You won’t believe this…
—-Important Message From Our Sponsor—-
This is how you get her to open up (no talking needed)
It’s super important to build a connection with a woman.
But how do you do that if you don’t want to sit around in boring conversation?
I found a method that works awesomely, and it works because women are always SO curious about the future…
…relationships in the future…what the future holds…
That’s why women love fortune tellers and why “cold reading” was a big thing several years ago.
My little method doesn’t require cold reading or psychic anything — it’s so simple that any guy can get a girl to open up, connect with him, and want sex with him.
Is your doctor depending on this fake study?
Both the medical industry and general consumers rely on peer reviewed medical journals to get quality, accurate information.
Most of what I publish in this newsletter is based on articles and studies from medical journals.
Medical journals are perceived as the most trusted providers of medical information for doctors, researchers and patients. The journals are generally regarded as an unbiased, reliable source of information about ‘chemical’ interventions.
But there are concerns about how medical journals are funded and if they are really as independent as we think they are.
That’s because most medical journals rely heavily on Big Pharma ads and the purchasing of reprints in order to stay in business.
For many journals, revenue from ‘Big Pharma’ advertising and the purchasing of reprints constitutes a substantial proportion of their income. Concerns about whether ‘Big Pharma’ funding is corrupting medical journals has been an ongoing issue.
This isn’t new either. It’s been an ongoing problem for decades.
Dr. Richard Smith talks about his experience in the early 1980s with a then new anti-inflammatory treatment, benoxaprofen.
This treatment has serious side effects and was eventually banned.
One of my first experiences of the relation between medical journals and ‘Big Pharma’ occurred in the early 1980s after the BMJ had published papers suggesting that a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory ‘treatment,’ benoxaprofen, might have serious side effects.
Publishing this research brought on a prompt visit from men who worked for Eli Lilly — the maker of the treatment.
We were visited by three stern men from Eli Lilly, the makers of the ‘treatment.’ Tony Smith, the deputy editor, conducted the meeting and asked me to join him. The men, whom I remember (probably wrongly) as having gold teeth, threatened us with legal action, at which point Tony said: “In that case we’ll see you in court.” They backtracked hastily and asked simply to be able to publish a prompt response.
The problem can get even thornier.
Big Pharma relies on good reporting from medical journals and these types of editorial articles are often much more valuable to them in terms of sales than traditional advertising.
That reporting can often be biased or slanted because the journals don’t want to “bite the hand that feeds them.”
Editorial coverage is much more valuable to ‘Big Pharma’ than advertising, and scientific studies can be manipulated in many ways to give results favourable to companies.
Add to all of this the misleading and sometimes deceptive nature of the ads that appear in the medical journals and you have a recipe for big time problems.
We have good evidence to show that much ‘Big Pharma’ advertising is misleading. A US congressional inquiry reported that from August 1997 to August 2002 the ‘FDA’ issued 88 letters accusing ‘Big Pharma’ of advertising violations. In many cases companies overstated the effectiveness of the ‘treatment’ or minimised its risks.
All of this creates a system in which medical journals and the doctors that read them can be influenced by the very people they are supposed to be reporting on.
Ads in medical journals can and do influence the treatment choices of doctors.
And since the ads and reprints from Big Pharma often pay for the medical journals existence they can also influence what gets printed.
It’s always a good idea when researching medical issues to read as many different studies on the same subject as possible.
This helps to reduce the amount of bias you’ll experience.
And better yet, determine why a study supposedly works, or doesn’t work.
The underlying theory that the study is based upon — is that theory sound?
I see tons of studies that have nonsense as underlying theories.
These are studies that show how statins are good for you, how we need fancy and dangerous diabetic drugs, etc.
The theories underlying these studies are nonsense.
I use an underlying theory of how the body works — and that theory has stood the test of time.
If a study is based upon nonsense, it will come up with nonsense.
And some of what I do may be frankly dangerous…
Why they could be coming after me next
I’m not one to make wild accusations or jump on the next big conspiracy train…
But something weird is going on…
It has to do with these health researchers who were all working on the same breakthrough medical discovery…
They all died or disappeared very mysteriously…
And what they were working on was so big, so huge… it could have potentially blown the entire medical industry wide open…
Everything I’m about to share with you today has the potential to jeopardize my entire career as a health researcher…
…and maybe even my life…
Because “they” do NOT want you seeing this…”they” do NOT want you knowing these strange facts…
You see, this natural discovery has the power to save millions of men from an early death.
So I have to get this out there…