DWQA Questions › Tag: academic gatekeeping
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
Is the 200 mg Pycnogenol with 40 mg PQQ, Premium French Maritime Pine Bark Extract from Vigorizar, sold on Amazon for $23.99 (30 servings), equal or superior to the benefits of Virasurge from Gold Leaf Nutritionals? The latter is described as having 1700 mg of a proprietary blend of L-Arginine HCl, Citrulline malate, Robuvit French Oak Extract (trunk), and Pycnogenol French Maritime Pine Extract (bark), and has 60 servings for $83.00 if 3 bottles are ordered. In addition to being more expensive, it is not clear if the Virasurge has at least the usual clinical dose of 150 mg of pycnogenol. Also, its other ingredients are particularly intended to support male sexual performance, but some men may be already taking other supplements with those ingredients and more; would adding the pycnogenol by taking the cheaper pycnogenol/PQQ supplement be a good option?
ClosedNicola asked 8 minutes ago • 
0 views0 answers0 votes
Would the Pycnogenol/PQQ supplement from Vigorizar be a useful recommendation for vasculitis (blood vessel inflammation) in autoimmune conditions? What other conditions might benefit from its use? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 10 minutes ago • 
0 views0 answers0 votes
A recent article in the New Yorker magazine by Ben Taub [A Fatal Error: A celebrated researcher got a case wrong—did he obscure a poisoning?] describes how a single infant death may have been misinterpreted. It raised disturbing concerns about dangers of new mothers who breast feed taking codeine-containing painkillers, like Tylenol-3. Was this manipulated to happen to make a toxicologist raise an alarm and doggedly pursue a relentless campaign to impose unnecessary restrictions?
ClosedNicola asked 2 hours ago • 
1 views0 answers0 votes
We have shared comments about the paper in JAMA blowing the whistle on medical dangers, in pointing out that the U.S. healthcare system was the third leading cause of death in America (Starfield, B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000 284:483-5). Things continue to raise questions. I just saw a citation of an editorial by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, published in 2015 in which he says: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” While this is largely focused on the pressures to publish because of the vested interests of researchers, as well as journal editors, is there a deeper reason that quality and integrity suffer?
ClosedNicola asked 2 hours ago • 
3 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “I would appreciate it if you could check with Creator concerning taking vitamin D. I have read in numerous articles that when taking vitamin D you should also take vitamin K2 12 hours after taking the vitamin D.” What can we tell her?
ClosedNicola asked 3 hours ago • 
4 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “In his 1970s book, Medical Nemesis, Ivan Illich suggests medicine isn’t the primary reason people survive illness; sanitation, nutrition, and housing matter more. He goes on to say over-treatment and exaggeration of disease are widespread, that healthcare fosters dependency, and that illness is seen as unacceptable. Healthcare often operates less for the benefit of patients and more to serve political, social, or bureaucratic interests – public image, economic concerns, or voter approval over medical advice. His views jarred badly with me. Is it right to say, in 2026, that people avoid confronting mortality and that modern healthcare is more about socio-political optics than illnesses?”
ClosedNicola asked 4 hours ago • 
1 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “An overlooked aspect of modern medicine is perhaps that now normal human experiences—such as minor stress, aging, ‘high’ blood pressure, ‘high’ cholesterol, or childbirth—are labeled as medical problems that require professional intervention. Society has arguably become increasingly dependent on doctors and healthcare institutions, losing confidence in self-care and mutual support. Medical institutions now dictate social norms, defining what is ‘normal’ or ‘deviant,’ and expanding their authority into everyday life. Is this intended to weaken society’s resilience, creating a population that depends on the medical system for a ‘pharmaceutical invasion’ and even the conception of who is ‘ill?'”
ClosedNicola asked 4 hours ago • 
2 views0 answers0 votes
Can amyloidosis be caused by a chronic virus, and if so, in what percent of cases?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
130 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “High blood pressure is conventionally regarded as a health risk and that lowering it reduces risk, especially in moderate-to-severe systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick author of Doctoring Data claims that cardiovascular risk increases more steeply after systolic BP reaches around 160-170 mmHg—well beyond the 140/90 threshold often used to diagnose and treat hypertension. A rule of thumb in medicine is that for older individuals, a systolic BP of around 100 + age is a reasonable upper limit beyond which cardiovascular risks increase significantly. Is hypertension over-treated, given that aggressively lowering blood pressure—especially in older individuals—can be harmful?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
138 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2018 book, Medical Nihilism, by Jacob Stegenga claims the healthcare system over-adopts treatments and under-recognizes risks. He states confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions should be low because empirical evidence for the efficacy of many treatments is weak due to methodological flaws, publication bias, the influence of commercial interests. He claims positive studies are more likely to be published, screening programs tend to detect and treat cancers that would never cause harm, common treatments can cause long-term complications, short trial durations miss long-term harms etc. How accurate is his view that evidence is systematically skewed and harms are undercounted?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
118 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
109 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2012 paper in the British Medical Journal “Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities” concluded that “75% (258/344) [of 2009 papers] reported only relative effect measures.” Absolute risk reduction is often far less impressive and less often stated. This suggests that physicians will overestimate the efficacy of treatments and patients may have a misplaced belief in both effectiveness and risks. To what extent does this practice mislead patients and clinicians and benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
61 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
83 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What percentage of patients take drugs for almost no real benefit, even while risking side effects and penalized by the cost?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
114 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “The Lancet medical journal, renowned for publishing cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research, published an article in February 2026 “Assessment of adverse effects attributed to statin therapy …” citing “Widespread confusion about statin safety”. The researchers used data from 19 large, double-blind, randomized controlled trials. The paper concludes that while statins can cause a few side effects, such as slight liver issues, changes in urine, and swelling, these are rare and not very serious. They claim other side effects people worry about were not linked to statins at all. I seem to recall Creator saying the use of statins should be discontinued, however. Has this research been manipulated?”
ClosedNicola asked 5 months ago • 
113 views0 answers0 votes
123…12Next »
Ask Question