WAPF WELLINGTON TOP 5 MOST POPULAR BLOG POSTS THIS MONTH (Scroll down to see the latest posts)

Monday, 23 February 2026

MIND CONTROLLED DOCTORS

Renowned Doctor Slams Medical Education & Says We Have “An Epidemic Of Misinformed Doctors”

Dr. Asseem Malhotra is known as one of the most influential cardiologists in Britain and a world-leading expert in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. 



Currently, he is leading a huge campaign against excess sugar consumption. What also makes him unique is something he recently admitted took him decades to figure out: that our entire medical system, one of the main ‘protectors’ of the human race, is completely corrupt.

Related: After Working ‘Every Single Day For 30 Years’ This Couple Gets Screwed By American Healthcare System At The End

He now believes that medical education is a state of “complete system failure,” causing “an epidemic of misinformed doctors.” 

He also stated that honest doctors can no longer practice honest medicine, and that there is also a growing epidemic of patients who are being harmed.

There is no denying that to some extent, medicine and doctors have done a lot of good and saved a lot of lives. However, an over-reliance on doctors for our health and well-being has spawned a serious problem, one that should be in the spotlight and immediately fixed.


The Need To Think For Ourselves

We all have to realize that society has been manufactured in a way where we simply give up our own mind to someone else, who has been given theirs by someone else. We lack the ability to think for ourselves because, from birth, we are programmed to think a certain way by somebody else.

This is something important for us to change, and by ‘us’ I not only mean patients; it should be a priority for all who practice medicine. And there are signs that it has started changing.



Related: The Corruption Of Evidence Based Medicine - Killing For Profit

Why? Because there is a shift in consciousness taking place.

People within all societal systems (health, financial, education, government, etc.) are waking up, and starting to investigate what they have been taught.

Rather than simply believing the promotional literature, more are pursuing self-education (which Dr. Malhotra stressed was the only real form of education).

Malhotra pointed out seven ‘sins’ that contribute to the lack of knowledge that not just doctors but everyone has, including patients, regarding modern day ‘medicine.’ 

He made these comments at a recent European Parliament meeting:



Related: Fluoridation Is Mass Medication, New Zealand Supreme Court Rules


Other Prominent Doctors Speak Out

He’s not the only one to speak up about this issue. In fact, it seems that those who represent doctors have been speaking out about this for a long time. 

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, has said that;


"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

- Source

Then there is Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of another prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal, The Lancet, who says,“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”


What is Medicine’s 5 Sigma? [Full Article]

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked
to observe Chatham House rules.

We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah” - a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.

Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution?

Related: Is Psychiatry Bullshit? Some Psychiatrists View The Chemical-Imbalance Theory As A Well-Meaning Lie + Psychotropic Drugs, Are They Safe? Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School

Because this symposium - on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week - touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant confl icts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices.

The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.



Related: The Flawed Germ Theory; Unfortunately The Basis Of Modern Medicine

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations.

Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication.

National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.


Can Bad Scientific Practices be Fixed?

Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help?

Certainly don’t add more layers of research red-tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers.

Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review.



Related: Why Does Modern Medicine Have A Big Problem With Natural Health?

Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year.

One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profi le errors, the particle physics community now invests great eff ort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication.

By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low.

In particle physics, signifi cance is set at 5 sigma - a p value of 3 × 10 to the power of 7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are).



Related: Here’s How Industry-Funded “Research” Is Making Us Sick And Fat + Like Tobacco And Big Pharma, The Sugar Industry Has Manipulated Research For 50 Years

The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something.

But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act fi rst. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative).

The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.


Related Articles:

Top 10 Food And Medicine Myths You Probably Fell For At Some Point + How The Mind Treats “Impossible Things That Couldn’t Be Happening”

Modern Life Is Killing Our Children: UK Cancer Rate In Young People Up 40% In 16 Years + 12 Things A Cancer Doctor Should Never Say

The Tide Is Turning: Big Pharma Billionaire Arrested, Charged With Conspiracy And Bribery Of Doctors

Peer Reviewed 'Science' Losing Credibility Due To Fraudulent Research & Manufacturing Consent In Science: The Diabolical Twist


This is a lightly edited copy & paste of a post by SGT REPORT That was originally posted here:  https://www.sgtreport.com/2018/09/renowned-doctor-slams-medical-education-says-we-have-an-epidemic-of-misinformed-doctors/

Sunday, 18 January 2026

DDT IS GOOD FOR ME

In our deranged post covidhoax world, there is often an attitude of "things were better in the good old days", but in actual fact the programing and misinformation has long been just as full on as it is now.

These 10 old adverts are mind boggling examples:

 “Sugar might just be the willpower you need to curb your appetite”

1. Junk Food, Now Fortified with Vitamins and Minerals

Disguising empty calories with healthful nutritional values has been a trope of the processed food world ever since vitamins were first discovered in the 1910s. 

This 1942 poster for “Vitamin Donuts” may be a little hard to swallow today, but Ovaltine’s reputation as a health drink is still being disputed, a powerful testament to simple brand positioning. But let’s be real, we’re talking about powdered chocolate milk made by Nestlé, the company who brought us such healthy foods as Butterfinger candy bars and Häagen-Dazs ice cream.

The Ovaltine ad from 1947 still boggles the mind with its display of so many nutritional perks packed into two glasses of powdered milk, and seems eerily similar to the many supposed benefits contained in drinks like Vitamin Water or Gatorade. In reality, even the benefits of ordinary vitamin supplements are now being questioned, despite the fact that around half of American adults take them regularly.

2. Let Them Eat Lead

The painful part of this ad is its emphasis on kid's enjoyment of a lead paint party; part of the reason children ingested the dangerous product was it's sweet flavor (see above).

The most heartbreaking part of this 1923 brochure is its emphasis on kids having fun with the whole “Lead Family” of products, whose presence in everything from their nursery walls to their windup toys made young children particularly susceptible to its dangers. Combined with lead paint’s seductively sweet flavor, putting kids in environments literally covered with the stuff was a recipe for disaster.

In fact, the effects of lead poisoning (brain damage, seizures, hypertension, etc.) were known long before the Consumer Product Safety Commission finally banned them in 1977; the industry had simply refused to acknowledge them.  

An article by Jack Lewis published in the EPA Journal in 1985 covers lead’s history as an additive and poison, and how we’ve consistently downplayed its adverse effects. Lewis writes:

“The Romans were aware that lead could cause serious health problems, even madness and death. However, they were so fond of its diverse uses that they minimized the hazards it posed. Romans of yesteryear, like Americans of today, equated limited exposure to lead with limited risk.”

3. 7-Up is good for Babies

Not only were sugary soft-drinks great for adults, but sodas like 7-Up used to help babies grow up strong and fit, or so these ads from 1955 and 1953 would have you believe. That’s pretty disturbing, considering that childhood obesity, linked arm-in-arm with massive soda intake, is shortening our youngest generation’s lifespan. The high amount of refined sugar in soda has also been shown to be particularly harmful for children.

Today it seems crazy to show a baby drinking a soda, as the tide finally turns against the sugary drinks: School districts across the nation have removed soda machines from their schools and New York City’s Board of Health has proposed a ban on over-sized sodas. However, many adults today opt to serve kids “healthy” fruit juice, which may be just as bad, despite its deceptive nutritional marketing.

4. Cigarettes: Just What the Doctor Ordered

Camel’s campaign featuring doctor endorsements is probably the most familiar instance of false advertising, seen here in an ad from 1948. Yet almost every cigarette company twisted science to support its products, including Chesterfield’s 1953 ads, which rephrased expert findings to show that smoking had “no adverse effect.” Long after 1950, when Morton Levin published his definitive study linking smoking to lung cancer, experts continued to imply that there were other factors causing cancer and lung disease.

Though the industry has been seriously weakened over the past 20 years, primarily by government regulation, Big Tobacco is still issuing misleading health information in an attempt to reap a profit.

5. Feminine Hygiene: The Original Home Wrecker

Long before Lysol was reinvented as the caustic household cleaner we know today, the same substance was basically promoted for use as a feminine hygiene product. These Lysol ads from 1948 tout the internal use of poisonous Lysol as a marriage saver. To sum up the message: if you weren’t so dirty down there, he would love you more.

In a time when speaking about sex was even more frowned upon than today, a whole spectrum of sexual products, including vibrators and contraceptives, was marketed with campaigns focusing on their dubious health benefits for women.

6. Plastics, Plastics, Everywhere

Suffocating babies in Cellophane! A bunch of infants tied up in clear cellophane packaging is pretty frightening to modern viewers, but at the time, these ads were just plain cute. When these Du Pont Cellophane ads came out in 1954, things like plastic grocery bags weren’t a ubiquitous part of American culture. 

Only after plastic bags became widespread during the 1970s did their strangulating qualities become frighteningly clear.

7. You're right in liking meat 

At least this one was good advice, but it wasn't very fashionable in 2012 when the appalling low fat high carb diet craze was all the rage

In post-World War II America, eating more red meat seemed like a great way to keep yourself “in trim,” at least according to these two ads, from 1956 and 1946. Like other food fads, this campaign was orchestrated by the American Meat Institute, a lobbying group that is still working to improve public and political opinion toward its products. 

Maybe that’s why almost nobody in America knows that nutritionists generally recommend only 2-3 servings of red meat per week. And don’t get the experts started on sodium nitrite in processed meat.

We now know that eating too much meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer. Yet industry trade groups are still creating food trends to spur sales or combat negative public stereotypes: Think of modern wonder-foods like agave nectar or chia seeds that seemed to appear from the heavens, as well as the bitterly argued corn syrup campaign.

8. Dieting? Try Sugar

In a time before the current widespread obesity epidemic, sugar companies wanted shoppers to believe that a sweet treat would somehow inspire you to eat less. These ads from 1969 coach readers to “have a soft drink before your main meal” or “snack on some candy an hour before lunch.” 

Their strange logic isn’t even backed by a company name, though the campaign does include a helpful mailing address for “Sugar Information.” Talk about creepy.

Now refined sugar is presented as the dieter’s enemy, and is thought to make you want to eat more rather than less.

9. Shock Your Way to Physical Perfection

In 1922, “Violet Rays” were said to cure pretty much anything that ailed you. This Vi-Rex device plugged into a light socket so users could give themselves home shock-treatments, which would supposedly make you “vital, compelling, and magnetic.” Various recalls and lawsuits erupted throughout the U.S., forcing the FDA to finally prohibit their manufacture. The last batch of Violet Ray products was seized in 1951.


10. DDT is good for you and me

This ad for “Penn Salt Chemicals” from 1947 shows a range of dangerous applications for now-illegal DDT, from agricultural sprays to household pesticides. Particularly disturbing is the image of a mother and infant, above the caption stating that DDT “helps make healthier, more comfortable homes.” Not quite.

While effective in eliminating dangerous mosquitoes that carry malaria, DDT also has a variety of hazardous effects: Especially among young children, the chemical has been shown to damage the nervous, immune, endocrine, and neurological systems, not to mention its devastating influence on the natural environment. 

The spread of DDT across mid-century America is mirrored today by the success of Monsanto (one of the companies that originally manufactured DDT) in placing its genetically modified products on store shelves before researchers have a full understanding of their larger ecological impacts.

 

 This content is an updated copy of a post from 2012: the-top-10-most-dangerous-ads


Wednesday, 31 December 2025

Wise Traditions Podcast 559

Best Of 2025 With Jason Christoff, Dr. Dominik Nischwitz, And Nina Teicholz

Best Of 2025 With Jason Christoff, Dr. Dominik Nischwitz, And Nina Teicholz

Happy holidays! This episode is our gift to you! It highlights three of the most listened-to interviews of the year. We cover “light” topics like mind control, the critical role of oral health to wellbeing, and how an ancestral diet can be transformational to your health. 

Listen to Wise Traditions podcast 559 for excerpts from our interviews with experts Jason Christoff, Dr. Dominik Nischwitz, and Nina Teicholz for a taste of the best from this past year.

 Visit our guests’ websites:

 Jason Christoff – jchristoff.com
Dr. Dominik Nischwitz – drdomeofficial.com
Nina Teicholz – ninateicholz.com and nutritioncoalition.us

Listen to each of their episodes in their entirety:

 
Wise Traditions 513 “The Media, Mind Control and How We Are Being Poisoned with Jason Christoff”

 
Wise Traditions 519 “Top Tips for Strong Healthy Teeth: Tongue Scraping, Jaw Strengthening, Reversing Cavities, and More with Dr. Dominik Nischwitz”

 
Wise Traditions 521 “Why American Dietary Guidelines Are Making Us Fatter and Sicker Than Ever With Nina Teicholz”

 


Friday, 19 December 2025

Vaccinated Kids Have A 470% Increase In Autism

The First-Ever Peer-Reviewed Study Of Vaccinated Vs Unvaccinated Children Showed Vaccinated Kids Have A Higher Rate Of Sickness, 470% Increase In Autism


Doctors are baffled!

In a development that autism parents had long anticipated, the first-ever, peer-reviewed study comparing total health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children showed autism to be significantly higher in the vaccinated group.

According to sources close to the project, the study had been reviewed and accepted by two different journals, both of which pulled back on their approval once the political implications of the findings became clear. That’s largely because, as parents have long expected, the rate of autism is significantly higher in the vaccinated group, a finding that could shake vaccine safety claims just as the first president who has ever stated a belief in a link between vaccines and autism has taken office.

Working in partnership with the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and a range of over 40 acute and chronic illnesses in home schooled children, a population chosen for its high proportion of unvaccinated children.

Surveying families in four states–Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon – the study (officially titled Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports), reported a number of startling findings.

Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder: most notably, the risk of being affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7 fold higher in vaccinated children; as well, ADHD risk was 4.7 fold higher and learning disability risk was 3.7 fold higher.

Overall, the vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of neurodevelopmental disorder.

Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.

With respect to acute illness and infectious disease the outcomes were in some respects surprising.  As might be expected, unvaccinated children were significantly (4-10 times) more likely to have come down with chicken pox, rubella or pertussis.

Perhaps unexpectedly, the unvaccinated children were less likely to suffer from otitis media and pneumonia: vaccinated children had 3.8 times greater odds of a middle ear infection and 5.9 times greater odds of a bout with pneumonia.

The study was based on a survey with participants recruited in a process led by NHERI and coordinated through 84 state and local homeschool groups. The survey itself was, according to the authors, “nonbiased and neutrally worded.”

These findings in a study population of 666 children, 261 of whom (39%) were unvaccinated, are sure to stir controversy, in part because it is the first of its kind. The scientific literature on the long-term effects of the vaccination program is virtually silent.

Most studies on the safety of vaccines only consider immediate or short-term effects. There was no obvious explanation for the differences in health outcomes observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of children other than vaccination itself.

The finding that vaccination is a significant risk for autism is the most explosive finding in the paper. For well over a decade, parents concerned that vaccines were involved in autism’s sharp rise have been calling for what has long been labelled the “vax/unvax” study.

Public health officials such as Paul Offit have resisted these calls with claims that a comparative study of autism risk and other health outcomes in unvaccinated and vaccinated children would be retrospectively impossible and prospectively unethical.

Despite opposition from those like Offit, attempts to launch a formal vax/unvax study have been made for many years. In 2006, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) authored what is now called Vaccine Safety Study Act.

Said Maloney to the opponents, “Maybe someone in the medical establishment will show me why this study is a bad idea, but they haven’t done it yet.”

In 2007, Generation Rescue (one of the Mawson study’s sponsors) retained a market research firm to undertake a similar survey (it is available on line and had similar findings but was never published in a scientific journal).

Less formal surveys focused on whether or not autism was present in the unvaccinated have also been undertaken in unusual populations, including the Amish and the patients of alternative health practitioners. Age of Autism founder Dan Olmsted investigated autism in the Amish, who vaccinate less frequently.

Autism is rare among the Amish and the only autistic Amish children we discovered were also vaccinated. (Others reported cases in Amish children with birth defects, but not “idiopathic autism,” the kind that occurs in otherwise typical children who are the heart of the current epidemic).

The late Mayer Eisenstein reported in his HomeFirst practice in Chicago that he delivered more than 15,000 babies at home, and thousands of them were never vaccinated. Of these unvaccinated children, none had autism.

Related: Another Big-Screen Movie Just Released Investigates Vaccines For Autism Implications

The link between autism and vaccination became a hot topic in this year’s presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton once tweeted “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest.”

In the absence of any published evidence on the question, the call for a vax/unvax study has become a rallying cry for autism advocates. Now it appears, the results confirm what many have long suspected.

These findings, especially the significant link between autism risk and vaccination, are certain to increase pressure on public health officials inside and outside the government to acknowledge the legitimacy of a concern they have long dismissed.

Like any study, this one is open to critique. One will be its relatively small sample size, relatively high ASD rate (3.3% overall as compared to 2.24% in the closest comparable CDC study) as well as the funding sources.

Most studies that have found no link between autism and vaccination have been pharma or government funded, and the media has not considered that significant enough to mention.

Nonetheless, expect a hue and cry that money for this study came in part from sources concerned about a possible vaccine-autism link.

Note: Here is the funding statement from the leaked paper. “This study was supported by grants from Generation Rescue, Inc., and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, charitable organizations that support research on children’s health and vaccine safety.

The funders had no role or influence on the design and conduct of the research or the preparation of reports.” Generation Rescue is a Founding National Sponsor of Age of Autism.  Article From: ageofautism.com

 

Related Articles:

The Controversy Over Who Is Responsible for Coronavirus Is Heating Up

Secret Court Issuing Website “Takedown” Orders in America, Targeting “Vaccine Truth” Sites

Healthy 4 Month Old Dies of “Natural Causes” A Week After 7 Vaccines

Pediatricians say it’s often better to let a child’s fever run its course

The 1918 “Spanish Flu” Influenza Epidemic Was a Vaccine-Caused Disease

Vaccine Failures: The Glaring Problem Officials Are Ignoring. Part I: Measles Vaccination

Cochrane Founder Warns Flu Vaccine Research Is Corrupted

The Failure of the Influenza Vaccine According to the Medical Literature

Altering Human Genetics Through Vaccinations

New Jersey Defeats Mandatory Vaccine Bill

Aluminium could be a factor in Alzheimer’s disease, new research finds

“He Died As A Direct Result of the HPV Vaccine” – Mother Of Deceased Teenager Claims

U.S. Govt Loses Landmark Vaccine Lawsuit & Expert Study Shows Vaccinations Actually Turn Your Own Bodies Immune System Against You

One Year Old Dies After Vaccination, Death Ruled Unexplained Due To Natural Causes & Questions To Ask Pro Vaxers

Vaccines For Profit And Destruction & You Cannot Be Pro-Freedom And Pro-Forced Vaccinations At The Same Time

Facebook Bans All Content On Vaccine Awareness, Including Facts About Vaccine Ingredients, Vaccine Injury And Vaccine Industry Collusion & Mark Zuckerberg Goes All-In With The Deadly Vaccine Industry In Sweeping New Plan To Censor All Posts That Question Big Pharma’s Vaccine Dogma

Harvard Immunologist: Unvaccinated Children Pose Zero Risk To Anyone And Here’s Why + New York Times Confirms Natural News Investigation: Mumps Now Spread Mostly By Vaccinated Children

Thousands Of Medical Studies Found To Be Useless + Medical-Drug Destruction Of Life, By The Numbers & Herd Immunity Used For Fear And Guilt