Category Archives: Body, Mind & Spirit

Collecting Kid’s DNA – Hmmm

Posted on by

After Uvalde, Texas Public Schools Send Home DNA Kits For Kids

It’s the first program of its kind since the deadly mass-shooting. Security experts worry it sends families the wrong message.
A pile of DNA collection kits in white boxes
PAUL ELLIS / GETTY IMAGES

This week, Texas public schools plan to distribute DNA and fingerprint identification kits to guardians of students in kindergarten through middle school. The Child Identification Program, which became a law in 2021, requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to provide inkless in-home fingerprint and DNA identification cards to the guardians of children in the public school system in the state.

After DNA is gathered, the parent or legal guardian is asked to hold onto the child identification cards for law enforcement use in cases of emergency including if they go missing or are suspected of being human trafficked.

The program is entirely opt-in for parents and guardians, but experts warn of the message it sends to children, particularly in light of the Uvalde shooting on May 24, when 19 children were killed by an armed gunman and parents were asked to provide DNA samples to help identify the victims.

Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a school safety consulting firm, says he can see the value for parents, but cautions about what he calls “security theater”—the visible actions that may make people feel emotionally safer but actually have little effect on safety.

“I can just envision a kid coming home and the parent saying ‘Hi, how was your school day?’ and the kid reaches in the backpack, pulls out a DNA kit and says, ‘Here—our principal sent this home with us so we have all this information when the shooting occurs and if I get killed,” Trump, who is not related to the former U.S. president, told Motherboard.

According to the K-12 School Shooting Database, nearly 60 percent of active shooter incidents at educational institutions since Columbine in 1999 have occurred in high schools. Despite an increase in active shooting incidents occurring on school grounds across the country, Trump worries that sending DNA kits home as an official action of the school or governmental agency with children will undoubtedly send the message that school shootings are imminent.

“There needs to be a really strong messaging around this to make it clear that school shootings are low probability but high impact incidents,” he added. “One school shooting is one too many, but statistically we know that fortunately the vast majority of schools will never experience a mass shooting and you want to take steps that are reasonable. But you don’t want to create unintended consequences where you do more harm than good and the context where everyone’s in a state of high anxiety.”

Scott Poland, a psychology professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida and director of the Suicide and Violence Prevention Office also wonders if sending children home with ID kits send the right message.

“Is there another reason why we would be fingerprinting kids, except like thinking of identifying bodies?” Poland asks Motherboard. “I mean, that’s the part that really worries me about what exactly is behind this and then, maybe most importantly, how do we convey this to kids in a way that doesn’t sound like ‘I don’t think you’re going to be abducted and I don’t think I’m going to have to identify your body.”’

Poland says that school administrators need to remember who they are dealing with—impressionable kindergarten, elementary, and middle schoolers.

“We need to be very careful and very cognizant of the developmental level of children,” he said. “So I think sometimes we’re very well-meaning but maybe we’ve gone a little far and I’m not sure it’s, you know, the best place to focus our money if we had to do with kids’ safety.”

This article is part of State of Surveillance, made possible with the support of a grant from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights in conjunction with Arnold Ventures. The series will explore the development, deployment, and effects of surveillance and its intersection with race and civil rights.

from:    https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn7dq/after-uvalde-texas-public-schools-send-home-dna-kits-for-kids

What’s In Your Head?

Posted on by

How Wireless Headphones Could Lead to Neurological Disorders

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

wireless headphones apple airpods feature

Story at a glance:

  • Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.
  • The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance takes aim at nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
  • The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, communicate with one another by sending a magnetic field through your brain.
  • One scientist who signed the petition believes the use of earbuds is akin to a giant experiment and could increase your risk of neurological disorders.

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, bring a new level of function and convenience to those looking to listen to music, podcasts, audiobooks and more while on the go.

Since their introduction, more than 44 million AirPods have been sold, with another 55 million predicted to be sold in 2019 alone. Forecasts were that 80 million would be sold in 2020, but when the final tally came in, they actually hit over 100 million.

It’s an undeniably alluring bit of technology — one that was further made into a “necessity” of sorts when Apple removed the headphone jack from its iPhone 7 — but it’s one that may come at a steep price.

The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance, takes aim at both nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation.

Scientists warn of danger from EMFs

The petition, which was originally released in 2015 and updated in 2019, is an international appeal from scientists who work closely in the study of the health effects of nonionizing EMF.

For decades, the industry has claimed that nonionizing radiation is harmless and the only radiation worth worrying about is ionizing radiation.

On the contrary, the scientists state:

“Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.

“These include — but are not limited to — radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infrastructures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).”

Noting the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of EMF as a possible human carcinogen, they also stated numerous scientific publications show EMF affects organisms at levels “well below” most international and national guidelines.

Among the potential risks of exposure include:

  • Cancer.
  • Cellular stress.
  • Increase in harmful free radicals.
  • Genetic damages.
  • Structural and functional changes in the reproductive system.
  • Learning and memory deficits.
  • Neurological disorders.
  • Negative impacts on general well-being.

By failing to take action, the petition states, the World Health Organization is “failing to fulfill its role as the pre-eminent international public health agency,” adding that damage from EMF “goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

Why wireless earbuds could be particularly problematic

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley and one of the petition’s signers, explained that earbud technology is so new that research hasn’t yet been done to detail what effects it could have on the brain.

However, he stated in a news release, “I couldn’t imagine it’s all that great for you,” noting that AirPods “communicate with one another using a magnetic induction field, a variable magnetic field [one] sends through your brain to communicate with the other.”

Bluetooth technology like that used by AirPods is typically low intensity, but it’s the close proximity to your brain that could make earbuds particularly dangerous, especially since they tend to be used for longer periods.

Moskowitz said the technology could “open the blood-brain barrier, which evolved to keep large molecules out of the brain.”

He believes that with earbuds, exposure leading to neurological disorders and diseases may be more likely than cancer.

“From a precautionary standpoint, I would argue you shouldn’t experiment with your brain like this by keeping these kinds of wireless headphones on your head or in your ears,” Moskowitz said in a news release.

“You’re conducting a health experiment on yourself, and current regulations are completely oblivious to these kinds of exposures.”

EMFs may damage your cells by causing excessive free radicals

Martin Pall, Ph.D., professor emeritus at Washington State University, is another one of the scientists who signed the petition.

He discovered more than two dozen bodies of research asserting that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC. When there’s excess calcium in the cell, it increases levels of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide.

While NO has many beneficial health effects, massively excessive amounts of it react with superoxide, forming peroxynitrite, which is an extremely potent oxidant stressor.

Peroxynitrites, in turn, break down to form reactive free radicals, both reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species, including hydroxyl radicals, carbonate radicals and NO2 radicals — all three of which do damage. Peroxynitrites also do their own damage.

EMFs are not, therefore, causing damage by having a thermal influence or heating your tissues; they are not “cooking” your cells as some suggest.

Rather, EMF radiation activates the VGCCs in the outer cell membrane, triggering a chain reaction of devastating events that, ultimately:

  • Decimates your mitochondrial function, cell membranes and cellular proteins
  • Causes severe cellular damage
  • Results in DNA breaks
  • Dramatically accelerates your aging process
  • Puts you at higher risk for chronic disease

Like Moskowitz, Pall believes consequences of chronic EMF exposure to the brain can include neurological changes leading to anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s disease.

Further, it’s known that elevated VGCC activity in certain parts of the brain produces a variety of neuropsychiatric effects.

According to Pall:

“I reviewed a [large number] of studies on various kinds of EMF exposures, each of them showing neuropsychiatric effects. What you find is that these effects have been repeated many times in these epidemiological studies.

“It’s the same thing that everybody’s complaining about, ‘I’m tired all the time,’ ‘I can’t sleep,’ ‘I can’t concentrate,’ ‘I’m depressed,’ ‘I’m anxious all the time,’ ‘My memory doesn’t work well anymore.’ All the things everybody’s complaining about.

“We know all those things are caused by EMF exposures. There’s no doubt about that. Because we know their effects on the brain, we know that the VGCCs’ excessive activity can produce various neuropsychiatric problems.”

Download the interview transcript

Nine measures to protect human health from EMFs requested

In their petition to the U.N., the scientists state there are inadequate nonionizing EMF guidelines on an international level, and the agencies responsible have failed to create and impose sufficient guidelines and safety standards to protect public health and populations that may be especially vulnerable to EMF, such as children.

They’re calling for the United Nations Environmental Programme to fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to figure out ways to lower human exposure to RFR and ELF, noting that while industry should cooperate in this process, they should not be allowed to bias the findings.

They also made the following nine requests regarding EMF:

  1. Children and pregnant women be protected.
  2. Guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened.
  3. Manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology.
  4. Utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current.
  5. The public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm-reduction strategies.
  6. Medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity.
  7. Governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that are independent of industry, and mandate industry cooperation with researchers.
  8. Media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies.
  9. White-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

Protections needed before 5G technology becomes widespread

The scientists’ petition is a somber warning as 5G, or “5th Generation,” networks continue to roll out. Unlike the “4th Generation” (4G) technology currently in use, which relies on huge 90-foot cell towers with about a dozen antenna ports on each, the 5G system uses “small cell” facilities or bases, each with about 100 antenna ports each.

Expected to be 10 to 100 times faster than 4G technology and capable of supporting at least 100 billion devices, 5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is between 30GHz and 300GHz, according to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell.

MMWs have not been widely used before, but there are some concerning findings to date, including that sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.

In addition, there is a possibility the technology could worsen the problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria already plaguing the world, as they cause changes in E. coli and many other bacteria, depressing their growth and changing properties and activity.

This also raises concerns that the technology could lead to similar changes in human cells.

According to researchers in the journal Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology:

“MMW … or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new environmental factor, the level of which is increased as technology advances. It is of interest that bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high-frequency range …

“[T]he combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish [sic] role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Studies have even shown that MMWs may invoke stress protein changes in plants such as wheat shoots, while low levels of nonionizing radiation have been linked to disturbances and health problems in birds and bees.

Skip the earbuds — and other tips to lower your EMF exposure

It’s clear that when it comes to the use of earbuds, the use of the precautionary principle is warranted. Don’t become part of the experiment — skip earbuds and listen to your media content the “old-fashioned” way instead.

Apart from that, here are 18 more suggestions that will help reduce your EMF exposure and help mitigate damage from unavoidable exposures.

1. Identify major sources of EMF, such as your cellphone, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen.

Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use. Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cellphone or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cellphone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones, and developing immune systems and brains.

2. Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

3. If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

4. Avoid using wireless chargers for your cellphone, as they too will increase EMFs throughout your home. Wireless charging is also far less energy efficient than using a dongle attached to a power plug, as it draws continuous power (and emits EMFs) whether you’re using it or not.

According to Venkat Srinivasan, director of Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science, keeping your cellphone or tablet fully charged at all times will also reduce the life of the battery, which will necessitate the purchase of a brand-new phone.

As a lithium-ion battery charges and discharges, ions pass between a positive electrode and a negative electrode. The higher the battery is charged the faster the ions degrade, so it’s better to cycle between 45% and 55%.

5. Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

6. Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.

7. If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

8. Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

9. Refuse a smart meter on your home as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98% to 99%.

10. Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

11. Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally, remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

12. Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.

13. When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

14. Avoid using your cellphone and other electronic devices at least an hour (preferably several) before bed, as the blue light from the screen and EMFs both inhibit melatonin production.

15. Since we now know the effects of EMFs are reduced by calcium-channel blockers, make sure you’re getting enough magnesium. Most people are deficient in magnesium, which will worsen the impact of EMFs.

16. Pall has published a paper suggesting that raising your level of Nrf2 may help ameliorate EMF damage. One simple way to activate Nrf2 is to consume Nrf2-boosting food compounds.

Examples include sulforaphane-containing cruciferous vegetables, foods high in phenolic antioxidants, the long-chained omega-3 fats DHA and EPA, carotenoids (especially lycopene), sulfur compounds from allium vegetables, isothiocyanates from the cabbage group and terpenoid-rich foods.

Exercise, calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting) and activating the nitric oxide signaling pathway (one way of doing that is the Nitric Oxide Dump exercise) will also raise Nrf2.

17. Molecular hydrogen has been shown to target free radicals produced in response to radiation, such as peroxynitrites. Studies have shown molecular hydrogen can mitigate about 80% of this damage.

18. Certain spices may help prevent or repair damage from peroxynitrites. Spices rich in phenolics, specifically cinnamon, cloves, ginger root, rosemary and turmeric, have exhibited some protective effects against peroxynitrite-induced damage.

Originally published by Mercola.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wireless-headphones-apple-airpods-neurological-disorders-cola/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d00ea2b9-61c1-464c-a072-cc7b9e0cdd1a

Rethinking Colonoscopy

Posted on by

Colonoscopies Fail to Reduce Colorectal-Related Deaths

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
October 20, 2022 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found the “benefits” of colonoscopies are not as great as they’re made out to be
  • After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group
  • There was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening compared to those who were not screened
  • Colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk similarly to other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing
  • Colonoscopies can cause serious adverse events, including death, bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp and perforation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 45 and 75 be screened for colorectal cancer every 10 years.1 As a result, about 15 million colonoscopies are performed every year in the U.S.2 The procedure, which involves extensive preparation and comes with considerable risks — include the risk of death — is touted as a key way to prevent colorectal cancer deaths.

However, as noted in a landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear.”3 The researchers set out to determine if the benefits of colonoscopies are as great as they’re made out to be — and found that they’re far from it.

Even study author Dr. Michael Bretthauer, a gastroenterologist with the University of Oslo in Norway, stated, “[W]e may have oversold the message for the last 10 years or so, and we have to wind it back a little.”

Study: Colonoscopies Don’t Reduce Cancer Deaths

The Northern-European Initiative on Colon Cancer (NordICC) study — a randomized trial involving 84,585 adults between 55 and 64 years of age — assigned participants in a 1-to-2 ratio to receive an invitation to undergo a colonoscopy or to receive no invitation or screening. None of the participants had gotten a colonoscopy previously.

After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group.4 However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening. The researchers intend to follow the participants for another five years to see if anything changes, but according to the study:5

“The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group … The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 … The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group.”

There were some limitations to the study, including a low uptake rate for those invited to get a colonoscopy. Only 42% of those invited to do the procedure actually did so. When the researchers analyzed the results based only on those who received colonoscopies, the procedure reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and reduced the risk of dying from colorectal cancer by 50%.6

Still, speaking with STAT News, Dr. Samir Gupta, a gastroenterologist who was not involved with the study, noted, “This is a landmark study. It’s the first randomized trial showing outcomes of exposing people to colonoscopy screening versus no colonoscopy. And I think we were all expecting colonoscopy to do better. Maybe colonoscopy isn’t as good as we always thought it is.”7

Colonoscopy ‘Not the Magic Bullet We Thought It Was’

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2022 there will be 106,180 new cases of colon cancer diagnosed and 44,850 new cases of rectal cancer.8 The two types are grouped together — collectively known as colorectal cancer — since they have many of the same characteristics.

The rate of people being diagnosed with either colon or rectal cancers has gone down since the 1980s. The American Cancer Society (ACS) attributes this to changes in lifestyle as well as more people getting screened.9 The death rate from colorectal cancer has also decreased over several decades — a decline that ACS again attributes to screening, as well as colorectal cancer treatments.

“One reason is that colorectal polyps are now being found more often by screening and removed before they can develop into cancers,” ACS notes.10 However, the featured study makes it clear that colonoscopies’ benefits may have been overstated. Bretthauer told STAT News:11

“It’s not the magic bullet we thought it was. I think we may have oversold colonoscopy. If you look at what the gastroenterology societies say, and I’m one myself so these are my people, we talked about 70, 80, or even 90% reduction in colon cancer if everyone went for colonoscopy. That’s not what these data show.”

Bretthauer suggested colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk by 20% or 30%, which is close to reductions offered by other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing. Bretthauer told STAT News:12

“That raises an important point for policymakers … Colonoscopy is more expensive, more time-intensive, and more unpleasant in preparation for patients. Many European countries balked at putting public health dollars towards a large, expensive program, he said, when the fecal testing was cheaper, easier, and had greater uptake in certain studies.

‘Now, the European approach makes much more sense. It’s not only cheaper, but maybe equally effective.’”

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

In 2019, the BMJ published clinical practice guidelines13 for colorectal cancer screening using a stool test — known as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) — a single colonoscopy or a single sigmoidoscopy. A sigmoidoscopy is similar to a colonoscopy but less extensive and less invasive. During a colonoscopy, your entire large intestine is examined, while a sigmoidoscopy only checks the lower part of your colon.

The practice guidelines recommend physicians use a tool to estimate an individual’s potential risk for developing colorectal cancer in the next 15 years. The team recommends that only those who have a risk of 3% or greater should undergo screening tests, choosing from one of four screening options.

This included a FIT done every year or a FIT done every two years depending on risk factors. Patients may also choose a single sigmoidoscopy or, the weakest recommendation from the team, a single colonoscopy.

However, the team determined that the risks associated with colorectal cancer screening outweighed the benefits in many cases. For instance, the risk of death from a colonoscopy from one source was 1 in 16,318 procedures evaluated.14

In the same analysis, the researchers also found 82 suffered serious complications. Another analysis found a death rate of 3 per 100,000 colonoscopies, along with serious adverse events in 44 per 10,000, “with a number needed to harm of 225.”15

Colonoscopies Carry Significant Risks

For any medical procedure, the benefits must outweigh the risks to the patient. But depending on your risk factors, it’s possible that colonoscopy could cause more harm than good. Aside from the risk of death, additional concerning risks include perforation and bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found the risk of perforation after colonoscopy was about 6 per 10,000 while the risk of bleeding was about 24 per 10,000 procedures.16 However, the risks can vary significantly depending on where the procedure is performed.

The risk of perforation at Baylor University Medical Center, according to one study, was 0.57 per 1,000 procedures or 1 in 1750 colonoscopies.17 In a report published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, it’s explained:18

“The frequency of complications is dependent on the skill of physicians doing the procedure, on safeguards that are in place within the laboratory where the procedure is carried out, and whether colonoscopy is done for screening or for diagnostic or therapeutic indications.

Major complications include adverse sedation or anesthetic events including aspiration pneumonia, post-polypectomy bleeding, diverticulitis, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, and colonic perforation.”

Improper Equipment Sterilization Is Dangerous

Download Interview Transcript | Video Link

Another risk factor that varies from clinic to clinic has to do with how well the equipment is sterilized. David Lewis, Ph.D., and I discuss this in the short video above. One issue is the inability to thoroughly clean the inside of the scope.

One common issue is that, during the examination, the physician may be unable to see through the scope and is unsuccessful in the attempt to flush it using the air/water channel as it is clogged with human tissue from a past exam. The scope must be retracted and another one used. Since endoscopes have sensitive equipment attached, they cannot be heat sterilized.

Unfortunately, manufacturers have not been made to produce a scope with the ability to be heat sterilized. As Lewis points out in the video, “We can put a Rover on Mars, surely we can build a flexible endoscope that we can put in an autoclave.” These expensive tools are not disposable but require sterilization between each patient.

Lewis reports that up to 80% of hospitals are sterilizing the flexible endoscopes with glutaraldehyde (Cidex). On testing, he finds this has complicated the process as it does not dissolve tissue in the endoscope but rather preserves it.

When sharp biopsy tools are run through the tube, patient material from past testing is scraped off and potentially carried into your body. This is why it’s important to find a clinic or hospital that uses peracetic acid to thoroughly sterilize the equipment by dissolving proteins found in the flexible endoscopes. Before scheduling any endoscopic examination call to ask how the equipment is sterilized between patients.

Most Colorectal Cancer Cases Are Related to Diet

Aside from skin cancer, colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the U.S., as well as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths.19 It’s wise to take steps to reduce your risk, and lifestyle changes can be quite effective. In fact, lifestyle factors, including dietary choices, play a major role in the occurrence and progression of colorectal cancer,20 with only an estimated 20% of cases caused by genetic factors with the remainder due to environmental factors.

Up to 70% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are believed to be related to diet, leading researchers with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine to state:21

“As such, bioactive food components offer exciting possibilities for chemoprevention due to their potential to target many factors associated with the development and progression of CRC. Furthermore, the ability of bioactive food components to elicit tumoricidal effects without displaying the high toxicity exhibited by standard pharmacological interventions may translate to improved quality of life and survival in patients with cancer.”

For instance, emodin, which is found in Chinese rhubarb as well as in aloe vera, giant knotweed, the herb Polygonum multiflorum (tuber fleeceflower) and Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed), may help prevent colorectal disease due to impressive therapeutic effects, including anti-inflammatory and antitumor properties.22

Fermented foods are also gaining recognition as an important dietary anticancer adjunct. The beneficial bacteria found in fermented foods have been shown particularly effective for suppressing colon cancer. For example, butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid created when microbes ferment dietary fiber in your gut, has been shown to induce programmed cell death of colon cancer cells.23

Other strategies to help prevent colorectal cancer include eating more fiber, optimizing vitamin D, avoiding processed meat, maintaining a normal weight and controlling belly fat. In a larger sense, researchers have demonstrated that cancer is likely a metabolic disease controlled in part by dysfunctional mitochondria.

You can optimize your mitochondrial health through cyclical nutritional ketosis, calorie restriction, meal timing, exercise and normalizing your iron level. All of these lifestyle factors play a role in keeping your body healthy and disease-free.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/20/colonoscopies-carry-significant-risks.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20221020&cid=DM1269224&bid=1625169157

Steps to Ascension

Posted on by

Spiritual Growth: 12 Signs You’re Growing and Evolving

August 24th, 2022

By Aletheia Luna

Guest writer for Wake Up World

So you’ve been devoting months, years, or perhaps even decades of your life to your spiritual practice.

But unlike physically tangible pursuits, there’s no easy way to know if you’re ‘making progress’ or not when it comes to your inner spiritual life.

If you’re wondering whether you’re actually growing and evolving and whether spiritual growth is indeed occurring in your life, keep reading.

What is Spiritual Growth?

Spiritual growth is the process of awakening to your true nature, purpose, and potential. When you undergo spiritual growth you experience an expansion in awareness and insight, also known as higher consciousness.

All spiritual growth has one objective: to help you embody your Soul or Higher Self. Once you are able to shift from ego to Soul, there is the potential for you to experience what is understood as spiritual enlightenment, self-realization, “heaven,” Oneness, or moksha in varying degrees.

Spiritual Growth: 12 Signs You’re Growing and Evolving

Image of a fern frond blossoming symbolic of spiritual growth

Here are the major signs that you’re growing and evolving on a spiritual level:

1. You embrace challenges as lessons and opportunities

Whether your car has just broken down, or someone you love is terribly ill, you sense that there’s an underlying lesson and opportunity in the obstacle before you. Instead of feeling like a victim, you feel like a student of life. In other words, you see that life is not happening to you, it is happening for you.

2. You see through the seduction of the material world

Once upon a time, you might have loved buying expensive things, focusing on enhancing your social status, earning more money, or even indulging in spiritual materialism. But now, you understand that the material world doesn’t ultimately bring you the deep happiness you seek.

3. Your sensitivity has heightened

In the past, you might have been living in a numb state where you were disconnected from your body, heart, mind, and soul. But now, you are a great deal more aware of what is going on inside and around you. As such, you might experience more empathic suffering, which can often feel like both a curse and a gift.

4. You feel more love and compassion (for yourself, others, and the world)

With heightened sensitivity, you also feel more connected to yourself and the world. You may feel higher levels of compassion and true empathy for others – even those who are harmful to themselves, others, and the planet. Your open heart brings you more joy, but also more pain. And yet, your heart is slowly learning how to expand and hold that pain.

5. You stop seeing life in black-or-white dualistic thinking

If you’ve been taught anything by your spiritual awakening, kundalini awakening, or dark night of the soul, it’s that there’s more to life than meets the eye. Something that may seem negative may turn out to be positive. Something that seems beautiful may actually be ugly deep down. Everything and everyone have two sides that are interdependent – nothing is totally black or white.

6. You can show more understanding toward difficult people

Because you can see underneath the surface of a person’s behavior – and the various wounds and traumas that may have caused them to misbehave – you no longer carry as much anger or resentment as you once did. You find it easier to show tolerance and understanding toward others, no longer reacting with as much judgment, condemnation, or self-righteousness.

7. You see that life is cyclical and like a spiral

Instead of getting stuck in one mode of being or mindset, you’re beginning to see that life is cyclical. There are good times and bad times. After spring comes autumn and after day comes night. All things are destined to come and go, rise and fall. As such, you don’t get as affected as you once did when life waxes and wanes – it’s just part of life and the journey of Ensoulment.

8. You become less attached to mental stories

Image of a hand catching a leaf, symbolic of spiritual growth

The more you become acquainted with your mind, the more you recognize that thoughts, ideas, and beliefs don’t actually define you. Instead, these mental occurrences are like clouds that float into the sky, and then eventually drift away. When you attach to mental thoughts and beliefs, you suffer. But when you recognize that your thoughts and feelings don’t define you – instead, you are the vast Consciousness beneath them – you find it easier to let go and find a sense of inner peace.

9. You find it easier to slow down and do nothing

Our thinking minds are always wanting us to “do,” “get,” “achieve,” “go-go-go!” but the soul, the spiritual center of our being, finds true nourishment in slowing down and enjoying life as it is. If you’re finding it easier to wind down, or at least catch the desire to constantly be “switched on” and change course, this is a clear sign of spiritual growth.

10. You are more interested in letting go of the old than gaining the new

As an ongoing student of the Tao Te Ching – an ancient wisdom text from the Taoist tradition – the topic of letting go constantly arises.

Among many verses on letting go, verse 44 packs quite a punch:

One’s own reputation—why the fuss?

One’s own wealth—why the concern?

I say, what you gain

is more trouble than what you lose

Therefore, a huge part of authentic spiritual growth is the capacity to be not only accepting of letting go, but actually preferring it to “gaining more.” The desire to accumulate is from the ego, but the desire to surrender and be free is from the soul.

11. You have more capacity to be discerning

Spiritual growth is not just about experiencing love, bliss, and expansion – although that is part of it. As we deepen and mature, spiritual growth is also about the capacity to think clearly and distinguish truth from falsehood. This ability to use the mind like a sword is what is known as spiritual discernment.

12. You can access more moments of ‘ordinary magic’

While it’s normal at the beginning of the spiritual journey to want glitch, glamor, and exciting sparkly experiences, the more we grow, the more we recognize the beauty of what is already here, right now. This ordinary magic can be accessed whenever we are present, grounded in the Now, and connected with the heart and soul.

from:    https://wakeup-world.com/2022/08/24/spiritual-growth-12-signs-youre-growing-and-evolving/

Of Elephants and Belief

Posted on by

Are Your Thoughts and Beliefs REALLY Yours? The Story of the Spotted Elephant

June 3rd, 2022

By Dr. Michelle KmiecGuest Writer for Wake Up World

To explain the concept of molding your thoughts and beliefs to someone else’s i of what is or isn’t, we must take a look at how our minds work when it comes to believing or not believing that something exists. Whether it is true or not. This is especially important today when most of us get our news stories in single sentence alerts, and from single sources that already align with your belief system. Of course, this is exactly how we hope science doesn’t work.

Many perceive the human mind is of finite boundaries. In other words, we must be able to see things in a tangible manner; in a way that the mind can perceive the information. (Of course, our minds are not finite, but the Scientific Method has not evolved to take that into account; at least not yet). We make it finite by putting any gathered information in some sort of order. In mental boxes or file cabinet so that we are able to understand the information that enters our senses. If we see something that doesn’t make sense, we can’t just allow it to be simply something that doesn’t make sense…we must make sense out of the nonsense.

How is this done?

By using previously gathered information, which at all costs must be explainable, repeatable, and tangible in order to be considered “real”. Never mind that this method excludes a multitude of existing information. Kind of like how important evidence can be thrown out of a court of law due to improper procedures.

But isn’t information and evidence still exactly what it is…information and evidence?

And what happens when there is the need to prove something that isn’t really based on our definition of what is deemed to be real or not? Well, there is a hierarchy of so-called credible people that we automatically trust to tell us when something is real or isn’t real. Let’s explore how this works by looking at the following playful example:

NEWS ALERT: The Little Orange Elephant With Bright Red Dots

A person claims that they saw a little orange elephant with bright red dots, no bigger than a mouse, walk by.

Okay, well, besides being extremely unfashionable with such coloring, this occurrence may be a bit hard for you to believe. But… what if it was your friend that had seen the little elephant? What would you think? Would you believe them? Well, if you are like most of us, you might be thinking your friend may have a small problem and should consider seeking some “professional” help!

And what if it was the homeless fellow living on the street that saw this little orange elephant? What would you think then? I would wager a guess that you’d be crossing to the other side of the street in a pretty fast sprint!

Now let’s say that the person who saw this unlikely creature was the very eccentric artist who is known for her imagination? Would this make a difference? We may think “how cute” it is that she, “thinks” she saw a little orange and red elephant and, by the way, not at all unusual given the character of this creative artist.

Now let’s say that it was an influential person, such as some credible scientist, who saw this little colorful trunk-nosed animal. What would we think now? This is where we begin to really break the rules of “what is,” or perhaps where the “what is” was created.

Most of us would still probably think that this scientist had inhaled a few too many chemicals in his lab, while a few of us may stroke our chins and wonder, “what if he did see this thing? I mean he isn’t just anybody…he’s a scientist after all!”

Okay, okay…are you still hanging with me because now it’s really starting to get good!

Now let’s say that at the most recent annual conference of the Nobel Prize winners (now THESE are the most credible, influential people on the planet, right?) EVERYONE saw this little orange elephant with bright red dots walking across the stage. (And I’m not even going to go crazy by saying the little elephant was dancing across the stage…he was just merely walking; because that’s more believable, right?) Of these highly regarded scientists, how many would admit they saw this little guy? How many would believe it was, perhaps, some sort of terrorist attack? And once word had gotten out, how many of us would be glued to the 24-hour sensationalist cable news channels?

“Did you hear about the alleged little elephant sighting? They said he had red dots!”

“Did this really happen?”

“Are there more little elephants roaming our cities, or was this the only one?”

“Maybe they are really little aliens disguised as orange elephants with bright red dots and they are going to take over the planet!”

You know there would be a series of point-counter-point interviews with “specialists” from various arenas—if you watch cable news channels, by now you realize that there are specialists for everything! Perhaps there is a Cryptozoologist (the study of unknown animals…a “pseudoscience” of course) and a Zoologist (the study of known animals…you know, “real” science) for a “balanced” debate.

NEWS Elephants

Or maybe there is another debate between a Republican strategist and Democratic strategist—after all, it is a known fact that most scientists, as well as most of the academia, are “demo” liberals and it would be just like them to come up with something wacky like this to take the public’s focus away from the real issues – so say their Republican counterparts!

So the bigger question here is…how many people would now believe this all to be true? That there indeed is a little orange elephant with bright red dots no bigger than a mouse running around out there…and it’s still on the loose! I would even bet that there would be an immediate creation of something like The Colorful Little Elephant Society (TCLES)—website, theme song and all!

So, as with anything abstract or “imaginary,” it can be difficult for most people to comprehend information presented in this fashion, even for many scientists! Up until now, we have been comfortable with the certainty of Newtonian Physics that tells us to neatly place everything that is considered “known” into solid theories which ultimately become universal laws. So this shows how the scientific method requires specific criteria in order for something to be proven as truth and classified as “real”.

But what about those people who have been healed from “incurable” diagnoses outside of the required criteria? What of those who have survived cancers (even stage 4) from “alternative” methods? What of those who have been cured of diabetes in only a few months? And what of those who have been totally healed through energy medicine—the most intangible form of health care known (or unknown) to man yet?

We are in the infancy stages of this new idea. Many call it new science, new age, quantum physics. But whatever the term used, the essence of this theory scares many who have relied upon what is considered “known”. And it is incomprehensible to those scientists who feel they must be able to “touch” it, record it and most importantly control it.

Imagine when the idea that our world was not really the center of the universe was presented to the scientists of that time. The confusion, even denial, they must have felt. How can we expand our mind and see what we “think” isn’t there, yet, “know” that it really does actually exist? There is a story that on their first encounter with the Europeans, the American Indians could not see the first strange ship as it approached their shores, mainly due to the fact that it was not in their psyche to recognize it. Perhaps the same may be said about UFO sightings.

Isn’t it possible that this can also be applied to medicine? I think yes!

We seem to always want to “box” up different concepts and then forever rely on these packages for all things that require an explanation. And just like we are reluctant to throw away the boxes we have carefully stored in our attics, we continue to allow ourselves to be buried deeper and deeper in our dogmatic box. We stand with such dogmatic arrogance and conviction that we even deny the possibility of new and different concepts simply because we find it impossible to “box” the “unboxable”.

So why would some of us believe that this little orange elephant with bright red dots does exist, while others simply refuse to believe it? What if it turned out that quantum theory proves that parallel universes do in fact exist and that for a few moments we saw an example of something that lives in another world—a world that simultaneously exists with our own.

If what we actually “know” to be true is in fact not true, where does this put our current beliefs and moreover, our strongly dogmatic position of what reality really is? 

Science, via quantum physics, has found that everything we believe to exist really doesn’t exist as we think it does. Based on that premise, how can we state with true conviction what is real and what is not? How can we continue to trust those few who are so entrenched in a medically dogmatic position, even when it is obvious that the system is not just broken, but is decaying from its very core?

Pop Quiz: What color was the little elephant? Did you remember the elephant as orange or did pink pop into your head first? If you thought orange, good for you! If you thought pink, then this is a perfect example of the power of dogmatic belief in action!

Originally published at onlineholistichealth.com and reproduced here with permission.

from:    https://wakeup-world.com/2022/06/03/are-your-thoughts-and-beliefs-really-yours-the-story-of-the-spotted-elephant/

MInd Control & the Power of the Press

Posted on by

Researchers Study Crafting Messages for Vaccine Compliance

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola 
  • February 16, 2022

In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected.

Officially titled, “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake,”1 the researchers must have had some forethought that people would be wary of an experimental gene therapy, and set to work to decipher the best propaganda campaign to ensure their widespread uptake.

The study’s abstract starts out with questionable statements from the start, parroting the myth that “Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic.”2 The authors do not, however, expand on how this is so, considering that just three months after the shot those who are injected are just as likely to pass COVID-19 to their close contacts as those who do not get the shot.3,4

The reasons why people may be reluctant to get COVID-19 shots — such as safety and efficacy concerns — are also ignored by the study,5 which is only concerned with how to best use psychological tactics to get people on board with being injected.

Guilt, Anger, Embarrassment or Cowardice — What Works Best?

The full study, which was published in the December 3, 2021, issue of Vaccine,6 involved two experiments. The first tested “treatment messages” designed to affect people’s intentions about whether or not to get the shot. For the control group, subjects were exposed to a message about bird feeding, while others read the baseline vaccine message, as follows:

“To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.”

For the experiment, the following messages were added to the baseline message:7

Personal freedom message Economic freedom message
Self-interest message Community interest message
Economic benefit message Guilt message
Embarrassment message Anger message
Trust in science message Not bravery message

For example, the guilt message, which is designed to work by social pressure, reads:8

“The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”

Never mind that this statement is false, since they can still spread the disease if they’re injected. Similarly misleading messages designed to demean, guilt and shame people into getting the shot include:9

  • “If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.”
  • “Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”
  • “[I]t asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”
  • “[I]t asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”

The researchers explained it this way:10

“One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security.

We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators.”

Propaganda Messages Created With No Scientific Support

It’s ironic that the study includes a “trust in science” message, since the messages used in the study were created in early or mid-2020, before science was available to support them. Yet, as noted by a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article, “The messages tested by the researchers have been woven into mainstream media narratives and public health campaigns throughout the world.”11

In the second part of the study, the most effective messages from part one were tested on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. This included the baseline message along with community interest, community interest + embarrassment, not bravery, trust in science and personal freedom messages.

They found that, compared to the control group, psychological messages that involve community interest, reciprocity and embarrassment worked best, leading to a 30% increase in intention to get injected, along with a 24% increase in willingness to tell a friend to get injected and a 38% increase in negative opinions of those who decline to get the shot.12

The messages are designed to not only impact people on an individual level, but also further divide society by encouraging people to pass negative judgment onto others and pressure others to comply with “social norms.” According to the researchers:

“Viewing vaccination through the lens of a collective action problem suggests that in addition to increasing individuals’ intentions to receive a vaccine, effective public health messages would also increase people’s willingness to encourage those close to them to vaccinate and to hold negative judgments of those who do not vaccinate.

By encouraging those close to them to vaccinate, people are both promoting compliance with social norms and increasing their own level of protection against the disease. Also, by judging those who do not vaccinate more negatively, they apply social pressure to others to promote cooperative behavior.”

Shots as a ‘Morally Right Choice’

Since the pandemic began, conforming to confusing and questionable public health mandates has been made an issue of moral superiority — to the point that those who questioned mask mandates were labeled as “grandma killers.”13

In an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2020, it’s further noted that “vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice.”14 It further suggests that, under this social contract, people should change their behaviors toward those who choose not to get injected, and, indeed, people who are “especially compliant,” i.e., vaccinated, were less generous to those who were not.15 Further:16

“If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn’t vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline.”

Propaganda Aimed at Making People Feel ‘Disgusting’

CHD pointed out that one of the authors of the Yale study, Saad Omer, “has an extensive interest in public health messaging” and was behind the “Building Vaccine Confidence Through Tailored Messaging Campaigns” in 2020, which used social media to convince people to get COVID-19 and other shots.17

Working with the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines, Omer detailed what worked in the past to increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine, and suggested it could work for COVID-19 shots. The solution, he said, involved appealing to values and stooping so low as to make a person feel disgusting while presenting vaccines as a form of purity. CHD quoted Omer, who said:18

“We wanted to test out, can we have a purity-based message? So we showed them pictures of genital warts and described a vignette, a narrative, a story, talking about how someone got genital warts and how disgusting they were and how pure vaccines are that sort of restore the sanctity of the body.

So we just analyzed these data. This was a randomized control trial with apriori outcomes. We found approximately 20 percentage point effect on people’s likelihood of getting an HPV vaccine in the next 6 months … We are trying out liberty-based messages or liberty-mediated messaging around this behavior related to COVID-19 outbreak.

That wearing a mask or taking precautions eventually make you free, regain your autonomy. Because if the disease rates are low, your activities can resume.”

This is similar propaganda to what’s being used to promote vaccine passports, with many willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 shot, via a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.

Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of freedom that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and control, and erosion of your privacy.

Propaganda Is the Real Misinformation

Carefully crafted messages that play on your emotions and moral compass are just one part of the campaign to ensure public compliance with the mainstream narrative. Fact checking is another tool being used in order to control virtually everything you see and hear online, in order to serve a greater agenda.19

Take the term “conspiracy theory,” which is now used to dismiss narratives that go against the grain. According to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, this is intentional, as the term itself was devised by the CIA as a response to theories about the assassination of JFK.

Debunked, quackery and antivaccine are all terms that are similarly being used as propaganda tools. “There’s a whole cast of propaganda phrases that I’ve outlined that are cues. When you hear them, they should make you think, ‘I need to find out more about it,’” Attkisson says.20

Likewise, CHD explained, “The efforts to eliminate ‘misinformation’ resulted in unprecedented censorship of virtually anything that steps outside of state-sanctioned consensus and the creation of a captive audience primed to accept a singular narrative.”21

It’s important to remain aware that messages are being carefully crafted to mold human behavior to comply with COVID-19 shots and other public health measures — and to recognize that the use of propaganda is perfectly legal, even in the U.S.

As CHD continued, “And thanks to a multibillion-dollar budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we are under the influence of the best messages money can buy — whether or not those messages are true.”22

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/02/16/covid-19-vaccine-messaging.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2HL&cid=20220216_HL2&mid=DM1115583&rid=1409869533

(PLEASE NOTE:  This article will be available on the site for 48 hours.  It can be accssed in Mercola’s Censored Library after that time.)

Little by Little the Lies Come Out

Posted on by

GOP Senator Demands DoD Investigate Leaked DARPA Bombshell Over Covid-19 Origins

by Tyler Durden
Friday, Jan 14, 2022 – 12:50 PM

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has requested any findings from a Department of Defense investigation into the origins of Covid-19, following the recent publication of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) report obtained by Project Veritas.

According to the leaked report written by a Marine, EcoHealth Alliance sought a contract to use controversial gain-of-function genetic manipulation techniques to study bat coronaviruses. While the proposal was rejected by DARPA, it was subsequently picked up by Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, which funneled money to EcoHealth via a sub-grant.

Fauci has repeatedly claimed NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses.

“It is apparent that Dr. Fauci has not been forthright with the American people regarding his involvement in funding dangerous research,” Sen. Johnson told the Daily Caller.

“According to the Major’s disclosure, EcoHealth Alliance (EcoHealth), in conjunction with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), submitted a proposal in March 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) regarding SARS-CoVs. The proposal included a program, called DEFUSE, that sought to use a novel chimeric SARS-CoV spike protein to inoculate bats against SARS-CoVs,” reads Johnson’s letter.

“Although DARPA rejected the proposal, the disclosure alleges that EcoHealth ultimately carried out the DEFUSE proposal until April 2020 through the National Institutes of Health and National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The disclosure highlights several potential treatments, such as ivermectin, and specifically alleges that the EcoHealth DEFUSE proposal identified chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloriquine) and interferon as SARS-CoV inhibitors.”

The leaked documents also suggest that Covid-19 was created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Johnson asks the DoD to interview the Marine who reportedly authored the report, and undertake an investigation into its claims.

(h/t Just the News)

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/gop-senator-demands-dod-investigate-leaked-darpa-bombshell-over-covid-19-origins?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=418

 

“Morality Pills”, Religious Belief, Magnetogenetics, & Digital Vaccines

Posted on by

Behavioral Modification: What You Need to Know

Analysis by Tessa Lena
  • January 14, 2022

Story at-a-glance

  • Neuroscientists have been working on a number of advanced techniques with military applications
  • Magnetogenetics is a technique of using magnetic fields to remotely control cell activity
  • In human experiments, scientist experimented with reducing religious feelings
  • In animal experiments, researchers were able to induce specific behaviors in mice using genetically modified viruses and magnetic fields
  • Another area of behavioral modification is “digital vaccines,” which is special software for behavioral change

This story is about behavioral modification, both as a philosophical ambition and as a military application. This topic is vast — so I’ll focus on a few relatively recent developments, especially in the area of magnetogenetics. But first, morality pills!

Morality Pills

In August 2020, Forbes published an article titled, “Could A ‘Morality Pill’ Help Stop The Covid-19 Pandemic?” It was based on the opinion of a bioethicist Parker Crutchfield who stated the following:

“Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.”

The problem that Crutchfield was trying to solve with his theoretical ‘morality pills’ was the pesky COVID contrarians, the proverbial grandma killers who refused to comply with masking and social distancing.

“The problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior.”

The author seemed to think very highly of his own ability to make perfect decisions about things — including about the best pandemic response — and therefore he had no qualms about imposing his opinions on others in the form of pills or, perhaps, morality injections. He went as far as to say that “a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply.”

Crutchfield further referred to his work, in which he explored the concept of enhancing democracy by secretly medicating the citizens. He stated the following:

“Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.

My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics.

I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. [emphasis mine].”

Bravissimo! Does this combo of freedom and covertly administered forced medication come with DeBlasio fries?

The good thing about morality pills is that they are seemingly theoretical … hopefully. How about creating fake memories? That, now, is actual science! In 2014, Smithsonian Magazine published an article titled, “Meet the Two Scientists Who Implanted a False Memory Into a Mouse,” which described a series of rather sadistic experiments showing that implanting false memories was achievable. (Should we mandate morality pills for the scientists? Just wondering.)

Implanting a False Memory in a Mouse

The scientists did a number of manipulations that I will describe in great technical detail in just a second — but the gist of it is that they placed a mouse in a particular box and gave the mouse a foot shock while simultaneously triggering a memory of being in a different, “safe,” box from an earlier experiment when the mouse was is that other box without receiving the shock.

They then placed the mouse in the “safe” box again, and the mouse acted terrified, as if it associated that first box with being given a shock, while in reality the shock was given in the second box, not in the first box. The conclusion that the scientists drew was that in the mouse’s mind, it “remembered” being given a shock in the box in which it had never been given a shock.

Great technical detail: Working with genetically engineered lab mice, the scientists injected their brains with a biochemical cocktail that included a gene for a light-sensitive protein (channelrhodopsin-2). The cells participating in memory formation would then produce the protein and become light-sensitive themselves.

Namely, they “surgically implanted thin filaments from the laser through the skulls of the mice and into the dentate gyrus. Reactivating the memory — and its associated fear response — was the only way to prove they had actually identified and labeled an engram [a unit of cognitive information imprinted in a physical substance].

The researchers sacrificed the animals after the experiment and examined the brain tissues under a microscope to confirm the existence of the engrams; cells involved in a specific memory glowed green after treatment with chemicals that reacted with channelrhodopsin-2.”

In order to manipulate a specific engram to create a false memory, they “prepared the mouse, injecting the biochemical cocktail into the dentate gyrus. Next, they put the mouse in a box without shocking it. As the animal spent 12 minutes exploring, a memory of this benign experience was encoded as an engram.

The following day, the mouse was placed in a different box, where its memory of the first (safe) box was triggered by shooting the laser into the dentate gyrus. At that exact moment, the mouse received a foot shock. On the third day, the mouse was returned to the safe box — and immediately froze in fear. It had never received a foot shock there, but its false memory, created by the researchers in another box, caused it to behave as if it had.”

Here you have it. The scientists were allegedly able to create a false memory in a mouse by torturing it and its fellows. False memories, check. How about manipulating religious feelings in people? Did the scientists try? Sure they did.

Experiments To Manipulate Religious Beliefs With Magnetism

In 2015, an article called, “Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief” was published in “Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.”

The authors of the study “presented participants with a reminder of death and a critique of their in-group ostensibly written by a member of an out-group, then experimentally decreased both avowed belief in God and out-group derogation by downregulating pMFC activity via transcranial magnetic stimulation. The results provide the first evidence that group prejudice and religious belief are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation.”

Magnetogenetics

Speaking of magnetic stimulation, let’s talk about magnetogenetics. Magnetogenetics is a biological technique that involves the use of magnetic fields to remotely control cell activity. According to the behavioral research company Noldus, “magnetogenetics, or the use of electromagnetic control, involves activating cells using magnetic fields. With magnetogenetics researchers have found a way to control neurons with electromagnets.”

For context, magnetogenetics is adjacent to two other methods, optogenetics and chemogenetics. Optogenetics is based on switching populations of related neurons on or off on a millisecond-by-millisecond timescale with pulses of laser light. Optogenetics is an invasive method that requires insertion of optical fibers that deliver the light pulses into the brain. Chemogenetics uses engineered proteins that are activated by designer drugs and can be targeted to specific cell types.

The “Magneto” Experiment

In 2016, two University of Virginia scientists demonstrated that neurons in the brain that have been supplemented with a synthetic gene can be remotely manipulated by a magnetic field. In their own words, they “may have discovered a major step toward developing a ‘dream tool’ for remotely controlling neural circuits.”

At the time, Güler, a biology professor at UVA, and UVA neuroscience Ph.D. candidate Michael Wheeler “engineered a gene that can make a cell sense the presence of a magnetic field. They coupled a gene that senses cellular stretch with another gene that functions as a nanomagnet. This synthetic combination turns on only when in the presence of a magnetic field, allowing them to control neuronal activity in the brain.”

“In a series of tests on mice that had the Magneto gene used to express comfort or pleasure, the mice voluntarily went to a chamber of their cage where the magnetic field was present, similar to going there as if food was present.

Likewise, when the magnetic field was turned off, the mice did not display any particular preference for that area of the cage. But when the magnetic field was turned back on, they again moved to that area of the cage. Mice without the Magneto gene did not display any behavioral changes in the presence of magnets.”

According to the Guardian, the premise of the experiment was that nerve cell proteins activated by heat and mechanical pressure “can be genetically engineered so that they become sensitive to radio waves and magnetic fields, by attaching them to an iron-storing protein called ferritin, or to inorganic paramagnetic particles.”

The technique used the protein TRPV4, which is sensitive to both temperature and stretching forces that “open its central pore, allowing electrical current to flow through the cell membrane; this evokes nervous impulses that travel into the spinal cord and then up to the brain.”

The scientists “used genetic engineering to fuse the protein to the paramagnetic region of ferritin, together with short DNA sequences that signal cells to transport proteins to the nerve cell membrane and insert them into it …

When they introduced this genetic construct into human embryonic kidney cells growing in Petri dishes, the cells synthesized the ‘Magneto’ protein and inserted it into their membrane. Application of a magnetic field activated the engineered protein, as evidenced by transient increases in calcium ion concentration within the cells.”

“Next, the researchers inserted the Magneto DNA sequence into the genome of a virus, together with the gene encoding green fluorescent protein, and regulatory DNA sequences that cause the construct to be expressed only in specified types of neurons.

They then injected the virus into the brains of mice, targeting the entorhinal cortex, and dissected the animals’ brains to identify the cells that emitted green fluorescence. Using microelectrodes, they then showed that applying a magnetic field to the brain slices activated Magneto so that the cells produce nervous impulses.”

When the scientists placed the animals into an apparatus split into magnetised a non-magnetised sections, “mice expressing Magneto spent far more time in the magnetised areas than mice that did not, because activation of the protein caused the striatal neurons expressing it to release dopamine, so that the mice found being in those areas rewarding. This shows that Magneto can remotely control the firing of neurons deep within the brain, and also control complex behaviours.”

Let me just say that as a citizen, I don’t feel particularly relaxed knowing that this research exists — especially under today’s circumstances. Usually, whenever there is a technology that is suitable for behavioral modification and crowd control, somebody tries to use it. Politicians and greedy corporate leaders are funny this way! When there’s a hammer …

Dr. James Giordano’s Talk on Military Neuroscience

Speaking of hammers, I highly recommend you watch this mind-twisting, sci-fi-sounding, and frankly creepy presentation on military applications of neuroscience by Dr. James Giordano, Professor at Georgetown University Medical Center who has served as a Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment group of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon.

In his presentation, Dr. Giordano talks about neuroweapons and how new developments in brain science can be used in the military (and beyond). Some of the applications and scenarios he describes will make you scratch your head very hard!

“Digital Vaccines”

Another area of behavioral modification is the so called “digital vaccines,” or behavioral modification software. According to the Center for Digital Health at Brown’s Alpert Medical School, digital vaccines are “a solution to the problem of creating sustained behavioral change” and “a subtype of digital therapeutics, which use neurocognitive training to promote positive human behavior using technologies like smartphone apps.”

They are called “vaccines” because they create resistance to disease through a different mechanism. (I would posit that they are called “vaccines” because it’s a trendy, investor-friendly word that might also potentially come with a lack of legal liability — but that’s just my cynical guess.)

Carnegie Mellon University hosts Digital Vaccine Project, an initiative that focuses on the development and evaluation of “digital vaccine” candidates. Among other candidates, they are talking about a “digital vaccine” for COVID-19, which looks suspiciously like a gamified, nudging bot designed to train people to practice good “health-hygiene habits,” as defined by the owners of the algorithm.

This sounds to me like a good ol’ missionary in a shiny digital form: an unsolicited and unwanted “boss” with a superiority complex and no sense of tact!

Sooner or later, the scientists will figure out that their “patients” become annoyed by the bot out of their wits — at which point the hopeful priests of behavioral modification will come up with a “fix” on top of a “fix” — and money will be made by investors every step of the way — as it usually goes, at the price of the people.

digital vaccine project

Let me end by saying that technological behavioral modification is a rotten idea, driven by maniacs. The fact that hunger for total control is so painfully prevalent in our world doesn’t change the pathological nature of that hunger.

The need for mechanical control is born out of fear and anxiety, and that’s undeniable. And yes, today, the Machine still reigns and has the power to bully but without a doubt — whichever way we get there — we are moving toward a world where we are fully alive and free. The stronger and braver we are in the face of the darkness, the sooner we get free.

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

from:  https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/01/14/behavioral-modification-and-neuroweapons.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2HL&cid=20220114_HL2&mid=DM1090441&rid=1379335023

PLEASE BE ADVISED:  Dr. Mercola takes his articles down after 48 hours, however he does have an archive which can be accessed.

Imagine That! Fauci et al Hid The Truth

Posted on by

Documents Showing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Effective in Treating COVID Were Buried

January 13, 2022 Gateway Pundit 0

Dr. Fauci, YoutubeDAR
There are 67 controlled studies of Ivermectin’s effect on COVID-19 that show a 67% improvement in COVID patients. There are 298 Hydroxychloroquine studies that show a 64% improvement in patients for COVID-19 patients. Despite the science, Dr. Fauci and the medical elites have blocked the use of these effective treatments for coronavirus patients. Fauci and other top US medical leaders were in on the hydroxychloroquine lie that smeared the treatment as being ineffective and dangerous. Jeremy Farrar, director of Wellcome Trust and a WHO advisory group, was involved in two large hydroxychloroquine trials that used extreme doses that killed about 500 people and was used to sink the use of the drug for COVID.Documents stored on the computers of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) prove that the medicines Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and Interferon were proven “Curative” for COVID-19 in April, 2020, but the cures were buried as “Top Secret.”

There have now been 67 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 67% improvement in COVID patients.

There have been 298 Hydroxychloroquine studies that show a 64% improvement in patients for COVID-19 patients.

Despite the science, Dr. Fauci and the medical elites have blocked the use of these effective treatments for coronavirus patients.

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, accused Dr. Fauci and others of lying and causing the death of over 500,000 Americans by preventing HCQ and Ivermectin, and other treatments from COVID-19 patients.

Dr. Malone is right.  It is well documented that Dr. Fauci and top US doctors conspired to disqualify and condemn hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.
Millions died as a result of this.

As TGP reported earlier — It wasn’t just Fauci but all of the top US medical leaders who were in on the hydroxychloroquine lie.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD, broke this story in The Defender. According to Dr. Nass, the top health officials were all in on the conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine.

auci runs the NIAID, Collins is the NIH director (nominally Fauci’s boss) and Farrar is director of the Wellcome Trust. Farrar also signed the Lancet letter. And he is chair of the WHO’s R&D Blueprint Scientific Advisory Group, which put him in the driver’s seat of the WHO’s Solidarity trial, in which 1,000 unwitting subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine in order to sink the use of that drug for COVID.

Farrar had worked in Vietnam, where there was lots of malaria, and he had also been involved with SARS-1 there. He additionally was central in setting up the UK Recovery trial, where 1,600 subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine.

Even if Farrar didn’t have some idea of the proper dose of chloroquine drugs from his experience in Vietnam, he, Fauci and Collins would have learned about such overdoses after Brazil told the world about how they mistakenly overdosed patients in a trial of chloroquine for COVID. The revelation was made in an article published in the JAMA in mid-April 2020. Thirty-nine percent of the subjects in Brazil who were given high doses of chloroquine died, average age 50.

Yet the Solidarity and Recovery hydroxychloroquine trials continued into June, stopping only after their extreme doses were exposed.

Fauci made sure to control the treatment guidelines for COVID that came out of the NIAID, advising against both chloroquine drugs and ivermectin. Fauci’s NIAID also cancelled the first large-scale trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment in early disease, after only 20 of the expected 2,000 subjects were enrolled.

What does all this mean?

  1. There was a conspiracy between the five authors of the Nature paper and the heads of the NIH, NIAID and Wellcome Trust to cover up the lab origin of COVID.
  2. There was a conspiracy involving Daszac, Fauci and others to push the natural origin theory. (See other emails in the recent drop.)
  3. There was a conspiracy involving Daszac to write the Lancet letter and hide its provenance, to push the natural origin theory and paint any other ideas as conspiracy theory. Collin’s blog post is another piece of this story.
  4. Farrar was intimately involved in both large hydroxychloroquine overdose trials, in which about 500 subjects total died.
  5. Farrar, Fauci and Collins withheld research funds that could have supported quality trials of the use of chloroquine drugs and ivermectin and other repurposed drugs that might have turned around the pandemic.
  6. Are the four individuals named here — Fauci, Daszak, Collins and Farrar —  intimately involved in the creation of the pandemic, as well as the prolongation and improper treatments used during the pandemic?

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2022/01/documents-showing-ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-effective-in-treating-covid-were-buried/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=documents-showing-ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-effective-in-treating-covid-were-buried