Paul Karlowsky

Who is more likely to spread the pertussis bacterium (aka, whooping cough)—those vaccinated or those unvaccinated? The reality (see FDA, industry, and pharma scientists sources below) is that it is the vaccinated. Why? Two reasons. First, those vaccinated are less likely to have symptoms if infected with the pertussis bacterium but the bacterium still multiplies in their nasopharynx and they then unknowingly spreading it to others (instead of showing symptoms and knowing to isolate). Not science fiction—the hard cold facts as detailed below. Second, and this makes the reality even worse, because after an unvaccinated person has been infected with pertussis (and is more likely to have symptoms and stay in bed) that person won’t get infected again for at least many years – but the vaccinated individual can become infected over, and over, and over again with the pertussis bacterium because of the defective immunity this vaccine generates. But don’t worry, legacy media, no doubt won’t let the facts stand in the way of their hyperbolic reporting. They will blindly, like religious adherents, seek to blame, persecute, and shame those who do not inject this product instead of facing the reality: those vaccinated are more likely to spread this pathogen. If you don’t agree with the foregoing, take it up with the FDA, industry scientists, infectious diseases societies, and the hard cold data and science: - As the FDA explained in 2024: “aP [acellular pertussis] containing vaccines induce helper T cells (TH2) memory and neutralizing antibody responses that effectively prevent symptomatic disease but fail to prevent colonization and carriage.” fda.gov/media/181937/d… - As those considered the world's leading pertussis vaccine experts, pharma consultants, and infectious disease societies explained in a consensus paper on pertussis vaccine in 2019: “Natural infection evokes both mucosal and systemic immune responses, while aPVs [acellular pertussis vaccines] induce only a systemic immune response. … Mucosal immunity is essential to prevent colonization and transmission of B. pertussis organisms. Consequently, preventive measures such as aPVs that do not induce a valid mucosal response can prevent disease but cannot avoid infection and transmission. … aPV pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31333640/ They also explained that: “Lack of mucosal immune responses after aPV administration favor infection, persistent colonization, and transmission of the pathogen.” - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29180031/ (“That vaccination does not prevent B. pertussis infection in humans, nor the circulation of the organism in human populations in any important manner, comes from the observation that the inter-epidemic intervals have not changed in a major way since the implementation of mass vaccination.”); pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30793754/ (“Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”). For a detailed discussion with many more citations and irrefutable evidence, see Chapter 9 of Vaccines, Amen.

🚨 BREAKING MISINFORMATION The Toronto Star says Poilievre went on “another US podcast.” The Diary of a CEO is hosted by Steven Bartlett. A British entrepreneur. Based in the UK. It’s the biggest podcast in EUROPE. These are the people who think they’re qualified to tell you what’s misinformation. They can’t even Google where a podcast is from before publishing a headline. 🤣 This is Canadian media in 2026. Writing hit pieces they didn’t even fact-check.

In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that doctors washing their hands before delivering babies dramatically reduced maternal mortality from childbed fever. The mortality rate in his ward dropped from 18% to 1%. The medical establishment rejected the finding. His evidence was anecdotal. The mechanism was unclear. It contradicted the accepted theory that disease came from imbalanced humours. Prominent physicians found the implication, that doctors were killing patients, too uncomfortable to accept. Semmelweis was dismissed, ridiculed, and eventually committed to a mental institution, where he died at 47. Germ theory was established twenty years later. Handwashing became standard. The doctors began washing their hands. They did not apologise. We are at the Semmelweis moment in nutrition. The evidence that the industrial food system: seed oils, refined carbohydrates, ultra-processed products, the removal of animal fat, is driving the chronic disease epidemic is not absent. It is inconvenient. The mechanism is established. The population-level data is clear. The ancestral populations without the diet don't have the disease. The populations adopting the diet develop it. The institutions with the authority to change the advice have financial relationships with the industries that benefit from maintaining it. Semmelweis was right. He was also alone, and he died before anyone admitted it. The handwashing is overdue.

Seriously?! Why would anyone trust this!

You asked for it! 1. Rebates are targeted. Tax cuts are universal. Rebates let government choose winners. Tax cuts help everyone who pays taxes including people politicians do not want to empower. 2. Rebates create dependency. Tax cuts create independence. One time cheques train people to look to Ottawa for relief. Tax cuts reduce reliance on government permanently. 3. Rebates are easy to cancel. Tax cuts are hard to reverse. A rebate can disappear quietly next year. A tax cut becomes politically dangerous to take back. 4. Rebates generate headlines. Tax cuts do not. Sending cheques looks generous. Taking less of your money does not photograph well. 5. Rebates hide inflation damage. Tax cuts expose it. Rebates let politicians claim they helped without admitting inflation policy failed. Tax cuts force them to admit people were overtaxed. 6. Rebates avoid spending cuts. Tax cuts require them. Rebates can be funded with debt. Tax cuts require shrinking government. Bottom line Rebates are about control. Tax cuts are about freedom. Get it now?

@72ps @SamaHoole No rabbit in the wild eats carrots naturally. Only Bugs Bunny did.

@SamaHoole Rabbits eat carrots, grasses and flowers among other things.

1913, St. Petersburg. Nikolai Anichkov wants to understand atherosclerosis. He needs an animal model. He chooses rabbits. Rabbits are herbivores. They've never encountered dietary cholesterol in their evolutionary history. They possess no mechanism to regulate it. Their bodies have no blueprint for processing animal fats because they've spent millions of years eating grass. Anichkov dissolves pure cholesterol in sunflower oil and force-feeds it to these rabbits. Massive doses. Far beyond anything a rabbit would encounter naturally. Because naturally, rabbits don't eat cholesterol at all. The rabbits develop arterial plaques. Their arteries clog with the substance their bodies were never designed to handle. Anichkov publishes his findings: "Cholesterol causes atherosclerosis." The medical establishment seizes on this. Finally, proof. Dietary cholesterol clogs arteries. We have our culprit. Nobody mentions that rabbits are herbivores being fed a carnivore diet. Nobody questions whether forcing grass-eaters to consume concentrated animal fats might produce artificial results. Nobody asks if humans, who evolved eating cholesterol for 2.5 million years, might process it differently than animals who never evolved that capacity. The cholesterol hypothesis is born from feeding an inappropriate diet to the wrong species and then applying those results to humans without question. This would be like feeding lions exclusively grain, watching them develop digestive disease, then concluding that meat is toxic to carnivores. The methodology was flawed from conception. The model organism was inappropriate. The conclusions were predetermined. But it gave the answer people wanted. Cholesterol is the enemy. Animal fats must be avoided. Replace them with seed oils. A hundred years later, we're still living with dietary guidelines based on force-feeding cholesterol to rabbits in sunflower oil. The rabbits were never meant to eat it. The humans were. But we built our entire nutritional framework on the wrong species eating the wrong food. Your grandmother was told to avoid butter because a Russian scientist fed cholesterol to herbivores and they got sick. That's the foundation. Rabbits eating what rabbits should never eat, proving that humans shouldn't eat what humans evolved eating. The lipid hypothesis: Built on rabbits. Applied to humans. Wrong from day one.

1960s-1970s: The sugar industry has a problem. Studies keep showing sugar causes heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. John Yudkin publishes extensively on sugar's dangers. The sugar industry needs this stopped. 1965: The Sugar Research Foundation pays Harvard scientists $50,000 (equivalent to $500,000 today) to publish a review in the New England Journal of Medicine. The brief: Downplay sugar's role, emphasize fat as the real culprit. The scientists deliver exactly what they paid for. Lead author: Dr. Mark Hegsted. Harvard School of Public Health. Co-author: Dr. Robert McGandy. Harvard. The review: "Dietary Fat and Cardiovascular Disease" published in NEJM 1967. Conclusion: "The only dietary intervention required to prevent coronary heart disease is a reduction in cholesterol and saturated fat." Sugar: Barely mentioned. Mostly exonerated. The scientists never disclosed they were paid by the sugar industry. The journal never asked. This paper became hugely influential. Cited thousands of times. Shaped dietary policy for decades. 1970s: The same Dr. Hegsted goes on to lead the USDA team that created the 1977 Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines emphasise: Reduce fat, don't worry about sugar. Convenient that the scientist paid by the sugar industry to downplay sugar now writes government policy downplaying sugar. Nobody mentions his sugar industry funding when he's writing national dietary policy. 2016: Researchers at UCSF discover internal sugar industry documents proving the whole scheme. They publish their findings in JAMA Internal Medicine. The sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to shape public health policy. It worked perfectly. The paper's conclusion shaped 50 years of dietary advice, launching the low-fat era that coincided with exploding obesity and diabetes. The diseases sugar actually causes became epidemics while everyone focused on fat. The scientists involved are dead now. No accountability. The sugar industry's response in 2016: "This was a long time ago." Not "we didn't do it." Just "it was a long time ago." Admission without consequences. The dietary guidelines built on sugar industry-funded research remain largely unchanged. Because changing them means admitting: - The sugar industry bought Harvard scientists - Those scientists influenced public health policy - Millions got sick following sugar industry-funded recommendations - The entire low-fat movement was based on corrupted science - Can't admit any of that. So we pretend the 2016 revelations didn't happen. Pretend it doesn't matter that dietary policy was written by industry-paid scientists. Pretend the obesity and diabetes epidemics are just mysterious coincidences. The corruption is documented. Proven. Published in JAMA. And nobody in power cares. Because admitting it matters means tearing down the entire structure of modern nutrition guidance.

1850: "Diabetic patients must avoid sugar and starch entirely. Meat and fat are safe." 1900: "Diabetic patients should eat only meat, eggs, and butter until symptoms resolve." 1920: "Diabetic patients need insulin but should still restrict carbohydrates significantly." 1950: "Diabetic patients can eat moderate carbs if they take enough insulin." 1980: "Diabetic patients should eat plenty of whole grains as part of a balanced diet." 2025: "Diabetic patients should eat 45-60g carbs per meal and take metformin, insulin, and GLP-1 agonists." Notice the pattern? As pharmaceutical options increased, carb recommendations increased. It's not that the science changed. It's that the profit model changed. The treatment that kept diabetics alive for centuries was progressively replaced by treatments that generate recurring revenue. Your great-great-grandfather's doctor knew carbs were the problem. Your doctor knows you're a revenue stream.

𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐑𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐁𝐂 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. 🇨🇦TORONTO — A Canadian couple has returned from a weekend trip to Texas visibly shaken after discovering that everything they believed about America — courtesy of a lifetime of CBC programming — was completely false. “We were told it was basically Mad Max down there,” said the husband, still processing the shock of being offered free brisket by a stranger. “But everyone was… nice? Friendly? Happy? One guy even held a door for us. CBC never prepared us for this.” The couple reported several disturbing moments, including: •Texans openly smiling •Zero people yelling about diversity training. •Gas that didn’t cost more than rent. •Locals casually saying “Yeah, we love Trump,” without collapsing into tears. “It was traumatizing,” said the wife. “I kept waiting for the violence CBC promised. Instead, people offered us sweet tea. At one point someone even apologized to us. That’s… that’s supposed to be our thing.” Upon returning home, the couple attempted to share their experience online but were quickly corrected by Canadians who have never been to the U.S. but “know the truth” from CBC explainer segments. The couple now faces an existential crisis: either accept that the American South is nicer than Toronto — or admit they’ve been living inside a taxpayer-funded fear bubble. CBC has already issued a counter-story reassuring viewers that the couple’s experience was “anomalous and unrepresentative,” adding that “Texans may appear polite because of cultural conditioning… or heatstroke.”🟥

The question about nutrition I get asked most often is: "Should I eat vegetables?" Let's end the debate once and for all. Vegetables contain two opposing forces at the same time. On one side: polyphenols, carotenoids, glucosinolates, fiber, essential vitamins, and minerals that lower inflammation, feed your microbiome, and protect against chronic disease. On the other: lectins, oxalates, phytates, and fermentable fibers that can irritate a damaged gut, trigger immune flares, and block mineral absorption. The mistake is treating vegetables as universally good or universally bad. The body isn’t that primitive as it responds differently depending on the state of your gut, your immune system, and your exposure pattern. Now, here’s the interesting part. Plant compounds are hormetic stressors. Low, pulsed, varied exposure activates NRF2, boosts antioxidant defenses, and strengthens resilience. Constant, high-dose, repetitive exposure does the opposite, i.e. overstimulation, irritation, and, in sensitive guts, full-blown inflammation. And this is why vegetable cycling works so well. A short elimination phase, 2 to 4 weeks of low-lectin, low-oxalate, low-fiber eating, calms mast cells, reduces permeability, and lets the gut wall repair. Clinical IBS research shows measurable improvements in barrier function after this type of reset. Then, reintroducing vegetables in structured rotations gives you the upside of phytochemicals without the cumulative downside of anti-nutrients. You get the NRF2 activation, the fiber-driven SCFA production, the micronutrient bump, and the microbial diversity without overwhelming the same pathways day after day. Think of it like strength training. You don’t hammer the same muscle seven days a week. You stress it, you recover, and you rotate. Gut physiology is no different. People with IBS, SIBO, autoimmune flares, or a history of food sensitivities often benefit the most from this model. But even robust metabolisms adapt well to cyclical exposure because it mirrors ancestry, seasons, food availability, and the natural ebb and flow of plant toxins in the wild. The real danger lies at the extremes. If you eat spinach daily, you’ll saturate yourself with oxalates. Beans? You’ll overload lectins. Eliminating plants forever? You’ll starve the microbiome and lose the phytochemical signals that keep cellular defenses sharp. Take the balanced approach: Reset. Rebuild. Rotate. Use plants strategically, not religiously. Use removal as a tool, not a lifestyle. Use variety as your shield against sensitisation. Vegetables aren’t inherently good or bad, they’re stimuli. And the body thrives when stimuli arrive in intelligent, periodic waves.

@DrunknCanuck @ScottWeldon2 @AndrewScheer You mean 'has always been' the metric used to measure the fiscal health of a nation?

@ScottWeldon2 @AndrewScheer Debt to GDP has never been the fiscal anchor.

Canadians struggling with food prices: “We need relief! Bring down the cost of groceries.” Carney: “I hear your pain. We will remove the luxury tax on private jets and yachts.” Liberals could not be more out of touch.

Too funny....

I endorse this message!

If you LISTEN 🎧 or WATCH ANYTHING on Social Media today... THIS IS IT!! A MUST WATCH !!

I notice people who do not live in Ottawa have very strong negative opinions about the protest and the disruption they think it caused. I live in Ottawa. In what was called the "redzone". The only people who restricted my movement were the police with their roadblocks. I hope you appeal the conviction.

Cabinet’s latest pick to head the new defence contracting department wouldn’t just be the highest-paid appointee in Canada—with a staggering $679,000 salary—but also happens to be a long-time friend of the Prime Minister. The two were associates at Goldman Sachs, and he once praised Mark Carney in the Globe and Mail as “successful in athletics, academics and business.” Once again, Canadians are watching as the Liberals hand out lucrative, taxpayer-funded positions to friends and insiders, building layers of costly bureaucracy instead of delivering results. Is anyone else getting déjà vu to the conflict-of-interest scandals of the Trudeau years? blacklocks.ca/pms-friend-awa…

(Warning: long rant) My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue. I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues. Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious. And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly. I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own. Here are the facts: Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over. Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept. Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it. These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements. Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not. These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened. When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice. They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit. And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety. When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.” They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep. And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes. When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst. These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person. And they blame you. Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them. For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit. In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations. In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism. > “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.) > “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.) > “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?) > “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.) In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection. > “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.) > “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.) All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells. You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.

Today in 1945, George Orwell published a devastating critique of Communism. Animal Farm reveals why every communist revolution follows the same tragic pattern: liberation to corruption to oppression. Here are 10 truths from Animal Farm Orwell warned us never to forget 🧵👇🏼

“The Founders knew that a democracy would lead to some kind of tyranny. The term democracy appears in none of our Founding documents. Their vision for us was a Republic and limited government.” — Walter E. Williams

@PunchyPissant @RWMaloneMD HP sauce, Heinz 57 and Bull's-Eye are all brown. No issues with sales. All marketing.

@RWMaloneMD Heinz ketchup is brown without dye. 😆 Definitely would hurt their bottom line.

The food industry is now whining that they can't make natural dyes fast enough to change over from synthetic dyes by the FDA deadline is just more delaying tactics. They claim that if they don't dye food, then consumers won't think that food is edible. If an ultraprocessed food isn't palatable because it isn't a pretty enough color - it probably shouldn't be eaten. There is no reason to dye food. It is not necessary and it is not healthy to promote binge eating. Even natural dyes in ultraprocessed foods are a bad idea. The food industry needs to do right by the public and get rid of food dyes, all food dyes. Stop wasting everyone's time and health.