DWQA Questions › Tag: human suppression
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
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 days ago • 
23 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection is perhaps the most influential theory on the origins and evolution of species including humans. Darwinism reshaped how humans understand ourselves and our place in the natural world. However, professional scientific discussion highlights that evolutionary novelty shows up with a bang, not incrementally. There are no good fossil records of intermediate living forms between species. There is no innovation or novelty in Darwin’s theory. The origin of novel species is unresolved for science. Despite this, there is a widespread popular impression that it accounts for the existence and form of living things. How has this delusion been maintained?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 days ago • 
25 views0 answers0 votes
You have confirmed that the Extraterrestrial Alliance is now doctoring major-selling diet sodas with chronic disease-causing viruses. Are they doing this with sugared sodas from major brands as well?
ClosedNicola asked 2 days ago • 
27 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “The connection between oral hygiene and cardiovascular disease, particularly heart disease, is becoming more established in scientific literature. It appears that gum disease (periodontitis) and root infections, can lead to bacteria entering the bloodstream and travelling to vital organs, including the heart and breasts, promoting the formation of arterial plaques. Although Get Wisdom has probed Creator many times about products to treat gum disease I want to quantify the seriousness of the problem. In what percentage of cases are oral infections responsible for heart attacks and breast cancers and other chronic degenerative diseases?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 days ago • 
21 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology aim to reduce the use of toxic substances in dentistry. They advocate using composite resins or ceramic fillings (instead of mercury amalgam), zirconia and porcelain (for crowns, bridges, and fillings), to minimize inflammation, toxicity, and immune system reactions, ozone therapy (to treat tooth decay, periodontal disease, and other oral infections) and herbal mouthwashes or natural antimicrobials to support oral detox. To what extent are their recommendations safe and effective alternatives to conventional dental practices? How strong is their claim of a relationship between oral health and overall health, especially heart disease?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 days ago • 
18 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 2 days ago • 
19 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 2 days ago • 
19 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Would you advise doing the ivermectin and hydrochloroquine 3 week treatment once every year? Like a detox?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 days ago • 
14 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 • 
142 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 • 
120 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 • 
111 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 • 
67 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 • 
84 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 • 
116 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “I’d like to check in on my thyroid issue. Via you, Creator told me it was viral in origin. I did the three-week ivermectin and hydrochloroquine treatment, as advised. As well as taking supplements of the Antiviral Regimen. I would like to know if I’m virus-free. My thyroid is no longer swollen and I feel much better overall.” What can we tell her?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
88 views0 answers0 votes
123…34Next »
Ask Question