top of page
Search

Medical Misinformation

  • Writer: Dave Taylor
    Dave Taylor
  • Feb 16
  • 16 min read

Updated: 18 hours ago

Before reading this, it is important to understand the actual motivation behind corporate product development, and marketing messages.  Money and profits.  A belief that every product and corporate message is designed in the best interest of the consumer (and not shareholders) is naïve, and at best uninformed.  As always, it is necessary to do your own research and assess the various sources of information for bias and accuracy.  Those pursuing the money will always do their best to discredit those who uncover truths that may inconveniently interfere with their profits and misleading narratives.  Their pushback against truth can be significant given the money and media influence under their control. Again, don’t take the following information at face value.  Do your own research.

 

1)    “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day” ... Nope ... it turns out that phrase originated from a marketing campaign by cereal companies like Kellogg's in the early 20th century, not from scientific evidence.  Cereal companies hyped breakfast with ultra-processed cereals with sugar, and a host of harmful additives.  Actually, it is better to prolong your first meal to extend overnight fasting, increasing your body’s ketones, promoting other health benefits.  Studies have shown that a hearty meal with protein (eggs and meat) has proven to be the most beneficial first meal of the day .... not over-processed grains with sugar and additives.

 

2)    Mouthwash for fresh breath ... BUT ... Mouthwash can disrupt the balance of bacteria in your mouth by killing both harmful and beneficial bacteria, which may negatively affect your oral microbiome, and important gut bacteria. This imbalance can lead to various oral health issues and potentially impact overall health as well.

 

3)    Skin Cancer and the sun ....  The sun is actually good for you (natural vitamin D production) ... After decades of promoting the use of sun screens, it has now been found that children are once again being diagnosed with the malnutrition disease rickets and people are getting fractures and brittle bones on an epidemic level. Why? Because the sun screen blocks out vitamin D absorption. Since the main source of vitamin D is from the sun, this is a disaster. Now they advise ... actually you should go outside for 20 minutes a day with no sun screen. 

 

A 1988 study found that mice being exposed to UV light and fed processed seed oils developed skin damage and cancer, while mice being fed natural saturated fats did not develop lesions when exposed to the same UV light.  Only after being fed polyunsaturated fats did the UV exposed mice develop cancers.


4) Cholesterol and heart disease ... as it turns out, not fat, sugar is one of the main causes, and cholesterol actually repairs damaged blood vessels.

Fat was made the bad guy by the sugar industry lobbyists.

 

5)    Fluoride for oral health ... but ... it is actually highly toxic and should not be ingested ... After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court in June 2020. Fluoridation’s neurotoxic risk to vulnerable subpopulations was confirmed, along with the U.S. EPA’s failure to take action to protect citizens from these risks.  A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have been published in 2019 and 2020, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to fetuses and infants in particular.

 

6)    Margarine is better than butter ... NOPE ... butter is way better and contains butyrate.

Margarines are made from highly processed vegetable oils that may contribute to inflammation, disruption of mitochondrial function, and other health issues.

 

7)    Drink 8 glasses of water/day ... NOPE ... depends on each individual’s state of hydration.

The idea that everyone needs to drink eight glasses of water a day is a myth; individual hydration needs vary based on factors like activity level, climate, and diet. Most adults may require about 2.7 liters (11 cups) for women and 3.7 liters (15.5 cups) for men, which includes fluids from food and other beverages as well.

 

8)    Eggs are bad for your heart ... NOPE ... egg protein is good and has minimal impact on cholesterol.  Egg yolks provide valuable vitamins (A, D, E and K), omega-3 fats and antioxidants, much of which is not found in egg whites.  The cholesterol in egg yolks is not associated with high blood cholesterol levels or heart disease.

 

9) Statins for treating high cholesterol ... statins come with significant risk factors.

 

“A 2024 Lancet study confirms that statins increase diabetes risk, with high-intensity statins raising the risk by 36%. This validates concerns first raised by the 2008 JUPITER trial.  Statins may also increase risks of cancer, cataracts and neurological issues. Long-term use is associated with higher pancreatic cancer risk, particularly after five years of use.”

-        A 2024 Lancet study confirms that statins increase diabetes risk, with high-intensity statins raising the risk by 36%. This validates concerns first raised by the 2008 JUPITER trial

 

“ ... numerous studies have revealed that cholesterol-lowering drugs are mostly ineffective, have no medical benefits, and have dangerous side effects!”

 

“Cholesterol-lowering medication works by inhibiting an enzyme needed to make cholesterol in your liver. However, statin drugs also impair important biochemical functions in your body, like deplete the supply of the coenzyme CoQ10, which may lead to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness, and heart failure.”

 

10) Sodium is bad ... not true ... your body actually needs appropriate sodium levels for optimal health ... Paramedics typically apply a saline drip as a first measure in the field.  Sodium is an essential electrolyte that supports fluid balance, nerve signaling, muscle contraction, and heartbeat coordination; even small drops in blood sodium disrupt these essential functions.  A Virginia Tech study found that low blood sodium amplifies the effects of flecainide, a common rhythm-control drug, by disrupting key electrical support systems between heart cells

 

11) What about milk? ... Well ... whole, unpasteurized milk is good for you ... but that’s not what we get.  The milk and milk products we buy at the store are highly processed, homogenized, pasteurized, and has most of its beneficial enzymes destroyed in the pasteurization process. Without them, milk is very difficult to digest.

 

“The recent approval by the FDA of the use of BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) by dairy farmers to increase their milk production only worsens the already sad picture.

BGH causes an increase in an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in the milk of treated cows. IGF-1 survives milk pasteurization and human intestinal digestion. It can be directly absorbed into the human bloodstream, particularly in infants.

 

It is highly likely that IGF-1 promotes the transformation of human breast cells to cancerous forms. IGF-1 is also a growth factor for already cancerous breast and colon cancer cells, promoting their progression and invasiveness.

 

It is also possible for us to absorb the BGH directly from the milk. This will cause further IGF-1 production by our own cells.

 

BGH will also decrease the body fat of cows. Unfortunately, the body fat of cows is already contaminated with a wide range of carcinogens, pesticides, dioxin, and antibiotic residues. When the cows have less body fat, these toxic substances are then transported into the cows' milk.


BGH also causes the cows to have an increase in breast infections for which they must receive additional antibiotics.

 

Prior to BGH, 38%of milk sampled nationally was already contaminated by illegal residues of antibiotics and animal drugs. This will only increase with the use of BGH. One can only wonder what the long-term complications will be for drinking milk that has a 50% chance it is contaminated with antibiotics.”

 

But the dairy board continues to campaign for you and your kids to drink their ultra-processed milk.

 

12) Polyester? ... What is the latest research on polyester and its potential effect on fertility rates?

 

Fertility rates have fallen consistently over the last 50 years.  While there may be many factors that are impacting this statistic, the trend is not a positive one, and researching some of the causes may be the responsible thing to do.

 

·       In 2022, Canada’s total fertility rate (TFR) reached its lowest level on record, at 1.33 children per woman. 

·       Most (10 out of 13) provinces and territories saw their TFR reach a record low in 2022. 

·       The decrease in the TFR from 2021 to 2022 (-7.4%) is the largest decrease since 1971 to 1972 (-7.6%), at the height of the “baby bust” that followed the baby boom (1946 to 1965).

 

“New research shows polyester-derived microplastics may play a significant role in metabolic disorders — including insulin resistance and diabetes. Polyester sheds large amounts of microfibers during washing, and these particles carry endocrine-disrupting chemicals that enter the human body through food, water, and skin contact.”

 

“Polyester often contains phthalates, BPA, antimony, and PFAS—chemicals known to disrupt hormones. These substances can interfere with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which controls ovulation and hormonal balance.”

 

“A study* published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2008 examined the impact of different textiles on female canine fertility. The experiment involved 35 female dogs, which were divided into groups and fitted with underpants made from varying materials, including 100% polyester, a polyester-cotton blend, cotton, and wool. Over a year, the dogs' reproductive hormones and ability to conceive were monitored.”

 

“The results were startling. Dogs clothed in polyester showed a significant decrease in serum progesterone levels during their estrus cycle and failed to conceive. Once the polyester undergarments were removed, their hormone levels normalized, and they were able to conceive, suggesting a reversible effect. The study postulated that the electrostatic potentials generated by the polyester might disrupt ovarian function.”


13) Chemotherapy ... highly toxic ... Unfortunately, chemo destroys everything else that grows fast, too: hair, the lining of the gut, bone marrow, white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets. Follow the money as usual.   The cancer industry rakes in over $200 billion a year. That’s not a typo. BILLION. And chemo? It’s a cash cow. One round of treatment can cost tens of thousands of dollars — with repeat cycles bringing in even more. There’s no incentive to cure anything when the real money lies in managing symptoms and dragging out suffering.

 

“One of the major problems with chemotherapy is its indiscriminate toxicity, which

poisons your body systemically in an attempt to knock out cancer cells. There have long been signs that this model has fatal flaws and may cause more harm than good. In the case of the breast cancer chemotherapy drug Tamoxifen, for instance, patients must trade one risk for another, as while it may reduce breast cancer, it more than doubles women's risk of uterine cancer.”

(Mercola.com, “Chemotherapy Spreading Cancer”, February 08, 2024)


14) Ivermectin is banned during Covid, and doctors and other heath practitioners lost their jobs for prescribing it. .... Now, as it turns out, this anti-parisitic medication can be an effective cancer medication (as well as potentially addressing other diseases) ... Studies have shown how Ivermectin has attacked cancer cells with the similar effectiveness of attacking parasites in your body.  Banned during covid, this Noble Prize recognized drug is now being studied for its healing effects on a variety of illnesses.  Does the fact that Ivermectin is a cheap alternative to expensive pharma drugs have anything to do with its vilification by governments, so-called experts, and media?

 

15) Nicotine patches are banned in Canada without a prescription ... is it because they have been found to be a positive treatment against spike proteins and other ailments?  Yet you can buy cigarettes at any corner store. Does this make sense to you?

 

16)  Apricot seeds are banned in Canada ... while there are many warnings against apricot seeds and the trace amounts of cyanide they contain, add them to the list of cancer prevention products that are being vigorously and falsely discredited by big pharma and their funded media.

 

17) Cough medicine for kids ... parents and carers should no longer use over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold medicines in children under 6. There is no evidence that they work and they can cause side effects, such as allergic reactions, effects on sleep or hallucinations.

 

18) High carb low fat diets are best ... wrong ... lower carb higher fat/protein diets are healthier for many people ... One would imagine that prior to giving us the high carb, low fat advice and implementing it on a mass scale, the governments would actually have some evidence behind their recommendation?

 

According to the journal Nutrition:

 

‘Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 yr ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased.’

 

19) Processed foods and seed oils ... severely disrupt many of the body’s functions, and contribute to heart disease.  Mainstream health influencers have recently been dismissing concerns about seed oils, framing the entire discussion through the narrow lens of LDL cholesterol — while ignoring the vast body of research on mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, and cellular damage. 


20) Flour and gluten Issues? ... Many people experience discomfort from gluten with wheat products.  But mostly likely, it isn’t the wheat.  It’s the ultra-processed, chemically altered, bleached, bromated, fake vitamin filled, soaked in glyphosate crap they try to pass off as bread and flour products.  To make the product look better, last longer, increase production, and make more money, they ...

·      Stripped the fiber, bran, and germ from the wheat to make the flour more shelf stable, destroying the nutritional aspects of the wheat and then fortified it with folic acid, which many people cannot metabolize and can cause health issues

·      Bleached with chlorine gas to enhance appearance, texture, and shelf-life

·      Added Potassium Bromate, to improve dough strength and rising in baked goods... while this carcinogen is banned in many countries it can still be found in flour products in North America.  Check your ingredients label for ‘bromated’.

·      Soaked in Glyphosate to dry out the wheat before harvest to increase production; that’s right ... the element in Roundup that was found to cause cancer

So, just another good reason to inform yourself and read every label.


21) Nasal Antigen PCR test swabs for COVID ... Mmmm ... turns out the inventor of the test, Dr. Mullis, said it was never designed for that and actually has very little to no reliability in the covid detection context ... giving rise to a multitude of false positives.  There are many biased and corporate funded fact-checkers who claim Dr. Mullis never said that, but there are also many videos of him actually verifying the PCR test’s actual intended use and limitations.

 

22) Vaccines are safe and effective ... Ahhh .... nope ... (A larger discussion for another day ... but given the evidence presented in the rest of this article on the variety of misinformation narratives already out there for other products and situations, and the deliberate corporate corruption in the pursuit of money and power, I am hoping you will at least consider doing some of your own research on this topic.)

 

After the vaccine Injury Act of 1986, where drug companies could no longer be held responsible for vaccine injuries, the drug companies stopped conducting rigorous testing of adverse effects of vaccines to avoid the high cost of testing... to introduce more vaccines faster for quicker and larger profits.

Recommended Read: “Forbidden Facts”; Gavin de Becker; Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 



How the Rockefeller Foundation took over modern medicine

 

Rockefeller gave huge grants to colleges for the removal of all of the natural medicine from medical school curriculum in favour of their own patented petro-chemical based pharmaceuticals.

 

Medical Doctors continue to have virtually no training or education in natural or preventative medicine ... but try to diagnose you once you are sick and then quickly whip out their prescription pad to recommend a pharma product that they make a commission on.

 

“To help with the transition and change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller donated more than $100 million to schools and hospitals and founded a group of philanthropic leaders called the “General Board of Education” (GEB). In a very short time, all medical schools were modernized and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine consisted of using proprietary medicines. The scientists received huge grants to study how plants cure diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then to recreate a similar, but not identical, chemical in the laboratory that could be patented.

 

So now, 100 years later, we are producing doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practice. Instead, we have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations and they still associate these with the idea of wellbeing.

 

The United States spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, but it does not focus on the cure, but on the symptoms, thus creating recurring clients.”

 

“Abraham Flexner, the guy who wrote the report, was a big fan of the kind of medicine

that used drugs and surgery. He basically dismissed anything that didn’t fit that mold.

Herbal remedies, homeopathy – he labeled them as unscientific and quackery. The

report was harsh, and it had teeth. Schools that didn't measure up to Flexner's

standards, which essentially meant schools not focused on pharmaceuticals, lost

funding and were forced to close.

 

Think about that for a second. Centuries of accumulated knowledge about natural

healing, practices passed down through generations, were essentially wiped out,

almost overnight. This wasn't just about improving medicine; it was about

consolidating power and control.”


 

Bad Medical Advice Continued

 

1. In the 1960’s they switched to using oral polio vaccine because of a rise in childhood cancer, associated with IPV. Recently, this was stopped and IPV reintroduced because the only polio since 1979 was caused by the vaccine.


‘ The last case of poliomyelitis in the United States due to indigenously acquired wild poliovirus occurred in 1979; however, as a consequence of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) use that began in 1961, an average of 9 cases of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) were confirmed each year from 1961 through 1989. To reduce the VAPP burden, national vaccination policy changed in 1997 from reliance on OPV to options for a sequential schedule of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) followed by OPV. In 2000, an exclusive IPV schedule was adopted.’

JAMA . 2004;292:1696-1701.


2. When measles vaccine and then MMR were introduced, we were told one shot was for life. Just a few years later they introduced a booster and now they are discussing whether we need three doses of MMR.


3. In 1978 we were told that a single measles shot would protect me from measles, so we had our vaccine. Now the DOH say that single measles jabs aren’t effective. Does that mean that they lied to us? We were following ‘proven science’ at the time. The point being that all scientific hypothesis is just that: hypothesis. It is simply a popular idea which is thought to be true at the time. Many scientific ideas are later amended or changed, even after a study has ‘proven’ that they are safe, or the best method.

 

A 1963 Advertising Poster for Oral Polio Vaccine By the CDC. In 2000, They Stopped Using Oral Polio Vaccine Because It Was Causing Polio.



This is a late 1960’s notice from the Office of the Surgeon General, William H. Stewart, M.D, stating that one vaccination is all that is required for ‘life-long’ protection. Then They Introduced A Booster. Now They Say Antibodies Wear Off After 5 Years.


(Elesvier Science LTD, Volume 13, Issue 16, 1995, Pages 1611-1616.).


Now, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Is Questioning Whether We Need 3 MMR’s


‘The list of therapeutic interventions that were once accepted but are now defunct is long enough to give one serious pause. For crying out loud, it took science decades to reach consensus that tobacco was bad for your health. Furthermore, bottle feeding with formula was once thought of as ‘scientific’ and modern and superior to breast feeding’ – Joseph Cooney, MD.

 


Some Times Medical Consensus Should Be Rethought

Taken from imahealth.org: Published On: August 10, 2023


These examples are a reminder of the need for ongoing research, humility, and the willingness to challenge established beliefs for the sake of patient care.

Medical certification and licensing boards also claim that individual healthcare providers who share information that is contrary to “consensus-driven scientific evidence” are misinformation spreaders who cause so much potential harm that their certifications or licenses should be revoked.


While some might argue in favor of the merits of consensus in providing timely guidance, it is important to correct for the many potential biases, beliefs, preferences, and conflicts of interest that could lead to subjective consensus decisions, and to ensure that consensus-based recommendations reflect the views of a heterogenous and diverse group of experts.


How can it be a consensus when all sides of an issue have not been considered and differing views are being censored? What about all the out-of-the-box thinkers in history who have challenged conventional thinking and moved the needle forward for all humankind? Consensus is, in fact, a perfect cover for conflicts of interest like ties to pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, or other commercial entities, which compromise the integrity and impartiality of the consensus process. Or, some experts may be more inclined to favor consensus recommendations aligned with the interests of their research funding sources. Others may have intellectual biases based on long-standing beliefs or theories they are hesitant to challenge. And what about all the times in medical history when consensus beliefs were proven wrong, and patients were harmed in the process because the establishment clung to a flawed premise?


Once a consensus is reached, there is often resistance to updating recommendations based on new and emerging evidence, which leads to guidelines becoming quickly outdated and not reflecting the latest advances in science. Studies have shown that even after claims have been disproven in the medical literature, they often persist for years and even decades before they retreat from use. Dr. David Sackett, considered one of the ‘fathers’ of evidence-based medicine, once had this advice for medical students:


“Half of what you’ll learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out of date within five years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half – so the most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own.”


Reference: 25 times the medical consensus had to be revisited: https://imahealth.org/25-times-medical-consensus-had-to-be-rethought/



Final Food for Thought

 

Another point to consider is that only scientists and researchers that follow a certain corporate narrative in their hypothesis and findings will receive funding.  Those who go against the narrative struggle to receive funding to follow their research, and in many cases are threatened with job loss and public ridicule if they try to publish their reports.

 

The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists

 

... the one issue that came through loud and clear ... was that their “careers were being hijacked by perverse funding incentives”

 

The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review

 

“Corporate interests can drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant for public health.”

 

Uncovering Hidden Bias in Clinical Research

 

“There are also lots of documents on how they courted researchers by paying them lots and lots of money but they would cut them off and not pay them anymore if they started publishing findings that were not favorable to the industry.”

 

When big companies fund academic research, the truth often comes last

 

Industry sponsors suppress publication

 

“An early career academic recently sought my advice about her industry-funded research. Under the funding contract – that was signed by her supervisor – she wouldn’t be able to publish the results of her clinical trial.

 

Another researcher, a doctoral student, asked for help with her dissertation. Her work falls under the scope of her PhD supervisor’s research funding agreement with a company. This agreement prevented the publication of any work deemed commercial-in-confidence by the industry funder. So, she will not be allowed to submit the papers to fulfil her dissertation requirements.

 

Senior researchers can also be vulnerable to industry suppressing their research. In the 1980s, a pharmaceutical company funded a researcher to compare their brand’s thyroid drug to its generic counterparts. The researcher found the generics were as good as the branded products. 

 

The funder then went to great lengths to suppress the publication of her findings, including taking legal action against her and her university.”

 


 

 


Comments

bottom of page