DK 🇺🇸

Just a curious cat, wandering among the trolls of the internets...

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Every one of these was safe, right up to the year it was withdrawn.

Radithor: radium dissolved in water, sold as a tonic. Safe until 1932, when a millionaire's jaw came away.

Diethylstilbestrol: given to pregnant women to hold the baby. Safe until 1971, when the daughters got cancer.

Thalidomide: for morning sickness. Safe until 1961.

Seldane: the hay fever tablet. Safe until 1998, when the hearts stopped.

Fen-phen: the diet pill. Safe until 1997, when the valves went.

Rezulin: for diabetes. Safe until 2000, when the livers went.

Baycol: a statin. Safe until 2001, when the muscle dissolved.

Vioxx: for arthritis. Safe until 2004, after eighty million people had taken it.

Avandia: for diabetes. Safe until 2010, when somebody counted the heart attacks.

Darvon: a painkiller. Safe for fifty-three years, until 2010.

Every one licensed. Every one prescribed with confidence by a doctor who had read the label. Every one swallowed by people who did exactly as they were told.

The weight loss jab has been safe since 2021.

Give it time.

[Carl Benjamin 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Sargon_of_Akkad]

I will no longer be debating Lindsay Clancy supporters. I will just be posting this video in reply to any of them.

[Andrew Zywiec, M.D. @AndrewZywiecMD]

Ok, I'm going to explain this simply.

Tylenol reduces glutathione. Glutathione is an antioxidant that highly mitigates inflammatory damage. If a mother has an illness during pregnancy, something called maternal immune activation (MIA) can occur in response. This is known to cause deleterious effects to fetal development. This is all well documented and not controversial.

If she takes Tylenol during this inflammation to reduce symptoms, it can also cause a reduction in the ability to mitigate the inflammation, which can exacerbate any potential fetal damage. There is a risk to benefit ratio in every medication. In this instance, the risk is fetal damage, and the benefit is reduction in symptoms. The risk outweighs the benefit.

Vaccines cause inflammation. That is, in fact, the goal. Create inflammation to generate an immune response. So pregnant women are given vaccines, which causes inflammation, and cause MIA, which potentially harms fetal development, and then are given Tylenol, which simply exacerbates the situation.

I really wish people would just look at these things from an empirical perspective and stop politicizing everything.

Feel free to look up anything I just said. It's all textbook medical knowledge.

For decades, doctors implored pregnant women to take extra care of themselves, avoid all drugs, toxic foods, get adequate rest, reduce workload, etc, because a developing fetal is exceptionally vulnerable.

Please stop spreading incorrect information that harms patients.

[Mary Talley Bowden MD @MaryBowdenMD]

Thanks to improved sanitation and nutrition, measles deaths plummeted to 0.24 per 100,000 3 years before the measles vaccine became available.

[Sahil Bloom @SahilBloom]

The older I get, the more I realize that one of the most attractive traits is genuine enthusiasm. It's energizing to spend time around people who show real excitement for life. For people, ideas, and tiny moments. It takes courage to care so openly. Enthusiasm is contagious.

[Merriam-Webster @MerriamWebster]

Why is it ‘cancelled’ in the U.K. but ‘canceled’ in the U.S.?

Because we gave them that L in 1776.

[Thomas Massie for Congress @MassieforKY]

I did not see this coming, but my election has become an inflection point for our whole country. Today we make history.

Will you be part of this historic day by voting, calling friends who can vote, posting to social media, or making a donation?

Spread the word fellow patriots!

[DK 🇺🇸 @DimaK5504]

Ok this is fantastic...way to go Spencer Pratt!

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.

The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.

The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.

The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.

The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.

The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.

The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.

Now it is today.

Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus.

He is confident.

He has always been confident.

The confidence has never been the problem.

The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

Incredible

[Itay Shechter @gfbeef_]

Homemade American Bread 🇺🇸🍞

[DK 🇺🇸 @DimaK5504]

@paulsaladinomd Do you need the hydrogen peroxide or can that be skipped? I'm not confident about diluting it and you skipped that step in your video :)

[Chief Nerd @TheChiefNerd]

Secretary Kennedy is special.

Listen to this advice 👇

[Mary Talley Bowden MD @MaryBowdenMD]

@statnews Alarming their pocketbooks.

[Steve 🇺🇸 @SteveLovesAmmo]

Perfect explanation!

[DK 🇺🇸 @DimaK5504]

@money_cruncher @grok, what is the recommended tax strategy that this post is attempting to convey?

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

🚨BREAKING: American Academy of Pediatrics SLAMMED With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud

AAP accused of operating a decades-long racketeering scheme that deceived America about vaccine safety for maximum profit.

Children's Health Defense and multiple plaintiffs just filed a federal RICO fraud case against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

This isn’t a policy dispute. It’s an organized fraud allegation—using the same legal framework that took down Big Tobacco.

The lawsuit alleges the AAP helped manufacture false certainty that the CDC childhood vaccine schedule is thoroughly tested and safe.

It highlights the lack of proper vaccinated vs. unvaccinated safety comparisons for the cumulative schedule, despite repeated calls for more research.

Plaintiffs argue the AAP relied on theoretical talking points, not rigorous real-world safety validation, to shut down scrutiny.

Physicians allege they were professionally targeted and financially harmed for deviating from AAP protocols or questioning vaccine safety claims.

Families allege severe injury and death following routine vaccination—and claim medical judgment was overridden by rigid “standard of care” enforcement.

The complaint raises major conflict-of-interest concerns, including industry money and incentive structures tied to high vaccination rates.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages, forced disclosure of safety-testing gaps, and an end to blanket “safe and effective” assurances without qualification.

For years, parents were told to “trust the experts,” while legitimate safety questions were mocked, censored, or punished.

Now those questions are headed to the one place the system can’t silence them with talking points: federal court.

@ChildrensHD

[DK 🇺🇸 @DimaK5504]

@ReesePolitics @grok, explain what this means for the US economy and what a rise in bond yield means in practical terms

[DK 🇺🇸 @DimaK5504]

@charlesmayne69 @GSpellchecker @grok, this is really annoying. If there is a way to prevent this from happening on X, please let us know!

[Secretary Kennedy @SecKennedy]

Thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for children's health, gold standard science, and common sense.