Follow the Science LiveScience

Why this crappy Live Science article from 2014 is not taken down and not disavowed is emblematic of what is wrong with the medical industrial complex, particularly their compliance and enslavement to big pharma.

"Niacin, or vitamin B3, is too dangerous and should not be used routinely by people looking to control their cholesterol levels or prevent heart disease, doctors say. The warning comes following recent evidence showing the vitamin does not reduce heart attacks or strokes, and instead is linked to an increased risk of bleeding, diabetes and death."

"The results were presented prior to publication last year, after which the manufacturer of the niacin medication used in the study, Merck & Co., said it would stop selling the drug."

How did this drug get on the market without a large scale study? Is 1 in 200 deaths an "acceptable risk?" Does the FDA issue approval for drugs which haven't been thoroughly studied for adverse side-effects? If this is the road travelled to these emergency use authorizations (EUA) for the experimental SARS-COV-2 "vaccines", FDA approval has become something like a non sequitur; meaningless.

In my layman's opinion, it doesn't even make sense to remove the flush with a drug. The flush is beneficial. It signifies that certain metabolic reactions, like blood circulation improving are happening.

THE DRUG: "The Merck drug was a combination of niacin and laropiprant, a drug that prevents the facial flushing that can be caused by high doses of niacin."

Translation: Merck was genetically engineering a beneficial nutrient, into a chimeric GMO drug. It's version was causing 1 out of 200 patients prescribed the drug to die; others develop diabetes, were hospitalized with diabetes, and were "more likely than people taking a placebo to experience liver problems, infections and bleeding in various body areas including the stomach, intestines and brain."

Merck's laropiprant was dangerous, but they escaped liability for deaths, hospitalizations and the worsened health of people. The medical professionals who did this study, the writer/journalist* at LiveScience (and other complicit publications), and the "expert" doctor they consulted**, who downplayed Merk's culpability helped them get away with it.

(*) Don't Take Niacin for Heart Health, Docs Warn
By Bahar Gholipour published July 16, 2014

(**) Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, a cardiologist and chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

In the process, they smeared the vitamin industry (their favorite scapegoat), by hypothesizing (without citations) that THEY were culpable somehow; implying they should be regulated for dispensing (non-GMO!) nutrients.

________________

Meanwhile, to recommend scrapping a nutrient that has beneficial "science proven" applications, studied thoroughly and published for decades for "improved heart, skin, eye, and brain health" is reprehensible.

__________________

Do yourself a favor read this rebuttal article by Orthomolecular Medicine News Service's W. Todd Penberthy, PhD.

"The patients in this study had previous history of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with evidence of symptomatic coronary disease. The side effects observed in those who took the laropiprant-niacin combination were serious and included an increase in total mortality as well as significant increases in the risk for developing diabetes.

For responsible reporters, this should have raised the question of which compound, the drug laropiprant, or the vitamin niacin, is the culprit."

"Laropiprant is the Bad One; Niacin is/was/will always be the Good One"
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, July 25, 2014