Potassium iodide and asthma; and peer review process due in part to Robert Maxwell - video by Dr Alex Vasquez.
Relative Risk vs Absolute Risk; and what about those banks?
Dr. Vasquez is a reader and he spent many early years simply reading academic journals in a cover to cover method, practically. He was simply curious to find out whatever was being discussed. He noticed a change in treatment focus around 1965. Nutrient treatments like potassium iodide went from being the standard used, safely, effectively, to being warned not to use ~ use modern medications instead! They were shown to provide a relative rate of effectiveness in a clinical trial! Roughly - biased rather than neutral with the patient’s best interests as the center of the moral stance.
Tangent about the statistics and how they can be used to mislead the public.
Relative risk or relative rate of effectiveness is a statistical con that CoV revealed. If 20 patients out of one hundred are helped by potassium iodide or some other treatment that is 1 out of every five being helped. Relative risk is a statistical estimate of how many people might be helped if a much larger number took a treatment trying to prevent a problem. It is confusing and James Lyons-Weiler made a video that helped during earlier CoV but I don’t know where it is now. Relative risk can seem like an impressively large percentage while the absolute risk is a much lower number - the Absolute Risk for the Control group might be 1% and the Absolute Risk for the Treatment group may be 0.9% and then the claim is that the Relative Risk is greatly reduced! a Ninety percent reduction in risk! However - both groups only had ten or less cases out of a 1000 people so the real risk was only 9 or 10 out of a 1000. (I think.)
James Lyons-Weiler, Oct 12, 2022, Author, comment on post: Vaccine Study: Monkeypox Post-Vaccine Breakthrough Risk is 1500 Times Greater than General Monkeypox Infection. Before Your Adjust for Demographics. After adjustment, it's Only 50 Greater (substack.com)
I think you mean "Absolute Risk Reduction"?
Absolute risk = the # of events (good or bad) in treated or control groups, divided by the number of people in that group (call this AR)
Absolute Risk Control = the AR of events in the control group (call this ARC)
Absolute Risk Treatment = the AR of events in the treatment group (call this ART)
Absolute risk reduction = (ARC – ART) (call this ARR)
RR (relative risk) = ART / ARC
You can try your hand at the calculation of ARR
Or see a Twitter Thread by @TedFarr3. “Pfizer advertises 95% effectiveness for their COVID vaccine. They use relative risk to calculate that number from the number of cases. Using relative risk is a common ploy that drug companies use to mislead people into believing their product is far more effective than it is.” Dr. John H. @TedFarr3
Back to the video and the history of academic publishing:
Dr. V started digging into the history of academic publishing and learned that Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell's father was involved; *and allegedly he was first generation in the government blackmailer league along with Roy Cohn.
See: Whitney Webb’s series about Epstein and his mentor/precursor Roy Cohn (mintpressnews.com
Maxwell saw universities buying the academic journal subscriptions so he thought flooding the market would lead to them being forced to keep buying more in order to stay current with competitors. The inundation led to lack of editors to keep up and lack of editorial control and that led to the peer review process being created as a solution.
Background: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? “It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google – and it was created by one of Britain’s most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell.”
by Stephen Buranyi, (theguardian.com)
Back to asthma and potassium iodide as a treatment.
Potassium iodide was found helpful for asthma and respiratory issues but the doses mentioned might have been excessive over time, 12 mg per day was typical. Sometimes more was used up to 30 mg was mentioned.
Aside: Dr. Brownstein only uses the very high 50 mg dose for one month in order to help the body clear out bromide, fluoride, or excess chloride - swap it for the iodide.
Selenium use [* ~200 mcg] is also important to take with the iodine/iodide, as antioxidant support, and vitamin C was mentioned also.
Dr. Vasquez discusses the potassium as also being medicinally active and beneficial up to the point where it would be too much - and that is important to know and avoid. *Risk can be from too much all at once. Go for divided doses over the day as potassium is an electrolyte and water soluble.
Dosing specifics and what was standard is worth reviewing - with the idea that “We (Dr. Vasquez) doctors should be or could be prescribing this treatment protocol for asthma, that was found effective for some patients with severe asthma and was once a standard treatment.
This cartoon fits the theme of controlled academia:
Nice tie. Professional, and caring. Business friendly.
When things are neatly packaged, you have to wonder what was left out.
“Of course, you’re allowed to ask questions.
Here is the list of approved questions.”
“You’re absolutely free to study and investigate for yourself.
Here is the list of approved sources.”
“We’re not trying to stifle thought!
We want you to learn everything you can as you reach the approved conclusions.”
The approved conclusions seem to be that health is a myth or something that only can be prescribed with a pharmaceutical product (which likely causes harm in actuality).
We need to take back control of our thoughts, ask our own questions and seek our own sources and conclusions.
Risk is relative to your situation. Catherine Austin Fitts analysis of the CoV scamdemic and race riots was that they were about the bigger financial picture. I am not going to lose a fortune in the bank because I don't have a fortune in a bank to lose. That also means I don't have to kill off pensioners whose pension fund I drained, metaphorically.
Search my archives for Catherine Austin Fitts; I have several posts about the economic underpinnings of the CoV plandemic.
Addition (= not in emailed draft) - this website about sex versus gender identity and how it impacts many areas of life, has a nice page on how collecting data about sex versus gender only impacts healthcare. An abrupt reversal in government policy by the UK is described - sex data had been recognized as a need and policies created, and now with trans issues taking precedence recording of sex is suddenly being discouraged or not required. Gender identification is now being used and the patient will then receive automated mailings about things like breast or prostate cancer screenings which would be inappropriate for the actual DNA sex/body parts. (sex-matters.org)
Disclaimer: This information is being shared for educational purposes within the guidelines of Fair Use and is not intended to provide individual health guidance.
Thanks for reading deNutrients - News to Use! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.