Category Archives: drugs

Vaccines barely worked, lockdowns seem to have made it worse.

Leave a reply

The first 15 months of the pandemic were grim periods of lockdown, except in Sweden where the health minister declared that lockdowns would not do anything except delay the inevitable. They chose to protect only the most vulnerable, and kept everything else open. By May, 2021, it looked like that was a mistake. Sweden had a seen a sickness and death rate that was fairly average for the world, but high compared to more locked down nordic countries, like Norway, Finland, and Germany. And now vaccines were here that were supposed to be 100% effective, both at stopping the sickness and the spread. We were at the end, opening up, and Sweden had blundered. They had ‘ignored the science,’ as Fauci put it.

Excess mortality January 26 2020 to March 1, 2023, from Our World in Data. I focus on excess deaths here, rather than COVID specifically, because death is a metric that is hard to fudge.

Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that the vaccines were far less than 100% effective. The current estimate is that 2 shots are 24% effective at preventing the disease and 0% effective at preventing the spread. This is a problem in much of medical science these days: successful results tend to be irreproducible, I discuss the reason here. The disease had evolved, and somehow the experiments had not noticed. What’s more they had side-effects (all drugs do). People were dying at a faster rate than before in the US, and in many European countries (see graph below). There was no flattening of the curve suggesting that the vaccine didn’t work. By last year, I had noticed that US COVID deaths did not decrease with the advent of vaccines. Strangely, deaths did not increase as fast in Sweden. By 2022, Sweden was doing better than its lock-down peers. As of today, it’s doing much better. So, what have we learned?

The results of the 6 month Pfizer trial already suggested there might be a problem -that perhaps the vaccine did more harm than good. The above were the results in the Biologics Licence Application (BLA) report (page 23), submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to apply for vaccine approval, November, 2021. The vaccine decreased COVID but increased other cause death even more. Suspicious.

The fact that the death rate did generally not go down when a majority were vaccinated and the most vulnerable were already dead suggests that vaccination does not help much. That excess death increased in some countries (Norway, Finland, Germany) suggests that either the side-effects of the vaccine are worse than the disease itself or that some other aspect of the treatment (lockdowns?) were worse than the disease. The vaccine still may be shown to have helped, but it doesn’t look like it helped much. The fact that lock-down countries are doing worse than Sweden suggests that lockdowns actually hurt. This is significant. One thing to learn is that you have a right to not trust medical science: you have a right to be wrong. Mr Spock never trusted Bones’s medicine. You have a particularly strong right to doubt when you have evidence as strong as the map below (excess deaths in Europe as it stood in December 2021). Already Sweden was doing well and the experts were looking very wrong.

A map of excess deaths in Europe as of December 2021. Already many countries had passed Sweden. Eastern and Southern Europe were particularly hard hit.

I can now speculate on the mechanism; why might lockdowns hurt or kill? I suggested it’s loneliness. Perhaps it’s inaction, or mental distress. People would rather get an electric shock than sit a think without doing anything. It might be that lockdowns prevented other medical treatment. Whatever the mechanism, you’d think that our government would have acknowledged, by early 2022, that lockdowns were not working. Instead virtually every state continued lockdowns through a good chunk of 2022 with school closures, limited seating, etc.

I suspect that “long COVID” may be a form of lock-down depression plus associated noxious behaviors: increased drug and alcohol use, lack of exercise, and avoiding treatment for health problems. I suggested iodine hand wash (and gargle) to stop the disease spread (I imagine it’s on surfaces), and still think it’s a good idea. Iodine is cheap and it definitely kills all germs. Other anti-isolation nostrums include exercise, lithium, aspirin, letters, and hydroxycholoroquine. There was reasonable statistical evidence for several of these things helping, though Fauci denied it. Perhaps they only helped via ‘the placebo effect’. But placebo cures are real, especially for mental problems.

Robert Buxbaum, March 30, 2023. As an add-on (April 2, 2013), I’d like to show the decline in life-expectancy in the US compared to other countries. Isolation is a killer. A lot of the blame goes to Fauci for continuing to push socially isolating solutions as “the science”, while blasting any who say otherwise. We’ve lost 3 years of life-span in 3 years — preventably avoided — when other countries have lost zero or one. There could be no greater inditement of the health management.

This is from the Financial Times. The US is doing worst of all in terms of lives lost to the pandemic and it continues. Isolating people is torture. We then blame them for feeling distrust. I blame Biden and Fauci.

Our Jail Minimums are Huge, or non-existent

Leave a reply

The United States has more people in prison, per-capita, than any other developed nation, see graph below. Our rate is double Russia’s, and barely below Cuba’s. About 38% of our prisoners are black. That’s a sign of cultural differences or systemic racism; perhaps both.

A major reason for our high prison rate is our huge minimum sentences. In Michigan, as most states, if you possess a firearm when committing a felony or an attempted felony, two years minimum are added to your sentence. The judge’s only allowed input is to add time, or to drop the felony charge. By law, two years minimum have to be added before (not during) the sentence for the underlying felony. It increases to 5 years minimum if you have a prior conviction, and 10 years if you have two or more prior convictions – on top of whatever the Judge decides for the crime. Typically, for a repeat offender, the judge will sentence zero for the felony, because 10 years is enough. Or he will drop the felony charge. The standard penalty, is either the huge minimum, or zero. About 25% of those in Michigan prison, are serving this minimum. Many others who should have gotten a month, or a year, were let go with nothing to avoid giving the minimum -crazy.

Countries with the highest prison population per 100,000 as of January 2023 (from statistica). No country in Europe makes this chart, Russia included.

These laws are specific to guns. No other deadly weapon is treated this way. A knife assailant serves the sentence for the assault only with adding 2 to 10 years minimum. We could go a long way to reduce the prison population if this add-on were moved or severely shortened. I’d like it shortened to 3 months, and broadened to all deadly weapons.

Minimums serve a purpose, I think, preventing violent felons from going free with a good sob-story. But our minimums too long to prevent crime and now only prevent rehabilitation. After ten years in prison, released felons have no life to return to, and no family. The only life they have is crime. It’s been speculated that our huge minimums make felons more violent. Saint Thomas Moore theorized this in the 1500s: A criminal facing a long prison sentence might as well kill the witnesses and hope to escape.

The Michigan State shooter,who killed 3 last week was a felon whose charge was dropped to avoid sending a mentally unstable black man to prison for 2 years. Anthony McRae, had a history as “a hell-raiser,” and was known to be mentally unstable. He had been shooting his gun outdoors near his home, and upon arrest was in possession of a concealed, loaded gun with no permit. These could be changed as firearm felonies, punished by 2 years minimum, or the Judge could drop the case, leaving McRae with his gun. The judge dropped the case, and returned the gun. McRae went on to kill with it. If the minimum were lower, 3 months say, I believe the judge would have convicted Mr McRae’s to that minimum, and taken his gun.

As it was, the judge was faced with the choice of ordering 2 years or nothing.

Our drug sentencing minimums are too high too, especially for “bad drugs.” These carry a 5 to 10 year minimum sentence with no chance for parole. But “dad drugs” are often the ones black people take: LSD, Crack, Heroin, and Methamphetamine. The drugs white politicians take are treated leniently, e.g. mayor Ford of Toronto, or Hunter Biden. I think we’d do everyone a favor by reducing drug minimums, even for bad drugs; for this, too, 2-3 month minimums should do with the judge having discretion to add.

There should be a maximum sentence too, I think, to stop hanging judges. And there should be rehabilitation, but it’s not clear we can manage that. The unions have opposed work-rehabilitation, calling it slave labor. Leader Dogs for the Blind allow prisoners to train guide dogs; it does wonderfully, but something bigger is needed. Lacking good rehabilitation, the smallest sentence that serves as a deterrent is what we should aim for.

Robert Buxbaum February 22, 2023. The original design of Sing-sing included work-rehabilitation in many crafts. The unions complained, and rehabilitation was stopped. Sentencing is a tough balancing act.

Social science is irreproducible, drug tests nonreplicable, and stoves studies ignore confounders.

12 Replies

Efforts to replicate the results of the most prominent studies in health and social science have found them largely irreproducible with the worst replicability appearing in cancer drug research. The figure below, from “The Reproducibility Project in Cancer Biology, Errington et al. 2021, compares the reported effects in 50 cancer drug experiments from 23 papers with the results from repeated versions of the same experiments, looking at a total of 158 effects.

Graph comparing the original, published effect of a cancer drug with the replication effect. The units are whatever units were used in the original study, percent, or risk ratio, etc. From “Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology,”
Timothy M Errington et al. Center for Open Science, United States; Stanford University, Dec 7, 2021, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601.

It’s seen that virtually none of the drugs are found to work the same as originally reported. Those below the dotted, horizontal line behaved the opposite in the replication studies. About half, those shown in pink, showed no significant effect. Of those that showed positive behavior as originally published, mostly they show about half the activity with two drugs that now appear to be far more active. A favorite web-site of mine, retraction watch, is filled with retractions of articles on these drugs.

The general lack of replicability has been called a crisis. It was first seen in the social sciences, e.g. the figure below from this article in Science, 2015. Psychology research is bad enough such that Nobel Laureate, Daniel Kahneman, came to disown most of the conclusions in his book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow“. The experiments that underly his major sections don’t replicate. Take, for example, social printing. Classic studies had claimed that, if you take a group of students and have them fill out surveys with words about the aged or the flag, they will then walk slower from the survey room or stand longer near a flag. All efforts to reproduce these studies have failed. We now think they are not true. The problem here is that much of education and social engineering is based on such studies. Public policy too. The lack of replicability throws doubt on much of what modern society thinks and does. We like to have experts we can trust; we now have experts we can’t.

From “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science” Science, 2015. Social science replication is better than dance drug replication, about 35% of the classic social science studies replicate to some, reasonable extent.

Are gas stoves dangerous? This 2022 environmental study said they are, claiming with 95% confidence that they are responsible for 12.7% of childhood asthma. I doubt the study will be reproducible for reasons I’ll detail below, but for now it’s science, and it may soon be law.

Part of the replication problem is that researchers have been found to lie. They fudge data or eliminate undesirable results, some more some less, and a few are honest, but the journals don’t bother checking. Some researchers convince themselves that they are doing the world a favor, but many seem money-motivated. A foundational study on Alzheimers was faked outright. The authors doctored photos using photoshop, and used the fake results to justify approval of non-working, expensive drugs. The researchers got $1B in NIH funding too. I’d want to see the researchers jailed, long term: it’s grand larceny and a serious violation of trust.

Another cause of this replication crisis — one that particularly hurt Daniel Kahneman’s book — is that many social science researchers do statistically illegitimate studies on populations that are vastly too small to give reliable results. Then, they only publish the results they like. The graph of z-values shown below suggest this is common, at least in some journals, including “Personality and social psychology Bulletin”. The vast fraction of results at ≥95% confidence suggest that researchers don’t publish the 90-95% of their work that doesn’t fit the desired hypothesis. While there has been no detailed analysis of all the social science research, it’s clear that this method was used to show that GMO grains caused cancer. The researcher did many small studies, and only published the one study where GMOs appeared to cause cancer. I review the GMO study here.

From Ulrich Schimmack, ReplicationIndex.com, January, 2023, https://replicationindex.com/2023/01/08/which-social-psychologists-can-you-trust/. If you really want to get into this he is a great resource.

The chart at left shows Z-scores, were Z = ∆X √n/σ. A Z score above 1.93 generally indicates significance, p < .05. Notice that almost all the studies have Z scores just over 1.93 that is almost all the studies proved their hypothesis at 95% confidence. That makes it seem that the researchers were very lucky, near prescient. But it’s clear from the distribution that there were a lot of studies that done but never shown to the public. That is a lot of data that was thrown out, either by the researchers or by the publishers. If all data was published, you’d expect to see a bell curve. Instead the Z values are of a tiny bit of a bell curve, just the tail end. The implication is that these studies with Z= >1.93 suggest far less than 95% confidence. This then shows up in the results being only 25% reproducible. It’s been suggested that you should not throw out all the results in the journal, just look for Z-scores of 3.6 or more. That leaves you with the top 23%, and these should have a good chance of being reproducible. The top graph somewhat supports this, but it’s not that simple.

Another classic way to cook the books, as it were, and make irreproducible studies provide the results you seek is to ignore “confounders.” This leads to association – causation errors. As an example, it’s observed that people taking aspirin have more heart attacks than those who do not, but the confounder is that aspirin is prescribed to those with heart problems; the aspirin actually helps, but appears to hurt. In the case of stoves, it seems likely that poorer, sicker people own gas, and that they live in older, moldy homes, and cook more at home, frying onions, etc. These are confounders that the study to my reading ignores. They could easily be the reason that gas stove owners get more asthma toxins than the rich folks who own electric, induction stoves. If you confuse association, you seem to find that owning the wrong stove causes you to be poor and sick with a moldy home. I suspect that the stove study will not replicate if they correct for the confounders.

I’d like to recommend a book, hardly mathematical, “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff ($8.99 on Amazon). I read it in high school. It gives you a sense of what to look out for. I should also mention Dr. Anthony Fauci. He has been going around to campuses saying we should have zero tolerance for those who deny science, particularly health science. Given that so much of health science research is nonreplicable, I’d recommend questioning all of it. Here is a classic clip from the 1973 movie, ‘Sleeper’, where a health food expert wakes up in 2173 to discover that health science has changed.

Robert Buxbaum , February 7, 2023.

Use iodine against Bad breath, Bad beer, Flu, RSV, COVID, monkeypox….

2 Replies

We’re surrounded by undesired bacteria, molds, and viruses. Some are annoying, making our feet smell, our teeth rot, and our wine sour. Others are killers, particularly for the middle aged and older. Despite little evidence, the US government keeps pushing masks and inoculations with semi-active vaccine that does nothing to stop the spread. Among the few things one can do to stop the spread of disease, and protect yourself, is to kill the bacteria, molds and viruses with iodine. Iodine is cheap, effective even at very low doses, 0.1% to 10 parts per million, and it lasts a lot longer than alcohol. Dilute iodine will not dye your skin, and it does not sting. A gargle of iodine will kill COVID and other germs (e.g. thrush) and it has even been shown to be a protective, stopping COVID 19 and flu even if used before exposure. On a more practical level. I also use it to cleanse my barrels before making beer — It’s cheaper than the Camden they sell in stores.

Iodine is effective when used on surfaces, and most viruses spread by surfaces. A sick person coughs. Droplets end up on door knobs, counters, or in your throat, leaving virus particles that do not die in air. You touch the surface, and transfer the virus to your eyes and nose. Here’s a video I made. A mask doesn’t help because you rub your eyes around the mask. But iodine kills the virus on the surface, and on your hands, and lasts there far longer than alcohol does. Vaccines always come with side-effects, but there are no negative side effects to sanitization with dilute iodine. Here is a video I did some years ago on the chemistry of iodine.

Robert Buxbaum, February 1, 2023. I don’t mean to say that all bacteria and fungi are bad, it’s just that most of them are smelly. Even the good ones that give us yogurt, beer, blue cheese, and sour kraut tend to be smelly. They have the annoying tendency to causing your wine to taste and smell like sour kraut or cheese, and they cause your breath and feet to smell the same. If you’re local, I’ll give you some free iodine solution. Otherwise, you’ll have to buy it through REB Research.

Almost no one over 50 has normal blood pressure now.

Leave a reply

Four years ago, when the average lifespan of American men was 3.1 years longer than today, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology dropped the standard for normal- acceptable blood pressure for 50+ years olds from 140/90 to 120/80. The new standard of normal was for everyone regardless or age or gender despite the fact that virtually no one over 50 now reached it. Normal is now quite un-common.

By the new definition, virtually everyone over 50 now is diagnosed with high blood pressure or hypertension. Almost all require one or two medications — no more baby aspirin. Though the evidence for aspirin’s benefit is strong, it doesn’t lower blood pressure. AHA guidance is to lower a patients blood pressure to <140/90 mmHg or at least treat him/her with 2–3 antihypertensive medications.4 

Average systolic blood pressures for long-lived populations of men and women without drugs.

The graphs shows the average blood pressures, without drugs in a 2008 study of the longest-lived, Scandinavian populations. These were the source of the previous targets: the natural pressures for the healthiest populations at the time, based on the study of 1304 men (50-79 years old) and 1246 women (38-79 years old) observed for up to 12 years. In this healthy population, the average untreated systolic pressure is seen till age 70, reaching 154 for men, and over 160 for women. By the new standards, these individuals would be considered highly unhealthy, though they live a lot longer than we do. The most common blood-pressure drug prescribed in the US today is atenolol, a beta blocker. See my essay on Atenolol. It’s good at lowering blood pressure, but does not decrease mortality.

The plot at left shows the relationship between systolic blood pressure and death. There is a relationship, but it is not clear that the one is the cause of the other, especially for individuals with systolic pressure below 160. Those with pressures of 170 and above have significantly higher mortality, and perhaps should take atenolol, but even here it might be that high cholesterol, or something else, is causing both the high blood pressure and the elevated death risk.

The death-risk difference between 160 and 100 mmHg is small and likely insignificant. The minimum at 110 is rather suspect too. I suspect it’s an artifact of a plot that ignores age. Only young people have this low number, and young people have fewer heart attacks. Artificially lowering a person’s blood pressure, even to this level does not make him young, [2][3] and brings some problems. Among the older-old, 85 and above, a systolic blood pressure of 180 mmHg is associated with resilience to physical and cognitive decline, though it is also associated with higher death rate.

The AHA used a smoothed version of the life risk graph above to justify their new standards, see below. In this version, any blood pressure looks like it’s bad. The ideal systolic pressure seems to be 100 or below. This is vastly too low a target, especially for a 60 year old. Based on the original graph, I would think that anything below 155 is OK.

smoothed chart of deaths per 1000 vs blood pressure. According to this chart, any blood pressure is bad. There is no optimum.

Light exercise seems to do some good especially for the overweight. Walking helps, as does biking, and aerobics. Weight loss without exercise seems to hurt health. Aspirin is known to do some good, with minimal cost and side effects. Ablation seems to help for those with atrial fibrillation. Elequis (a common blood thinner) seems to have value too, for those with atrial fibrillation — not necessarily for those without. Low sodium helps some, and coffee, reducing gout, dementia and Parkinson’s, and alcohol. Some 2-3 drinks per day (red wine?) is found to improve heart health.

I suspect that the Scandinavians live longer because they drink mildly, exercise mildly, have good healthcare (but not too good), and have a low crime rate. They seem to have dodged the COVID problem too, even Sweden that did next to nothing. it’s postulated that the problem is over medication, including heart medication.

Robert Buxbaum, January 4, 2023. The low US lifespan is startling. Despite spending more than any other developed countries on heath treatments, we have horribly lower lifespans, and it’s falling fast. A black man in the US has the same expected lifespan as in Rwanda. Causes include heart attacks and strokes, accidents, suicide, drugs, and disease. Opioids too, especially since the COVID lockdowns.

Coffee decreases your chance of Parkinson’s, a lot.

2 Replies

Some years ago, I thought to help my daughter understand statistics by reanalyzing the data from a 2004 study on coffee and Parkinson’s disease mortality, “Coffee consumption, gender, and Parkinson’s disease mortality in the cancer prevention study II cohort: the modifying effects of estrogen” , Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Nov 15;160(10):977-84, see it here

For the study, a cohort of over 1 million people was enrolled in 1982 and assessed for diet, smoking, alcohol, etc. Causes of deaths were ascertained through death certificates from January 1, 1989, through 1998. Death certificate data suggested that coffee decreased Parkinson’s mortality in men but not in women after adjustment for age, smoking, and alcohol intake. They used a technique I didn’t like though, ANOVA, analysis of variance. That is they compare the outcome of those who drank a lot of coffee (4 cups or more) to those who drank nothing. Though women in the coffee cohort had about 49% the death rate, it was not statistically significant by the ANOVA measure (p = 0.6). The authors of the study understood estrogen to be the reason for the difference.

Based on R2, coffee appears to significantly decrease the risk of Parkinson’s mortality in both men and women.

I thought we could do a better by graphical analysis, see plot at right, especially using R2 to analyze the trend. According to this plot it appears that coffee significantly reduces the likelihood of death in both men and women, confidence better than 90%. Women don’t tend to drink as much coffee as men, but the relative effect per cup is stronger than in men, it appears, and the trend line is clearer too. In the ANOVA, it appears that the effect in women is small because women are less prone Parkinson’s.

The benefit of coffee has been seen as well, in this study, looking at extreme drinkers. Benefits appear for other brain problems too, like Alzheimer’s. It seems that 2-4 cups of coffee per day also reduces the tendency for suicide, and decreases the rate of gout. It seems to be a preventative against kidney stones, too.

There is a confounding behavior that I should note, it’s possible that people who begin to feel signs of Parkinson’s, etc. stop drinking coffee. I doubt it, give the study’s design, but it’s worth a mention. The same confounding is also present in a previous analysis I did that suggested that being overweight protected from dementia, and from Alzheimer’s. Maybe pre-dementia people start loosing weight long before other symptoms appear.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, and C.M. Buxbaum, December 15, 2022

My home-made brandy and still.

Leave a reply
MY home-made still, and messy lab. Note the masking tape seal and the nylon hoses. Nylon is cheaper than copper. The yellow item behind the burner is the cooling water circulation pump. The wire at top and left is the thermocouple.

I have an apple tree, a peach tree, and some grape vines. They’re not big trees, but they give too much fruit to eat. The squirrels get some, and we give some away. As for the rest, I began making wine and apple jack a few years back, but there’s still more fruit than I can use. Being a chemical engineer, I decided to make brandy this year, so far only with pears and apples.

The first steps were the simplest: I collected fruit in a 5 gallon, Ace bucket, and mashed it using a 2×4. I then added some sugar and water and some yeast and let it sit with a cover for a week or two. Bread yeast worked fine for this, and gives a warm flavor, IMHO. A week or so later, I put the mush into a press I had fro grapes, shown below, and extracted the fermented juice. I used a cheesecloth bag with one squeezing, no bag with the other. The bag helped, making cleanup easier.

The fruit press, used to extract liquid. A cheese cloth bag helps.

I did a second fermentation with both batches of fermented mash. This was done in a pot over a hot-plate on warm. I added more sugar and some more yeast and let it ferment for a few more days at about 78°F. To avoid bad yeasts, I washed out the pot and the ace bucket with dilute iodine before using them– I have lots of dilute iodine around from the COVID years. The product went into the aluminum “corn-cooker” shown above, 5 or 6 gallon size, that serves as the still boiler. The aluminum cover of the pot was drilled with a 1″ hole; I then screwed in a 10″ length of 3/4″ galvanized pipe, added a reducing elbow, and screwed that into a flat-plate heat exchanger, shown below. The heat exchanger serves as the condenser, while the 3/4″ pipe is like the cap on a moonshiner still. Its purpose is to keep the foam and splatter from getting in the condenser.

I put the pot on the propane burner stand shown, sealed the lid with masking tape (it worked better than duct tape), hooked up the heat exchanger to a water flow, and started cooking. If you don’t feel like making a still this way, you can buy one at Home Depot for about $150. Whatever route you go, get a good heat exchanger/ condenser. The one on the Home-depot still looks awful. You need to be able to take heat out as fast as the fire puts heat in, and you’ll need minimal pressure drop or the lid won’t seal. The Home Depot still has too little area and too much back-pressure, IMHO. Also, get a good thermometer and put it in the head-space of the pot. I used a thermocouple. Temperature is the only reasonable way to keep track of the progress and avoid toxic distillate.

A flat-plate heat exchanger, used as a condenser.

The extra weight of the heat exchanger and pipe helps hold the lid down, by the way, but it would not be enough if there was a lot of back pressure in the heat exchanger-condenser. If your lid doesn’t seal, you’ll lose your product. If you have problems, get a better heat exchanger. I made sure that the distillate flows down as it condenses. Up-flow adds back pressure and reduces condenser efficiency. I cooled the condenser with water circulated to a bucket with the cooling water flowing up, counter current to the distillate flow. I could have used tap water via a hose with proper fittings for cooling, but was afraid of major leaks all over the floor.

With the system shown, and the propane on high, it took about 20 minutes to raise the temperature to near boiling. To avoid splatter, I turned down the heater as the temperature approached 150°F. The first distillate came out at 165°F, a temperature that indicated it was not alcohol or anything you’d want to drink. I threw away the first 2-3 oz of this product. You can sniff or sip a tiny amount to convince yourself that this this is really nasty, acetone, I suspect, plus ethyl acetate, and maybe some ether and methanol. Throw it away!

After the first 2-3 ounces, I collected everything to 211°F. Product started coming in earnest at about 172°F. I ended distillation at 211°F when I’d collected nearly 3 quarts. For my first run, my electronic thermometer was off and I stopped too early — you need a good thermometer. The material I collected and was OK in taste, especially when diluted a bit. To test the strength, I set some on fire, the classic “100% proof test”, and diluted till it to about 70% beyond. This is 70% proof, by the classic method. I also tried a refractometer, comparing the results to whiskey. I was aiming for 60-80 proof (30-40%).

My 1 gallon aging barrel.

I tried distilling a second time to improve the flavor. The result was stronger, but much worse tasting with a loss of fruit flavor. By contrast, a much better resulted from putting some distillate (one pass) in an oak barrel we had used for wine. Just one day in the barrel helped a lot. I’ve also seen success putting charred wood cubes set into a glass bottle of distillate. Note: my barrel, as purchased, had leaks. I sealed them with wood glue before use.

I only looked up distilling law after my runs. It varies state to state. In Michigan, making spirits for consumption, either 1 gal or 60,000 gal/year, requires a “Distilling, Rectifying, Blending and/or Bottling Spirits” Permit, from the ATF Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) plus a Small Distiller license from Michigan. Based on the sale of stills at Home Depot and a call to the ATF, it appears there is little interest in pursuing home distillers who do not sell, despite the activity being illegal. This appears similar to state of affairs with personal use marijuana growers in the state. Your state’s laws may be different, and your revenuers may be more enthusiastic. If you decide to distill, here’s some music, the Dukes of Hazard theme song.

Robert Buxbaum, November 23, 2022.

Tests designed so that the Ivies pick preppies.

Leave a reply

Elite colleges strive to be selective, and they are, just not for the hard-working scholars they claim to select for. They claim to be color-blind, income-blind, and race-blind, aiming for the best: the most intelligent, most ethical, and hardest working scholar-candidates. Then, to their surprise and satisfaction, all the ivies find that the vast majority of the chosen come from the same rich families and prep-schools as 100 years ago. That happens because the selection is crooked with measures tilted to the rich, Protestant, and preppy.

Through most of the 1900s, most of the ivies had a Jewish quota, enforced formally or informally. They also did their best to discourage middle class, black, and Catholic students in the interest of maintaining the proper student mix. Under Woodrow Wilson, Princeton went further and admitted not one black student. When quotas became illegal, schools began to rely on athletics and tests, with blatant cheating as revealed by the “Varsity Blues” sting operation. In that sting, a dozen or more athletic coaches and high-school administrators were caught taking SAT tests for their richer, connected students, and/or making up phony athletic achievements. The Ivies claimed shock after the cheating was revealed, but it is beyond belief that no one had noticed that these top brains and athletes were neither.

Many top athletes are diagnosed as asthmatic. Some actually are. With the right doctor, you can get an advantage

Another version of this is that richer kids can get extra time to do SAT and ACT tests. The extra time doesn’t show up on the SAT or ACT score, you need a doctor to certify that you are dyslectic or have severe ADHD. Most boys are diagnosed with ADHD these days, itself something of a scam, but most boys don’t get extra test time. You need the right doctor and the right documentation, plus enough money and connections to get the test given by certified test-giver in your own private room. It used to be that the SAT and ACT would report the extra time, but this changed in 2004. Now the extra time, and the disease is not documented, just the higher score. There have been complaints, but the scam goes on. Similar to this, top Olympic athletes can be diagnosed with asthma, and allowed to use performance enhancing, anti-asthma steroids. Again complaints, but no change.

Ivy League schools also tilt to the right families by requiring signs of the right sort of leadership as evaluated by an interview and an essay (see my post on John Kennedy’s essay). You score high on leadership if you helped your relative run for governor. By contrast, if you organized a ping-pong or basketball tournament at your Catholic or Jewish school, you’re the wrong sort of leader. Eagle Scout is sort-of the right sort, and speaking against climate change on TV is. Greta Thernberg and Chelsea Clinton are climate leaders; you, probably are not.

The Ivys explicitly state that they choose for athleticism, but not all sports are equal. All the Ivies claim to need a good women’s lacrosse team, a good crew team, and some good high-divers. Are these sports unavailable at your high-school? What a shame, you’re not a real athlete. You can still try to get in based on extreme leadership and academics.

The Princeton alumni of 1993-1994 were primarily white, rich and preppy. Favoring their children helps insure that the class of 2024 is that way too.

There is no real reason that Harvard needs a top crew team, or needs to excel at women’s lacrosse or high-diving. Sport was not an admission criteria in the 1800s. It was added in the 1900s to avoid admitting Catholics, Jews, and Asians who tended to score well but could not compete on the selected sports. The president of Harvard, Abbot Lowell wrote, “Somehow or other the enrollment of the Jewish students must be limited”. The method he chose, and that all the Ivies came to use, included these tests of leadership and sport, plus a preference for legacies. The children and grand-children of alumni are given significant preferential selection at all the ivies. At Harvard, the acceptance rate for legacy students is about 33%, compared with an overall acceptance rate of under 6%. Since legacies are mostly white, rich, protestant, and preppy, the next generation is guaranteed to be the same.

The Ivies’ methods have been challenged many times over the years. Quotas were found to be illegal as early as 1964. Since then there have been claims of effective quotas, a cause that was pushed under the rug until Donal Trump took it up. Most recently, Harvard, Princeton, and UNC were sued by Asians. One of these, from a poor background scored at the top of his class with a 4.4 GPA and had near-perfect SAT scores, but was rejected for no obvious reason beyond race. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in 2023. Ahead of this decision, all eight Ivies have decided to dispense with testing for at least for now. The ivies claim that, by making tests optional, they will avoid locking out students who are great (though somewhat illiterate and innumerate). The real purpose seems to be to lock out pushy Asians who might sue them or be so bright they make the legacies feel dumb.

None of the above would matter if the Ivies were not so wonderful, at least the better ones are. I went to Princeton grad school, see photos. It was great despite its waspy leanings. If you can go there, or to Harvard, Yale, Cornell or Penn, go. My feeling for Brown and Columbia are rather the opposite: they’ve gone to the extreme and voted for BDS, see the text here for Brown’s version. Not only did they vote to boycott Israelis and Israeli produce, the “B” of BDS, the’ve also committed to suppress Zionists everywhere. That’s Jews who support Israel. Several, non ivy schools, have committed to the same. In their view, for open debate to flourish anywhere, proud Jews must be excluded. These are no longer colleges, but Klavens.

Robert Buxbaum, October 20, 2022.

Eliquis, over-prescribed but better than Coumadin.

1 Reply

Eliquis (apixaban) is blood thinner shown to prevent stroke with fewer side effects than Warfarin (Coumadin). Aspirin does the same, but not as effectively for people over 75. My problem with eliquis is that it’s over-prescribed. The studies favoring it over aspirin found benefits for those over 75, and for those with A-Fib. And even in this cohort the advantage over aspirin is small or non-existent because eliquis has far more serious side effects; hemorrhage, or internal bleeding.

Statistically, the AVERROES study (Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to Prevent Stroke in AF Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment) found that apixaban is substantially better than aspirin at preventing stroke in atrial fibrillation patients, but worse at preventing heart attack.

Taking 50 mg of Eliquis twice a day, reduces the risk of stroke in people with A-Fib by more than 50% and reduces the rate of heart attack by about 15%. By comparison, taking 1/2 tablet of aspirin, 178 mg, reduces the risk of stroke by 17% and of heart attack by 42%. The benefits were higher in the elderly, those over 75, and non existent in those with A-Fib under 75, see here, and figure. Despite this, doctors prescribe Eliquis over aspirin, even to those without A-Fib and those under 75. I suspect the reason is advertising by the drug companies, as I’ve claimed earlier with Atenolol.

The major deadly side-effect is hemorrhage, brain hemorrhage and GI (stomach) hemorrhage. Here apixaban is far worse than with aspirin (but better than Warfarin). The net result is that in the AVERROES random-double blind study there was no difference in all-cause mortality between apixaban and aspirin for those with A-fib who were under 75, see here. Or here.

To reduce your chance of GI hemorrhage with Eliquis, it is a very good idea to take a stomach proton pump drug like Pantoprazole. If you have A-Fib, the combination of Eliquis and pantoprazole seems better than aspirin alone, even for those under 75. If you have no A-Fib and are under 75, I see no benefit to Eliquis, especially if you find you have headaches, stomach aches, back pain, or other signs of internal bleeding, you might switch to aspirin or choose a reduced dose.

A Japanese study found that half the normal dose of Eliquis, was approximately as effective as the full dose, 50 mg twice a day. I was prescribed Eliquis, full dose twice a day, but I’m under 70 and I have no A-Fib since my ablation.

Life expectancy has dropped in the US to undeveloped world levels. Biden blames COVID and racism. I think it’s too much drugs, and too few opportunities.

I’m struck by the fact that US life expectancy is uncommonly low, lower than in most developed countries. Lower too than in many semi-developed countries, and our life expectancy is decreasing while other countries are not seeing the same. It dropped by about 3 years over the last 2 years as shown. I wonder why the US has suffered more than other countries, and suspect we are over-prescribed. Too much of a good thing, typically isn’t good.

Robert Buxbaum, September 16, 2022. As a side issue, low dose aspirin may forestall Alzheimers and other dementias. See current article here. Also another study here.

Atenolol, not good for the heart, maybe good for the doctor.

1 Reply

Atenolol and related beta blockers have been found to be effective reducing blood pressure and heart rate. Since high blood pressure is a warning sign for heart problems, doctors have been prescribing atenolol and related beta blockers for all sorts of heart problems, even problems that are not caused by high blood pressure. I was prescribed metoprolol and then atenolol for Atrial Fibrillation, A-Fib, beginning 2 yeas ago, even though I have low-moderate blood pressure. For someone like me, it might have been deadly. Even for patients with moderately high blood pressure (hypertension) studies suggest there is no heart benefit to atenolol and related ß-blockers, and only minimal stroke and renal benefit. As early as 1985 (37 years ago) the Medical Research Council trial found that “ß blockers are relatively ineffective for primary treatment of hypertensive outcomes.”

End point. Relative risk. 95% CI. All-cause mortality Cardiovascular mortality MI Stroke Carlberg B et al. Lancet 2004; 364:1684–1689.

There lots of adverse side-effects to atenolol, as listed at the end of this post. More recent studies (e.g. Carlsberg et al., at right) continue to find no positive effects on the heart, but lots of negatives. A review in Lancet (2004) 364,1684–9 was titled, “Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension” (link here). “In patients with essential hypertension, atenolol is not better than placebo or no treatment for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality.” It further concluded that, “compared to other antihypertensive drugs, it [atenolol] may increase the risk of stroke or death.” I showed this and related studies to my doctor, and pointed out that I have averaged to low blood pressure, but he persisted in pushing this drug, something that seems common among medical men. My guess is that the advertising or doctor subsidies are spectacular. By contrast, aspirin has long been known to be effective for heart problems; my doctor said to go off aspirin.

The graph at right is from “Trial of Secondary Prevention with Atenolol after transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Ischemic Stroke”, published in Stroke, 24 4 (1993), (see link here). a Thje study involved 1473 at-risk patients, randomly prescribed atenolol or placebo. It found no outcome benefit from atenolol, and several negatives. After 3 years, in two equal-size randomized groups, there were 64 deaths among the atenolol group, 58 among the placebo group; there were 11 fatal strokes with atenolol, versus 8 with placebo. There were somewhat fewer non-fatal strokes with atenolol, but the sum-total of fatal and non-fatal strokes was equal; there were 81 in each group.

“Trial of Secondary Prevention with Atenolol after transient Ischemic Attack or Nondisabling Ischemic Stroke”, published in Stroke, 24 4 (1993).

Newer beta blockers seem marginally better, as in “Effect of nebivolol or atenolol vs. placebo on cardiovascular health in subjects with borderline blood pressure: the EVIDENCE study.” “Nebivolol (NEB) in contrast to atenolol (ATE) may have a beneficial effect on endothelial function …. there was no significant change in the ATE and PLAC groups.” My question: why not use one of these, or better yet aspirin. Aspirin is shown to be beneficial, and relatively side-effect free. If you tolerate aspirin, and most people do, beneficial has to be better than maybe beneficial.

Among atenolol’s ugly side effects, as listed by the Mayo Clinic, there are: tiredness, sweating, shortness of breath, confusion, loss of sex drive, cold fingers and toes, diarrhea, nausea, and general confusion. I had some of these. There was no increase in heart stability (decrease in A-fib). My heart rate went as low at 32 bpm at night. My doctor was unconcerned, but I was. I suspected the low heart rate put me at extreme risk. Eventually, the same doctor gave me ablation therapy, and that seemed to cure the A-Fib.

Following my ablation, I was told I could get off atenolol. I then discovered another negative effect of atenolol: you have to ease off it or your heart will race. If you have A-fib, or modest hypertension, consider aspirin, eliquis, ablation, or exercise. If you are prescribed atenolol for heart issues and don’t have symptoms of very-high blood pressure, consider other options and/or changing doctors.

Robert Buxbaum, August 14, 2022