THE LIES MY MOTHER TOLD ME

WHEN IS A LIE REALLY A LIE?

I’ve been thinking alot about the truth these days. That seemingly easy, identifiable knowing that in fact, isn’t so easy to determine. Truth is defined as “that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality” and “a fact or belief that is accepted as true”. It is the latter that has plagued the Covid narrative.

My recent investigation of the truth started with my last post regarding the suggestion of amnesty for those who told the public health party line (lie) that the “vaccines” “were safe and effective”. It’s led me down a rabbit hole of sorts as I’ve reviewed my experience with lies, or perhaps I should call them untruths, throughout my childhood. I believe it’s reasonable to call them untruths, when there was no perceived intention to harm. My husband suggested I use the terms “benign vs malignant misinformation” but somehow, I’m resisting calling myths and folklore benign misinformation.

Perhaps the first untruth I can remember was about the tooth fairy. Most of us were told that if we put our recently lost tooth under our pillow, the tooth fairy would leave us some money. At the Rabin household, that was $1.00. Of course I remember hearing about Santa Claus and his reindeer, as all children did but, being Jewish, we pretty much dismissed such untruths during my childhood.

The next untruth I can remember that really affected me, was during my first trip to Italy. I was 8 years old and my father had gotten a one year internship working on frescos as an art restorer, at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence Italy. We left our home in New Jersey, by taxi, during a snowstorm and were actually delayed arriving at the airport. In addition to the snow, the taxi got a flat tire which further delayed our arrival. In those days, it was a propeller plane that flew us to Italy and believe it or not, they actually held our flight until we arrived. Imagine that! Once we were in the air and my stressed out parents were able to relax, I remember asking my dad about something that I was frightened about. Having just experienced these unfortunate series of events in the taxi, I asked my dad what would happen to us if there was a problem with the plane. I can still see an imagine, in my mind’s eye, of this conversation. I was sitting by the window, a most coveted seat, as it allowed me to view the ground as well as the clouds and my dad was next to me. He paused for a bit, clearly thinking about how he wanted to answer my question. I remember him looking straight at me and explained that we’d be flying over the ocean for most of the flight. He then reminded me that I had in fact learned to swim, which I proudly concurred. He concluded that therefore, I’d be just fine should the plane run into difficulties and have to land on the water because I knew how to swim. With that simple story (lie), my father put my mind at ease and I was completely relaxed for the duration of the trip.

Another untruth was something my mom taught me. She told me that if I was a “good” person, good things would come into my life. If only that were true. I certainly understand why she’d say something like that, to encourage my good behavior of course, but as we all know, that certainly doesn’t guarantee any advantages in ones life.

Growing up in a reformed jewish household, (meaning not very religious) my parents were able to avoid any religious discussions about heaven and hell, devils and saints, and even Santa Claus but I must admit, it left me without anything to hold onto when I was confronted with the death of someone or an animal. I remember asking my mom one night, as she was tucking me into bed, what happens when you die? She replied that it was just like when we went to sleep at night. Unfortunately I never found any comfort in that explanation. Going to sleep wasn’t something that I ever looked forward to, as I do now at my advanced age :-). Interestingly, I learned at my mother’s funeral, that the word for cemetery, in Hebrew, is translated to mean the House of the Living. I imagine that relates to the souls of the deceased, which never die, but it certainly shifted my view of cemeteries for sure. I remember as a teen, we had a an interesting folk tradition of holding our breath whenever passing a cemetery which, in New Jersey, were very large plots of land. You can imagine, that was a challenge for a little one to hold one’s breath for so long!

I’m sure everyone has stories and memories of such childhood untruths but, suffice it to say, these were not meant to cause harm in any way. Some were cultural traditions that have been told to children throughout the generations. Some became old wives tales, many of which have actually stood the test of time. One can look to the history of burning of witches worldwide, solely for practicing herbal folk medicine often handed down for generations, to see the consequences of going against the norm.

As I was already down the rabbit hole, I took a detour and started thinking about new ideas or thoughts that were outside of mainstream thinking, in an attempt to get a different perspective on that phenomenon. We currently live in an unfortunately black and white world. Something is either right or wrong, good or bad but, as we all know, life actually exists in shades of gray. Of course some things are very black or white such as murder, or violence which reflects intentionally doing harm to another, but even something like theft has shades of gray. Imagine a family is literally starving and a mother steals a gallon of milk for her children. Enter a shade of gray.

Here’s something I’d love to hear your feedback on. My daughter married a man from the midwest who became an emergency room physician. He was very conservative in nature, but a thoughtful, good hearted man for sure. As a child of the 60’s myself, I was anything but traditional. I was a hippie during my college years, who pretty much followed the cultural philosophy in “drugs, sex and rock n’roll”. I remember the four of us, me, my husband, Jennifer and Josh, were walking in Portland and had stopped for a red light. I looked both ways and literally not a car was coming in either direction. As a former east coaster, I simply stepped off the sidewalk and walked across the street. I noticed that my son-in-law was still waiting on the curb however, unwilling to cross against the red light. When we sat down for lunch, I decided to ask Josh why he wasn’t comfortable crossing the street with me. His answer was something I could never have imagined. He asked me, what do I think would have happened if a child had been looking out the window of a car at that exact moment and saw 4 adults essentially ignoring the red light and crossing the street? For that reason, he chose to follow the rules. Does he have a point? Obviously if there had been children watching such an event, of course it wouldn’t have been a good thing for them to witness. When I hold my granddaughter’s hand, age 4, while crossing the street, I always exaggerate looking both ways to visually demonstrate to her the importance of checking for cars in the street while asking her to recite the rule about crossing the street. Am I however, responsible for all children who might happen to be watching me at any given time? In the ideal world, the answer would be yes. In the real world, I’m not so sure.

Here’s another rule imposed by my mom. Always behave in ways that you’d be happy to read about in the newspaper. If you were ever questioning whether it was okay to do something, all you had to do was ask yourself, how would I feel if someone recorded my behavior and showed it to the world? Now that’s an effective strategy for sure. Today that very thing has been used countless times by citizens recording police behavior on their iphones. Unfortunately however, it didn’t save George Floyd’s life. Perhaps today it might have.

In reality, we’re left with many real life issues that we must make decisions about. You didn’t think I’d actually write a post about something that didn’t lead us back to Covid did you? Let’s not forget, I’m a psychologist and not a medical doctor. The biggest question I’ve been asking myself recently relates to the silence of physicians during this pandemic. We know that all of them must be seeing increases in all aspects of illness. Is it o.k for them to remain silent about the safety of the vaccines so that they can keep their jobs, keep their medical licenses and continue to provide financial support to their families? Let’s not forget that famous oath that they took to “first do no harm”. Isn’t silence a form of tacit approval after all? Doesn’t that represent a lie? As I said in countless posts over this last year, I believe they had, and continue to have a moral and ethical obligation to care for their patients. I believe they had an obligation to provide informed consent to their patients… period. I believe their best path was to engage with their local peers and find strength in their numbers.

Another issue that must be examined relates to advances in medicine. Although Big Pharma has been able to achieve tremendous success in advancing their best interests during Covid, the field of medicine moves v e r y s l o w l y. It typically takes decades to shift mainstream medicine onto a new path. Take the discovery of bacteria and germs. When a physician tried to sound the alarm about the benefit of washing one’s hands between patients and cadavers, he was shunned by his profession. How could these so called invisible germs do any harm to anyone? He was forced to leave the practice of medicine and died a poor man who had lost the respect of his colleagues. It took another 50 years before that became an accepted practice.

An excellent example of this type of rigid, narrow thinking happened to Dr. Linus Pauling, when he provided research on the remarkable benefits of IV vitamin C. He was discredited by a fraudulent clinical trial and journal articles written by physicians from the Mayo Clinic. As you may know, Pauling’s research clearly concluded that the only way to have effective, levels of vitamin C circulating in the blood for treatment purposes, and that didn’t induce serious diarrhea, was to administer it intravenously. So what did the Mayo doctors do in their replication trial? They used oral vitamin C, at a substantially lower dose and of course found that the results were not what Pauling’s research had promised. To add insult to injury, that led the AMA to literally prohibit any licensed physician from administering IV vitamin C for ANY reason. Consider that reality for a moment. The AMA was able to take away a physician’s medical license for giving a patient IV vitamin C. Mainstream media never reported on the fraud and it had remained in effect, essentially until Covid. I did find an interesting note, a few years ago, on the American Cancer Society website, speaking of the use of IV vitamin C as a possible cancer treatment. They noted that perhaps skepticism from the Mayo clinics data might have been responsible for the prevailing negative beliefs about this important treatment intervention. I checked back on their site and this section is no longer available. I did however find something similar on cancer.gov.

Here’s the back story regarding the research by Cameron and Pauling.

In 1976, they published a study of 100 patients with terminal cancer treated with ascorbate. Their disease progression and survival rates were compared to 1000 retrospective control patients who were matched with the vitamin C-treated patients regarding age, sex, type of cancer and clinical stage and who were treated by the same physicians in the same hospital, and in the same way except that they did not receive vitamin C. Although the study was not well designed by modern standards, mainly because they lacked the placebo-control group, the results demonstrated that patients treated with vitamin C had improved quality of life and a four-fold increase in their mean survival time. In a follow up study, Cameron and Pauling reported that 22% of vitamin C-treated cancer patients survived for more than one year compared to only 0.4% of control patients. A clinical trial in Japan independently showed a similar result. With these promising outcomes, interest in the potential of vitamin C for cancer therapy grew. However, double-blind randomized clinical trials directed by Charles Moertel of the Mayo Clinic failed to show any positive effects of high dose vitamin C in cancer patients, as reported in two papers in the journal of New England Journal of Medicine. Because the Mayo Clinic’s clinical trials were conducted more rigorously, people trusted the Mayo Clinic’s data and discredited the Cameron-Pauling trials, dampening the enthusiasm for vitamin C as a cancer therapy. 

So why did the Pauling and Mayo Clinic trials have different results? There are at least two crucial differences. First, the Mayo Clinic trials abruptly stopped the ascorbate administration, switching to traditional chemotherapy, when the patient developed signs of tumor progression. Thus, the overall median time of vitamin C treatment under the Mayo Clinic trials was only 2.5 months, while the Pauling and Cameron trials treated patients for the duration of the entire study period or as long as 12 years. Secondly, the Mayo Clinic trials administered 10 g of daily ascorbate to patients only orally, while the Cameron and Pauling trials administered their vitamin C both orally and intravenously. This difference in the two dosage routes proved highly consequential.

Challenges of conducting a randomized controlled trial for vitamin C cancer therapy

There are at least three challenges that have thus far prevented large-scale, randomized controlled trials of vitamin C for cancer therapy. First, vitamin C is not patentable. Therefore, there is no financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to support vitamin C clinical trials, and those that have been done have largely relied on government grants and small private donations. Second, as discussed above, vitamin C cancer therapy has a long history of controversy. Due to the Mayo clinical studies in the 1980s, many orthodox, mainstream clinicians have a prejudice against vitamin C therapy. Third, although many preclinical studies showed high dose vitamin C could kill cancer cells or retard tumor growth in vivo, vitamin C’s mechanisms of action have not been clear, making it hard to predict the pharmacodynamics, the rational design of combinational therapy, and biomarkers for patient stratification. Fortunately, a growing number of recent and rigorous preclinical studies have begun resolving the third challenge, which may also lead to overcoming the first and second barriers. Mechanistic insights into the action of pharmacological vitamin C will generate more explicit scientific hypotheses and allow clinicians to design better trials to investigate those hypotheses, ultimately leading to a definitive answer to the question: can the pharmacological administration of ascorbate benefit cancer patients? Recently, we discussed the potential mechanisms by which vitamin C may act in cancer patients in Nature Reviews Cancer. Here we will highlight one of the mechanisms discovered by our group that relates to Ras protein. 

These very issues, unfortunately, continue to plague current scientific research, thanks to our captured public health authorities who typically provide the necessary funding with tax payer dollars. So why bring up this fraud at this time? That’s exactly what our public health agencies have been doing with ivermectin research. Decades later and they’re still using the same tricks and our investigative journalists are providing tacit approval with their silence once again. They conveniently lowered the dose of ivermectin, they reduced the trial length of time that patients got the medicine and they delayed the early treatment time, which should have been similar to paxlovid, (within 3-5 days of first symptoms) but in some cases, extended the time from first symptom up to 7-10 days. According to the quote above, “many orthodox, mainstream clinicians have a prejudice against vitamin C therapy” and now that has happened with ivermectin. So we now understand that old beliefs in medicine die hard. It reminds me of an Obama speech where he explained that the government moves very slowly, like a huge ocean liner. “Sometimes the task of government is to make incremental improvements or try to steer the ocean liner two degrees north or south so that, ten years from now, suddenly we’re in a very different place than we were. At the moment, people may feel like we need a fifty-degree turn; we don’t need a two-degree turn. And you say, ‘Well, if I turn fifty degrees, the whole ship turns’ ” over.”

Can we wait another 10 years to fix the profound conflicts of interest that have pervaded our public health agencies or must we create new and conflict free agencies that truly put the public interest at heart? Can we allow the field of medicine to remain stymied by the mistaken beliefs held from years ago or must it evolve to be a flexible, transparent and innovative system that encourages creativity and debate? We can no longer afford to allow that prejudice of how things used to be to continue when research proves otherwise. Can we allow the exalted AMA to dictate what physicians are allowed to do - even with vitamins for God’s sake. Or FDA approved drugs that have been safely given to 4 billion people, when EUAs can be easily given for novel gene therapies that have failed to produce safety and efficacy over the last 10 years of trials and attempts with mRNA technology? I think we all know the answer to these questions.

Now one final question. What are you prepared to do about it? In my experience, most people feel that there isn’t much that they can actually do to change the system or the narrative. I disagree. Where would we be if Dr. Pierre Kory or Dr. Paul Marik or Dr. Robert Malone (fill in your favorite Covid hero) felt that there wasn’t anything they could do either? There are many wonderful organizations that are fighting the good fight that would benefit from your involvement and support. Certainly the FLCCC comes to mind, along with the World Council for Health, The Children’s Health Defense, the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation and Trial Site News. For those unfamiliar with Trial Site News, I believe it is the only medical medical news reporting site that actually has done a transparent job of providing the accurate science behind Covid. Each of these organizations were designed to impact change through the information they provide. Each organization seeks to inform the public of the truth and expose the lies that we’ve been subjected to. Each of these organizations provides educational information that is critical if we’re to make the changes necessary to protect ourselves, our children and grandchildren and the healthy future of all Americans and those around the world. I encourage each of you to turn your righteous anger into activism and support those doing the work that will hopefully change the course of medicine and public health as we know it.