50% OF ATHLETES IN BIG 10 HAVE MYOCARDITIS

The problem with all of these “peer reviewed” papers is that they are full of errors, ambiguities and hyperbole.

For example:

I recently read a paper on pubmed on Quercetin and it’s potential to cause cancer! That paper came out right after the Covid Lockdown (coincidence, I’m sure…) and I was searchingg for: Quercetin Polyphenols to treat Alzherimers (a long time friend was diagnosed) and the cancer-claim-paper came up a few down, so I thought, “Wow – I haven’t seen that claim before, maybe I’ll take a look and see what they are haning their hats on”.

There was, in that paper of over 200 cited pubishings, a single citation regarding the cancer claim.

When you clicked it, it took you to another paper that spelled out how that claim (quercetin causes cancer) came to be.

What was cited, was a university study/paper from Japan (from late April 2020 if I remember correctly).

First, the entire sample size consisted of 100 rats (50M/50F – No tranny rats). That alone (the small sample size) makes all results almost worthless.

However, if you dug deeper, you found they were entirely worthless because the 100 rats were given:

1.) 4% daily quercetin in diet! Holy SHIT! That equivocates to an average male eating 2 plus ounces (56 Grams+) of Quercetin daily. A 1000mg table is plenty – NO ONE takes that much quercetin. It produced 8 rats of 100 with health issues – only 1 of those had potential malignancy on the kidney. All rats with health issues were male, which could lead to speculation on the consistency of diet fed to each group, or could just reflect a m/f difference in uptake, processing, expulsion, etc.

Regardless, the 4% diet and 1 of 100 rats developing a renal malignancy, was what THE ENTIRE claim was based on. As the info./claim migrated through multiple authors/papers, the claim turned into: Quercetin has the potential to cause cancer. And it’s complete bullshit.

I wonder, did the author of the first paper I was reading (the one that cited the Japanese paper), actually read the paper they cited. If they had, the claim (Quercetin can cause cancer) would not have legitimately found it’s way into the paper that cited the poorly done Japanese study/paper.

2.) 2% daily quercetin diet (ounce a day for average guy – 28 grams) – 0 rats with health issues

3.) 1% daily quercetin diet (1/2 ounce per day – 14 grams) – 0 rats with health issues

If you can’t read the scientific paper, and ALL CITATIONS listed, and ALL CITATIONS in those, and on down the line – AND NO ONE CAN DO THIS – then there is a VERY GOOD chance that everything you are reading is hyperbole, built on errors, built on ambiguities, built on hyperbole, built on….

There is just as good a probability that the 2.3% claim is incorrect or a lie, as there is that the 50%+ claim is bullshit. Or, that one or the other is completely accurate. Or, that both are wrong and it is much higher/lower. There is not enough VALID and VALIDATED information/data to honestly make a call at this time.

This entire issue of Covid/Vaccine-Harm is being clouded again and again to prevent anyone from knowing the real number and extent of injuries. That leads one to conclude the numbers are high and ass-covering is taking place.

And that it’s on purpose to kick up dust and not just obscure truth, but make it extremely challenging or impossible to even begin looking for truth.