Blog – My WordPress

Why Would a Renown Heart Surgeon Be “Bullish” on Plant-Based Diets for Heart Disease?

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Thu, 08 Sep 2016 02:34:53 +0000

Dr. Marc Katz who received his combined M.D., M.P.H. from Tulane University School of Medicine in 1981. He completed his internship and residency in general surgery at the Medical College of Virginia, then a fellowship in cardiothoracic surgery, and additionally a fellowship in pediatric cardiac surgery at Boston Children’s Hospital. He served as Chief of Cardiothoracic Transplantation at the Medical College of Virginia, and subsequently founded the Virginia Transplant Center in Richmond, Va . He performed the first combined heart-kidney transplant in the eastern US; the first left ventricular assist device in Virginia; and has been a pioneer in minimally invasive and robotic heart surgery. Dr. Katz currently serves as Chief Medical Officer of the Bon Secours Heart & Vascular Institute , which spans 7 hospitals in central and eastern Virginia and involves more than 40 cardiac physicians. He continues an active practice in adult cardiac surgery specializing in minimally invasive and robotic approaches, plus surgery for congestive heart failure and placement of ventricular assist devices.

Listen to my interview with Dr. Mark Katz Heart Surgeon Here!

____________________

Patient Case Studies of Heart, Stroke, Peripheral Vascular Disease and Diabetes Reversal with Whole Food Plant-Based Approach.

Reversal of Angina, Diabetes, Obesity and Food Addiction Following Dr. Esselstyn’s Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease Lifestyle Program – An Interview with Patricia Slimbarski

Reversal of Carotid Artery and Peripheral Vascular Disease Following Dr. Esselstyn’s Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease “Lifestyle” Program – An Interview with Jim McNamara

“A Case of Reversing Heart Disease in the Heart of Texas” – An Interview with Ken Stone

Other Cardiologists and Surgeons Interviews on Heart/Vascular Disease Reversal

How to Create a Successful Plant-Based, Diet-Driven, Heart Disease Reversal Program in a Cardiology Setting – An Interview with Kim Williams, MD, Past President, American College of Cardiology

How Do You Create A Successful Heart Disease Reversal Program That Anyone Can Do? – An Interview With Surgeon Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr. MD

A Heart Surgeon’s Experience Living and Using A Whole Food Plant-Based Diet – An Interview with Staton Awtrey, MD

Creating A Successful Cardiac Wellness Program at a University Medical Center Using A Whole-Food Plant-Based Diet – An Interview with Cardiologist, Robert Ostfeld, MD

America’s (Plant-Based) Healthy “Heart Doc” – An Interview With Cardiologist Joel Kahn, MD

A Vegan Interventional Cardiologist Shares Her Thoughts on Diet, Heart Disease and Exercise – An Interview with Heather Shenkman, MD

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

Good-Bye Inflammation! How A Medical Doctor Reverses Chronic Diseases with Smoothies, Water and Omega-3s!

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Thu, 01 Sep 2016 03:39:09 +0000

Good-Bye Inflammation! How A Medical Doctor Reverses Chronic Diseases With A Hyper-Nourishing Diet Plan (33:27 min) Kirk’s overview video of his interview with Dr. Brooke Goldner (4:44 min) Starting September 5, 2016 – Take Dr. Goldner’s FREE “28 Day SmoothieSHRED Challenge”!

Dr. Brooke Goldner, a board certified psychiatrist, shares how she and her husband, Thomas Tadlock, MS, while developing a program for her to rapidly transform her body, “accidently” created a powerful self-healing program that cured her life-threatening autoimmune illness, Lupus Erythematosus of 12 years. After getting off all medications, normalizing all her laboratory chemistries, becoming symptom-free, feeling great, and then have two children, Dr. Goldner and her husband new that this program was much more than a body transformation vehicle, but a powerful tool to help people heal from serious health conditions by hyper-nourishing the body and reducing lifestyle practices that increased inflammation.

In this interview and in her book (“ Good-Bye Lupus “), Dr. Goldner reviews the Six Steps she and her husband recommend and coach people on that lead to powerful healing of not just autoimmune diseases like Lupus and MS, but to common chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, chronic pain, obesity, mood disorders and more. These key six steps which lead to hyper-nourishment and real healing include 1) Elimination of Animal Products 2) Elimination of Added Oils 3) Elimination of Processed Foods 4) Hyper-Nourishment with Raw Plant Foods 5) Consume Omega-3s Every Day and 6) Consume Lots of Water Daily.

The program is simple, but by doing these steps in the exact manner has recommended one is providing the body with an excess of healing nutrients while at the same time reducing inflammation by “starving” the omega-6 pathway that leads to chronic inflammation and “feeding” the pathway the promotes “anti-inflammation” which allows the body to heal virtually all chronic diseases.

Dr. Goldner reviews multiple case studies of remarkable healing of serious conditions by individuals following the simple but powerful plan.

Dr. Goldner’s energy, compassion, knowledge and clarity of living her life’s purpose of helping others to achieve healing and optimal health is infectious and inspiring in this podcast.

I highly recommend also listening to her first podcast, “ Reversing Lupus and Other Bad Diseases by Diet: How A Medical Doctor Cured Herself and Is Helping Others Reverse Their Illnesses Naturally with Supermarket Foods! ” where you can hear her wonderful and powerful story of self-healing from life threatening lupus erythematosus

Dr. Brooke Goldner (Dr. G.) is a psychiatrist , best-selling author, the founder of VeganMedicalDoctor.com , SkypePsychiatrist.com , creator of the Hyper-nourishing Healing Protocol for Lupus Recovery, and is the author of “ Goodbye Lupus ” and “ Green Smoothie Recipes to Kickstart Your Health and Healing .”

I highly recommended reading Dr. Goldner’s book “ Good-Bye Lupus “, especially pages 35-65 which explain the program simply and clearly that anyone can pick this book up and help themselves immediately.

Go to SmoothieSHRED.com for Dr. Goldner’s FREE “ 28 Day Smoothie Shred Challenge ” starting September 5, 2016.

You may see Dr. G’s consulting programs here or contact Dr. G at DrG@VeganMedicalDoctor.com

Thomas Tadlock’s programs for rapid weight loss, body transformation and muscle building (Brooke Goldner’s husband and partner in developing this hypernourishing healing plan).

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

This is How To Make A “Hyper-Nourishing” Smoothie For Healing!

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Tue, 16 Aug 2016 06:37:21 +0000

This is how to make a hyper-nourishing smoothie…Do this for 28 days with a large raw salad daily, no added oils, no processed foods, 96 oz of water, at least a 1/4 cup of flax seed and some amazing things will happen to many of you! Watch my video smoothie demonstration HERE .

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

Can Mold Be a Cause of Alzheimer’s Disease and Reduced Brain Function?… Yes it Can! Understanding Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS)! – An Interview with Jill Carnahan, MD

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Sun, 08 Jan 2017 05:10:14 +0000

Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS): What is It? Why Should We Care? What’s Does It Have to Do with Our Brain Function? (36:10 min)
Kirk’s video overview of his interview with Dr. Jill Carnahan (8:19 min)
Dr. Jill Carnahan’s Personal Story with Breast Cancer, Crohn’s Disease and CIRS
Dr. Carnahan always had an interest in nutrition and getting to the root cause of disease during her allopathic medical training. During medical school she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at 25 years of age and was treated with radiation and chemotherapy and her excellent recovery over the last 15 years she attributes to applying functional and integrative medicine approaches to her health care. Shortly after her breast cancer diagnosis and treatment she was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, but now 15 years later she is free of symptoms of both.

Dr. Carnahan’s health was excellent until 2014 when she had a sudden onset of being short of breath, fatigue, numbness in her legs, blood shot eyes after work, and then she started getting frequent fungal and skin infections, pneumonias and other respiratory conditions. She eventually got sick enough and she tested her urine for mycotoxins and CIRS blood markers. Then she had her office evaluated and stachybotrys (black mold) was found in the basement below her office and she immediately moved out of her office on December 26, 2014 and never came back.

She was in this office for 2 1/2 years and about 18 months into being there she started getting sick. There was also a massive flood in her town in September of 2014 which allowed water into her office building basement which probably enhanced the mold growth and increased the depth of her illness and symptom expression. Dr. Carnahan has the genetic susceptibility to not being able to detoxify mold toxins and looking back in her life her immune system could have been challenged since childhood by living in an old farmhouse that probably had significant mold.

When Dr. Carnahan uses the urinary mycotoxin test now on patients she makes sure she doesn’t miss anyone who cannot detoxify mold well by giving glutathione orally by mouth for 5 days prior to collecting the urine sample, and if possible, has the patient use sauna therapy prior to the urine collection as well. This way of prepping for the urine mycotoxin test appears to give better clinical correlations. In herself, not only did she have elevated urinary mycotoxins, but she also had elevated C4a (acute exposure, very high) and TGF Beta 1 (very high), the later of which can stay elevated even after the exposure.

Testing Your Environment for Mold
When the CIRS blood markers are elevated (or abnormal) suggesting a toxic exposure Dr. Carnahan recommends getting the EPA approved ERMI (Environmental Relative Mold Index) test done first from mycometrics.com because it measure more species of mold. The HERTSMI-2 score is based on the top 5 molds that cause mold illness so you can determine a HERTSMI-2 score from the ERMI test. With a score of more than 15the patient probably will not get well if they remain in that environment, but with a score of less than 11 it is generally safe for the person to return to that environment. Sometimes it can take multiple ERMI tests and multiple inspectors to find the mold, especially if the blood tests remain elevated/abnormal suggesting exposure.

Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS)
This is the body’s “out of control” inflammatory response to a toxin (i.e. mold, Lyme, etc.) it can’t get rid of that causes a cascade of inflammatory and hormonal changes that can cause fatigue, pain, gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms, sleep disturbances, and other damaging effects to the body. This most frequently happens in the 24% of the population who have the genetic susceptibility (HLA DR/DQ genotype) who can’t detoxify mold well.

Testing for CIRS
There is a Mold CIRS Panel through Life Extension that is a reasonable cost of $400 for MSH, MMP9, TGFB1, ADH and Osmolality. Dr. Carnahan follows her patients with C4a, TGFB1, MSH, MMP9 and VEGF levels though when adequate medical insurance is available she does all the Shoemaker suggested CIRS tests ( click here for test explanations ). She uses C4a as a marker of exposure which usually last a couple of weeks after an exposure.

CIRS, Brain Effects and Neurologic Decline
Dr. Carnahan when seeing these CIRS patients started noticing cognitive decline in younger and younger patients who had this mold illness. Then when she read Dr. Bredesen’s paper on “Inhalation Alzheimer’s” and patients being treated for mold having subsequent improvement in their cognition the neurologic impact of mold illness (CIRS) became more evident and she “sees” it more frequently.

Assessment of Cognitive Decline Patient
A “Tier 1” type of approach using the Bredesen protocol of testing may start with a comprehensive metabolic panel (COMP), a complete blood count (CBC), hemaglobin A1C, homocystiene, B12, folic acid, insulin, sex hormones (estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, DHEA, pregnenelone, cortisol), thyroid (T3f, T4f, TSH, T3rev), magnesium, vitamin E, zinc:copper, toxic metals and other basic testing, and then asking appropriate environmental and symptom questions to determine if the CIRS testing should be added. Or, if it is obvious there is a Type 3 Alzheimer’s presentation with a sudden onset in the mid 50s and there is word finding difficulties, this would be an appropriate person to add-on the CIRS testing.

Neuroquant (MRI) Testing
Dr. Carnahan has done a lot of Neuroquant evaluations of MRIs (about $500 cost). You can track over time putamen, caudate or hippocampal changes with treatment. But as far as it helping her with a mold-related cognitive decline diagnosis it hasn’t been helpful to her that she would change her treatment plan. Most of the patients (80%) showed the mold pattern and 20% showeda Lyme pattern. She does a baseline MRI with Neuroquant and then maybe a followup in 2 years. The test compares the volume of these brain structures which can be correlated to changes with treatment and symptom improvement. It is clear that brain structure can change size and volume with the appropriate treat of the mold toxicity.

Genetic HLA DR/DQ Mold Genetic Testing
Twenty-four percent of the population has a genetic weakness in detoxifying or excreting toxins from mold. The genetic test is paid for by some insurances but Life Extention can do the test for under $400. One hundred percent of those who Dr. Carnahan has been suspicious of having the HLA genotype type for susceptibility to mold toxicity have been positive for this gene. She likes doing this genetic screen because of nuances of the presentation of the gene variations such as HLA DR/DQ 43-53 whose patient presentation is more severe fatigue, depression and mood disorders with the mold exposure. HLA DR/DQ 11-3-52B subjects present with more collagen vascular issues, joint issues, very high TGF-Beta1 and are more prone to autoimmune diseases.

When Do You Start Treatment For Mold Detoxification and Treat The Infected Sinuses (Multiple Antibiotic Resistant Coagulase Negative Staphylococci)?
While Dr. Carnahan agrees that the ideal is to remove the subject from the mold exposure prior to therapy for removing the mold toxins from the patient, she will start to treat with binders and treat MARCoNS in the sinuses during the remediation or testing process of the patient’s home or work environment. Admittedly it is not the optimal sequence of the treatment protocol but sometimes the “cleaning” of the patients environment takes time to become mold toxin free, or maybe it never does.

She will start with the binder cholestyramine (9 grams 3-4 times daily 30 minutes before or 60 minutes after meals) , but has found significant gastrointestinal side effects of bloating and constipation (25-30% of patients can’t tolerate it) and she really likes to use Welchol® (colesevelam HCl) in 625 mg tablets 6 at one time or 3 tablets two times daily one hour away from food or supplements. Dr. Carnahan personally took Welchol herself during her mold toxicity healing journey. She also recommends routinely using clay and charcoal (Biobotanicals; GI Detox) therapy as additional binders to go along with the medications, and uses sauna therapy concurrently (she has one in her office) to clear toxins through the sweat as well.

Air Filters Are Very Beneficial in CIRS Patients
Dr. Carnahan is a big believer in air filters, especially for those who haven’t cleared their home or work environments. She sees clinical benefit almost immediately within 24 hours with their use. Good HEPA filters with a good VOC filter. There is Austin Air , IQ Air , Air Oasis (UV generated filters may aggravate some people with lung issues) air filters and are all beneficial.

Gut Assessment Is a Foundational Assessment
Dr. Carnahan uses a GI history and stool tests such as the methane and hydrogen breath test for SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth), GI Effects from Genova Diagnostics (DNA probes are less effective for parasites and candida) or the stool exam from Doctors Data as screening tests for the gut. She will do organic acids to look for yeast and clostridia (organic acids from the NutrEval or OAT Test ). For parasites she uses Parasitology Inc . or GI MAP (PCR testing for parasites, fungal species and H. Pylori).

Diet for CIRS
Dr. Carnahan recommends eating a whole food diet and going grain-free (especially corn, peanuts, cashews and pistachios which can be sources of mycotoxins), gluten-free, dairy-free and sugar-free. Fermented foods may not be tolerated because of histamine producing foods. Dr. Carnahan uses U.S. Biotek or Cyrex for IGG food sensitivity testing which also gives an idea of intestinal permeability if there are many positives foods. Food elimination helps heal the gut.

Sinus (Tooth and Jaw) Treatment for MARCoNS and Biofilms
If MARCoNS is positive (deep sinus culture for bacteria, fungus and biofilm from Microbiology DX; read About MARCoNS) Dr. Carnahan begins with the BEG (Bactroban, EDTA, Gentamicin) nasal spray for one month. She finds this 50% effective in eradicating the MARCoNS. Sometimes she will use EDTA nasal spray for 3 months to treat the biofilm and retest. She will also use for resistant MARCoNS and biofilms other agents such as Argentyn Silver nasal spray 4-5 x per day with Xlear a xylitol saline nasal spray and/ or Citricidal natural biofilm disrupters and antifungals. Dr. Carnahan sometimes recommends a nasal rinse with silver or Agrumax a grapefruit seed extract using the Neilmed or Neti Pot delivery systems.

Effectively treating MARCoNS will improve MSH (melanocyte stimulating hormone) levels. When MSH is low it accounts for hormone disruption with elevations in estradiol, insulin and cortisol initially (then cortisol eventually drops) and lower levels of testosterone and T4 with normal T3 and TSH levels. Bringing up MSH levels is very important for normalizing a cascade of altered hormone production and inflammatory biochemicals which can account for a variety of distressing symptoms (see MSH in Biotoxin Pathway Flow Chart ).

MARCoNS can also be found in the jaw (cavitations) and root canals so assessment by a cone CT of the jaw by a biological dentist may be warranted. Dr. Carnahan finds this a “not infrequent” problem.

Hormone Replacement in CIRS Patients
Dr. Carnahan does test and treat for hormone deficiencies in CIRS patients and finds most CIRS patients have elevated cortisol levels which can disrupt sleep so she uses substances like phosphatidylserine and rhodiola to help bring down cortisol and anything that will help the patient sleep. She finds testosterone low in men and women with autoimmune diseases and replacement is beneficial, especially in men with pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome. She will start many times with DHEA replacement first in both men and women before testosterone to see if levels come up (especially in women) and symptoms improve.

Assessing Cognitive Decline
Dr. Carnahan has begun to use the Moca Test (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test) and the CNS Vital Signs Testing in her office as ways to assess cognitive function and status quickly. The Moca Test takes 12-15 minutes and one has to take a short certification course to administer the test. The CNS Vital Signs can be done in office in 20-30 minutes. Dr. Carnahan finds both tests valuable.

Dr. Carnahan’s Concluding Thoughts on the Role of Mold Illness, CIRS and Cognitive Decline and Alzheimer’s Disease
There is no question in Dr. Carnahan’s mind that mold illness and CIRS plays a significant role in patients with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. Because of her own personal experience with mold illness and now better tools to assess and treat patients she is seeing mold illness in a lot more patients effecting a wide variety of illnesses such as Crohn’s or colitis, as well as cognitive issues.

Keep Updated with Dr. Carnahan’s Research
If you are a lay person or a professional Dr. Carnahan has resources, blogs and newsletters for both on her site at JillCarnahan.com.

IFM – Advanced Clinical Training for Early Alzheimer’s Dementia with the Bredesen Protocol in Huntington Beach, California in March 11-12, 2017 .

Dr. Jill Carnahan earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana in 1998 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in BioEngineering. She graduated with honors from Loyola University – Stritch School of Medicine in 2003. She completed her Family Practice Residency from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 2006. Dr. Carnahan is Board Certified in Family Medicine (ABFM) and Integrative Holistic Medicine (ABHM). She is a frequent lecturer to physicians who are being trained in different aspects of Integrative and Functional Medicine.

Jill Carnahan, MD Office 303-993-7910 Flat Iron Functional Medicine, 400 S. McCaslin Blvd, Suite 210 Louisville, Colorado 80027 Location Phone: 303-993-7910 Location Fax: 303-993-4674, Jillcarnahan.com

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday-Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com Kirk’s Healthy Living Tips
Kirk’s FREE “21 Day Healthy Living Program” Kirk’s FREE “Heart Disease Reversal Program”

Are Flax & Chia Seeds Better for the Brain? Or Fish and Fish Oil?

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:20:45 +0000

It is very popular to recommend fish oil for your brain to reduce the risk of dementia, memory loss or cognitive decline. This article is very timely since I have seen the power of the “75% packed greens diet” (smoothies and salads) mixed with added flax and/or chia seeds benefit many chronic conditions.

Fish oil provides preformed EPA and DHA. Flax and chia seeds provide alpha linolenic acid (ALA) which can be converted by the body into EPA and DHA.

This study showed that serum α-linolenic acid was inversely associated with risk of disabling dementia (serum levels high – dementia low). The other omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA usually from fish) were not correlated at all with disabling dementia.

Serum α-linolenic and other ω-3 fatty acids, and risk of disabling dementia: Community-based nested case–control study 1

Serum α-linolenic and other ω-3 fatty acids, and risk of disabling dementia: Community-based nested case-control study 2

Diet with enough alpha-linolenic acid protects against dementia

Take home message. It would be very reasonable to have a few tablespoons of flax and/or chia seeds daily. Either ground fresh (not pre-ground) or broken up with a high speed blender or chewed well with your teeth to get your serum levels of ALA up (not flax oil).

Also health professionals and researchers should be measuring not just EPA/DHA levels but also ALA levels in dementia, heart disease and other inflammatory conditions because if ALA is the key fatty acid then we don’t have to wipe out fish populations consuming or processing EPA/DHA, we can get the benefit in plant-based foods that are easily accessible and not disruptive to our ecosystems to produce and consume.

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

“Be Berry” to Prevent Parkinson’s Diseases

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:07:10 +0000

Berry consumption is shown to be protective against Parkinson’s disease in both men and women (apples are protective only in men) probably do to their flavonoid content. Obviously, you want to reduce your exposure to pesticides, but it’s just not in the fields with farm workers, it’s pesticides in the home. We can’t avoid all pesticides but we can eat berries daily and consistently. Watch this short, great video by Dr. Greger on the subject! “Berries vs Pesticides in Parkinson’s Disease”

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

Physician Farmer Grows the “Plants” He Prescribes To Treat Patients

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:35:14 +0000

Great article! Physician-farmer grows the “plants” he prescribes to patients . One of his “ah ha” moments when his dad, who was given one month to live from pancreatic cancer, switched to a macrobiotic diet and lived another 18 months with excellent quality of life. He eventually sold his assets and medical practice and started Ethos Health where he has a farm and medical practice dedicated to giving people the experience and knowledge of natural plant foods healing many chronic diseases. A great story! Well worth the read! The closer we eat unprocessed food that comes from the ground, the better our health will be.

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

The Power of Plants on Health and the Environment!

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Wed, 28 Sep 2016 01:11:56 +0000

Been traveling a bit this September for conferences every single weekend…one more
to go…. IV Vitamin C in Cancer and Sepsis in Kansas City this Friday and Saturday….

September 10 went to Montefiore Hospital, Bronx, NY to see how plant-based cardiologist
Dr. Ostfeld teaches his one day Cardiac Wellness Workshop …I’m a bit crazy…just there for
the 4 hours of the work shop and came back same day…but it was worth it to see how
he taught a predominantly minority group (12 people) to reverse heart disease with a proven
plant-based diet.

The next weekend was with 400 plus people at John McDougall, MDs 3 Day Intensive.
Very good speakers on atrial fibrillation and lifestyle, diet and heart disease, and diet and
chronic diseases. Fed 400 plus of us all plant based meals buffet style (no oil) and stuffed myself for breakfast lunch and dinner. I wish people could experience how good the food tastes and how you really don’t have to worry about the volume of food if it is 100% plant-based, unprocessed and without added oil. ….all of the lecturers who were on plant-based diets
were fit and trim… You can purchase this weekend on line & Weekend Recipes.

This past weekend (September 22-24) I was at the International Plant-Based Healthcare
Conference with 750 plus health professionals mostly. Some impressions….The plant-based
“movement” is really gaining momentum. You can feel it. The money is coming. This science is
overwhelming there of whole plant food diets reversing chronic disease, along with the
“perfect storm” of the healthcare crisis, and, the environmental crisi s. The world consuming a whole-food plant-based diet is the fastest way to reverse chronic diseases and dramatically reduce green house gases and put the breaks on global warming . The protective effect of plant-based diets on the environment compared to the destructive effects of animal based diets may be the game changer.

…Also there was a contingent of 100 plus Kaiser health professionals. If they went back
to Kaiser as a collective force and got Kaiser to implement whole-food plant based
nutrition in mass, or even just to their cardiovascular patients, this would be a game-
changer. Medicine would change forever if Kaiser adopted this diet pattern as a main
therapy for all chronic disease patients (heart, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, bone
loss, Alzheimer’s, etc.)…Even with all the “noise” about saturated fat being OK, grains are bad,
and everyone needing tons of olive oil, its very clear of the validity and necessity of the
world moving towards consumption of a more plant-based diet to save the planet and
our health.

Check on my “ Heart Disease Reversal” Resource Page ….It is a work in progress. But
everything is on this one page to lead you to the reversal of your heart disease (and others)
with a whole-food plant based diet…IF YOU CHOOSE TO ACT! Will talk more about this
later.

You can also take my 21 Day Healthy Living Program for Busy People for FREE without
logging into the site …..Just click on a video and watch, listen and read…

Lastly… This was a great 3 minute video on being happy shown to all 700 of us at the conference …Enjoy and Be Happy!

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

My Dry Eyes Are Gone! Flax Seeds? Greens? Water?

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Sat, 27 Aug 2016 20:39:18 +0000

Six or 7 years ago I had a gut infection and about month later I had an episode of what I believe was a version of Reiter’s Syndrome ….For 2 weeks I had knife-like, burning urethritis (with no sign of infection), conjunctivitis – the white parts of my eyes were extremely red and inflamed and I had a finger joint that hurt like heck. It lasted for 2 weeks then went away. The belief is some bug with that gut infection triggered an immune response that caused those symptoms.

The residual was that I had dry eyes for several months or so and used “liquid tears” which helped when I went to bed. But eventually it only effected my right eye in the morning. Every time I would be “allergic”, eat sugar, eat too much processed carbs or drink alcohol…a drink or two…I would wake up with my right eye sore, dry and have to blink about a million times to get the moisture back. It was annoying but a great barometer of me not eating well when it occurred. I told my ophthalmologist that every time I drink or eat junk I wake up in the morning with a dryer right eye that is kind-of stuck shut. He thought I was a bit off…

The other thing I notice with the eye was periodically when I would treat myself with and anti-fungal the dry eye would not be as severe and I could tolerate a drink or two a couple of times per week with no problem. But it would not last….Darn it! :-))

So actually my right eye is really my friend because it tells me when I push my balance too far and need to clean up my diet. It it/was very sensitive!

Over the years I have tried regular fish oil and plant-based DHA-EPA to help the eyes and general inflammation but neither helped my dry right eye in the mornings. I even tried a weak attempt to add flax in my oatmeal but I didn’t do it very long and I thought I was sensitive to the flax seed. Just didn’t feel right putting a couple of tablespoons of ground flax seed into my oatmeal.

So over the last 6-8 weeks, and since I have interviewed Dr. Brooke Goldner on the topic (and her book) “Good-Bye Lupus” , and taken Brooke’s and Thomas’s workshop, I have been doing a large green smoothie daily, probably close to 65-70 ounces per day of the 75% packed greens, 25% fruit, and 1/4-1/2 cup of flax seed or chia, and a 96 oz of water daily. Plus my regular mostly plant based diet.

I just noticed about a week ago that I have no dry eyes AT ALL and 3-4 x per week over the last two-three weeks I have had 1-2 beers which would normally bring on the dry eye instantly the next morning, plus a bit of fuzziness.

So it could be the mass infusions of flax daily finally is shifting my fatty acid balance to a more anti-inflammatory state; it could be more water because I am drinking much more !; and it could be because I am definitely eating more greens, though I ate a fair amount before.

Along this same line my aunt who has been doing the smoothie regimen for several months just told me she had reduced and even stopped using her liquid tears for her dry eyes because she didn’t need them anymore.

Here are some interesting “side effects” from this kind of smoothie regimen:

1) It immediately picks me up. I can feel it. A gentle aliveness.
2) It has reduced my overall craving for junk.
3) I actually look forward to making it and drinking it in the morning or evening.

So I encourage you if you have any inflammatory condition to:

1) Listen to my interview with Brooke Goldner, MD on “Good Bye Lupus”

2) Get her book “Good-Bye Lupus” It is really 60 pages or so of excellent practical
anti-inflammatory information that can be applied to virtually any inflammatory
condition.

3) At least sign up for Brooke’s and Thomas’s next SmoothieShred Challenge FREE on facebook . I know almost all of you who complete the 28 days just doing this particular type of smoothie (64 oz 75% green/25% flax/chia, 1/4 cup flax smoothie with a total of 96 oz or more of water will experience something very beneficial to your health.

Be and Stay Well,

Kirk

You can call me for “brief” medical questions 8-9 a.m. PST Monday thru Friday 916-489-4400 KwikerMedical.com StayingHealthyToday.com

“Sign-Up for Kirk’s “Healthy Living Tips” Here!

Autoimmune Disorders and The Politics of Evaluating Covid-19 Vaccine Harm. An interview with Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 06:22:00 GMT

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 04:28:40 +0000

Who Decides What Counts As Evidence?

In 109 studies in 2022 regarding the relationship between the Covid Vaccine and Autoimmune Disorders “Nearly 60% of the studies reported relapses or flares, and approximately one-quarter documented new-onset conditions in individuals with no prior history of autoimmunity.”

Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD

School of Health Policy and Management
Faculty of Health, York University, Canada

“ COVID-19 vaccines and autoimmune disorders: A scoping review,
AIMS Medical Science , 2025, 12(4): 325-349 .“ 4/2026

Interview Summary – By Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD

This interview presents the work of Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD, a health policy scholar, professor, and non-practicing physician. Her research examines how medical evidence is produced, interpreted, and governed, and how issues of human significance come to be framed within medical jurisdiction, including the extension of medical and psychological labels to define and manage dissent in ways that shape policy compliance and institutional legitimacy. Her interest in the relationship between Covid-19 vaccination and autoimmune disorders emerged from a broader concern with how large-scale policy responses – including lockdowns, mandates, and mass vaccination – were justified and normalized, with limited space for critical scrutiny of their evidentiary basis.

To explore how potential harms were being assessed, Chaufan and her team conducted a scoping review of 109 studies published in 2022 on Covid-19 vaccination and six autoimmune conditions. The review identified three recurring patterns: relapses or flares in individuals with pre-existing autoimmune disease, new autoimmune conditions in those already affected, and new-onset autoimmune disorders in previously healthy individuals. Nearly 60% of studies reported relapses or flares, and approximately one-quarter documented new-onset conditions in individuals with no prior history of autoimmunity.Yet despite these findings, many studies continued to advance strong claims about vaccine benefit while treating signals of harm as tentative, incidental, or inconclusive. The interview argues that this reflects a broader epistemic imbalance: harms and benefits are not consistently evaluated according to the same evidentiary standards. Using Covid-19 and autoimmunity as a case study, Chaufan raises questions about epistemic consistency in medical research and the institutional processes that shape what counts as credible evidence.

Watch Video Overview of Interview by Kirk Hamilton PA

Share

Kirk Hamilton: Can you please share your educational background and current position?

Claudia Chaufan : I earned my medical degree at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, where I practiced medicine for close to a decade, focusing primarily on clinical nutrition and diabetes care. That clinical experience remains foundational to how I approach questions of health and disease, even though my subsequent career has taken a more analytical and research-oriented direction.

I later pursued graduate studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where I completed first a Master’s and later a PhD in Sociology, along with graduate work in philosophy. This training allowed me to shift from clinical practice to a broader examination of health, not only as a biomedical phenomenon but as a social, political, and institutional one. My first academic appointment was at the University of California, San Francisco, where I worked as a researcher and professor of sociology and health policy.

I am currently a tenured Professor in the School of Health Policy and Management at York University in Toronto. My work sits at the intersection of health policy, sociology of health, and political economy, and over the past several years it has focused increasingly on the governance of Covid-19 policies, the organization of medical knowledge, and questions of epistemic integrity in biomedical research.

Kirk Hamilton: What got you interested in studying the role of autoimmune illness and its relationship to the Covid-19 vaccination?

Claudia Chaufan : Like many people, I was initially struck by the scale and global impact of the Covid event. My early work in 2020 was not focused on biomedical questions but rather on the geopolitical and policy dimensions of the response. What first captured my attention was the way in which the Covid event appeared to coincide with, and perhaps intensify, a broader geopolitical confrontation, particularly in relation to Western representations of China as an emerging competitor increasingly framed as a civilizational or existential threat—often through broad and loosely defined claims about risks to “our democracy” or “our way of life.” I spent many months following and trying to understand these developments.

At the same time, I became increasingly struck not only by the magnitude and character, but also by the duration, of unprecedented public health measures—including, though not limited to, lockdowns and medical mandates, especially vaccination—as they became normalized across Western countries. In other words, my initial engagement with Covid was primarily sociological and geopolitical rather than biomedical.

With respect to the medical aspects of Covid and vaccination—for the purposes of this interview, I will bracket the important question of what exactly these injections are and refer to them as “vaccines”—I had relatively little prior engagement with immunology or autoimmune disease.

As a clinician, I was aware of discussions linking viral infections to autoimmune conditions—type 1 diabetes, which I developed as a child, is one example—but I had never found that line of inquiry particularly compelling, nor had it played a central role in my work. In fact, an important part of my intellectual trajectory had moved in a different direction.

During my doctoral training in sociology and philosophy, I became deeply engaged with critical analyses of biomedical knowledge, particularly in relation to genetics. Influenced in part by the work of Richard Lewontin, I examined—over a series of papers—the conceptual and empirical limitations of genetic explanations for complex diseases such as diabetes (1–4). That work led me to question not only specific claims about causation, but more broadly how biomedical findings are framed, communicated, and sometimes overstated or misrepresented. It also contributed to a more general skepticism toward reductionist explanations and toward the ways in which medical knowledge is mobilized in policy and practice.

Against that background, what genuinely caught my attention during the Covid-19 period was not the possibility of infection-related autoimmunity, but rather the idea—entirely absent from my prior medical training—that vaccination itself might trigger autoimmune responses. As I began to investigate this more systematically, I encountered the work of Yehuda Shoenfeld, who had documented a range of autoimmune phenomena following vaccination over at least two decades (5). But as I kept reading, I realized the literature went back even further: I began to find isolated case reports and clinical observations from much earlier periods (6). What struck me the most about these findings, however, was that they were almost invariably accompanied by strong affirmations of the value of vaccines—not simply as background context, but as a way of anticipating and deflecting potential criticism, and of signaling adherence to what is expected or acceptable within the field.

More broadly, this led me to revisit a claim that is often taken for granted: that vaccination has been the primary driver of the dramatic decline in mortality from infectious diseases over the past century. That claim has in fact been challenged by a substantial body of epidemiological research, including the work of Thomas McKeown (7), John and Sonya McKinlay (8), among others, as well as historical public health data from countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. These analyses document that mortality from many infectious diseases had already declined significantly prior to the introduction of mass vaccination. At minimum, this complicates straightforward causal claims and raises questions about how such narratives are constructed and sustained.

At any rate, this encounter was decisive. It shifted my attention from a general awareness of immune-related disease to a more focused and structured inquiry into vaccine-related autoimmunity. From there, I developed a formal research program, beginning with a published protocol (9), followed by a completed scoping review of the literature on Covid-19 vaccination and autoimmune disorders (10), and more recently an ongoing investigation—described in another published protocol (11)—into how standards of evidence are differentially applied depending on whether claims concern the benefits or harms of vaccination. At the same time, this line of work connected directly with my broader research concerns about epistemic integrity—specifically, how such findings are interpreted, qualified, or marginalized within biomedical research and policy discourse.

Kirk Hamilton: Can you tell us about your study and the basic results?

Claudia Chaufan : Initially, I conceived of a very broad project: to map the full range of autoimmune disorders reported in association with Covid-19 vaccination since the launch of the global campaign. However, the volume of emerging studies quickly made this approach unfeasible. My research time is limited given my substantial teaching load and graduate student supervision responsibilities, and so are the material resources available to support research assistants, many of whom are students or working adults with other obligations.

I therefore narrowed the scope of the review. Rather than attempting to map the entire field , I focused on six major autoimmune conditions of clear clinical significance: Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and type I diabetes mellitus. I further restricted the search to studies published in 2022, a period in which vaccination had become widespread and was, in many settings, reinforced through mandates tied to participation in professional and social life. By that time, key empirical and normative assumptions underlying these policies—such as the expectation that vaccination would prevent infection or transmission—had already come under sustained scrutiny.

The findings were nothing short of striking. Across the studies reviewed, there was consistent documentation of three patterns: exacerbation of pre-existing autoimmune conditions (often described as flares), the emergence of new autoimmune conditions in individuals with prior autoimmune disease, and new-onset autoimmune disorders in individuals with no documented history of such conditions. These findings were based largely on case reports and case series, which have well-known limitations. However, the consistency and breadth of reported phenomena across different conditions and settings made the overall pattern difficult to dismiss as incidental.

Kirk Hamilton: What is the significance of a 60% flare-up in those with previous autoimmunity and 25% new-onset autoimmunity?

Claudia Chaufan : The significance of these figures requires careful interpretation, both in terms of what they show and what they do not show. These are not population-level estimates derived from large epidemiological datasets; rather, they emerge from the aggregation of clinical reports within the literature reviewed. As such, even if they do not provide precise estimates of incidence or risk, they identify recurring patterns that warrant attention.

That said, even as indicative figures, they are difficult to dismiss. A reported 60% rate of flare-ups among individuals with pre-existing autoimmune disease points to a consistent pattern of exacerbation following vaccination. Similarly, a 25% proportion of new-onset autoimmune conditions within the reviewed cases—many occurring in individuals with no prior history of autoimmune disease—cannot be readily explained away by invoking “susceptibility” as a default category.

The tendency to attribute such outcomes to pre-existing or latent individual predispositions raises a broader issue. In many areas of medicine, when a pattern of adverse events emerges following exposure to a given intervention, the primary question is whether the intervention itself may be contributing to harm, not how to identify which individuals are uniquely vulnerable. The fact that an adverse effect does not occur in all exposed individuals does not diminish its significance, nor does it justify shifting the burden of explanation onto those affected.

This is particularly important in the context of interventions administered to large populations of otherwise healthy individuals. Under such conditions, the threshold for safety and the standards of scrutiny should be correspondingly high. Observations of new-onset autoimmune disorders in previously healthy individuals therefore raise not only mechanistic questions but also questions of proportionality and responsibility in clinical and policy decision-making.

The broader issue, in my view, is not simply one of risk evaluation under uncertainty, but of how claims about risk were framed, communicated, and enforced. From early on, Covid-19 was presented by public health authorities and governments as posing a broadly uniform and severe threat, even as available data already indicated substantial variation in risk by age and health status. At the same time, potential adverse effects of vaccination were not merely treated as unproven; they were frequently dismissed, discounted, or categorized as misinformation, effectively placing them outside the bounds of legitimate inquiry .

This asymmetry has important implications. If the risk of severe Covid-19 outcomes is highly stratified, while an intervention is applied indiscriminately across entire populations—including healthy individuals with very low baseline risk—then the question is no longer simply one of balancing risks and benefits in the abstract. It becomes a question of proportionality, responsibility, and the standards of evidence deemed acceptable when medical interventions are extended to populations that may derive little or no direct benefit—or may even be seriously harmed.

Under such conditions, the expectation of rigorous scrutiny should increase, not decrease. Observations of adverse outcomes, including new-onset autoimmune disorders in previously healthy individuals, therefore raise not only clinical and mechanistic questions, but also more fundamental questions about the justification for broad, population-wide interventions—and the thresholds at which they should be considered, if at all.

Kirk Hamilton: Do you think these two findings are real in the sense of it the Covid 19 vaccine causing this versus some effect from most people having an episode (s) of Covid 19?

Claudia Chaufan : I do not mean to be blunt but am not entirely sure what you mean by “real.” What I can say is that the findings themselves are based on a substantial number of documented clinical observations. In our review, we identified over a hundred papers reporting associations between Covid-19 vaccination and autoimmune disorders, many of them describing individuals who developed symptoms shortly after receiving the injection, including individuals with no prior history of autoimmune disease. For the patients involved, these events are unquestionably real.

It is often pointed out—correctly—that case reports and case series are not designed to establish causality. However, what is striking is the asymmetry in how evidentiary standards are applied. Very demanding standards are invoked when considering whether vaccines might cause harm, yet far less stringent standards are often accepted when making claims about their benefits, including assertions that vaccines have saved “millions of lives.” This creates a situation in which causality is treated as both essential and effectively unattainable, depending on the direction of the claim.

In addition, there is a circularity in the way the evidence base has developed. Randomized controlled trials that might have helped clarify causal questions about adverse events were not pursued, in part because vaccination was assumed to be so beneficial that withholding it was considered unethical. But that assumption itself rests on causal claims that were never subjected to the same level of scrutiny. As a result, we are left in a position where causality is both presumed and rendered difficult to investigate—precisely the problem I am currently examining in my work on epistemic asymmetry in vaccination research (11).

From a clinical and ethical standpoint, this matters. As I mentioned earlier, when a medical intervention is administered to healthy individuals—particularly younger populations—the threshold for safety should be extraordinarily high. One may be attempting to “fix” a problem that does not exist for large segments of the population, at potentially significant cost. Yet in many of the studies reviewed, even when authors documented autoimmune phenomena following vaccination, the conclusions often emphasized reassurance and continued vaccination, with limited discussion of precautionary approaches.

More broadly, this raises a question about how such interventions are framed within public health. There is a tendency to group mass vaccination campaigns alongside classic public health measures such as access to clean water, adequate nutrition, improved housing, and sanitation—interventions that address fundamental conditions of health and are not themselves sources of biological risk in the way a foreign substance injected into the body is. In other words, vaccines are not obviously equivalent to clean, drinkable water; the analogy is not only imperfect but potentially misleading. Even when vaccines are framed as a “social determinant of health,” they are pharmaceutical products—interventions that act within the body and carry risks—and therefore belong to a different analytical category. Treating them so (vaccines), lowers the level of scrutiny applied to their widespread use. This, in my view, warrants care and critical examination.

Kirk Hamilton: Do you have any idea what is the triggering component in the Covid vaccine? i.e. the synthetic made spike protein?

Claudia Chaufan : Actually, we did not chart this issue so I cannot give you an answer based on a systematic observation. However, there are plausible hypotheses grounded in immunology. The spike protein is one candidate that has received attention, particularly in relation to mechanisms such as molecular mimicry, where immune responses directed at a viral protein may cross-react with host tissues. This is not a novel concept, but its relevance in the context of Covid-19 vaccines is still being investigated.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that the vaccine is not only the spike protein. The mRNA platform and the lipid nanoparticles used for delivery are also biologically active components. These are designed to stimulate an immune response, which is their intended function, but that also means they can have effects beyond the narrowly defined target.

The key point, however, is that framing the issue in terms of a specific “triggering component” is conceptually misleading. It shifts attention toward identifying individual susceptibility or isolating a particular mechanism, rather than asking a more fundamental question: what are the implications of administering a biologically active substance, at scale, to large populations of otherwise healthy individuals? In most areas of medicine, the burden of proof rests on demonstrating that an intervention is effective, safe, necessary, and better than known alternatives—including the alternative of doing nothing—before it is widely deployed , rather than on identifying which individuals may be uniquely vulnerable after the fact.

Focusing on “triggers” can therefore function as a way of redistributing responsibility, from the intervention itself to the individuals affected by it. Yet biological outcomes are often contingent, shaped by complex and context-dependent interactions rather than a single identifiable cause. The fact that not all individuals experience adverse effects does not diminish the need for scrutiny; if anything, it underscores the importance of evaluating the intervention itself, rather than attributing outcomes primarily to presumed variations in susceptibility. Under conditions of mass administration, that distinction becomes critical.

Kirk Hamilton: Did any of the studies reviewed check for IGG antibody levels to the spike protein?

Claudia Chaufan : This was not a central or consistently reported focus in the studies included in the scoping review. The literature I examined was primarily composed of case reports and case series documenting clinical presentations of autoimmune conditions, and these studies varied considerably in the level of immunological detail they provided.

Some studies did include laboratory data, including antibody measurements, but there was no systematic or standardized assessment of IgG antibody levels—let alone specific subclasses such as IgG4—across the body of literature. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about antibody profiles from the studies reviewed.

This points to a broader limitation in the existing evidence base. If questions about immune response—including antibody dynamics—are to be addressed more rigorously, they require study designs that go beyond descriptive clinical reporting and incorporate more detailed and standardized immunological measurements.

Kirk Hamilton: Is there any other comment you would like to make on this subject?

Claudia Chaufan : I would emphasize that the central issue here is not only the identification of possible adverse events, but how such findings are interpreted within biomedical and policy contexts. A recurring observation in my work is that studies often document events that may be significant yet frame them in ways that minimize their implications or disconnect them from broader questions of causation and risk.

This raises questions about epistemic standards. If similar patterns of evidence were observed in other contexts, would they be interpreted in the same way? Are the thresholds for considering a causal relationship applied consistently across domains, or do they shift depending on prior ideological commitments, institutional incentives, or policy implications that may disrupt entrenched interests?

ore broadly, this connects to issues of governance and the production of knowledge—questions that also inform my teaching. Decisions about what counts as sufficient evidence, which questions are prioritized, and how uncertainty is communicated are not purely technical matters; they are shaped by institutional settings and policy objectives. In the classroom, I try to encourage students to examine these processes critically and to distinguish between empirical claims, normative assumptions, and the frameworks through which both are interpreted.

My concern is less about advancing a definitive claim in one direction or another, and more about ensuring that the evaluation of evidence remains open as new data emerge—and, importantly, that it is conducted in a manner that is transparent, ethically grounded, and open to democratic scrutiny.

References
1. Chaufan C. How much can a large population study on genes, environments, their interactions and common diseases contribute to the health of the American people? Social Science & Medicine . 2007;65(8):1730–41.

2. Chaufan C. Unpacking the heritability of diabetes: The problem of attempting to quantify the relative contributions of nature and nurture. DataCrítica: International Journal of Critical Statistics . 2009;2(2):23–38.

3. Chaufan C. What Can the Slim Initiative in Genomic Medicine for the Americas (SIGMA) Contribute to Preventing, Treating, or Decreasing the Impact of Diabetes among Mexicans and Latin Americans? Kalfou: A Journal of Comparative and Relational Ethnic Studies. 2018;5(1):24–35.

4. Chaufan C, Joseph J. The ‘missing heritability’ of common disorders: Should health researchers care? International Journal of Health Services. 2013;43(2):281–303.

5. Shoenfeld Y, Aron-Maor A. V accination and Autoimmunity—‘vaccinosis’: A Dangerous Liaison? Journal of Autoimmunity. 2000 Feb 1;14(1):1–10. doi:10.1006/jaut.1999.0346

6. Oski FA, Naiman JL. Effect of Live Measles Vaccine on the Platelet Count . New England Journal of Medicine. 1966 Aug 18;275(7):352–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM196608182750703

7. McKeown T, Record RG. Reasons for the Decline of Mortality in England and Wales during the Nineteenth Century . Population Studies. 1962;16(2):94–122. doi:10.2307/2173119

8. McKinlay JB, McKinlay SM. The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century . The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society. 1977;55(3):405–28. doi:10.2307/3349539

9. Chaufan C, Manwell L, Heredia C, McDonald J, Chaufan C, Manwell L, et al. COVID-19 vaccines and autoimmune disorders: A scoping review protocol . AIMSMEDS. 2023;10(4):medsci-10-04-025. doi:10.3934/medsci.2023025

10. Chaufan C, Manwell L, Heredia C, McDonald J, Chaufan C, Manwell L, et al. COVID-19 vaccines and autoimmune disorders: A scoping review . AIMSMEDS. 2025;12(4):325–49. doi:10.3934/medsci.2025023

11. Chaufan C. Interpreting autoimmune risks in the COVID-19 vaccine literature: A two-phase qualitative coding protocol on biological mechanisms and epistemic integrity. ALLERGY. 2025;9(3):190–204. doi:10.3934/Allergy.2025015

Staying Healthy Today is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

($5.00/month or $50/year would be appreciated for this weekly publication)

Kirk Hamilton PA-C
Prescription 2000, Inc.
Health Associates Medical Group
3301 Alta Arden, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 489-4400 (w)
krhammer@surewest.net
StayingHealthyToday.Substack.com
www.StayingHealthyToday.com
www.KwikerMedical.com
www.HealthyLivingforBusypeople.com

Autoimmune Disorders and The Politics of Evaluating Covid-19 Vaccine Harm. An interview with Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 04:28:00 GMT