The world is not as it seems. The veil is being lifted for all to see. Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas, “Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”
Former Australian Army Special Forces Lt. Col. Riccardo Bosi and Leader of the Australia One Party discusses the plan to defeat the totalitarian globalism which is now threatening all nations of the world. He details his plan of action with Australia One and gives advice for people around the world on what they can do.
Wake Up World, This Could Be You
July 19, 2022
In the video below Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), interviews Gretchen DuBeau, the executive and legal director for the Alliance for Natural Health, who in addition to being a lawyer also has a master’s degree in applied healing arts, talk about Big Pharma’s efforts to eliminate one of its greatest competitors, namely nutritional supplements.
One of the latest attempts to thwart your ability to access nutritional supplements comes in the form of draft legislation that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements. In short, it would require supplements to undergo the same approval process as drugs.
A discussion draft of the legislation was released by the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) in mid-May 2022. As reported by Vitamin Retailer:1
“On May 17 [2022], the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) released a discussion draft of its legislation to reauthorize FDA user fees for drugs, biologics and medical devices package, which includes the controversial and divisive Durbin-Braun premarket approval concept and more that would be damaging to the industry, according to the Natural Products Association (NPA).2
‘The NPA is significantly concerned with Chair Murray and Republican Leader Burr who failed to reject the radical and dangerous legislation from Senators Durbin and Braun that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements and weaken key privacy protections of the Bioterrorism Act, which protects the dietary supplement supply chain,’ said Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D. president and CEO of the NPA.
‘Last time I checked, dietary supplements are not drugs, biologics or medical devices, so why Congress or anyone supporting nongermane legislation that will only add costs to consumers who are doing all they can to stay healthy is extremely troubling.
Groups who [sic] have supported this legislation, have stated there are protections for technical disagreements with the FDA like those with hemp, CBD, NAC, and several other products. However, if this legislation were to pass, it is abundantly clear these products would be eliminated from the market.'”
For years, the drug industry, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s support, has tried to get nutritional supplements off the market. One of the most often used tactics has been to try to reclassify them as drugs.
Usually, they would target specific nutrients that stood in their way of profits, but legislation such as the Durbin-Braun premarket proposal would allow the drug industry to monopolize the market in one fell swoop.
The fight over vitamin B6 (pyroxidine) is one example of how Big Pharma tried to eliminate a natural substance that stood in the way of a drug patent. In 2007, Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen’s petition to the FDA in which it argued that any dietary supplement containing pyridoxal 5′-phosphate — vitamin B6 — were “adulterated” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, article 402(f).3
In essence, Medicure wanted all vitamin B6 products banned, because they undermined the company’s incentive to continue development of it’s drug version of B6.
Medicure had gotten wise to vitamin B6’s effectiveness against ischemia (inadequate blood flow), and decided to make a drug out of it by simply renaming the vitamin “MC-1.” They entered it into the drug bank and then argued that B6 supplements contained “their” MC-1. The drug bank even admits the renamed vitamin B6, i.e., MC-1, is:4
“… a biologically active natural product which can be regarded as a chemical entity that has been evolutionarily selected and validated for binding to particular protein domains.”
The main reason why drug companies engage in this kind of sleight of hand is because once a substance is classified as a drug, you can jack up the price by 1,000% over the supplement’s typical retail.5
Perhaps the most recent example of the FDA trying to shut down easy access to nutritional supplements was its 2020 attack on N-acetylcysteine (NAC). NAC has been a widely-used dietary supplement for six decades, yet the FDA suddenly decided to crack down on it in late July 2020 — right after it was discovered how useful it was for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.6
According to the FDA, NAC was excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement because it had been approved as a new drug in 1963.7 But if that was the case, why did they wait until 2020 to take action?
As reported by NPI at the time,8 there were more than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health’s Dietary Supplement Label Database when the FDA started sending out warning letters9 to companies that marketed NAC as a remedy for hangovers.
Members of the Council for Responsible Nutrition also worried the FDA might start to target NAC more widely. So far, that hasn’t happened, but Amazon immediately stopped selling all NAC products after those warning letters went out, whether the sellers marketed it as a hangover remedy or not.
Also, the selection of “hangover” for those warning letters seemed arbitrary at best. The fact is that several scientists had called attention to NAC’s benefits against COVID, and shortly afterward, the FDA came up with this ridiculous excuse to limit the availability of it. It just smacked of conflict of interest.
Another strategy the drug industry has been using to gain a monopoly over the supplement industry is by simply buying up supplement brands. Nestlé Health Science, for example, has acquired Garden of Life, Vital Proteins, Nuun, Pure Encapsulations, Wobenzym, Douglas Laboratories, Persona Nutrition, Genestra, Orthica, Minami, AOV, Klean Athlete and Bountiful.10
Bountiful, in turn, owns brands like Solgar, Osteo Bi-Flex, Puritan’s Pride, Ester-C and Sundown, all of which are now under Nestlé’s control. The Bountiful brands alone generated net sales of $1.87 billion in the 12 months ending March 31, 2021, so the $5.75 billion agreement to acquire a majority stake, signed in August 2021, didn’t necessarily burn a big hole in Nestlé’s pocket. According to J.P. Morgan analyst Celine Pannuti, quoted by Natural Products Insider:11
“Through the acquisition of The Bountiful Co., Nestlé can build a ‘leading position’ in the ‘fragmented category’ for vitamins, minerals and supplements, which ‘has delivered the highest and most consistent growth in consumer health care over the past 10 years.'”
In all, a mere 14 mega corporations — many of them drug companies — now own more than 100 of the most popular supplement brands on the market. The graphic below is from Neal Smoller, PharmD, the holistic pharmacist’s website.12
It doesn’t show the ownership of all available brands, but it gives you an idea of just how small the ownership circle has become. As noted by Smoller, many competing brands are even owned by the same corporation, rendering the notion of free market competition null and void.
Importantly, owning the lion’s share of supplement companies puts the drug industry in a unique position to get rid of them whenever they so desire. They could intentionally make the company tank simply by cutting advertising, for example. Cutting quality could have a similar effect, while simultaneously cheating customers who rely on dietary supplements for optimal nutrition and health.
Most important of all, however, this monopoly over the supplement industry gives drug companies enormous regulatory influence, and that’s a way by which they could eliminate independent supplement makers who can’t compete financially. Indeed, that seems to be what the Durbin-Braun proposal is all about.
This new proposed legislation would technically ban most supplements, as few supplement makers have the financial resources required to meet drug approval requirements. The only ones with pockets deep enough to do that would be the mega-corporations.
Putting vitamins and nutrients through the drug evaluation and approval process would automatically eliminate many supplements from the market and result in higher retail prices for whatever remains. It would also allow drug companies to rename basic nutrients, label them drugs, and jack up the price even further.
We cannot let this happen. Dietary supplements are FOOD, plain and simple. They should not be treated as drugs, which must undergo rigorous testing to evaluate effects and safety. Supplements have a long history of near-spotless safety and don’t need drug-style testing.
Deaths associated with use of dietary supplements are extremely rare compared to the death toll from prescription drugs, yet supplements are routinely singled out as being potentially dangerous,13,14 either due to lack of testing, lack of regulation or both. The thing is, supplements don’t need safety testing, as they are food, and they are, in fact, fully regulated.
In 2015, CBC News published a Marketplace report15 in which they claimed a number of supplement makers had ripped off customers by failing to live up to the claims on their labels. Two months later, they had to retract the report,16 when it was proven their tests were inaccurate. That’s just one example of how the pharma-owned media tries to give supplements a bad rap.
Meanwhile, in the real world, not a single death has ever been reported as a direct result of taking a supplement. On the contrary, data provided in a 2012 report by the UK-based Alliance for Natural Health International (ANHI), showed nutritional supplements are the safest foodstuffs available.
Your risk of dying from an herbal product or dietary supplement is less than 1 in 10 million, comparable to your risk of being killed by lighting. ANHI also calculated that adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times more likely to kill you than nutritional supplements.17
So, the one thing that can be conclusively said about supplements is that they may be the safest category of any consumable product. On the whole, junk food and drugs are FAR more likely to harm or kill you.
What’s more, lack of human trials does not mean supplements are unregulated. They’re regulated by both the FDA18 and the Federal Trade Commission19 (FTC). The FDA regulates the finished product and individual ingredients, while the FTC regulates the advertising of supplements. So, while not regulated as drugs, but rather as a food, they are fully regulated.
As noted by NPA president and CEO, Daniel Fabricant:20
“The war is far from over. We need America’s health and wellness advocates to continue writing their members of Congress through the NPA Action Center. Grassroots involvement over the coming weeks is absolutely critical to defeating this radical and dangerous proposal.”
I join Fabricant in urging you to contact your senators and urge them to oppose the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022, and its inclusion in the FDA Safety Landmark Advancements Act. A list of contact numbers can be found here. On that same page, the NPA also has a sample script with key talking points.
If you take supplements and you want to continue the freedom to take them in the future, it is VITAL that if you live in the U.S. that you let you representatives know. Not only would I email them in the link below (be sure to customize it and change it) but I would also call your representatives! It worked previously and will work now, but you need to be involved.
Alternatively, you can take action by sending an email. The Alliance for Natural Health makes it easy on SaveSupplements.com. Phone calls are more effective, but if for some reason you don’t want to call, Alliance for Natural Health has created a prewritten email that will be automatically sent to the U.S. president, senators and representatives.
Search type: any match / exact term.
65.8 Questioner: Are you saying then that this possible condition of war would be much more greatly spread across the surface of the globe than anything we have experienced in the past and therefore touch a larger percentage of the population in this form of catalyst?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. There are those now experimenting with one of the major weapons of this scenario, that is the so-called psychotronic group of devices which are being experimentally used to cause such alterations in wind and weather as will result in eventual famine. If this program is not countered and proves experimentally satisfactory, the methods in this scenario would be made public. There would then be what those whom you call Russians hope to be a bloodless invasion of their personnel in this and every land deemed valuable. However, the peoples of your culture have little propensity for bloodless surrender.
Stephanie Arnold was already a mother to two young girls, but when she became pregnant with her third child, she had a bad feeling.
It wasn’t pregnancy jitters; it wasn’t fear of the unknown — it was a premonition.
“I knew 100 percent I was going to die giving birth to my son,” Arnold told Today. She told everyone — her friends, her family, her doctors. She made public posts — goodbye letters — on social media, and she knew months before her due date that she was going to die on the operating table.
Where was this coming from? Why was she being morbid?
Friends and family were worried about her, and doctors didn’t quite believe her, dismissing her concerns as just nerves.
But it wasn’t just that; Arnold knew very specifically that she was going to die on the operating table, suffer kidney failure, and even need a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus). It was like she had a precise but horrible vision of what was to come.
One of the last people she told was her anesthesiologist during her last medical consultation before her delivery.
It felt like a useless phone call wherein Arnold received no help; the anesthesiologist had walked her through what recovery would look like, and then Arnold asked what would happen in the very specific case that things played out like her vision.
“She said she was startled by it,” Arnold said.
But even though Arnold hung up feeling like the anesthesiologist didn’t help, it ended up being the crucial tie-breaker.
The anesthesiologist ended up flagging Arnold’s file and incorporating extra blood and a crash cart in her operating room.
Arnold ended up delivering a healthy baby boy earlier than her due date. She started bleeding and had to be rushed to the hospital. She said goodbye to her 18-month-old daughter through her tears, knowing it would be the last time she would see her.
And then things ended up playing out exactly like her vision. Three seconds after her son was born, she died.
Arnold flatlined for 37 seconds, and during that time, she saw the medical staff who sprang into action, she saw which nurse was giving her CPR, she saw what was going on with her daughter down the hall in another room, she saw her anesthesiologist at the foot of her bed, and she saw her doctor standing beside her saying over and over again, “This can’t be happening. This can’t be happening.”
Arnold’s blood wasn’t clotting, she had a heart attack, her kidneys were failing, and she had to get a hysterectomy just like she had seen in her premonition. The human body usually has 20 units of blood — she was given 60 units.
If the extra blood and crash cart hadn’t been on hand, Arnold would not have been resurrected.
It turned out she had an amniotic fluid embolism — where the amniotic fluid gets into the mother’s bloodstream, a rare 1-in-40,000 occurrence, and Arnold happened to be allergic to the fluid, causing a horrific reaction.
When Arnold came out of her medically induced coma, she was traumatized. Everything she feared would happen came to pass, and she ended up seeking therapy to help work through it.
But out of those regression therapy sessions, Arnold learned that she knew a lot of things she shouldn’t have been able to know.
Later, when she asked her doctor whether she’d said “This can’t be happening,” her doctor was shocked. She told Arnold that she did, but only in her head.
Arnold had known what her husband was wearing even though he had been getting off a plane and nowhere near her; she’d known what her daughter was doing down the hall; what the doctors and nurses were doing during the 37 seconds where she was technically dead. There was no way for her to have been conscious or aware of any of that.
She had had an out-of-body experience.
“I have no explanation of it all,” one of her doctors told her.
What really sealed Arnold’s belief that she’d had a spiritual near-death and out-of-body experience was one little boy she saw during those seconds.
There was a little boy who looked a lot like her childhood girlfriend, and she supposed that it could have been her brother who had passed away as a child. Except she’d never met this boy.
During this time, the little boy told Arnold, “Tell my sister that I miss the way she twirled my hair.”
It made no sense to her, but during Arnold’s recovery, she called up her friend to ask if this meant anything to her.
She told Arnold, “I used to do it every night to put him to sleep.”
As a child, Arnold was intuitive to the point of practically having premonitions, but it went away as she got older. But the months leading up to her third pregnancy cranked her sensitivity up high.
She did her research thoroughly afterward as well. She sorted through many near-death experiences and read what other experts had to say for or against these theories while making up her mind.
Her own doctors had told her that, normally, someone in her situation would not have survived, or if they did there was such a high chance of lasting neurological damage, and none of it happened to Arnold.
Then she compiled her research and her interview with her doctors in the aftermath and wrote a book, titled “37 Seconds,” to tell her story.
Arnold knew what she saw had to be true.
She had gone through a traumatic experience, and the months leading up to it were terrifying, but she came out the other side feeling blessed.
“Not a day goes by that I don’t feel blessed. Not a day goes by that I don’t appreciate life,” she said.
Find out more about Stephanie Arnold at her website stephaniearnold.net, or check out her book “37 Seconds” at Amazon.
Share your stories with us at emg.inspired@epochtimes.com, and continue to get your daily dose of inspiration by signing up for the Inspired newsletter at TheEpochTimes.com/newsletter
…Each moment and certainly each diurnal period of the bodily incarnation offers death and rebirth to one which is attempting to use the catalyst which is offered it. – Law Of One 81.13
Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis
Abe, Johnson Fall, Biden and Macron next as Khazarian Mafia takedown continues. The world is not as it seems and we cannot separate the physical and metaphysical worlds. The following report provides updates of what is happening in the greatest spiritual battle the world has even known.
Speaking during a weekly briefing, Tedros stated that “the virus is running freely, and countries are not effectively managing the disease.” With the WHO concluding last week that the virus remains a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, Tedros asserted that the pandemic was “nowhere near over.”
During the week of July 4-10, 2022, over 5.7 million new cases of Covid-19 were reported, a 6% increase compared to the previous week. Deaths, however, have remained relatively flat throughout this summer, with just over 9,800 reported in the week leading up to July 4, five times fewer than the same week last year.
Tedros called on national authorities to step up their efforts in “communicating risk” to the public, and called for a return of “public health social measures like masking, distancing and ventilation.”
Mask mandates and social distancing requirements were largely abandoned earlier this year, although some countries – among them China and South Korea – still require face masks in most public settings.
White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci conceded Wednesday morning that COVID-19 vaccines don’t protect “overly well” against the virus.
Speaking during a Fox News interview, Fauci told host Neil Cavuto that “one of the things that’s clear from the data [is] that … vaccines—because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus—don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection.”
But Fauci said later that the vaccines “protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death” before he made note of his recent COVID-19 diagnosis.
“At my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it made a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease,” said Fauci, who is 81 and has worked in various capacities in the federal government since the late 1960s. He’s also headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since the Reagan administration.
Fauci then said it’s because of the vaccination that it is “very likely why I had a relatively mild course.”
The official’s comments come just days after a bombshell study revealed that natural immunity, or the immunity conferred via a previous COVID-19 infection, provides superior protection against the virus when compared with vaccines.
Researchers in Qatar said that individuals who survived a COVID-19
infection and weren’t vaccinated had very high protection against severe or fatal disease.
“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3 percent … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning. Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age,” Dr. Laith Abu-Raddad of Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar wrote.
But the researchers noted that both natural and artificial immunity conferred via vaccines waned over time. People who were previously infected with COVID-19 and were not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection as compared to those that were vaccinated with two doses but not infected.
During an interview with the Washington Post this week, Fauci suggested that Americans aged 5 to 50 should be allowed to get a second booster shot.
The federal government, he argued, “need[s] to allow people who are under 50 to get their second booster shot, since it may have been months since many of them got their first booster.”
“If I got my third shot [in 2021], it is very likely the immunity is waning,” Fauci proclaimed.
Marina Zhang contributed to this report.
…You cannot truly make a mistake, for whatever road upon which you turn, you shall meet your catalyst again and again until you recognize it, love it, forgive it and move beyond it. You are queens and kings, rulers of yourselves, all of you royal. Remember who you are, remember your birthright and remember that you live in a spiritual democracy where each entity is precisely, mathematically equal. The differences within the illusion come from your use of will through faith. – Q’uo
Good information from Doctors about the Vaccine
Klaus Schwab’s message:”This engagement of the young generation never has been more important than now, where we have to face the consequences of the pandemic of COVID-19 for creating a more resilient, a more sustainable and a more inclusive world; Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.”
A large-scale international study of those unvaccinated against COVID-19 finds a pattern of discrimination—and a relatively low hospitalization rate.
While the study’s findings are limited by the nature of the selection process, in which unvaccinated people opted in to participate, the new study suggests that those who declined the vaccine may not be the burden to the health care system many have claimed them to be. The study is now available as a preprint (which means it hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed). It was uploaded to ResearchGate earlier this month.
The findings hold significant importance to policymakers. According to Our World in Data, 60 percent of the world is fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The 40 percent who aren’t vaccinated against the virus have been frequently blamed for the duration and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as vaccination rates reached up to 90 percent in many jurisdictions.
With government agencies, news media, and social media algorithms ignoring or misrepresenting the contending science around COVID-19, the unvaccinated have faced often intense pressure to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
“What the survey aimed to do is gather insights about health outcomes, choices, and discrimination experienced by the marginalized subpopulation of people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures who have elected to exercise their right of refusal of COVID-19 injections,” the study authors said.
In many places in the United States, those who declined the COVID-19 vaccines have been discriminated against, stigmatized, and marginalized from society. Nurses and health care workers were fired, Air Force cadets were denied commissions, and family members found themselves ostracized within some of their most intimate and important relationships.
The vilification of the unvaccinated has come with the censorship of both science and personal experience. Many doctors, nurses, scientists, and other health care professionals who speak out about the safety and necessity of these vaccines have been threatened with the loss of their medical licenses, deleted from social media, canceled from events with their peers, and fired from their jobs.
The study is based on data collected from the Control Group Cooperative (CGC), which was founded in July 2021 by a citizens group in the UK to represent and connect people who elected to not get the COVID-19 vaccines.
The goal of the CGC has been to analyze the long-term health outcomes and experiences of these individuals through self-reported surveys. According to their website, there are currently more than 300,000 unvaccinated participants from more than 175 countries participating in their long-term study.
The study was conducted by Robert Verkerk, founder of the Alliance for Natural Health International, an affiliate of the CGC. A team of international scientists contributed to the research. The study analyzes the data from the CGC survey from the first five months of its operation—from September 2021 through February.
The cohort analyzed by Verkerk consisted of 18,497 individuals out of the 297,618 people who had joined the CGC by the end of February.
A plurality of participants were from the continent of Europe (40 percent), followed by Oceania (27 percent), and North America (25 percent). Three percent of participants were from South America and Asia, while less than 1 percent were from Africa. Ages ranged anywhere from 1 to more than 90 years old, with most participants being middle-aged.
Individuals participating in the study declined COVID-19 vaccination for various reasons. These included past vaccine injuries, preference for more natural remedies, lack of trust in pharmaceutical companies and government entities, and concerns about the validity of vaccine study results.
One-third of the individuals in the study self-reported that they received vaccinations as children. That figure may be low, as others may not have reported—or even remembered—their previous vaccinations.
While some had never been vaccinated, the cohort was mainly concerned about the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccines, not all vaccines in general.
Between 20 and 50 percent of respondents, depending on where they lived, reported being personal targets of hate and discrimination. Many felt victimized for their vaccination status, especially those living in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and South America.
They reported that they faced discrimination in the workplace, from friends or family members, and from their respective state authorities, because of their “unvaccinated” status.
The prejudice experienced within the workplace by respondents resulted in heavy economic burdens for many. For example, 29 percent of respondents from Australia and New Zealand reported losing their jobs during the five months that the survey was administered.
These survey results dovetail with what unvaccinated individuals have been facing globally. Those who don’t succumb to peer pressure, advertising, or incentivizing are then threatened with an ultimatum: Get the vaccine or get fired.
That’s what happened to Destiny Carpenter, a former nurse at Colorado Canyons Hospital. Carpenter is among one of the hundreds of U.S. nurses who have been fired for refusing to get the vaccine, as Fox News reported in September 2021.
Carpenter was nominated for the Daisy Award for extraordinary nursing three times during her tenure at the hospital. This award is granted to the most deserving nurse for exuding compassionate care to their patients.
In February, FiercePharma reported that more than 15,500 health care workers in the United States had been fired or suspended or had chosen to resign from their hospital jobs over their decision to remain unvaccinated.
About 40 percent of respondents, regardless of age, reported that they experienced mild or moderate mental health issues during the duration of the survey, while approximately 20 percent reported experiencing severe mental health issues.
In an analysis of the mental health issues experienced by the cohort, the scientists noted that the mental health burden “may be associated more to the human response to the pandemic, rather than psychological, fear-based reactions to any threat posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself.”
In other words, the respondents’ mental health problems appeared to mainly be a result of being stigmatized and marginalized from society.
While the study gives insight into the experience of the unvaccinated, it always raises questions about assertions that this group is an undue burden on the health care system.
“Only 74 respondents out of the 5,196 (1.4 percent) who reported suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection also reported that they were hospitalized following infection. Therefore, outpatient or inpatient hospitalization was reported in just 0.4 percent of the full survey cohort. Of these, 15 were outpatient only, another 15 were hospitalized for less than 3 days, 26 were hospitalized between 3 and 7 days, 11 for between 7 and 14 days and only 10 for more than 14 days,” the study reads.
While the study is potentially prone to bias because of the selection pool for the survey, an infection-hospitalization ratio of 0.4 percent would certainly challenge many assertions about the burden of the unvaccinated.
A study published in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice in May 2021 found an overall infection-hospitalization ratio of 2.1 percent that varied more by age than by race or sex.
“Infection-hospitalization ratio estimates ranged from 0.4 percent for those younger than 40 years to 9.2 percent for those older than 60 years.”
The study also found that hospitalization rates based on case counts overestimated the IHR by a factor of 10, “but this overestimation differed by demographic groups, especially age.”
Most of the CGC respondents who reported that they had caught COVID-19 had only mild symptoms and were sick for less than a week. Fatigue and coughing were the most common symptoms recorded.
Beyond the fact that they were unvaccinated, another unique trait of the CGC cohort may also be their propensity to try various therapeutics to treat their COVID-19 infections.
Participants reported that they didn’t need a vaccine to lessen their symptoms: Most infections were mild to begin with, and many respondents said they turned to natural remedies when they did get sick.
Participants reported that they opted to support their immune systems naturally by taking preventative vitamins such as zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, and quercetin.
A study published in June 2021 in the journal Inflammopharmacology by an international team of researchers from India, Italy, and the United States, shows that using natural remedies is a scientifically sound choice.
This study explored the immune-boosting properties of vitamins and minerals in combating COVID-19 infections. The scientists found that if administered at higher-than-recommended daily doses, many vitamins had the potential to reduce viral load and risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.
The decision to combat COVID-19 with non-pharmacological immune-enhancing interventions may also help explain why the hospitalization rates of the unvaccinated in the study were so low.
A portion of the participants reported that they also took ivermectin, an anti-parasitical that has been both promoted and hotly criticized as a treatment for COVID-19, as The Epoch Times has reported.
While ivermectin remains controversial, a meta-analysis published in June 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics states: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
On June 18, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that it was authorizing the emergency use of Moderna and Pfizer vaccines for babies 6 months and older. About 20 million U.S. children are in this age bracket.
The announcement has raised concerns that side effects from the vaccine aren’t being weighed against potential benefits.
As of June 12, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicated that there have been 1,301,354 adverse events and 28,859 deaths from COVID-19 vaccines. A recent analysis of VAERS reports done by two journalists in Israel revealed that there were 58 serious adverse effects in babies prior to the rollout of the vaccine authorization for those aged 6 months and older. The reports failed to indicate if these infants and toddlers were involved in the Pfizer clinical trial or why they received vaccination.
Verkerk is deeply concerned about the CDC vaccine authorization for children younger than 5. He holds master’s and doctorate degrees from Imperial College London and is co-author of more than 60 peer-reviewed journal articles in the areas of health, agriculture, and environment. He’s also the co-chair of the World Council of Health’s Health & Humanity Committee. He told The Epoch Times via email that many parents want this vaccine for their children because, like every parent, they want what’s best for their child.
“However, they’ve been misled as to the known science on both the benefits and the risks,” he wrote. “There could be disastrous long-term consequences for some children if they are exposed to the spike protein via the vaccine before they are exposed to circulating coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, which would otherwise result in broader-based, more robust, naturally-acquired immunity.”
For Verkerk, it’s about choice. We shouldn’t vilify those who rely on natural immunity or refuse the vaccines for religious, medical, or ethical reasons, he said.
“We have seen a dramatic erosion of the principles of medical ethics,” he wrote.
We need to respect autonomy (the right of competent adults to make individualized and informed decisions about their own medical care) and adhere to the principle of first doing no harm, as well as to the principles of beneficence and justice, according to Verkerk.
Video provides update on Ukraine and the US involvement
The Resident
Planned Parenthood is using baby parts
It is time to take back our world
God is within the Body
War on Human Trafficking
Reawaken Tour
17.17 Questioner: Can you tell me what the Orion group did in order to try to cause his downfall?
Ra: I am Ra. We may describe in general what occurred. The technique was that of building upon other negatively oriented information. This information had been given by the one whom your peoples called “Yahweh.” This information involved many strictures upon behavior and promised power of the third-density, service-to-self nature. These two types of distortions were impressed upon those already oriented to think these thought-forms.
This eventually led to many challenges of the entity known as Jesus. It eventually led to one, sound vibration complex “Judas,” as you call this entity, who believed that it was doing the appropriate thing in bringing about or forcing upon the one you call Jesus the necessity for bringing in the third-density planetary power distortion of third-density rule over others.
This entity, Judas, felt that, if pushed into a corner, the entity you call Jesus would then be able to see the wisdom of using the power of intelligent infinity in order to rule others. The one you call Judas was mistaken in this estimation of the reaction of the entity, Jesus, whose teach/learning was not oriented towards this distortion. This resulted in the destruction of the bodily complex of the one known as Jesus to you. Law of One
An Irreversible Decision: Once You’ve Been Vaccinated, You Cannot Become Unvaccinated
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: “The types of things that this injection does, binding the spike protein to the surface of your cells, making an antibody, which means you’re sensitized to that forever. Once you’ve been vaccinated, it is the mark. You cannot become unvaccinated. This is an irreversible thing.”
“Put your hands in God and not in these pharmaceuticals.”
Drop boxes that enable people to drop off ballots cast by themselves and others are illegal under Wisconsin law, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on July 8.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) in two documents in 2020 said drop boxes can not only be utilized, but that they can be unstaffed and permanent. Further, the agency said “a family member or another person” can drop off a ballot on behalf of a voter.
The guidance was problematic because Wisconsin law states that a voter is the only individual who can deliver their ballot, either in person or via mail, a lawsuit filed last year stated.
In the ruling on Friday, a Wisconsin Supreme Court majority agreed.
“We hold the documents are invalid because ballot drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin statutes,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in the majority opinion. “An absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk’s office or a designated alternate site.”
The decision upheld a circuit court ruling that concluded an elector must “personally mail” his or her ballot and that there are only two lawful methods for casting an absentee ballot. Those are mailing the ballot and delivering it in person.
“Because WEC’s memos conflict with these statutory directives, they are invalid,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote in a concurring opinion.
The memos were promulgated by the WEC in response to questions from local election clerks amid the COVID-9 pandemic.
“This decision provides substantial clarity on the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes and ballot harvesting. While the question of whether an agent may mail an absentee ballot remains open, Wisconsin voters can have confidence that state law, not guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission, has the final word on how Wisconsin elections are conducted,” Rick Esenberg, president and counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, told The Epoch Times in an email.
The institute brought the case.
Three justices dissented, including Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
Writing for the minority, Bradley said a drop box “is a simple and perfectly legal solution to make voting easier, especially in the midst of a global pandemic.”
“But it is apparently a bridge too far for a majority of this court, which once again rejects a practice that would expand voter participation,” she added.
Bradley took issue with allowing two Wisconsin voters to challenge the guidance.
“Taken to its logical conclusion, the majority/lead opinion indicates that any registered voter would seemingly have standing to challenge any election law. The impact of such a broad conception of voter standing is breathtaking and especially acute at a time of increasing, unfounded challenges to election results and election administrators,” she wrote.
Become Ungovernable: Eva Vlaardingerbroek Breaks Down Why the Dutch Farmers’ Protests Are So Pivotal
Become Ungovernable: Eva Vlaardingerbroek Breaks Down Why the Dutch Farmers’ Protests Are So Pivotal
“It’s very clear that the government is not doing this because of a nitrogen crisis, they’re doing this because they want these farmers’ land.”
Is pedophilia running rampart in the world governments? Decide for yourself.
Our Children are being Indoctrinated Not Educated. The video below explains
Big Pharma Paid $24 Million to 1 Percent of US Oncologists, Many in High-Profile Positions: Study
One percent of U.S. cancer doctors, many with leadership roles in hospitals, academia, national health institutes, and guideline-making, received over $24 million in payments from cancer pharmaceutical companies in 2018, according to a new study by Queen’s University in Canada.
The study found that 139 oncologists—representing 1 percent of all American cancer doctors—were given over $100,000 in general payments, with a median payment of around $154,000, and a total of $24.2 million.
“A payment of this magnitude creates a high risk” of conflict of interest, the authors wrote in the study, with $10,000 considered to be a significant payment by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The payments to these doctors made up 37 percent of all payments to oncologists in that year, including consulting fees, speaking fees, honoraria, and travel expenses from cancer medication companies.
“These physicians hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and serve on journal editorial boards.”
“The findings identify a risk for perceived and real conflict of interest. Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial,” the study’s lead author Dr. Anthony Booth told MedPage Today.
Further, the payments raise the concern that doctors may prescribe medication that is not as suitable for cancer patients, as conflict of interest “may be particularly problematic in oncology, as treatments are expensive, often have significant toxicities, and may be associated with modest benefits.”
The study authors found that 95 percent of these doctors were still practicing medicine, with many considered top-rated cancer doctors at the state or national level.
More than half—56 percent—also worked in academic settings; 31 percent worked at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers, and a quarter—23 percent—worked at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), a not-for-profit alliance of 32 leading cancer centers devoted to patient care, research, and education.
Many were also in medical leadership positions with 60 and 72 percent currently or previously holding hospital leadership or faculty appointments. One quarter—24 percent—have worked on journal editorial boards, and 21 percent have held leadership posts in special associations.
In particular, 10 percent have drafted clinical practice guidelines in committees for the past 5 years.
Many committees have rules on how much an author of guidelines is allowed to receive. The NCCN will challenge members if an individual receives more than $20,000 a year, which is only one-fifth of the baseline in the study.
A previous study also showed that only 16 percent of NCCN guideline authors did not accept general industry payments with other studies showing that NCCN guideline committees have higher financial ties to the industry than other oncologists.
“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” the authors wrote.
They noted that revenue from pharmaceutical oncology drugs has increased by 70 percent over the past decade, while revenue in non-oncology drug revenue has decreased by 18 percent.
At the same time, the number and value of those payments to oncologists have also increased.
The study team also identified a total of 52,441 physicians who received modest payments related to oncology drugs from 2016 to 2018, with a median of $109 in 2018.
However, previous studies have shown that even “modest payments can influence physician behavior.”
Anita Moorjani is a New York Times bestselling author, and she was also a terminal lymphoma patient. When she was dying, she had a near-death experience that people usually don’t go through.
At that time, Moorjani had been fighting lymphoma for four years and was terminally ill. The cancer had spread, and her body was covered in tumors, some as big as lemons. She was only 85 pounds and “looked like a skeleton with skin” as she put it.
On the morning of February 2, 2006, Moorjani fell into a coma, as her organs began to fail and shut down. Doctors informed her family and announced that she would only live for a few more hours.
During this time, something miraculous happened. Although Moorjani’s eyes were closed, and she was still in a coma, her consciousness suddenly woke up.
She described the scene, “I felt myself expanding out of my body and could see my own body in the hospital bed.” She was like an extremely lucid and omnipresent bystander, who could be everywhere and anywhere at the same time.
She felt that her soul had entered another world, and she believed it to be heaven. She saw many beings there welcoming her. It seemed that every being was immersed in God’s mercy and unconditional love, making her realize the preciousness and greatness of life itself. She traveled for a long time in this world unbounded by time or space, seeing the past and future.
She suddenly realized that her life goals and choices had been distorted, that she had dealt with everything from a fearful and negative perspective, that she had lived a heavy life, and that all this had caused her cancer. “And I actually learned that my cancer would heal quickly after I returned to my body,” she said.
After more than 30 hours of being on the verge of death, Moorjani woke up miraculously. She declared to her family at her bedside, “I’m going to get better. It’s not time for me to die.”
Four or five days later, the tumors in her body had shrunk by 70 percent; within three weeks, her cancer had disappeared without a trace; and five weeks after she woke up, Moorjani was discharged from the hospital and went home.
She said that the most important thing she learned from this near-death experience was a new understanding of the meaning of life. It made her understand how she should live.
Modern research on near-death experiences dates back about 50 years, in the 1970s. However, descriptions of such experiences can be found as far back as ancient Greece.
Near-death experiences (NDEs) are vivid and often life-altering experiences, many of which occur under extreme physiological conditions such as trauma, cessation of brain activity, deep general anesthesia, or cardiac arrest. According to the popular view of neuroscience, any form of consciousness or sensory experience is impossible under such conditions.
Although NDEs vary from person to person, they usually have the following phenomena:
The details of Moorjani’s experience correspond to these phenomena. There are also people whose near-death experiences are different from the ones listed above and may be frightening or painful.
Many people describe NDEs as hallucinations from various causes. For instance, they are said to be caused by hypoxia, hypercapnia, hormone and neurotransmitter release, epilepsy, limbic lobe activation, REM intrusion, and brain dysfunction.
The most popular explanation for NDEs is the dying brain hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, NDEs are hallucinations caused by brain activity as cells begin to die.
Professor Sam Parnia, a well-known researcher of near-death experiences and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, wrote that scientifically speaking, there are no studies that provide definitive data that actually link the near-death experiences to abnormal brain states.
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Oregon and published in the journal Explore in 2021 emphasized that the seemingly plausible dying brain hypothesis does not explain the full range of features that may occur during a NDE, such as why people experience disembodiment.
Furthermore, there is much evidence that people have sensory-perceptual experiences during their NDEs. However, materialism argues that consciousness arises solely from the activity of the neurons in the brain and that people do not have such sensory perceptual experiences in extreme near-death situations.
Some people also believe that the sense of calm and blissfulness felt during the NDEs is due to the effects of drugs or even narcotics. However, study in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine suggests that this is not scientifically logical. Just as hugging can bring happiness, so can certain drugs, but it is not logical to say that the happiness from hugging is due to the drugs taken by the people who hug.
Researchers in Italy and Switzerland conducted two separate studies comparing the quality of memories of NDEs with the quality of imagined memories. Both found that memories of NDEs were inconsistent with fictitious experiences. Memories of near-death experiences were closer to memories of real-life events and appeared to be more real than real-life events.
One of the studies revealed that the brain waves when recalling NDEs are similar to the brain waves of real memories, which are different from the brain waves of imagined memories.
Near-death memories are clearer and contain more self-referential and emotional information than memories of real events and coma memories. Researchers have therefore concluded that NDEs cannot be considered as memories of imagined events.
Objectively speaking, although many phenomena of NDEs cannot be explained by the medical community, skeptics rarely accuse near-death experiencers of fabricating stories out of thin air. At least it can be said that the feeling of people having been there must have been real. NDEs are numerous and often well documented, including by reputable or respected medical professionals.
Dr. Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who has taught and practiced at several prestigious hospitals and colleges, including Harvard Medical School. He had a NDE after suffering from a rare form of meningitis and a severe coma. However, he later recovered in a short period of time. As he’s an expert in the field of neurology, Alexander studied his own medical history and came to the conclusion that he was in a deep coma during his near-death experience and that his brain had already shut down completely. He believed that the only explanation for what he felt and saw was that his soul was indeed detached from his body. However, this phenomenon cannot be confirmed by modern scientific testing methods.
Another impressive aspect of Moorjani’s story is that after her NDE, she was cured of her advanced lymphoma within a very short period of time, and the cancer cells disappeared from her body.
In addition to Moorjani and Alexander, many other people experience life miracles or life changes after near-death experiences. What are the reasons for these miracles?
People often report that during NDEs, their belief in the meaning of life increases. This is accompanied by a reduced fear of death, a greater sense of altruism, a greater sense of compassion and responsibility, and the ability to show greater love to others.
This type of physiological change brought about by this spiritual elevation may be one of the reasons for their improvement in illness.
Researchers of psychology, psychiatry, biobehavior, and immunology at the University of California published a joint study in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine. They followed 43 female participants and found that women who valued, or valued more than before, the search for meaning and purpose of life had more increased natural killer cell cytotoxicity (i.e. more powerful ability to kill foreign invaders) than women who did not. This implies that such individuals are also more resistant to cancer and viruses.
Natural killer cells are the body’s natural immune cells that kill a wide range of solid tumor cells and leukemia cells, as well as virus-infected cells. They act like armed police officers to capture and destroy the wrongdoers in the body. A decrease in their activity or number can lead to the development and metastasis of cancer and viral infections. In addition, many diseases, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, immunodeficiency syndrome, and certain autoimmune diseases, are also associated with natural killer cells.
The belief and appreciation of the meaning of life play an important role in maintaining and enhancing physical and mental health.
Understanding the meaning of life leads to a more positive outlook on life and a greater sense of inner peace, which can help restore a sense of control over cancer and life. People who have lost their belief in the meaning of life tend to be reluctant to face life positively, have higher levels of depression and stress, and are less likely to get better from their illnesses.
Yale University published a study in the journal Palliative Supportive Care in 2014. In this study, by following 52 patients with advanced cancer, they found that spiritual well-being had a very strong impact on quality of life in such patients, even outweighing the impact of physical and emotional well-being.
Besides cancer, other diseases can also be greatly improved by spiritual elevation. In a study conducted by scholars from the Department of Psychology at Brigham Young University, 100 religious people between the ages of 15 and 59 found that the better the spiritual wellness, the lower the risk of heart disease-related blood pressure, inflammation, fasting glucose, and blood lipids.
