Great Interview; Re-truth; Know Your Rights; Houston Medical Staff Fired for Not Taking the Jab Speak; Geo-Engineering is Part of the Swamp  

WEBERZ REPORT – W/ LINDSEY GRAHAM AKA PATRIOT BARBIE

 

Trump Re-truth

Know your rights

Houston Medical Staff Fired for not taking the Jab speak.

Geo-Engineering is part of the swamp
Law of One

11.18 Questioner: Then we have crusaders from Orion coming to this planet for mind control purposes. How do they do this?

Ra: As all, they follow the Law of One observing free will. Contact is made with those who call. Those then upon the planetary sphere act much as do you to disseminate the attitudes and philosophy of their particular understanding of the Law of One which is service to self. These become the elite. Through these, the attempt begins to create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are enslaved by their own free will.

16.17 Questioner: What was their purpose in doing this?

Ra: I am Ra. The purpose of the Orion group, as mentioned before, is conquest and enslavement. This is done by finding and establishing an elite and causing others to serve the elite through various devices such as the laws you mention and others given by this entity.

18.21 Questioner: Why did they want larger and stronger organisms?

Hillary Clinton Pedophile Sex Ring; Dr. Dean: Exposing the Truth

Hillary Clinton Pedophile Sex Ring Continues To Be Exposed By Insiders – FBI and NYPD Confirming Hillary Clinton’s Massive Crime Syndicate in Washington DC  Link to Story

WEBERZ WAY

DR DEAN: EXPOSING THE TRUTH;  an enlightening  conversation with Dr. Jason Dean and Jess Weber about vaccines, culture, medical community  and much more. 

Love the whole world as a mother lovers her only child.

Nixon Framed for Questioning Deep State?

Here’s Tucker‘s segment on how the deep state took down Nixon because he was going to expose how the CIA assassinated JFK…
And How they installed Ford who had been on the Warren commission to protect the CIA. And how they did the same to Flynn and are now shafting Biden… Who actually shafted Flynn six years ago. We need our country back.

People Arrested for what they said on Social media

It’s all Been A Rich Man Trick, Time to Wake Up

The Holy Grail Of Absolute Proof!!! This video exposes a television commercial that the federal government aired. Hidden in the video are some very disturbing hidden messages. In other related news McDonalds was busted using subliminal messages by means of flashing their logo really fast so that your subconscious mind sees it.


There is widespread strike action pending in the UK. In this upload I give my thoughts on this matter – and make connections between the Australian Unions and the WEF.


Kurt Russell on The VIEW

Learn Your Rights

MSM is Not Free Press

Another  vaccine injury

Our Next Soul Level; Doctor Admits  99% Intubates Patients Died; MHRA Report Card; Mammogram Risks

Doctor Admits  99% Intubates Patients Died

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)

Yellow Card Adverse Event Reports – 177,925 (Pfizer) + 246,866 (AZ) + 47,045 (Moderna) + 52 (Novavax = N) + 2130 (Unknown) = 474,018 people impacted incl. bivalent vaccines (increase of 3995 in 4 weeks)

Overall 1-in-114 people injected experiences a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10% of actual figures according to MHRA.

TOTAL DOSES administered – 94.4million (Pfizer) + 49.16m (AZ) + 25.3m (Moderna) = 168,859,700 doses incl. all booster programmes

All boosters = 64,259,700
• Pfizer – 32.5m (mono) & 9.7m (bivalent)
• Astrazeneca – 59,700
• Moderna – 13.1m (mono) & 8.9m (bivalent)

Adverse event report figures below INCLUDE both mono- and bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Booster Yellow Card Reports – 35,028 (Pfizer) + 655 (AZ) + 21,956 (Moderna) + 280 (Unknown) = 57,919

Reactions – 511,776 (Pfizer) + 874,912 (AZ) + 151,628 (Moderna) + 106 (Novavax = N) + 6508 (Unknown) = 1,544,930

Fatal – 857 (Pfizer) + 1334 (AZ) + 111 (Moderna) + 60 (Unknown) = 2362

Blood Disorders – 17,677 (Pfizer) + 7938 (AZ) + 2862 (Moderna) + 75 (Unknown) = 28,552

Anaphylaxis – 687 (Pfizer) + 888 (AZ) + 102 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1682

Acute Cardiac – 14,375 (Pfizer) + 11,813 (AZ) + 4177 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 161 (Unknown) = 30,531

Eye Disorders – 8461 (Pfizer) + 15,107 (AZ) + 1939 (Moderna) + 105 (Unknown) = 25,612

Blindness – 180 (Pfizer) + 330 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 561

Deafness – 331 (Pfizer) + 447 (AZ) + 70 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 854

Infections – 13,600 (Pfizer) + 20,951 (AZ) + 3160 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 263 (Unknown) = 37,979

Herpes – 2341 (Pfizer) + 2725 (AZ) + 363 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 30 (Unknown) = 5461

Spontaneous Abortions – 505 + 19 stillbirths/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 240 + 6 stillbirths/foetal deaths (AZ) + 74 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) +11 (Unknown) = 830 miscarriages

Gastrointestinal Disorders – 44,248 (Pfizer) + 81,396 (AZ) + 13,828 (Moderna) + 6 (N) + 506 (Unknown) = 139,984

Strokes and CNS hemorrhages – 878 (Pfizer) + 2429 (AZ) + 108 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 27 (Unknown) = 3443

Nervous System Disorders – 84,728 (Pfizer) + 184,225 (AZ) + 24,827 (Moderna) + 16 (N) + 1088 (Unknown) = 294,884

Seizures – 1201 (Pfizer) + 2113 (AZ) + 340 (Moderna) + 34 (Unknown) = 3688

Paralysis – 553 (Pfizer) + 916 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 1632

Vertigo & Tinnitus – 4426 (Pfizer) + 6935 (AZ) + 925 (Moderna) + 56 (Unknown) = 12,342

Respiratory Disorders – 23,064 (Pfizer) + 30,230 (AZ) + 5592 (Moderna) + 3 (N) + 279 (Unknown) = 59,168

Epistaxis (nosebleeds) – 1148 (Pfizer) + 2307 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 3707

Psychiatric Disorders – 10,798 (Pfizer) + 18,699 (AZ) + 3025 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 158 (Unknown) = 32,681

Skin Disorders – 35,879 (Pfizer) + 53,819 (AZ) + 15,036 (Moderna) + 7 (N) + 464 (Unknown) = 105,205

Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 31,789 (Pfizer) + 20,983 (AZ) + 5438 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 271 (Unknown) = 58,482

Bell’s Palsy – 677 (Pfizer) + 646 (AZ) + 127 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1454

CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE SPECIAL REPORT
Suspected side effects reported in individuals under 18yrs old

• Pfizer – 4,200,000 children (1st doses) + 2,900,000 (2nd doses) + 400,000(mono)/52,500(bivalent) boosters resulting in 4205 Yellow Cards

• AZ – 11,400 children (1st doses) + 8.500 (2nd doses) + ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 267 Yellow Cards (reporting rate 1-in-43)

• Moderna – 2100 children (1st doses) + 2000 (2nd doses) + 32,400(mono)/1000(bivalent) boosters resulting in 39 Yellow cards

• Brand Unspecified – 37 Yellow Cards

Total = 4,213,700 children injected (under 18s)
Total doses (1st, 2nd & boosters) = 7,609,900
Total Yellow Cards Under 18s = 4548

For full reports including 387 pages of specific reaction listings – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions


 

The Business of Breast Cancer: Mammogram Risks

An epidemic of low-value screenings is driving millions of women to get unnecessary tests and treatments
Jan 14 2023

 

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 awarenessOctober 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

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.

Overdiagnosis

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.

An article published in Public Health Research and Practice entitled What Is Overdiagnosis and Why Should We Take It Seriously? offers a very good explanation of what overdiagnosis is and why it is a problem, defining overdiagnosis this way:

“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.

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.

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.

Both The American College of Radiology and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend women begin annual mammograms at age forty. The American Cancer Society recommends annual screenings begin at 45 (then once every other year after 55), and The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends women begin mammograms every other year at age fifty.

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, increase mastectomies, 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.

(On the New England Journal of Medicine’s website you can listen to an interview the journal conducted with Dr. Mette Kalager on the Swiss Board’s recommendation and learn more about why they recommended phasing out routine mammography screening.)

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.

Final Thoughts

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

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.

J6 Political Prisoner; And We Know; Save The Children; The Higher View

Coming up on this episode of Alison at Large: A one-on-one with J6 political prisoner Jake Lang. We will remember the infamous day and discuss the new book he has released behind bars. Plus a shocking ruling out of new Zealand… Regarding pedophilia. And “to censor or not to censor”… That is the question… And Elon Musk’s latest maneuver may shock you. And B.M.W. introduces you to a car with a ‘digital soul.’

Jake Lang J6 Political Prisoner, “To censor or not to censor” and Cars with “Souls”

Why hasn’t Ray Ebbs Been Arrested?


And We Know

1.7.23: Trump in CONTROL, DS losing their grip, Huge WIN, Art of the DEAL playing out. PRAY!

Save The Children

The Higher View

The Higher View is a brand-new show using The View as a format. If you are a fan or not a fan of The View which has been on for 25 years. We have taken the show format to a Higher Consciousness perspective. Our first show aired live yesterday. Please check it out and share. It is time that Humanity moves to a Higher Consciousness together. Awake 2 Oneness Radio: https://www.awake2onenessradio.org/


Truth On MSM

Fauci Corruption; Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths; The Q Movement; Kim Clement; EU Corruption Exposed  and More


Why Do Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths Right Now?

Jan 6 2023

 

In Sept. 2021, President Joe Biden declared a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” and blamed this on the roughly 80 million Americans who failed to get the COVID-19 shot.

However, by 2022, vaccinated people made up the majority of the population, with about 79 percent of adults having completed at least their initial shots.

The most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data now find the majority of adults dying of COVID-19 are vaccinated or boosted.

60 Percent of COVID-Related Deaths Among the Vaccinated

An alarming trend has become apparent: Vaccinated and boosted individuals account for a sharply increasing proportion of deaths from COVID-19.

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) showed in an analysis posted on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, that about 4 in 10 COVID-related deaths were among the vaccinated or boosted by January 2022.

The most recent analysis of CDC data by KFF finds 6 out of 10 COVID-related deaths from April to August 2022 were among people with some level of vaccination.

According to KFF, this is due to a variety of factors relating to how many people were vaccinated earlier in the pandemic when the shots were first made available.

When the vaccines were first rolled out, people who received their initial series of injections represented only a small share of total deaths, because they were such a small number compared to the unvaccinated majority.

But that share was expected to rise as vaccinated people represented a growing share of the U.S. population. Ultimately, if everyone in the United States was vaccinated, then vaccinated people would represent 100 percent of COVID-19 deaths. The same would be observed among those who received a booster dose.

This is because some people who are up to date with vaccines will still get COVID-19, incidents which are considered “breakthrough infections.” As the CDC states, COVID-19 vaccination is effective at preventing severe illness and death, but the shots are not perfect.

Vaccine Benefit Has Become Marginal

The rising share of the vaccinated population is only one factor and doesn’t seem to explain all the increased deaths among vaccinated people over the last year.

KFF concluded that vaccination rates have only grown slightly during this time, yet the number of vaccinated people dying rose more steeply.

Another possible reason we’re seeing increased deaths among the vaccinated is that even in 2021, one study showed vaccine effectiveness waned significantly over time for all adults.

This effect was most pronounced in the older age groups, particularly in those between 40- and 59-years-old, and in those 80 and older.

Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines BMJ 
Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta phase by age group and priority risk category, Italy, July 19 to Nov. 7, 2021. The British Medical Journal

“The data is suggesting that at this point, with the vast majority of the population having had contact with either the infection or the vaccine, the effects of the vaccine are marginal,” Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, an expert in long COVID and post-viral chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, told The Epoch Times.

An Israeli study found vaccine efficacy dropped to the same as three doses just months afterward, while research funded by Moderna found their COVID vaccine’s effectiveness actually became negative over time.

Is Modern Medicine Causing More Harm Than Good?

The updated (bivalent) booster shots became widely available in September 2022, and uptake of those vaccinations has been slow throughout the country.

Dr. Robert G. Lahita, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Disease at Saint Joseph Health, said the new booster is a tough sell because people are sick of vaccinations.

“People were told that the vaccine would prevent infection and it did not,” he continued. “The man in the street sees only his family and friends sick over and over again and they have all been vaccinated, so he says ‘what’s the point?’”

Teitelbaum also pointed out the possible limitations of modern medicine.

He said there are four areas where modern medicine has clearly been of benefit: antibiotics, acute surgical care, correctly used vaccines (smallpox, tetanus), and public hygiene.

“For many of the others, it’s often a toss-up whether our modern medical system causes more harm than good,” he said. Regardless, Lahita noted that turning our population—and especially our children—into “pincushions for more and more vaccines” isn’t the best idea.

“What I have found in my 50 years in medicine is that, as people take more and more boosters of the same vaccine, I see greater toxicity,” he noted.

An example of this would be the hepatitis B vaccine, where receiving more than two doses was associated with a number of cases in which Teitelbaum observed patients develop chronic fatigue syndrome.

Teitelbaum considers the two initial COVID-vaccine doses reasonable for people over 50 or who have diabetes, cancer, or other severe illnesses, or for children with leukemia or other severe diseases. However, he thinks it’s a mistake to give the vaccine to healthy children because their risk of death from infection is so low and the risks of the vaccines are still unknown.

Optimizing Your Immunity

Experts still have no idea why some people, vaccinated or not, have more severe COVID infections.

Lahita said this might be due to factors like genetics and a person’s overall lifestyle.

For example, obesity is associated with impaired immune function, as is type 2 diabetes. Both conditions are common in the United States and are lifestyle-related.

More severe COVID infections may also involve factors like someone’s individual gut microbiome, his or her environment, or particular immunogenetics (genetic basis of our immune response), said Lahita.

The recent COVID-19 outbreak in China also raises concerns.

China’s current COVID-19 outbreak is led by the Omicron subvariants BA.5.2 and BF.7, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Jan. 4, 2023. Chinese data also show no new coronavirus variant has yet been identified, while also underrepresenting how many people have died in the rapidly spreading outbreak.

According to the most recent data, nearly 90 percent of the Chinese mainland population has been fully vaccinated.

“The Chinese outbreaks are worrisome,” explained Lahita, “because the virus tends to upregulate and mutate in large infected groups.” This could bring about a new spike in COVID-19 infections worldwide, as new variants appear—against which we’ll have no naturally acquired or vaccine-induced protection.

“I expect a new and possibly lethal variant for the near future,” Lahita warned.

Teitelbaum emphasized the importance of optimizing our immunity. He said this could easily be done by:

  • Sleeping a full eight hours every night, as sleep deprivation is a powerful way to suppress immunity.
  • Staying hydrated, but not with sugary drinks, which can suppress immunity.

Several key nutrients, especially zinc and vitamin D, are critical for dramatically improving immunity and outcomes in infections in general, especially in COVID-19.

“Personally, during COVID outbreaks (or when I had the infection), I take a mix of elderberry along with these nutrients,” said Teitelbaum.

George Citroner

George Citroner is a health reporter for The Epoch Times.

 

 


The Q Movement by Riccardo Bosi


Kim Clement speaks of Donald Trump


Rob Roos, member of the European Parliament about the Plandamic


EU Corruption Exposed


Just another reason not to trust big Pharma and the Medical Community

And We Know; Shocking Lab Investigation of COVID Vaccines

We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health | Popular ...

Shocking Lab Investigation of COVID Vaccines

Jan 1 2023
(Fit Ztudio/Shutterstock)

Finally, an unbiased pathologist has taken a vaccine into the lab to demonstrate exactly what’s causing ‘the mystery of the rubbery clots.’

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • 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.”

Cole agreed:

“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 Show-Stopper

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.”

Bigtree adds:

“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.”

What to Do if You Got the Jab

If you already got one or more jabs, stop now and take no more. That’s step No. 1. If you struggle with post-jab symptoms, be sure to look at the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC) post-jab injury protocol.

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.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can also help eliminate the toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy, and nattokinase, a form of fermented soy, is helpful for reducing blood clots. Several additional detox remedies can be found in “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

Originally published 

References

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

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.

Tom Renz, Attorney tell the Truth; Supreme Court of the United States case 22-380; Spiritual Purge; Trump Taxes; Electromagnetic Energy

Tom Renz, Attorney tell the Truth. This year will decide the fate of the United States and the World.


Video Link

Supreme Court of the United States case 22-380


A Spiritual Purge


Trump Taxes Released

There is a secret technology that has been used in secret, for decades underground, like
means of transport ..

Tow train <
Instant connections <
0Energy Points <
ZeroPoint Energy <
This video roughly explains the technology used.
A very simple electric train.

Electromagnetic train
Magnet + Coil of copper wire + Battery = Magic

 

 

FBI And Twitter; Time to Hold Them Accountable; Mandatory Audit; Lifting the Veil: Inner Earth

FBI Statement to MSM
Hold them Responsible
Mandatory Audits
Lifting of the Veil   Inner Earth Civilizations

As the veils lifts  and the truth is being exposed , we realize the world was not as it seemed. We have free will to decide our journey, to stay in our cages or spread our wings to discover who we really are metaphysically. Imagine that all that is happening around us is a catalyst for our spirit evolution, something we all experience personally. 

Since the beginning of time, humanity has been asking the question, who are we, why are we here and where are we going. We live in two inseparable worlds, the physical and metaphysical. Most live in the physical world using our five senses, sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. We also have a sixth sense we call extrasensory perception, intuition or discernment, but few use  this gift.

Infinite Intelligence has been trying to teach us since the beginning of time to this current moment. We see these teachings from different Messiahs and prophets throughout history and in different languages depending on cultural traditions and political situations.

Our planet has over 7 billion people, different cultures and beliefs systems, yet we are all different in their own unique way.  One thing most of us have all have in common,  the belief  there is something greater  than ourselves, and Infinite Intelligence that is guiding all of us if we allow it. This is an important steps of consciousness,   realizing and allowing this Divine Power  back into our daily lives.   Love is the dominate expression and experience and the reason we are here. Perhaps that is the highest state of consciousness we can obtain in this life but only Infinite Intelligences knows.

%d bloggers like this: