Perhaps it is time to discover the truth about ourselves by looking within through meditation, contemplation and prayer. Simply pick a time during your day to stop, be still and listen. Commitment and desire is best way for anyone to begin a meditation practice and open the gateway to the divine.
Meditation, with its countless benefits, is your tool to explore the Way and our ancient teachers provide guidance. Jesus said in the Dialogue of the Savior, left out of the Bible, “When I came among humanity, I opened the door to the Way. I showed you the path that you must follow. You will find it within yourselves.” Buddha said six hundred years earlier, “Before you set foot on the path, master yourself.” Krishna said, around 3500 BC, ” Those find the Way are those who have love and forgiveness in the hearts, and Lao Tzu said in 500 BC, “the Way is empty, the Way is full. There is no Way to describe what it is. Find it within yourselves.”
We all have a divine power within. It is up to each of us to look within, discover what we are, our purpose and where we are going. Our tool is meditation, contemplation, prayer and the desire to seek the truth.
We should remember we are spiritual beings having a human experience. Religion is part of that experience providing rules, concepts, dogma and various other human concepts.
We all have free-will to chose our spiritual path, any religion or no religion. We are here to learn the ways of love and wisdom and to help others. Whatever helps you with that task is your decision.
One way that may help is meditation. The proper way to meditate is just start. Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and the most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state, but with all chaos in the world, makes it more difficult.
The best way to establish a regular meditation practice is just start. Mindfulness meditation can be practice all the time. Simply focuses on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment, paying attention to what you are doing. Pay attention and be aware of your thoughts, emotions and actions in all aspect of your day. Our thoughts, emotions and action generate energy affecting us and those around us.
When your ready to develop to develop a regular meditation practice start with what works for you. Start with 5 to 20 minute sessions and do it consistently each day. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.
According to Hindu Scripture, meditation has been practiced since 1500 BCE, starting as a religious practice. The practice spread to China and India around the fifth century BCE and other forms of Meditation developed in several, including Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity.
In the Bible, Psalm 1:1-2 says “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (2) but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.”
In Joshua 1: 8 states “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.”
Buddha said “Meditation brings wisdom; lack of mediation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom.”
Meditation is a wonderful way to learn to control that unruly mind that always seems to get us in trouble. Starting a practice and sticking to it requires dedication, but if you succeed, the rewards are great.
You’ll never guess how many have been killed or seriously injured in just the first year. Yet, the FDA and CDC keep pushing the shots, despite their own trial data showing they have no benefit in terms of reducing your risk of hospitalization or death.
According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
That said, the most recent survey1,2—published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases—puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3
“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
“So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”
Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,4 Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:5
“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
“Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
“On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
“The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine-induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”
Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:6
“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness, and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:7
“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”
As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:
Heart and cardiovascular problems.
Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued, and out of breath for weeks.
Blood clots and stroke.
Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason
“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95 percent CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.
— Steve Kirsch
As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.8
High Rates of Side Effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,9 which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch,10 “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.
“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys on the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.11 “It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”
More Side Effect Rate Comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:
Rasmussen Reports12: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll—taken one year after Skidmore’s survey—34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
CDC’s V-Safe data13: In October 2022, ICAN [Informed Consent Action Network] obtained the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
Kirsch-funded survey14: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.15 As noted by InfoGame:
“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”
Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:
A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.16
A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).17
An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60 percent of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.18
People in High Places Seek Retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states:
“Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
As noted by Kirsch:19
“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
“If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
“So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
“That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”
Originally published Feb. 07, 2023, on Mercola.com
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
Multiple Sclerosis and Medical Marijuana
Nature Is Free Medicine for Many Chronic Diseases, 1 Way Enhances Healing Effects
If you don’t know where to go on vacation, there is no harm in getting in touch with nature. Not only does it relieve stress, but it may also help reduce the need for prescription medications for conditions like high blood pressure and asthma. It’s best to take off your shoes and step on the grass with your bare feet—you may gain some unexpected benefits.
Green Space Is Free Medicine, Can Improve Many Chronic Diseases
Do you like green spaces? The British Medical Journal published a two-year study in Finland that revealed that frequent visits to green spaces such as forests, gardens, parks, and meadows can help people reduce the use of prescription medication for depression, insomnia, high blood pressure, and asthma. These medicines are mainly used to treat common and potentially serious health problems.
The study analyzed about 7,300 people, and the results found that compared with those who visited green spaces less than once a week, those who visited green spaces three to four times a week were 33 percent less likely to use psychotropic medication, 36 percent less likely to use antihypertensive medication, and 26 percent less likely to use asthma medication.
Exposure to natural environments is widely believed to be beneficial for human health, and this study actually provides another piece of evidence. Dr. Gyaltsen Lobsang, a preventive medicine expert and director of Dr. Lobsang Preventive Medicare Clinic, said that he often encourages people to go into the forest; this advice is even included in his “prescription” because nature has so many health benefits to offer.
Plants release a lot of oxygen and produce a lot of bioactive substances during photosynthesis, which helps you resist oxidation and reduce chronic inflammation.
Many people suffer from chronic inflammatory conditions. When the cells in the body do not get enough oxygen, the hypoxic cells will emit “reactive oxygen species,” which can damage cells and organs, resulting in body oxidation and chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation will then lead to weakened immunity, making it difficult for the body to fight against foreign viruses and bacteria.
Hypoxemia (insufficient oxygen in the body) can be caused by environmental, physiological, and pathological factors. Lobsang pointed out that symptoms such as muscle stiffness, poor sleep, and dizziness may indicate a lack of oxygen in the body.
2. Boost immunity and prevent cancer
People can also breathe in phytoncides when they are in green spaces, especially forests. Phytoncides, also known as “exterminators of the plant,” are chemicals that plants release into the air with antimicrobial properties to protect themselves from insects.
A study found that the activity of natural killer (NK) cells in the body increased by about 50 percent after people breathed in phytoncides while walking in nature. These cells can kill tumor cells and virus-infected cells in the body.
Lobsang believes that the air in the forest can help cleanse the lungs. Therefore, he will ask patients, especially lung cancer patients, to get in touch with nature, preferably in areas with forests, at least two to three times a month.
4. Relieve stress, improve mood, and regulate autonomic nervous system
A natural environment filled with plants promotes the relaxation of the body and mind. The director of Lohasiinfra Clinic in Taiwan, Shih-Heng Chang pointed out that there are more sounds in the forest than at the seaside, such as the chirping of insects and birds, and the sound of the wind. These sounds are called white noise, and they can block out real noise, helping to relieve stress, and are more relaxing than total silence.
Studies have also found that forest landscapes can reduce psychological stress and mental fatigue, and induce positive emotions, thereby improving anxiety, depression, and anger. This has preventive and therapeutic effects on depression. At the same time, forest bathing also helps to reduce stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, thus relieving people’s stress.
Stress is also closely related to autonomic nervous system disorders; forest bathing can increase the activity of the parasympathetic nerves and reduce the activity of the sympathetic nerves, allowing the autonomic nervous system to return to a stable and balanced state. Consequently, sleep quality can also be improved.
5. Lower blood pressure and manage diabetes
Studies have found that the forest environment can effectively lower blood pressure, reduce pulse rate, and improve cardiac-pulmonary and metabolic functions, which can help improve the quality of life of pre-hypertensive or hypertensive patients.
Speculated reasons why forests may reduce blood pressure include the positive effects of phytoncides on the body, and the modulating effect of the forest environment on the autonomic nervous system.
Walking in a forest environment increases adiponectin, which helps lower blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. High levels of adiponectin have been linked to resistance to diabetes, weight loss, and the prevention of atherosclerosis.
5. Manage ADHD and improve concentration
In addition to improving concentration in the general population, natural environments can also enhance attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A walk in the park is sufficient to elevate concentration in children with ADHD.
Lobsang also found in his clinical treatment that the symptoms of 80 to 90 percent of children with ADHD or autism can be gradually improved when the children are exposed to nature.
Lobsang believes that plants are very effective in purifying the air, saying that “plants are the best air purifiers.” He pointed out that many studies have found that simply having a lot of plants (such as sansevieria) indoors can help clean the air.
7. Improve eye health
Looking at a green environment after intense eye use can relax the eyes. Chang explained that green light’s wavelength can relax the eye muscles. The eyes will directly affect the brain, and the discomfort of the eyes will cause pain in the head. Computer vision syndrome refers to the discomfort in the eyes caused by prolonged viewing of the computer, which will extend to the brain, resulting in symptoms such as headache and nausea.
Take off Your Shoes and Perform ‘Earthing’ to Increase Natural Healing Power
When walking into green spaces, it is best to take off your shoes if possible, and step barefoot on grass, dirt, and sand to perform “earthing,” as doing so allows you to receive nature’s medicine—electrons from the Earth’s surface.
Scientist Clint Ober discovered the health benefits of earthing by accident. In his book “Earthing,” co-authored with Dr. Stephen Sinatra and others, it is stated that people live on an electrified planet and live an electrified life—the heart, brain, muscles, nervous system, and immune system are all dynamic electric circuits. The purpose of earthing is to connect the weak current on the surface of the earth with the physiological current of the human botos to restore the body’s electrical balance.
Numerous studies have now documented the many benefits of going barefoot on the ground, including reduced chronic inflammation, pain and stress, improved blood flow, vitality and sleep, enhanced wound healing, and the prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases.
A case study (pdf) by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography mentioned that an 85-year-old man with severe inflammation and chronic pain woke up stiff and sore every day, and his pain completely disappeared after four weeks of earthing therapy.
To maximize the benefits of performing earthing to the body, going barefoot for as little as 30 or 40 minutes daily can significantly reduce pain and stress.
Lobsang said that the body is the structure of energy, and earthing can not only release bad energy from the body, but also massage the soles of the feet at the same time. There are many acupoints on the soles of the feet, such as the Yong Quan acupoint, which is an excellent acupoint for relieving stress, stabilizing emotions, and improving sleep. Additionally, the stimulation of the sole muscles can promote microcirculation.
Lobstang brings his patients to places with clean grass for earthing. In particular, grass that has been exposed to the sun is best. However, people with wounds on the soles of the feet, especially diabetics, have to be careful; they should avoid earthing when there are wounds on the soles of the feet.
In addition, traditional Chinese medicine believes in the concept of the unity of man and nature, and earthing is in line with the concept. Wu Kuo-pin, superintendent of Taiwan Xinyitang Heart Clinic, said that the ground is a part of the Earth (in the Five Elements); the Earth element is associated with the spleen and stomach, and the spleen and stomach are part of the digestive system in traditional Chinese medicine. People can strengthen their spleen and stomach by performing earthing and absorbing the qi of the Earth element. The immune system will improve as the function of the spleen and stomach improves.
Kuo-pin once heard of a case in which a cancer patient recovered from cancer by walking barefoot in the mountains. He emphasized that the energies of the human body, the Earth, and the universe are inherently interconnected. Stepping on the ground with bare feet can adjust the energy of the body, which is beneficial to overall well-being.
Meditation, with its countless benefits, is our tool to explore the Way. Jesus said in the Dialogue of the Savior, left out of the Bible, “When I came among humanity, I opened the door to the Way. I showed you the path that you must follow. You will find it within yourselves.” And Buddha said six hundred years earlier, “Before you set foot on the path, master yourself.” Krishna said, around 3500 BC, ” Those find the Way are those who have love and forgiveness in the hearts, and Lao Tzu said in 5oo BC, “the Way is empty, the Way is full. There is no Way to describe what it is. Find it within yourselves.”
Meditation has been around for thousands of years and is based on Hindu Scripture, as a religious practice. Buddha said “Meditation brings wisdom; lack of mediation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back, and choose the path that leads to wisdom.”
It is even mentioned in the Bible, Psalm 1:1-2, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (2) but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.”
In Joshua 1: 8 states “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.”
The Acts of Peter XXI, also omitted from the bible, “Give ear; withdraw your souls from all that appears but is not truly real; close these eyes of yours, close your ears, withdraw from actions that are outwardly seen; and you shall know the reality of Christ and the whole secret of your salvation.” In Matthew 6:6 ” But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
But what is left out is how to pray or meditate. Perhaps Jesus’ message in the Gospel of Thomas can assist in our journey of seeking the truth. In the Gospel of Thomas, (48) Jesus said, “If two make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, ‘Move Away,’ and it will move away.” The one house is the body, and the two are mind and spirit. A very similar saying in (106) Jesus said, “When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, ‘Mountain, move away,’ it will move away.”
The two are mind and spirit, thought and emotion. From a spiritual perspective, Meditation is our Gateway, our connection to Universal Intelligence. Jesus was telling us how in the Gospel of Thomas, omitted from the bible. When we can make our thoughts and emotions one, we will be transformed and will able to move mountains.
We all have a divine power within. It is up to each of us to look within, know ourselves and understand our purpose. Our tool is meditation, contemplation, prayer and seeking the truth. This video may provide additional insight for those seeking the truth.
Kirill Timoshenko has resigned as deputy head of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s office, after the head of state pledged to shake up the government.
The reshuffle, which the president announced in his daily video address on Tuesday morning, will affect officials “on different levels, in ministries and other bodies of central and provincial authority, and law enforcement.”
Timoshenko is the most senior official whose removal from office has been confirmed so far. He published his signed resignation letter on social media in a farewell post.
Some Ukrainian news outlets have said he will be replaced with Aleksey Kuleba, head of the Kiev Region, and that Timoshenko may be put in charge of a provincial administration.
Another senior official heading for the exit is Deputy Prosecutor General Aleksey Simonenko, according to reports. Earlier this month he sparked outrage by spending the New Year holidays in Spain.
Aside from the bad optics of relaxing at a foreign resort during wartime, the trip raised suspicions of corruption, as Simonenko allegedly used a car that belongs to a wealthy businessman, and was accompanied by a bodyguard employed by the car’s owner.
Following the incident, the Ukrainian National Security Council issued an order banning officials from crossing the national border unless they are on state business.
Simonenko’s resignation was officially confirmed by Zelensky’s office later in the day.
Kiev’s star mercenary threatens to ‘burn Ukrainian army to the ground’ – media Read more
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov was apparently spared on Monday, after the Ukrainian parliament declined to take action against him over a graft scandal.
A media investigation claimed on Saturday that the ministry was buying food supplies worth hundreds of millions of dollars for troops, at prices that were several times higher than in Ukrainian retail chains.
Reznikov told lawmakers that the documents cited in the investigation were inaccurate, and that some prices were inflated due to a “technical error”. Other items legitimately included costs that retail prices do not, he claimed, arguing that the comparison was not valid.
Some members of parliament accepted the minister’s explanations, but the Ukrainian anti-corruption body NABU continues to investigate the graft allegations.
Last week, NABU indicted Andrey Kobolev, the former CEO of state-owned energy company Naftogaz. In 2018, he awarded himself a $10 million bonus for achievements in legal battles with Russia’s Gazprom.
NABU alleges that Kobolev overstated the financial benefit that he and other executives secured for the Ukrainian company, and consequently took unreasonably high level of compensation.
You can share this story on social media:
Divine Intervention at Work?
There seems to a divine intervention that is happening around the world and all at once. There is a vibrating constant energetic motion within all things, we can refer to Universal Intelligence, or God or even the Field. Scientist have proven there is a electromagnetic field living in everything in the universe. The late Dr. Valerie V. Hunt, scientist, author, lecturer and Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at the University of California, confirmed electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Without this biofield life would not exist and there would be only an inner biochemical mix. Dr. Hunt was involved in research that is uncovering the various dimensions involved in the bioenergetic transactions between humans and the environment as they relate to human behaviors, emotions, health, illness, and disease, as well as scientifically quantifying the human aura and the levels of consciousness it contains. What does that mean?
Dr. Joe Dispenza, is a researcher who healed himself after breaking 6 vertebrae in his back after being told he would never walk again. Through meditation, visualizations and his belief system, after nine and a half weeks after the accident, he got up and walked, without having any body cast or any surgeries.
So how do we work with the field? We get to know ourselves. The most demanding part of self awareness is the mind must be known to itself. If the mind knows itself then the most important aspect of of self awareness has occurred as consciousness is the microcosm of the Oneness. In other words, the macrocosmic intelligence, the field, which guides the birth and processes of the universe is reflected on a microcosmic scale in each of us. As energetic beings, we are radiating positive and negative energy by our thoughts, emotions and actions, creating our reality with all its distortions and confusion.
To know yourself is the same message Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Krishna and many others have been trying to tell us through the centuries. Lao Tzu tells us “Wisdom come from knowing oneself. He who knows himself is enlightened”. In the dialogue of the Savior Jesus said “Those who have truly found the Self within recognized that it exists everywhere.” Buddha added, “Everyone has recognized the self-ones essential nature. But few have realized it.”
Our emotions are part of the field as we create our new world. We all have the divine gift of discernment, the act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment. In its broadest sense, discernment is closely related to wisdom as an expression of God. Discernment alone can bring about a sense of balance between our physical and metaphysical worlds. We are all part of this creation, know yourself and realize we are the divine intervention.
Why “THE POWERS THAT BE” are So Desperate to Reduce Carbon Dioxide on OUR Planet? Gregg Braden joins John L. Petersen of the Arlington Institute for a casual friendly chat. Topics for today’s episode is Demonization of Carbon Dioxide on Global Stage. Gregg Braden shows the data and you decide for yourself.
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it
We live in a inseparable physical and metaphysical worlds. As we have learned in the past three years, the world was not as it seemed. Regardless of our differences or beliefs, we are all spiritual beings living in a material world to learn and evolve spiritual. We are all challenged daily, from interacting with others to just one of those really not so good days. What we fail to consider how our thoughts, emotions and actions affect not only ourselves, but those around us and even the world. All those interactions generate energy, positive and negative, affecting us, those around us and even the world. We have and are at this moment designing and creating our world.
Meditation is a spiritual practice along with fasting, that can expand a person perspective and help shape your idea of the physical and metaphysical worlds. Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind. While many hear the word “fast” and panic, it truly is spiritual practice to test your will and desire, only if practice intermittently. There are many different fasting methods and most people are able engage 24 to 72 hour period with either a water or juice fast. Others may like the intermitting fasting, blocking a daily time to eat, normally a 6-8 hours period, i.e. 10AM to 5Pm. Eat only during those hours and fast until the next day. Fasting has been used therapeutically since at least the 5th century BCE, when Greek physician Hippocrates recommended abstinence from food or drink for patients who exhibited certain symptoms of illness. Do what works for you and in time, you will realize the tremendous benefits.
The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to the interactions of the day, just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.
Meditation and Fasting are spiritual practices between you and the Divine, expanding and shaping your conception of a world that’s changing before our eyes. There is no better time than to discover your true-self.
It’s never been about health or a cure…its about big pharma and hospitals scheming for profit. This doctor calls it “politics.”
If a hospital admits a COVID-19 patient, they get paid $13k.
If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, the hospital gets paid $39k—three times as much.
While HCQ is better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is a therapeutic course that costs $2,340/patient that has been proven to cause liver damage. Being intravenous, Remdesivir requires expensive hospital care (hospital receives an additional $13k from Medicare.)
There have been many accounts of hospitals placing non covid patients on covid floors…increasing exposure and the hospital’s chance of cashing in more. This is why some hospitals refuse to allow family in. It’s not a “safety” protocol.
MHRA YELLOW CARD REPORTING SUMMARY UP TO 23rd NOVEMBER 2022 (Data published 1st Dec 2022)
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)
People in UK who have received one or more vaccine = 53,813,491
(Up to 11th Sept 2022)
Woman having a mammography scan. (Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock)
Getting older is a complicated business. As we age, trips to the doctor increasingly conclude with requisitions for different screenings—tests meant to help diagnose potential problems and keep us healthy for the long haul.
Although many tests used to detect cancer have been hailed as life-saving miracles of modern medicine, some have a dark side. Concerns over the prolific use of mammograms for detecting breast cancer have been growing in the scientific community as journals publish research revealing these tests come with their own risks. With roughly seventy percent of women in the U.S. over forty having mammograms at least every two years, it raises questions about their safety, if information about potential dangers is being obscured, and who might really be benefitting from this widespread testing.
What if millions of women are fueling a billion-dollar industry with ever-increasing profits by using screening that not only hasn’t improved outcomes, but may be harming the women it is supposed to save?
Cancer in Our Society
Cancer is pervasive and widely feared due to its relentlessness, brutality, and the grueling nature of many cancer treatments. The National Cancer Institute spends billions on cancer research each year and cancer fundraisers are a perennial activity in our communities. Virtually every cancer has a month dedicated to its awareness. October is breast cancer awareness month, which it politely shares with liver cancer awareness in the United States.
As we get older, cancer is something we think about more and our doctors push us to get tests and screenings to make sure cancer cells haven’t been seeded in our bodies.
Breast cancer deeply frightens many women (and yes, men can get it too). If you happen to be considered high-risk, screenings may start as early as your twenties. In the United States, mammograms are considered the gold standard of testing for breast cancer and there are now both 2D and 3D varieties for women to choose from.
Mammograms use x-rays (a form of ionizing radiation) to take pictures of the breast. A machine is used where a woman places her breast between two plates or paddles where it is then compressed and x-ray images are captured.
In a 2D mammogram, two images are taken, one from the top and one from the side, creating a 2D picture.
3D, or tomosynthesis, is largely the same process, using slightly more radiation and capturing additional images, creating a three-dimensional picture of the breast.
Radiologists use the images to look for abnormalities, with breast cancer usually appearing as a white mass. If abnormalities are found, the patient is asked to come back for more tests, often an MRI, or to have a biopsy. Mammograms do not diagnose breast cancer. They look for abnormalities in the breast and can give the patient more information about their breast tissue, if masses are present, and if further investigation is needed. The only way to diagnose breast cancer after an abnormality is seen is to do a biopsy.
Mammography: What You Should Know
Mammography does, however, have risks that all women should be aware of. The two main concerns of mammography are radiation exposure and overdiagnosis.
Because mammography uses a type of ionizing radiation, it comes with inherent risk. We are all exposed to radiation every day. Some of that radiation, like the ultraviolet and infrared rays of the sun, is essential to our health (in appropriate doses). But we are well adapted to these natural, low levels of radiation. The same is not true of man-made radiation.
The ionizing radiation used in mammograms is much stronger than natural sources. At high levels, ionizing radiation can harm our tissues, organs, and lead to cancer. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS) the dose of radiation people receive from a mammogram is about the same amount of radiation people get from their natural surroundings in a three-month period.
This is of concern because there are parts of the body that are particularly sensitive to radiation, and we should limit our exposure whenever possible. In fact, Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors states that “The female breast is known to be highly susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of radiation when exposure occurs before menopause.” A mammogram is also directing this radiation not only at the breast, but at the other organs inside the chest, like the heart and lungs.
A cohort study published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2012 followed more than 500,000 women from 1973 until 2009. The study found that women who had received radiation treatment for breast cancer (high energy x-rays) had a significant increase in heart disease and lung cancer in the decades after their treatment.
The study clearly demonstrates a progressive increase in both risk and mortality from radiation-related heart disease and lung cancer with time (into the third decade) after exposure to radiation.
The study is one of many to raise questions about routine mammograms for women at low risk of breast cancer.
The other issue with mammography is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is a concern because mammograms can detect abnormalities that may not be cancer, or cancers that would have regressed on their own but are treated once they are discovered. That means many women are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery that may not have been not needed.
“In cancer screening, overdiagnosed cancers are those that did not need to be found because they would not have produced symptoms or led to premature death.”
“Overdiagnosis in cancer screening arises largely from the paradoxical problem that screening is most likely to find the slow-growing or dormant cancers that are least likely to harm us, and less likely to find the aggressive, fast-growing cancers that cause cancer mortality. This central paradox has become clearer over recent decades. The more overdiagnosis is produced by a screening program, the less likely the program is to serve its ultimate goal of reducing illness and premature death from cancer.”
An article published in The Lancet in 2013 argued that two 30- to 35- year old randomized studies underestimated when they concluded that there was a 19 percent rate of overdiagnosis when screening with mammography.
The author, Per-Henrik Zahl, a researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has looked at breast cancer overdiagnosis, argues that detection rates and the level of overdiagnosis have increased 100 percent or more as the sensitivity of mammograms has improved.
Zahl notes that when screening was introduced in Sweden and Norway there was a 50 percent increase in invasive breast cancer. The total increase in diagnosis in Norway was 75 percent. He concluded that almost all of the increase in cancer detection through screening was due to lesions that normally go into spontaneous regression.
A comparative study published in the journal BMC Women’s Health in 2009 set out to quantify overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening program. Denmark is unique as only 20 percent of the population has been offered mammography over an extended period. Incidence rates of carcinoma in situ (stage 0 breast cancer) and invasive breast cancer were collected in areas with and without screening over thirteen years, and twenty years before its introduction. The study found that in the screened women, the overdiagnosis rate was 33 percent.
A systematic review published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 tracked the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening in specific areas—the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden and parts of Norway—both seven years before and seven years after public breast cancer screening programs were implemented. The review found that overdiagnosis was estimated at 52 percent and concluded that one in three breast cancers detected in a population offered screening was overdiagnosed.
As evidence of overdiagnosis has accumulated, it is now recognized as the most serious downside of population-wide breast screening.
What Women Think
One of the main concerns with mammograms is that women may not be warned about the potential risks and all the factors involved in breast cancer screening. A cross-sectional survey of 479 women in the United States, aged 18-97 published in the British Journal of Medicine set out to understand women’s attitudes to and knowledge of false-positive mammography results as well as the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (a type of stage 0 breast cancer) after screening mammography.
Ductal carcinoma in situ is defined as the presence of abnormal cells inside the milk duct in the breast. DCIS is considered an early form of breast cancer. DCIS is non-invasive, meaning it is still isolated and has not spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive.
The survey concluded that women were aware of false positives, seeming to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women were unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress (ductal carcinoma in situ) and felt that that information was relevant.
The study also found that only 8 percent of women thought mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer and 94 percent did not realize (doubted) that mammograms could detect cancers that might not progress. Few of the women in the study knew about ductal carcinoma in situ, but 60 percent of the women wanted to take into account the possibility that any cancer detected may not progress.
Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013 looked at overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, and what physicians were telling patients about the risks of screening, specifically the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
Less than 10 percent said they were told about the risks of mammograms by their physicians. Little more than half (51 percent) said they would not agree to screening if it resulted in one overtreated person per one life saved. These numbers imply that millions of Americans might not choose to be screened if they knew the whole story, but unfortunately, 90 percent are not getting that information.
The Cancer Industry Recommendations
In the United States, mammograms are the standard screening used to detect breast cancer, and doctors usually begin speaking to their women patients about mammograms at around age forty.
Mammograms are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which regulates the standards for mammography machines and the people who provide them. The FDA has also released several warnings about using thermography instead of mammograms, reminding the public that mammography is still the most effective primary breast cancer screening test.
Do Regular Mammograms Lead to Better Outcomes?
The question becomes, do regular mammograms lead to better outcomes? Well, it would depend on how you define better outcomes. If we are talking about detecting breast cancer, it seems the answer is most certainly yes. Mammograms seem an excellent tool for detecting breast cancer. But, if we define better outcomes as fewer women dying of breast cancer, then we seem to have entered a different territory.
An article, “Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?” published in 2021 noted that a previous meta-analysis of mammogram studies revealed that mammograms have led to no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (death from any cause) for women of any age group. The article, by Amanda Kowalski, a health economist and the Gail Wilensky Professor of Applied Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Department of Economics, also notes that some trials even show imprecise increases in all-cause mortality across all age groups or within an age group. These findings were based on eight large randomized controlled trials that combined included over 600,000 women.
A very large Canadian randomized screening trial published in the British Medical Journal followed nearly 90,000 women aged 40-59 over 25 years, who were considered at average risk for breast cancer. One group of women received routine mammograms, and the other did not. The somewhat surprising results were that mortality rates in both groups were almost identical. The overall conclusion of the study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer any better than a physical examination. The study also noted that they found the overdiagnosis rate among the mammography participants was 22 percent.
An analysis published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2015 concluded that mammograms have been promoted to the public with three promises that all seem to be wrong. The first is that they save lives, the second is that they save breasts, and the third is that they catch cancer early. The author, Peter C Gøtzsche, formerly with the Nordic Cochrane Center and co-founder of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, states that mammogram screenings do not help women live longer, increasemastectomies, and many cancers are still caught at a very late stage.
It’s a sentiment other researchers have also expressed.
“The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any),” researchers from Nordic Cochrane Centre wrote in the journal Radiology in 2011.
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board—an independent health technology assessment initiative—was asked to prepare a review of mammography screening. After a panel reviewed the available evidence—and contemplated its implications in detail—they were extremely concerned. The Swiss Medical Board’s report was released on Feb. 2, 2014, and acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death from breast cancer for every one thousand women screened, even though there was no evidence that overall mortality was affected. It also emphasized the harm caused by mammography, specifically false-positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. The report cites the following statistics, from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”
Based on their findings, the board recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced in Switzerland and that a time limit be placed on existing programs in the country, phasing them out entirely.
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, thought to be one of the world’s best and least biased research institutions, conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. The trials they looked at included 600,000 women aged 39-74 years. The conclusions, published in 2013, are as follows:
“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15 percent and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30 percent, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.”
The study’s authors, Peter C Gøtzsche and Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, state that women should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. They went so far as to write an evidence-based leaflet in several languages to help women understand the risks.
The Mammography Industry-Projected Earnings
What might perhaps be interesting to know is that mammography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
In September 2022, Vantage Market Research released a report that projected earnings for the mammography market would be from US $1.8 billion in 2021 to $3.2 billion by 2028.
Growing markets in Asia will provide most of that expansion. The report attributes the huge growth in the region to the existence of a significant number of mammography companies, and the high adoption rate due to government measures that stimulate the industry and increasing collaborations between the mammography industry and governments in the region.
Success when it comes to breast cancer really depends on the outcome we are trying to achieve. If it is early detection, then we seem to be doing a stellar job. But if our goal is lowering mortality rates, we seem to be in a gray zone and possibly moving backwards. With the present technology—and its increasing sensitivity—we seem to have created many more cancer patients, perhaps unnecessarily, and are keeping women in the dark about the dangers.
Michael Baum, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and a visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London (UCL), is a British surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer treatment and one of the architects of Britain’s national breast screening program.
Baum went from being one of the most determined supporters of breast cancer screening to one of its most vocal opponents.
In his book, “The History and Mystery of Breast Cancer,” he explains why.
“The largest threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses. The real problem with the epidemic of diagnoses is that it leads to an epidemic of treatments. Not all treatments have important benefits, but almost all can have harms.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Emma Suttie D.AC, AP is an acupuncture physician and founder of Chinese Medicine Living—a website dedicated to sharing how to use traditional wisdom to live a healthy lifestyle in the modern world. She is a lover of the natural world, martial arts, and a good cup of tea.
Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and is considered to be most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state and our connection to the Divine.
Mindfulness can be practice all the time by simply focusing on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment.
The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.
Make meditation part of your life and you will see the world anew.
Finally, an unbiased pathologist has taken a vaccine into the lab to demonstrate exactly what’s causing ‘the mystery of the rubbery clots.’
A recent laboratory investigation by The Highwire reveals the only consistent thing about the COVID shots are their inconsistency. There is no quality control. Some appear clear like saline, while others are loaded with contaminants
In August 2021, Japan rejected 1.63 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA shot due to contamination. Last year the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also expressed concern over vials that were only 50% to 55% pure
The vials also contain massively inconsistent amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG can cause anaphylactic shock in some people. PEG also gets in the way of proper immune response
If you are unfortunate enough to get a vial that is loaded with PEG, your risk of adverse effects such as anaphylactic shock and dysregulated immune response is greater than if you get a vial with lower amounts
According to Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, what looks like microchips or nanotechnology in the liquid are actually stacked cholesterol, sugar and salt crystals, and what has been described as parasites are stellate trikons, found on the bottom of leaves. They’re likely a contaminant picked up at some point during the lab investigation
December 12, 2022, The Highwire posted1 a fascinating and shocking lab investigation of the COVID shots. Del Bigtree begins by reviewing some of the many alleged findings by organizations looking at the shots using various technologies. For example, some claim to have found graphite in the vials, while others have discovered what looks like nanotechnology and parasites.
“Some of these we’ve addressed here and others we haven’t,” Bigtree says. “Part of it is I really don’t like addressing something that I don’t know where the information is coming from …
I do not trust experts just because they tell me they’re an expert. I want to see the science, I want to see the evidence, I want to see how it’s done … So, I reached out to Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist who has proved to me that he’s impeccable in the work that he does. He’s unbiased.
And I said, ‘Would you do me a favor? Can we get a hold of these vaccines? I want to come into the laboratory. I want to see it with my own eyes. Can we bring some cameras in and do a real investigation?’”
The Mystery of the Rubbery Clots
Cole agreed, and that taped investigation is what you see in the video above. Cole begins by showing what some of the white rubbery clots look like under the microscope, and slides showing the distribution of spike protein in various tissues.
A number of embalmers have reported pulling these stringy, stretchy objects out of deceased people who got the jab, and they’re different from anything they’ve ever seen before. Cole agrees that these clots are something brand-new.
Cole describes the white elastic clots as “an amyloid-type of material” induced by the spike protein, which is actually a glycoprotein. He cites a paper2 from August 2021 by Etheresia Pretorius and her team, in which she describes finding “persistent circulating plasma microclots that are resistant to fibrinolysis” in long-COVID patients and those who have received the COVID jab.
She refers to them as “anomalous amyloid microclots.” In summary, what she discovered was that even when she took the platelets out of the blood, once she added spike protein, the proteins still glommed together, forming masses, and processes that would normally break down a blood clot do not work on these amyloid-like depositions.
COVID Injections Under the Microscope
Cole then moves on to look at the COVID shots under a microscope. The first one is the Janssen shot, which has what looks like debris in it, including, potentially, a shard of glass. As noted by Cole, when manufacturing is ramped up to the current speeds at which these shots are produced, there’s really no purity guarantee.
As you may recall, in August 2021, Japan rejected 1.63 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA shot due to contamination. Last year the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also expressed concern over vials that were only 50% to 55% pure.
This impurity also means that you may be getting fragmented RNA, as opposed to complete RNA, which can have unforeseen consequences, as shortened RNA can end up producing incomplete proteins. Of the Pfizer vials, some also contained unidentifiable particles, some of which were stuck together.
That said, where others see nanotechnology — square objects that resemble microchips — Cole sees stacked cholesterol. So, while there’s debris (which is bad enough) he does not ascribe to theories that the shots include nanotech.
Some have also discovered what looks like parasites but, according to Cole, they are stellate trikons, found on the bottom of leaves. He suggests it’s an impurity that landed in the liquid or on the glass during the process of investigation. Bigtree summarized their findings:
“Generally speaking, as we looked at all the different vaccines, one of the conclusions that we came away with is, it’s just a hodgepodge. There were vaccines that seemed like they had no particles, almost nothing, there; almost like a saline shot. And then the [next] one would be just packed with all sorts of things. You just get this sense that the manufacturing is totally and completely inconsistent.”
“I agree 100%. Some are more concentrated, some were less, and that goes to the point, where are these being made? Is the FDA inspecting each facility? No. And these are being made around the world, and they were ramped up so quickly. It’s not good manufacturing process … And … this is a very unique, brand-new process which they’re using at a mass scale.”
COVID Shots Analyzed With Mass Spectronomy
The shots were also analyzed using mass spectronomy, which revealed the presence of metallic particles, including aluminum, silicon, magnesium, sodium chloride, calcium, titanium and iron. Cole cites research showing that some of these metals come from the needle used to extract the liquid from the vial, so they may or may not be part of the actual formula in the vial.
They also found massively inconsistent amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the different vials. PEG, which is what coats and protects the mRNA, is what causes anaphylactic shock in some people, as PEG sensitivity and allergies are common among the general public. Worse, however, is the fact that PEG also gets in the way of proper immune response.
“Poor, inconsistent manufacturing processes are resulting in wildly varying contents from one batch or vial to another.”
If you are unfortunate enough to get a vial that is loaded with PEG, your risk of adverse effects such as anaphylactic shock and dysregulated immune response is greater than if you get a vial with the appropriate amount, or less than what the recipe calls for. Again, it’s a sign of poor, inconsistent manufacturing processes resulting in wildly varying contents from one batch or vial to another. Notably, no graphene was found in any of the 100 vials tested. Cole explains:
“Those little flakes that we were seeing, those little lines and floating things, those are three things: cholesterol crystals — there’s a cholesterol cholesterin spike on some of these mass spec graphs — … salt and some sugars … So, at the end of the day, the mass spec showed that’s what it was.
These vials have lipid content. They have polyethylene glycol content in varying ratios. They have salts, they have sugars. They do have genetic material … and some lots had some contaminants …
There’s lipid nanoparticle and a gene sequence that makes your body make a foreign protein. Those two things are necessary and sufficient to cause harm. Sure, you want a pure product, but those are the two harmful things. The lipid nanoparticle is hyper-inflammatory and can be toxic.
When it was designed, it was made to be given once. Studies on giving it two, three, four times aren’t there in humans. So, the cumulative toxicity of the nanoparticle itself is concerning.
Even more concerning is [that] the more of this gene you get into your cells that continues to make a protein that has known countless side effects … that toxic spike protein. That’s what matters.”
The real show-stopper is toward the end, where they take a drop of Bigtree’s blood, who is unjabbed, and then add a drop of the COVID “vaccine.” The slide containing nothing but his unjabbed blood looks perfectly normal, with nice doughnut-shaped cells.
The slides to which a drop of COVID “vaccine” was added show remarkable inconsistencies. On one slide, in the area touched by the liquid, the red blood cells looked like they’d evaporated. According to Cole, the cells were basically “de-hemoglobiated.”
The hemoglobin was just wiped out. As a result, the cells turned white, which makes it look as though they evaporated. “That just says that many of these vials are very, very irritating in their pre-mixture … It all goes back to purity and consistency of manufacturing,” Cole says. The blood cells were also clumping toward the outside of the drop, many were folding together and echinocytes were clearly visible. As explained by Cole:
“It instantly changed the pH of the interior. These are little blobs of protein on the membrane of the red cell, because the red cell has involuted … All these little fingers, that is not spike protein. That’s another myth.
But that’s fascinating, because that instantly changed the pH of the interior of the cell. And it caused a massive outflow of fluid from the interior of the cell causing all that cell membrane folding. That’s wild.
It was almost instantaneous, and it is everywhere. Those red cells are now nonfunctional red cells. Those aren’t going to carry a whit of oxygen. Now your body has to decide what to do and has an inflammatory reaction, because now it has to gobble those up.”
This Technology Must Be Stopped
In closing, Cole says:
“To go back to the key point — I want to drive this home — they’re going to try to do lipid nanoparticles plus influenza genes, plus RSV genes for all these other shots going forward. We already know that this was a failed ‘vaccine’ program. They have a technology that’s harmful. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. Human cells were not meant to make foreign toxic proteins.
Traditional vaccines don’t do that. Your body wants to make its own protein, not a flu protein, not an RSV protein, not any other viral protein, not SARS-CoV-2 protein. This platform is sufficiently proven to be dangerous that not only do the COVID shots need to be stopped, but the platform [as well] …
We see enough things going wrong already. I think that’s the message to humanity, to regulatory agencies, to government officials that are willing to step in and block regulatory corruption … Let’s stop these programs. Let’s continue to do proper science and not rush science.
You know that quote in the European Committee? ‘We were working at the speed of science.’ Good science isn’t rushed. And the Pfizer exec that just stepped down? [She said] ‘We were building the airplane while we were trying to fly it.’ Good grief. And she was proud of that. No, that’s not what you do to your fellow human beings. And that’s not what we do in medicine and safety.”
“We stopped these gene programs multiple times. They’ve [been] stopped in their tracks because they were causing too much cancer. We’re having serious problems with this technology.
It has been stopped for all those reasons, so we should have been very concerned [about] using it as a vaccine. We certainly should not have rushed it. Instead we put it in front of a bunch of ‘kindergarteners’ that know nothing about what they’re looking at, and they approved it …
[T]here is something going wrong. And when we listen to Edward Dowd, insurance actuaries are going [under] because of the rise in all-cause mortality. All of this is happening, and they literally want to fast-track a system where they can just start banging these out [without] safety trials. This is a movie. This is a cartoon. How are real people acting like this? … These are critically damaging choices being made.”
Remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein have also been identified by the World Health Council. Inhibitors that prevent the spike protein from binding to your cells include Prunella vulgaris, pine needle tea, emodin, neem, dandelion extract and the drug ivermectin. Dr. Pierre Kory, of FLCCC, believes ivermectin may be the best approach to bind the circulating spike protein.
Spike protein neutralizers, which prevent the spike from damaging cells, include N-acetylcysteine (NAC), glutathione, fennel tea, star anise tea, pine needle tea, St. John’s wort, comfrey tea and vitamin C.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
One of several mechanisms can be at play for neurologically devasting events after mRNA vaccination (By Numstocker/Shutterstock)
On March 3, 2021, Barbara Orandello received her second Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the next day she had a severe headache, nausea, vomiting, and ultimately required neurosurgical evacuation of a large blood clot from her brain. Here is what she and her daughter, Kerry Quinlan reported to FOX News Laura Ingraham on the Ingraham Angle in 2021[i]:
“Orandello recounted receiving her second dose of vaccine that day, and subsequently waking up March 4th with “horrific pain in [her] right eye” that sent her off her bed and onto the floor.
Courageous Discourse with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Her husband was unable to help her stand up, and she was rushed first to a hospital in Loudoun County, Va., and next to another hospital in neighboring Fairfax County, as doctors sought a way to diagnose and treat her urgent medical crisis.
“They took me by helicopter, and they were letting me die, I’m going to tell you, they were letting me die,” she said, asserting that her condition was very grave. “They said to my son, “There’s nothing we can do,” and “She’s comfortable, just let her go,” and my son went ballistic, and he got yelling at them to get a brain doctor … they got the brain surgeon in,” she said.
“My husband who was en route, had to give permission over the telephone to operate, and I had an emergency craniotomy. – Thank God– I had a massive brain bleed,” she continued.
“[It was] massive. One-third of my brain was filled with blood,” Orandello recounted.
The daughter Quinlan, a biologist by trade, told Ingraham that she is “pro-science” like many, adding that she predicts the inflammation from the vaccine caused an artery to rupture.”
“Like my mom said, you know, a third of her brain was filled with blood and she suffered from a hemorrhagic stroke,” Quinlan said.
In addition, Ingraham played a clip of Orandello and her husband last Christmas excitedly cooking and celebrating the holiday – and she asked her if she could do that same kind of work at this point.
Both Mrs. Orandello and Ms Quinlan called me weeks after their appearance on national television and recounted the events. I told them that I believe one of several mechanisms can be at play for neurologically devasting events after mRNA vaccination:
1) a surge in blood pressure causing hemorrhage in the zone of Spike protein mediated inflammation within the brain,
2) triggered atherosclerotic stroke with hemorrhagic conversation,
3) atrial fibrillation with cerebral thromboembolism,
4) a blood condition called vaccine induced thrombocytopenic purpura with hemorrhage and clotting occurred in the brain.
Ms. Quinlan sent me a picture from the back of her long arduous days in stroke rehabilitation serving as a reminder of what Moderna did to her with its liability shield and lack of sympathy for any of its victims.
Jacob Dag Berild, MD, et al, reported in JAMA on 7757 neurologic events after COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca) in three Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, and Denmark) between January 1, 2020, and May 16, 2021.[ii] These four mechanisms are highlighted in the Table.
Separately Dag Berild et al reported on 1295 hip fractures resulting in 1085 deaths after vaccination during the same time period. The Berild report is disturbing because these are large numbers occurring in those ostensibly healthy enough to undergo vaccination and then like Ms. Orandello, suffer a catastrophic event within 28 days of taking the shot. Among the seniors in your circle, how many have suffered a devastating stroke or fall with hip fracture or both shortly after taking the vaccine? Did any doctor attribute the event(s) to vaccination? Did the family raise the issue? What was recorded on the hospital records and death certificate? These are important questions as epidemiologists and investigators study the calamitous impact of indiscriminate COVID-19 vaccination on our senior citizens.
Dr. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist managing the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas TX, USA. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection, multiple US and State Senate testimonies, and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill, America Out Loud, NewsMax, and on FOX NEWS Channel.
John Leake studied history and philosophy with Roger Scruton at Boston University. He then went to Vienna, Austria on a graduate school scholarship and ended up living in the city for over a decade, working as a freelance writer and translator. He is a true crime writer with a lifelong interest in medical history and forensic medicine.
On 27 April, ABC News reporter James Meek tweeted a single word – “facts” – above another Twitter post from a retired CIA officer, who stated that the 2014-2022 Ukrainian civil war was an eight-year “lab experiment” on Russia’s military “tactics, techniques, and procedures.” It added that US intelligence and “unconventional warfare” experts had “learned a shit ton.”
It was the last time, to date, Meek posted on the social network. In fact, it seems it was the last time he did anything in public at all, both online and in-real-life. Rolling Stone has published an investigation into the veteran journalist’s vanishing act in the months since, revealing how just hours after that tweet was posted, a number of menacing vehicles blocked off roads around Meek’s apartment in Arlington, Virginia, then proceeded to raid the premises.
Neighbors interviewed by the magazine recall a collection of police cruisers, official-looking cars with blacked-out windows, and even armored tactical vehicles frequently used by the FBI, which resemble tanks. Quick as a flash, their occupants exited and rushed into Meek’s apartment complex, “at least 10” of them being “heavily armed.”
The raid was reportedly over very quickly, and Meek apparently didn’t leave the scene with the authorities. To this day, there is no indication of what if anything was seized or why it was conducted, and all records related to the case remain sealed, including the search warrant approved a day prior. While no charges have officially been filed, Meek has dropped off the face of the Earth, and his apartment has remained vacant ever since.
At precisely this time, Meek is said to have resigned “very abruptly” from his ABC News post without warning or explanation, with even close coworkers unaware of the reasons for his departure.
He is also said to have telephoned Lieutenant Colonel Scott Mann, a retired Green Beret, with whom he was collaborating on an almost completed book, “Operation Pineapple Express: The Incredible Story of a Group of Americans Who Undertook One Last Mission and Honored a Promise in Afghanistan,” to tell him he needed to withdraw from the project due to “serious personal issues.” Meek was apparently “really distraught” during the call.
Almost immediately, Meek’s name was scrubbed from the work’s entry on US publishing giant Simon & Schuster’s website, and its cover on various e-commerce sites listing it for pre-order. Several tweets from Meek promoting his involvement in the project have also been deleted.
Tell no tales
It’s remarkable that it has taken six months for anyone to publicly raise the alarm over Meek’s disappearance, and raise questions as to his whereabouts. One might think that a relatively high-profile veteran mainstream US journalist suddenly going missing would stoke concerns among his employers, if not fellow reporters, particularly given Meek’s history of reporting on contentious topics.
He has previously broken stories on foiled terrorist attacks, and military cover-ups surrounding the fatal ambush of four Green Berets by ISIS in 2017, and the accidental death by friendly fire of US private James Sherrett II in 2008. The latter exposure resulted in Meek meeting personally with President Barack Obama.
To source such scoops would have necessitated maintaining close high-level contacts within Washington’s national security apparatus – and there are clear indications Meek could himself have experience in that very sphere. As a 2013 ABC press release announcing the creation of a new investigative unit stated, since 2011 he’d “served as Senior Counterterrorism Advisor and Investigator for the House Committee on Homeland Security, grappling with some of the top threats to our country, including the bombing at the Boston Marathon.”
What this grappling entailed isn’t explained, although Rolling Stone interviews with his ABC peers indicate that despite his background being “shrouded in mystery,” Meek was in close quarters at various times with military and intelligence professionals. One of his coworkers mentioned a photo in his office taken in a desert, featuring Meek posing with a number of people who had had their faces retrospectively blacked out.
These nuggets might suggest not only that Meek had a background in military and/or intelligence work, but that these professional exploits could have overlapped with his journalism career, perhaps up to the present day.
This interpretation is greatly reinforced by an underexplored disclosure in Rolling Stone’s article. It is noted that unnamed sources had said “federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek’s laptop during their raid.” One of Meek’s ABC coworkers further told the magazine: “it would be highly unusual for a reporter or producer to keep any classified information on a computer.” Which is true – but was he simply a “reporter or producer,” or something else too?
Even stranger, Rolling Stone fails to put two and two together when discussing how it would be unusual and unprecedented for the FBI to seize a reporter’s documents, as US laws make it illegal for journalistic material to be captured by federal prosecutors without special prior authorization from the US Attorney General’s office, and there is no evidence in the public domain that such an agreement was officially reached.
Again though, such restrictions only apply to documents held by journalists – not regular citizens, or individuals involved in national security work. As such, Meek’s final tweet – despite being posted after a warrant to search his home was secured – might be a highly incisive clue as to the rationale for the mysterious and completely unpublicized FBI raid.
Meek’s tweeting about the situation in Ukraine since 24 February was fairly sparse, but on 4 March, he revealed that America’s Germany-based 10th Special Forces Group had “spent a decade training Ukraine’s special operations forces in unconventional warfare, almost exclusively. They are seeing those tactics being used very effectively against the Russian Bear.”
In exposing this secret schooling, Meek was notably ahead of the curve – it is only since late September that Western news outlets have acknowledged the decade-long 10th Special Forces Group training provided to Kiev. This indicates he knew something the rest of the media didn’t, or maybe wasn’t allowed to mention at the time.
Meek’s other posts on Ukraine suggest that while far from a Russian apologist, he was very critical of US policy in the region, particularly plans to ship endless weapons to Ukraine, believing it would be difficult for the cargo to reach the frontline, let alone be used very effectively by local troops. Both obvious outcomes have been subsequently admitted, leading to online backlash, and official denials.
The ABC journalist’s knowledge of that covert training, and the US intelligence community exploiting the post-Maidan regime’s brutal war on the Donbass civilian population as a petri dish for prepping war with Russia, strongly suggests insider access. Combined with public skepticism over Washington’s war effort, could it be that Meek planned an expose of inconvenient hidden truths about the Western proxy war in Ukraine, or alternatively knew too much, and was dangerously well-positioned to publicize it?
Read moreSecret societies: Harmless members-only clubs or dire threats to democracy?
Declassified documents reveal that the rule change protecting a journalist’s possessions from seizure contain massive loopholes. If the FBI is trying to identify an individual who leaked documents to a reporter, or attempting to surveil someone they believe to be an intelligence operative, those protections evaporate, and the bureau can monitor privileged private communications without the Attorney General office’s approval.
Were it the case that Meek was both a journalist and intelligence professional, by receiving sensitive briefings on US involvement in the war in Ukraine, he could have walked into a series of traps of his dual career’s own making, with no legal protections, and no need for official sign-off on a massive spying and raid operation targeting him.
It is unknown quite what information he could have possessed that the US government wanted to suppress, although the White House is so desperate to maintain official narratives on the Russia/Ukraine conflict that it’s giving direct briefings to Tik-Tok stars on the subject.
Of course, it’s entirely conceivable that someone who could blow the whistle on how Russia’s intervention was provoked, or what the US is trying to get out of prolonging the fighting, would need to be silenced as a matter of urgency.