steadily develop far-ranging knowledge of nutrition and its medical consequences.

Getting into it

Some of what follows is intended to offend MD’s for its shock value, to get their attention, to make them stop and react. So let me rub salt in the wound: the more you as an MD are offended, the more you need to print out this call to action and tape it onto your office wall and read it every day until you stop being offended and spend time each day reflecting on how you can improve your patient’s health with whatever it takes.

The day you embrace that attitude is the day that your joy in being a doctor will flower.

Sir or madam MD, how do you assess your patients? Psychiatry, internal medicine, neurology or any other field, do you start with an in-depth look for nutritional deficiencies, including maladjusted dietary patterns that may put extra demands on the body and mind?

Do you take coursework each year on the latest insights of nutritional science (especially the controversial and anti-establishment variety)? Do you as a matter of course question accepted recommendations (each and every one) and ask if they make sense and whether they actually have merit, including the things that are not accepted and not yet “recommended”, researching them and forming preliminary independent views?

Do you read at least one book by another MD and four studies a month on a nutritional topic to freshen your understanding of nutrition vs health, especially from other MD’s or researchers who might have controversial viewpoints?

Do you deepen and widen your skill stack by regularly reading about specialties other than your own?

Do you skip to conclusions in highly touted research instead of looking for flaws, omissions and biased viewpoints? Do you run it all through your own rigorous bullshit filter while carefully checking yourself for confirmation bias and unwarranted cognitive commitments or perhaps even conflicts of interest (status, financial, whatever)?

Are you steadily expanding your knowledge of the vital roles that nutrients like magnesium and Vitamin K2 and Vitamin D and others act in synergistic ways? Are you seeking to understand common deficiencies in those and other nutrients, and how issues in all areas of the body and mind might be subtle manifestations of nutrient deficiency? How the modern food supply may be totally at odds with historical thinking on nutrition?

Are you using tests that look for obvious issues based on decades-old standards, but not considering things you cannot (yet) measure? You don’t find what you don’t look for, and are you always on alert for the dog that doesn’t bark?

If not, you are not doing your job well..

Now I have tremendous respect for the time and effort it takes to become an MD and the vital and difficult challenges you all face. But the role of being an MD requires a clear-eyed view of the world that puts patient care first, and that starts with nutrition, because you are treating a complex organism, not one small part of it. It’s ON YOU to recognize that and take action. Medical school was just a start, not an end, and it taught you more than a few things that are now debunked. And those mentors you had... they might have been brilliant thought leaders if you were lucky, but some (many?) might have been paint-by-numbers follow-the-guidelines types. Don’t become that. Yes I know there are plenty of “immediate action required” exceptions across the medical field, but that is implicit in all I say here.

Practicing medicine well is not about following toxic and financially-driven intellectually toxic guidelines that are sometimes scientifically dubious at best. It is about questioning those guidelines rigorously, constantly increasing your knowledge especially including emerging and diverging viewpoints all in order to make the entire organism (patient) fundamentally healthy via nutrition and then and ONLY THEN resorting to pharmacological means. Having that prescription pad quick to hand rather than first addressing Health of the Total Organism is an abdication of your ethical and professional obligations. Yeah, that’s right—if you just felt a knee jerk, you have a problem your competence. You must go to great pains to rule out all nutritional deficiencies before 'meds', and over time you must pace and guide your patients along the path of better and better dietary and other practices while accepting that some of them will teach YOU a thing or two. Do you do embrace that idea each and every day for each and every patient?

So, sir or madam MD: I don’t give a rat’s ass if this is “too hard” or “takes too much time” or “my organization doesn’t let me operate that way”. Do it right, or get the hell out of the profession. Fight like hell anyone who tries to stop you from Doing It Right.

And yes, I know that some of you are trying and are doing your best against tremendous pressures. Try harder, and do it better, bit by bit.

First, do no harm”: the failure of the medical establishment to prioritize total health via nutrition and ruling out nutritional deficiencies first and foremost is doing great harm. If you are not doing that, then you are failing your patients. Install extra mirrors in your home and office as a reminder and look into them each day.

Offended? Good! Truth once heard won’t go away so I’ve infected you. Now you have to have to rationalize it away (a temporary fix), or tackle it head on and ask yourself if you are measuring up. Good luck, and best wishes, because when you get it right, your entire life will improve, not to mention your patients.

SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: Time to Steepen the Curve and Accelerate Infection of Low-Risk People

Back in March 2020 it made sense to initiate lockdowns—too much was unknown about COVID-19 and our experts were wholly incompetent and ignorant of just about everything, and so we needed time to learn—caution made sense.

That time has now passed and we have now moved into public policy that is actively destructive and deadly to life and limb and hope.

  • People have delayed medical care that will result in death or long-term health-problems (cancer treatment and detection, surgeries, preventive care of all kinds, numerous other things). It is very possible that over the next year or two more deaths will result from such delayed medical care than from all COVID-19 deaths.
  • An economic train wreck which is hurting the most vulnerable people the hardest, resulting in spikes in suicides (more to come assuredly), destruction of hopes and dreams, decimation of savings, psychological trauma and so on. Just for starters.
  • Arbitrary and capricious rules by bureaucrats having no basis in any credible science leading to egregious violations of constitutional and human rights—for no demonstrable benefit.
  • A government-created split of “haves” and “have nots”: those who have maintained their income and those who have been reduced to poverty. This is not a “shared sacrifice”, but an immolation of an entire class of citizens while another class is either not affected financially or might even gain from it. Worst of all, minimally or entirely untouched salaries and benefits in the public sector are paid for by taxes taken from victims forbidden to work at the implicit point of a gun. That is unspeakably regressively vicious.

Here in California, the death rate from COVID-19 is stunningly low and of those, by and large only the already severely weakened are the ones dying—and they might just as well have died from other causes—no one is subtracting the expected baseline death of those who have died, which is indefensibly illogical and unscientific at best—fundamentally dishonest. And the COVID-19 death figures are mostly based on guessing at the cause of death, perhaps with pressure to blame it on CV19—GIGO.

Moving forward: rapidly infect the low-risk population

Even the staid Dr. Fauci now acknowledges the delayed medical problem explicitly, apparently finally having had the courage to point it out. But the damage is in virtually every area of life. It is carnage at this point, and not from COVID-19.

Current policies could result in more unnecessary deaths than from all COVID-19 deaths.

By not actively seeking to allow escalating infection of the low-risk portion of the population, the high-risk groups will be at risk for a year or more. At the same time, it’s those high-risk groups that are also at most risk for delayed medical care for other issues! Meanwhile all the other damages are intensifying, the limited faux “reopening” notwithstanding.

Kicking the can down the road and picking off this scab every day for the next year or more has no logical, ethical or scientific basis. Quite the opposite.

A radical change in approach is needed whose goal is to allow low-risk people to become infected at accelerated rates so that the destruction can end.

  • Institute extra protective measures for high risk people: continued self isolation, special shopping hours and delivery services, targeted frequent screening, prioritization for PPE, special procedures at all public facilities—whatever it takes to allow high risk people (self designated) to protect themselves reasonably well, since that is all that is possible in any case.
  • Encourage all low-risk people to go back to work and school. Some will be infected and die—that is a given in any population and implicit in any adult discussion. But most will get infected and get over it. And all will be able to resume mostly normal lives which will have tremendous economic and psychological and health benefits.
  • Encourage the use of PPE and similar but let life go back to normal. The infection rate will spike but that is the goal, and the mitigation measures will moderate it to a reasonable rate. To get past this crisis, we need a much higher infection rate that can be sustained without overhwelming things. Should a hospital capacity breach be anticipated, reverse course for a short time to bring the infection rate down, on a localized basis.
  • Adapt dynamic and nimble mitigation strategies should hospitalization rates surge on a trend that would overwhelm facilities. Not the idiotic statewide rules which are too little for a few areas and gross overkill for others.
  • With a far larger pool of healthy, strong, recovered disease-free people, rapidly scale up serum antibody therapy for those who get into COVID-19 trouble. I’m sure that many people would freely donate, but many have suffered financially, so PAY (and pay well) the donors of the blood plasma with strong antibodies.

The foregoing should be opt-in or opt-out as a personal choice.

SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: Violation of Public Trust: which is least BAD? The GIGO Experts: CDC, WHO, Surgeon General, Dr Brix, Dr Fauci et al

How’s that COVID-19 expert thing working for y’all?

See Recommendations for Healthy Body and Immune System.

Our “experts” have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are incompetent liars with confirmation bias and cognitive commitments that render them useless as experts. Some have political agendas who unless ignored will put your life in peril (and that’s not just true of COVID-19, but also of statins and nutrition and dozens of other idiocies).

All lack the ability to integrate medical knowledge (mostly falsehoods so far) into social and economic issues, making their perspective fit for the children’s table. The world doesn’t exist in a lab or a model or a narrative: it is highly complex with many issues far beyond medical.

These so-called experts have in effect killed tens of thousands of people with their incompetence at every critical juncture. They are still driving public policy.

I’m forgetting some things of course... major, people-killing errors and scientific incompetence. Did the CDC kill 50,000 people?

  • WHO: no need for concern, not a pandemic, spread not likely.
  • WHO: no human-to-human transmission.
  • CDC: don’t close the airports.
  • CDC: send COVID-19 patients to nursing homes, needlessly infecting and killing thousands.
  • WHO: Cannot spread through the air. See “Just breathing or talking may be enough to spread COVID-19 after all”.
  • WHO, CDC, medical experts: Masks are worse than nothing. Masks don’t work. The public does not need masks. See “Just breathing or talking may be enough to spread COVID-19 after all” and my prescient P100 / N100 Particulate Respirator the Smart Move for Coronavirus. Would half as many people be dead now if masks had been the norm from the start? Which of these organizations and experts will acknowledge their deadly role in killing people? Why are they still employed?
  • CDC: doesn't transmit on surfaces, then does, then doesn't.
  • CDC: incompetent at testing hydroxyquinilone, failing to use zinc with it and using it on people half in the grave, leading to press coverage actively discouraging valid trials.
  • CDC: incompetent in detecting counterfeit masks that might cause doctors to become infected and to infect others.
  • ALL: fantasy-land GIGO data on COVID-19 infections and deaths.
  • ALL: incompetent at communicating on the meaning of the GIGO data and models, resulting in public fear, wanton economic destruction and bad public policy.
  • ALL: Highly misleading statistics bordering on outright lies and failing to explain. See Trying to Make Sense of the Death Rates.
  • ALL: failure to formulate any policy which can end this crisis.
  • Irresponsible context-dropping public statements about infection rates rising or falling without any mention of the testing rate. On top of testing with a 15% to 30% error rate—total scientific and communication fear-mongering incompetence!
  • ALL: unable to present valid data or statistics of any kind—everything is chock full of basic scientific errors. That guy killed in a car crash? COVID-19 fatality if infected (which itself is rarely confirmed by more than a guess).
  • ALL: near total ignorance of true underlying morbibity factors, particularly nutritional deficiencies and how that weakens people. Resorting instead to statistical findings with no insight into true risk factors—studying morbities that are the end result of underlyling problems, but not the underlying problems that could raise the odds for millions. See Notes from a Dr. David Brownstein Treating Patients.
  • Dr Fauci: lockdown critical... wait... lockdowns might kill people. HTF did it take him so long to figure that out? See Kicking the Can Down the Road?.

These experts all belong out of sight at the children’s table because they have contributed more to death and destruction than to saving lives. Have they contributed anything so far to save lives besides finally reversing some but not all of their baseless recommendations?

These “experts” are one-trick ponies unable to formulate an integrated adult viewpoint based on a total risk assessment. See Public Policy Based on Counting Only COVID-19 Risks is Irresponsible and Infantile.

SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: Masks (particulate respirators) might be Counterfeit, CDC Data Only Adds to the Confusion

I recommended buying quality masks back on January 29 (and for some years before for other reasons).

Numerous news articles note the rejection of test kits and protective gear from China by various governments, suggesting that there is a lot of low quality and counterfeit product out there.

How can any of us know that the masks we might buy are not counterfeit for starters, and that they work as claimed?

My viewpoint

Based on years of personal use of high-quality 3M N95 and N100 particulate respirators and knowing the care required to fit them properly with head straps, my view is that ear-loop designs (e.g., KN95) are difficult if not impossible to fit properly (seal).

In general, ALL ear-loop designs should be a last resort, because they cannot be fit properly even with care—there is just no way to achieve the tension required to seal the mask against the face.

Still, with some care in at least trying to seal the mask against the face, KN95 masks are probably better than home-made masks or half-assed approaches like a bandana. Unless the mask just is the wrong size (very common), in which case it serves mainly to protect others (your own coughing/breathing), not to filter the air for your own protection. Others gain, you lose.

Note that images you see in the media (including world leaders!) almost always show improper fit of masks, which leads to major leakage which means 0% filtration efficacy of all air leaking in or out. Every time I enter a store and observe people, I see the vast majority of masks improperly fitted.

NPPTL COVID-19 Response: International Respirator Assessment

A long list of test reports on mask filtration efficacy is available at the CDC. These results assume proper sealing, which is frequently not the case.

Problem is, even the CDC results cannot distinguish real from counterfeit products and so the test results shown there might or might not apply, since the masks might be counterfeit. In other words, the CDC is just adding to the confusion, testing masks of unknown and unverified origin. Total GIGO other than proving that there is a lot of junk and/or counterfeit stuff out there.

NIOSH has been informed that many legitimate manufacturers in China have been counterfeited. In such cases, NIOSH has no way of verifying which products are counterfeit and which are authentic.

While the manufacturer listed in the table is shown as the manufacturer of the product evaluated, NIOSH has been informed that some of these are actually counterfeit products. Some products with legitimate manufacturer names, showing poor filter penetration results (<95%), are counterfeit products. A number of manufacturers have also informed NIOSH that they did not produce the products associated with their name.


Currently, there are no NIOSH-approved products with ear loops; NIOSH-approved N95s have head bands. Furthermore, limited assessment of ear loop designs indicate difficulty achieving a proper fit. While filter efficiency shows how well the filter media performs, users must ensure a proper fit is achieved.

If you cannot fit a mask properly, and it might be counterfeit and you have no way of knowing, where do we go from here?

Buyer beware, but how? In a health situation, this is not just about losing money on fraudulent product, but about your health and maybe even your life itself. And who knows what states have been buying and supplying to health care workers at huge risk?

Counterfeit mask?

Back to Form Again, After Loss of Fitness from Probable COVID-19: Ascending Horseshoe Meadows Rd to Cottonwood Pass from Mt Whitney Portal Rd

It took about 2.5 weeks to get over what seems to have been COVID-19. Then after one good hard ride, I felt weak for 6 days or so, not recovering energy well at all—not sick but just not recovering well from 8500' of climbing in the heat. In normal condition for May, that should only take two days to be fully recovered.

But finally I seem to be back in good health, albeit with 10 pounds more body fat than desirable, a great liability for strenuous climbing.

Yesterday I suffered through a brutal “gravel wind”* on the 5500' climb to the trailhead to Cottonwood Pass up Horseshoe Meadows Road—the wind was so stiff in places that it was stinging my face with gravel and I had to hold my breath at times due to sand in the air (I found myself wishing for my N95 particulate respirator). Fortunately there were only five or six sections with the gravel/sand problem, on road cuts and corners. But it is darn hard climbing an 8% grade straight into a 25 mph headwind!

And... I had done the same climb the day prior. While 3 minutes slower, it was 4 watts stronger (the headwind cost a lot of time). That is 2:03:14 at 217W @ 137 bpm on day two vs 02:00:45 at 213W @ 136bpm the day prior. Two strong days are a sure sign that my body is not fighting off some problem any more.

Horseshoe Meadows Road is surely one of the most spectacular climbs in the Eastern Sierra and entire USA—and yet I had never ridden it in full—highly recommended. Start at the T-junction with Whitney Portal Road. For a full day, ride both it and up to Mt Whitney Portal (the trailhead for Mt Whitney climbers).

I know my strength is back, because I rode it two days in a row with a stronger effort the 2nd day. Today I was going to go for a third time, but the wind is so violent that I deem it unwise, but maybe an MTB ride late in the day. And, well, my legs are feeling it now, though not unduly.

Here are some pictures showing just how awesome the Horseshoe Meadows Road climb is.

Back in form on Horseshoe Meadows Rd near Lone Pine, CA
f1.8 @ 1/2000 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-17 16:24:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 8231 ft / 2509 m, 75°F / 23°C

[low-res image for bot]
Ascending lower Horseshoe Meadows Rd, view to Owens Lake
f1.8 @ 1/4000 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-16 13:44:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: lower Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 5949 ft / 1813 m, 90°F / 32°C

[low-res image for bot]
View to Lone Pine CA from Horseshoe Meadows Rd
f1.8 @ 1/6800 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-17 16:23:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 8197 ft / 2498 m, 75°F / 23°C

[low-res image for bot]
View to Owens Lake from Horseshoe Meadows Rd
f1.8 @ 1/3000 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-16 16:26:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 7911 ft / 2411 m, 75°F / 23°C

[low-res image for bot]
View to Alabama Hills and Lone Pine CA from Horseshoe Meadows Rd
f1.8 @ 1/3200 sec, ISO 20; 2020-05-09 15:06:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 7894 ft / 2406 m, 80°F / 26°C

[low-res image for bot]
View to Owens Lake from upper Horseshoe Meadows Rd
f1.8 @ 1/4800 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-09 16:01:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 9304 ft / 2836 m, 70°F / 21°C

[low-res image for bot]
Cottonwood Pass trailhead to Golden Trout Wilderness, Horseshoe Meadows Rd
f1.8 @ 1/3200 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-17 15:15:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Cottonwood Pass Trailhead, Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 9950 ft / 3033 m, 65°F / 18°C

[low-res image for bot]
Cottonwood Pass trailhead to Golden Trout Wilderness, Horseshoe Meadows Rd
f1.8 @ 1/2000 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-16 15:38:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Cottonwood Pass Trailhead, Horseshoe Meadows Rd, altitude 9950 ft / 3033 m, 65°F / 18°C

[low-res image for bot]

Watts, heart rate, ascent

Altitude gain adjusted versus known points using iPhone GPS altitude, which was consistent on both days, starting out at 4600' both days and topping out at 9950' both days (within a few feet). An additional 25-foot dip is seen most of the way up the climb which is included in the total gain.

The 4rd ascent (3rd day I did an MTB ride), the temperatures were 25°F lower with snowflakes starting at 9200' and little wind, my legs were not fully recovered and I had mild bronchospasms at the summit (cold induced perhaps), I cut the time down by about 8 minutes with higher wattage. The minimal wind accounts or half of that and the higher power output the other half.

Ride from Whitney Portal Road to Cottonwood Pass trailhead via Horseshoe Meadows Road
Title data summarizes portion from DeLaCour farm to end of road/summit
Elevation gain computed using known points (altimeter was off significantly)

The 3rd day I did an MTB ride, due to high winds all day... and my legs were feeling the effects. But the 4th day I did the climb again, in 25°F cooler temperatures due to clouds, with snowflakes landing and sticking to my wool jersey sleeves at 9200' elevation. I was not entirely warm starting at 8600', but I was ill-prepared but for my hands which were very painfully cold and stiff descending—I had forgotten full-finger gloves.

While I love the convenient panorama ability of the iPhone (it's only redeeming quality), I am really getting tired of the extremely aggressive noise reduction and compression that makes my face look it has badly applied makeup and/or a bad skin disease. And notice the extremely smeared-away detail in the brick walkway—typical garbage quality of an iPhone. These quality problems are true of still photos or panoramas with the iPhone unless shooting RAW, which eliminates the issue. In other words, the core camera quality is decent, but Apple’s extremely aggressive noise reduction and lossy compression are best used for boudoir photography or dating sites, for smearing away of wrinkles and skin blemishes and all fine detail. Note that images shown here are considerably downsampled, which still won’t hide the poor quality—and a Retina display hides it even more with screen resolution beyond the resolving power of most eyes. In technical terms (MTF), coarse and medium structures are preserved (this is what the eye responds to, mainly), and fine structures are mostly obliterated.

3rd ascent on fay with light snowflakes
f1.8 @ 1/1000 sec panorama, ISO 25; 2020-05-19 16:28:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Horseshoe Meadows Rd end, altitude 9950 ft / 3033 m, 40°F / 4°C

[low-res image for bot]


Mountain biking in nearby areas is limited, but spectacular.

Mountain biking in Alabama Hills
f1.8 @ 1/2300 sec panorama, ISO 20; 2020-05-15 18:55:00
iPhone 7 Plus + iPhone 7 Plus 4.0mm f/1.8
ENV: Alabama Hills, altitude 4848 ft / 1478 m, 70°F / 21°C

[low-res image for bot]


SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: maybe Scientists and Doctors and Experts Speaking to the Public should be assumed to be INCOMPETENT if not DISHONEST?

Science is in a crisis, with up to 38% of scientific studies non-replicable. Add in the fact that many studies not conforming to the orthodoxy are never published and the huge conflicts of interest that abound (financial, prestige, social/business, etc). So many areas of science have become anti-science, with dogmatic quasi-religious overtones*.

* The medical lies about statins come to mind (currently degrading the health of tens if not hundreds of millions of people), along with nutritional “science” that has had hugely damaging effects over the past 50 years and remains uncorrected.

Incompetent researchers, gullible national experts

See below. Surely there is confirmation bias at work among so-called scientists and exports, who failed to verify the most basic facts of their case

According to ScienceMag.com, a failure to check the single most important factor upon which the paper draws conclusions only rises to the level of “flawed”? How can a science magazine not call a spade a spade? A “flaw” sounds subtle, like an honest mistake. It is a considerably different matter from incompetence so profound that it borders on fraud.

Next, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) also failed to call out this foundational crack in this “scientific” paper. It calls into question everything that NEJM publishes as at best highly suspect when a fundamental tenet upon which conclusions are based never existed.

Emphasis added.

ScienceMag.com: Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed

A paper published on 30 January in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) about the first four people in Germany infected with a novel coronavirus made many headlines because it seemed to confirm what public health experts feared: that someone who has no symptoms from infection with the virus, named 2019-nCoV, can still transmit it to others.

... Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”

But now, it turns out that information was wrong. The Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German government’s public health agency, has written a letter to NEJM to set the record straight, even though it was not involved in the paper.

The letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.”

[WIND: to start with, “persons” is BS—there was one person forming the basis for this farce of a paper, and they failed to question that one person!

Technical jargon that builds in an unproven notion as a predicate (“the fact that”) is a common way of masking scientific and communication incompetence by those who don’t know WTF they are talking about and wish to mask that fact by making it sound educated and wise, knowing that the reader will implicitly accept the predicate and that the jargon will do the rest. In reality, it translates to “we have our heads up our asses but we hope you won’t notice”]

But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.”

[WIND: a “scientist” who relies on heresy? Would not qualify as incompetent journalism, let alone science].

Afterward, however, RKI and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)

... Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, says calling a case asymptomatic without talking to the person is problematic. “In retrospect, it sounds like this was a poor choice,” he says. However, “In an emergency setting, it’s often not possible to talk to all the people,” he adds. “I’m assuming that this was an overstretched group trying to get out their best idea of what the truth was quickly rather than somebody trying to be careless.”

[WIND: this above is pathetic; rationalizations have no place in science, nor does mind reading (assumptions about inner mental state), nor does failing to talk to the ONE person upon which the entire paper rested. The duplicity and evasion of Lipsitch's response is striking in its tone-deaf scientific corruption].

The Public Health Agency of Sweden reacted less charitably. “The sources that claimed that the coronavirus would infect during the incubation period lack scientific support for this analysis in their articles,” says a document with frequently asked questions the agency posted on its website yesterday. “This applies, among other things, to an article in [NEJM] that has subsequently proven to contain major flaws and errors.”...


In other words, the researchers relied on heresy, and called it “science”.

NEJM failed to question the core assertion for which no evidence existed, and published this farce, for which a freshman would have gotten an 'F' for failing to ask the core question upon which the entire paper relied. It is and was total anal-ysis.

Then our gullible Dr. Fauci ate it up and cemented it into public record as bedrock fact.


It doesn’t matter if asymptomatic transmission turns out to be correct or incorrect; what matters is that these people should be unqualified to ever deliver medical advice to anyone ever again. If you are at the top of your field, professional errors this bad are unacceptable and should result in immediate dismissal and laughed out of town.

Perhaps even worse, a gullible (or at least sloppy) Dr Fauci makes unequivocal statements without questioning the core premise of the paper. Unbelievable. We are taking advice as a nation from this supposed expert, one unable to check a simple core fact for veracity?

When scientists and doctors combine confirmation bias with lack of critical thinking and even basic fact checking expected of a rank beginner, we are left with total GIGO. These people cannot be trusted. They got almost everything wrong and continue to do so.

Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance

SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: How One American Company is Dealing With Employee and Customer Safety

See also:

Excerpt, emphasis added.

OWC Rocket Yard: OWC’s Larry O'Conner on Product and Shipping Safety Amid COVID-19

OWC / MacSales.com warehouse

... One of the most significant shifts has been to work from home (WFH) as a measure to reduce the spread of the virus substantially. This has been an unbelievable change, a ‘forced’ experiment, as we try and keep as much of our economy operating as possible. It is incredible how fast so many have made the changes necessary to ensure not only the safety of their own families but also all those that would otherwise be part of regular daily contact.

Employee Safety... While hoping for the best, we had prepared for the worst and were able to enact aggressive protective measures before they became mandated. Even today, team members write and thank me for the COVID-safe environment we maintain, while sadly noting that they know people who work in other places that still don’t have the necessary measures in place

COVID-19 has taken us to new levels, with twice-daily employee temperature checks, and shift and space adjustments to enact ‘work contact distancing. We have also implemented additional – twice or more daily – disinfection of all surfaces, gloves, and masks being used by our warehouse and build teams. Our build teams have always worn gloves to prevent fingerprinting units. Those gloves have whole new importance now.

OWC has long had MERV air filters in place as well as a UV air purifier. Both of these combined are 99.999% effective in killing/capturing all airborne bacteria and viruses. Being a manufacturer of electronic solutions, we have always taken cleanliness seriously. It took minimal effort for OWC to step up further in response to COVID-19, and we did so well before any new safety measures became required.


Product Safety... You can rest assured the contents of any package from OWC will not leave contaminated.

Brian Labus, assistant professor at the School of Public Health at UNLV, shares further insight: “By the time products reach your store shelves, it has usually been a few weeks since they were manufactured. The virus might be able to survive a few days given the right environment, but it will be long dead by the time you purchase that product. Even if something you order online is shipped to you the next day, it has been sitting in a warehouse somewhere long enough for the virus to die.”


OWC & You... What we would like you to know is that all of us at OWC genuinely care about your health and wellbeing and are here to help you day and night with all of your computer, technical, and work needs...


We are in this together and will beat it together.

— Larry O’Connor, OWC Founder & CEO

OWC Thunderblade Thunderbolt 3 SSD

Blazing fast, up to 16TB.


√ No more slow and noisy hard drives!

SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: Disinfecting Masks with Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2)

See also With N95 and N100/P100 Particulate Respirator Masks in Short Supply, What Might Work to Disinfect / re-Use?.

Background information, from Wikipedia:

Chlorine dioxide is a chemical compound with the formula ClO2... that is an oxidizing agent, able to transfer oxygen to a variety of substrates, while gaining one or more electrons via oxidation-reduction (redox).

Potential hazards with chlorine dioxide include health concerns, explosiveness and fire ignition. It is commonly used as a bleach. Chlorine dioxide was discovered in 1811 and has been widely used for bleaching purposes in the paper industry, and for treatment of drinking water. More recent developments have extended its application into food processing, disinfection of premises and vehicles, mold eradication, air disinfection and odor control, treatment of swimming pools, dental applications, and wound cleansing.

Christopher C writes:

I’m glad that you have been thriving in the outback, as well as producing some gorgeous photographs. That last one of wind-driven snow over the Alabama Hills is quite extraordinary!

I was surprised at the negative reaction to your discussion of anything COVID-19 related on your site, but I suppose it’s to be expected in a “post-fact” world in which people have managed to politicize even the absolutely facts about a virus <sigh>. I will note that I saw this pandemic coming, and ordered twenty N95 masks for each of us back in mid-January, so I have a number sitting in boxes. There has been no local emergency in our county (just over 100 cases in a relatively rural population of 162K), so I haven’t needed to donate them to the local hospital, at least not yet. I know that you prefer N100, but if you or your family need a few 3M N95s, please let me know and I’ll be glad to send some out to you.

I had a long conversation about sterilizing masks with a engineering friend of mine, who is a brilliant MIT-trained engineer. At the moment, I’m only going out for groceries once a week, and so I can simply afford to set my mask aside after the grocery run (in a dedicated pyrex container in the garage), and let any possible virus inactivate on its own. I’ll note that I have adopted the garb of an American I read about in Wuhan, and wear a waterproof pair of rain pants, rain top, nitrile gloves and N95 respirator (with exhalation port) when I go out. The outer layers, and dedicated “virus” shoes stay in the garage, and so far it’s working fine.

My sister lives in Lisbon, Portugal, and she and her husband were joined by two of their college-age children for the quarantine. Unfortunately, while Paris (a student in Barcelona) was asymptomatic when he arrived, three days later it was clear that he had coronavirus, and in a small apartment, it was inevitable that all four would be infected. They have all subsequently recovered, but their symptoms were extremely different one to the other. The daughter hardly experienced any illness, P was fairly sick (as though with bad influenza), my sister in her mid-50) was fairly sick, and her husband, also mid-50s was very sick. At one point they thought he might need hospitalization, but in fact never did. Three of the four entirely lost their sense of smell and taste, but all are recovering that capacity. So, not a catastrophe, but no picnic either.

I realized that if things got worse here, or if I needed to wear a mask on successive days, I needed to find a way to sterilize a limited supply. My friend’s solution was chlorine dioxide, which is apparently a standard disinfectant. One can purchase the compound as a foil packet that sits in a small perforated plastic container, and slowly releases the chlorine as it reacts to humidity in the atmosphere. This is apparently a routine operation for people who put boats in storage and want to keep mildew at bay, and the disinfecting action is powerful enough to kill anthrax spores. I went ahead and purchased several packages of this compound, but haven’t felt the need to use it yet, and so am simply keeping it in reserve. In any case, I wanted you to know about it in case it proves useful to you, as Santa Clara county is clearly in a much tougher situation than Centre county.

... Battelle Labs is using a gas decontamination method for respirators. Battelle is located in Columbus, Ohio, and my grandfather (a scientist in high-temperature metallurgy) was one of the founding members, which is why both my mother, and I, were born there: https://www.battelle.org/newsroom/news-details/battelle-deploys-decontamination-system-for-reusing-n95-masks Battelle is using hydrogen peroxide in their system: https://inside.battelle.org/blog-details/covid-19-deploying-a-critical-new-ppe-decontamination-system

I don’t think there’s any danger beyond the obvious; don’t inhale the compound deeply, this stuff is not good for living things! NosGUARD SG Mildew Odor Control Bags Fast Release Formula are at http://www.starbrite.com/item/mdg-mildew-odor-control-fast-release.

DIGLLOYD: this appears to be an excellent way to disinfect a mask, though I wonder if it might oxidize other things, like the rubber of the mask seal. If you go this route, my advice in using it would be to open the container OUTDOORS so as to let the ClO2 rapidly dissipate and keep hands and face away while doing so.

See also:





OWC Easy SSD Upgrade Guide
MacBook Pro and MacBook Air
iMac, Mac Pro, MacMini, more!

Proof that Infantile Minds are Running California

View all SARS CoV2 posts.

See also: Evicted from Alabama Hills: Security Theater Brought to Bear on Health

Beaches in LA with thousands of people in close contact are open.

Alabama Hills where there is nary a soul with 100 times the distancing remain... closed.

Seated at the children’s table are the governor and most experts—unable to weigh competing factors in all of this. They have infantile minds siloed in their own ignorance (even if experts in their own extremely narrow fields). They lack all ability to make adult decisions, while fantasizing about “data” that is either total garbage, or doesn’t exist. Like all childish minds, our “leaders” love to push other people around. It’s time to let people make their own decisions while protecting the vulnerable—and stop having childish fantasies about “data” and preventing infection (the opposite of what is needed or this will drag on forever).

Upgrade the memory of your 2019 iMac up to 128GB

diglloyd.com | Terms of Use | PRIVACY POLICY
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
Mailing Lists | RSS Feeds | Twitter
Copyright © 2020 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.
Display info: __RETINA_INFO_STATUS__