DWQA Questions › Tag: academic gatekeeping
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
Can amyloidosis be caused by a chronic virus, and if so, in what percent of cases?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
32 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 1 week ago • 
53 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 1 week ago • 
45 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 1 week ago • 
36 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 1 week ago • 
34 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 1 week ago • 
37 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 1 week ago • 
43 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 3 months ago • 
93 views0 answers0 votes
The CDC reported on Thursday, that the U.S. life expectancy increased in 2024 to a record high of 79 years. The top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. all declined by varying small degrees. Heart disease deaths, the top killer, were down by 3%. Deaths from unintentional injuries declined 14.4% from the previous year. This seems surprising given the fact serious chronic illnesses have been steadily increasing in case numbers for years. Were these statistics manipulated to make the healthcare system look good?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
104 views0 answers0 votes
A study was reported in 2004 of people with advanced coronary artery disease who started taking just 50 ml of pomegranate juice daily. At the end of 1 year, control subjects taking a placebo showed a further 9% increase of coronary artery media-intima thickening. Those on pomegranate juice, had up to a 30% decrease [M. Aviram, et al., Pomegranate juice consumption for 3 years by patients with carotid artery stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness, blood pressure and LDL oxidation. Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;23(3):423-33]. Were these findings truly reflecting an important therapeutic benefit of a simple, widely available nutraceutical? Is there anything sinister about the limited follow-up by the medical community?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
93 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Creator has frequently stressed the necessity of adding specificity to prayer requests, but how far is the optimal level? Take coronary heart disease. Is it optimal to specify the biochemistry that needs addressing to mitigate risk, for example: “Minimize arterial plaque creation, excess blood sugar, inflammation and oxidative stress, slow fat buildup and foam cell formation in the artery wall, maintain healthy blood pressure, smooth blood flow, and flexible arteries to reduce stress on plaques, prevent rupture or clot formation, and reduce mechanical stress on plaques to prevent cracks and avoid blood clots?” Does it help to be this specific for other health conditions?”
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
94 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Al Sears has announced a new supplement called Myco Max, for improving cognitive function in as little as one hour, which contains Lion’s Mane, known to trigger nerve growth factor in nerve tissue, and Cordyceps, which has been shown to enhance ATP production for greater cellular energy. The supplement also includes four adaptogens for reducing stress effects: Gotu Kola– because it’s a cerebral tonic that improves circulation to the brain; Tribulus terrestris– because it has neuroprotective and antioxidant mechanisms that enhance memory, protect neurons, and improve neurotransmission; Salvia officinalis– because it supports memory, acetylcholine preservation, and neuroprotection. It helps prevent age-related cognitive decline by supporting brain energy metabolism; and Rhodiola Rosea– because it helps the body handle stress and fatigue by balancing cortisol and increasing cellular energy (ATP). It enhances endurance, focus, and emotional resilience by improving oxygen use and neurotransmitter balance. You recently ranked the Primal Force supplement, Focus IQ, to be superior as a recommendation for enhancing brain health and cognitive performance, especially focus, concentration, and memory recall as compared to Advanced Memory Formula from Advanced Bionutritionals. How would Myco Max rank among these other two brain supplements?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
199 views0 answers0 votes
Was the book by G. Edward Griffen, World Without Cancer, a meaningful representation of Vitamin B17 (Laetrile) benefits as a valid treatment for cancer?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
108 views0 answers0 votes
A review article shows little or no benefit of supplementing patients with vitamin D3 for bone fractures (T. Gatt, A. Grech, and H. Arshad. The effect of Vitamin D supplementation for bone healing in fracture patients: a systematic review. Adv. Orthopedics Volume 2023, Article ID 6236045). However, the supplement doses of vitamin D3 were either low, 800-2000 IU daily, or quite high loading doses orally or systemically of 100,000 to 300,000 IU. Was their negative assessment justified or were the studies flawed? Would taking a 5000 to 10,000 IU dose of vitamin D3 daily, give significant benefit for healing bone fractures?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
210 views0 answers0 votes
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reportedly plans to acknowledge an acetaminophen-autism link, sending Tylenol maker Kenvue’s stock plummeting. Is scientist William Parker’s hypothesis correct, that acetaminophen (Tylenol) causes autism in some children? If so, is that solely or partly because its neurotoxicity aggravates the neurologic injury from mercury injection done by the Extraterrestrial Alliance?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
158 views0 answers1 votes
123…12Next »
Ask Question