Who Is They?
They test one of the smallest bones in your body, then they supercharge you with drugs to treat osteoporosis – or any other disease or disorder.
They want instant results absent titration (getting the body gradually used to the drug), for financial gain – to open the Wall Streets lined with money people do donate for more research.
‘If we can do this – produce these types of early, quick results without killing the patient – then imagine what we can do with even more funding’. We got all these positive results based on the tiniest of bones, then extrapolated the results to larger bones.
People don’t break their little bones because of osteoporosis; they break them because they’re by nature fragile bones. How many kids break bones? Wrist, collar, forearm, fingers, stubbed toes etc. who accuses them of having osteoporosis? No one. Maybe they should look – test kids who break bones for early onset osteoporosis. Sounds like age bias going on. Not many hips? What does that mean? I don’t know, maybe it’s because kids are more agile. Maybe if they weren’t, they’d be falling on their hips and breaking them too.
You can’t expect the tiny bones to be as strong or as dense as the larger bones. By nature a twig breaks easier than a branch, and a branch breaks easier than a tree trunk.
Mobility and quick movability is what prevents bones from breaking.
For decades the dairy industry convinced the government that drinking lots of milk – three then later four full glasses per day were required to build strong bones. That’s a lot of milk every single day. Yet those generations had a high hip-breaking incident rate, even with all that milk. That was science – called fact – because it served the dairy industry’s bottom line of profits. Big investors made a lot of money. Maybe milk was the culprit and not the hip itself.
Science for profit has become a joke. Whose turn is it to make some money? kale? beetles? coffee feeling a slump in profits? somebody mad at somebody so they find the science behind sesame seeds being poisonous?
How to fix a study. Simple, easy. Just omit the data that doesn’t support the thesis. They use averaging as the foundation of all their reasons why or why not to leave out what they consider irrelevant or damaging to their desired or predicted results, instead of finding a way to include all the data, all the people.
Leaving out the two ends, the two extremes, makes the middle more potent a study group than it ought to be. You might as well just study one person, because that’s what the middle looks like – one person. Like a group that speaks in one voice. It’s not representative. And it’s not enough to say it’s not representative, since people look at figures rather than explanations.
It’s like doctors accommodating for the weight of clothes when weighing a patient. They say they take off three to four pounds, but not in writing they don’t. They enter the weight in the chart that appeared on the scale with the clothing.
No one’s brain automatically makes an adjustment for three to four pounds when they see a weight number in the chart. It doesn’t happen automatically as doctors and researchers claim. They see a number, and that number is what the brain reacts to.
I think they should stop weighing patients unless they’re on a diet or take diuretics. While in hospital in a twenty-four hour period on 12-22-2022 my husband had a fluid input of 595 ml and an output of 1480 ml – a difference of -885 ml. That’s a lot. Yet no one would reduce or cancel his diuretics. So they didn’t base his medication on his intake and output. Then why even measure it?
That Bell Curve made a lot of mistakes. Three people take a test and according to the Bell Curve, one gets an A, one fails and one gets a C, even though the three scores were all in the 90s.
I had a professor once who gave me an A until another student who was late submitting her paper, submitted a much longer paper (guess who that was?). The scratch off mark was still on my paper. I can still see it visually in my mind. He said according to the Bell Curve he could only give one A, so he downgraded me to an A minus. There weren’t many people in the class, so maybe with larger numbers it evens out, with two extreme categories and the middle defined pretty much by the needs of the study and how many categories it allows by the researchers or by those applying the results of the research, in this instance school grades.
People ‘falling through the cracks’ of social programs or allocations is another example of statistics gone awry when applied for financial benefit.
What if all the students in the class are super smart? That is of course possible; smart and motivated? also possible. Then a B grade is a failing grade and although many would support it, just as many won’t. But the ‘won’t ‘ people don’t make policy. And the ‘will’ people support the status quo, making it easier not to change, than to change because it’s already in play.
Why take on one of the smallest bones, a finger or wrist, and extrapolate those results to the larger bones, when everybody knows the bigger bones are by nature stronger for reasons outside the realm of density? Does a large angel food cake crumble as easily as a small angel food cake? Does a large cookie crumble easier than a small cookie? Does density matter in the cookie vs cake crumble ability? Can we compare a cookie that remains stationary unless some outside force moves it, to a bone attached to a being that moves using it’s own force from within teamed with gravity, wind etc.?
Do partially paralyzed people break more bones than non-paralyzed people? One might think so, since their bone density is probably lower and bone loss higher because there’s not much mobility. Still, when they fall, do they break bone easier?
How about old people? Do their bones break due to decreased mobility or loss of flexibility? I’ve stretched my entire life and age does stiffen you no matter how often you stretch. Add a few unwanted viruses to that and you’re on stiffness overload. Add to that the side effects that include tendonitis and those tendons are never as strong or flexible as prior to the insertion of a foreign agent that caused the side effect that never goes away, even when the drug is withdrawn.
Increased mobility does not naturally produce increased flexibility, when the loss of flexibility is caused by physical factors.
When I was in full blown vasculitis which presented with large craters and blisters filled with testable material, the person doing the biopsy searched for the teeniest bump not yet erupted. I already knew the ones that erupted overnight, but they weren’t interested in those.
They wanted the ones with as little testable material as possible, which in effect, skews the results, since all the eruptions were not represented. But then, based on scanty intel, they supercharged the treatment, rather than treat according to the minimal amount presented for the study under the microscope.
What if testing more material produced a different set of components or elements or markers due to their maturity that randomly appeared unexpected? Infections take time to mature, so they obviously weren’t looking for infection, otherwise they would have tested the full-blown eruptions. If they didn’t know what caused it, then all doors of inquiry should have been left opened. Instead they narrowed the field to fit their own thesis.
If anything they should have taken samples of new, moderate and older eruptions. You could tell by looking at them, which ones were new, moderate and older; they didn’t have to ask me.
Of course I already knew, because I was watching them, but researchers don’t trust the observations of the patient, they only trust what they see, yet they corrupt what they see by discriminating against certain eruptions. Only they can discriminate, because they have the reasons that we know nothing about – not so fast on who knows what or who can figure what out. Okay? They go overboard on what they think people can understand based on their need to manipulate thus control the patient and the data. That’s a powerful mix of discrimination that always ends in corrupting the results.
I told my doctor I had night sweats, yet she left it out of my complaints, because it didn’t fit in her mind of what her diagnosis was going to be. I told her assistant to be sure to add it; the assistant also ignored it and it never did get into the chart. They were both prejudiced and it didn’t fit their theory so they left it out. That’s dangerous and can be injurious to the patient. I did not at any time agree to be a part of her’s or the CCFs experiment or study, yet she put me into one anyway.
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation Dermatology Department put my life in danger by not adding all the recent symptoms I told her when she asked. Why ask if you’re going to make a prejudgment on what’s relevant or not?
She said she suspected the cause to be the fourth COVID booster that contained a component that was controversial – the symptoms presented as varied even within the eruptions of the vasculitis realm. So why would she take biopsies of only one type of eruption and why would she intentionally leave out other symptoms that may very well have been relevant?
She acted like I had a bunch of diseases and she would stick to the one that she thought caused the vasculitis and throw all the rest at my primary care physician to sort out. Yet, that physician didn’t have an accurate picture of all the representative eruptions. They were sharing test results.
If they wanted accuracy, they should have taken a sample of more than one type of eruption. Even among eruptions, differences were significant to the eye.
They weren’t going for accuracy, otherwise they would not have supercharged the treatment with high doses of steroids on a seventy-three old woman who had a long history of being medication-free.
Even Steve’s doctor’s P.A. person said they base treatment on the lowest numbers rather than the highest numbers to avoid unnecessary side effects. I’m not sure who she was really talking about, but all Steve’s doctors overprescribe medications. It’s a well-known culture at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and hurtful side effects that don’t go away with cessation of the drugs abound.
My doctor did the opposite, ordered aggressive treatment based on the smallest underdeveloped samples.
Who’s they?
The scientific medical community of researchers and doctors. That’s who.
HAPPY WHITE HORSE™ 