Transcending the Pandemic Narrative

How do we transcend the pandemic narrative and move into a new paradigm? To address that ques­tion, first I want to discuss the fallacies, manipula­tion and lies that this narrative has exposed us to, with a special focus on science and health. Then, I’d like to talk about how we figure out what is actually true and the steps we can take to become our own health authority.

Our society faces many false narratives, but I’m focusing on the realm of public health. False theories—germ theory and virus theory—have been manipulated to cause fear. In fact, fear is one of the primary drivers of this latest round of coercion and tyranny. You can see how the idea that an invis­ible particle can invade your body at any time and not only make you sick, but actually threaten your very existence, is a very scary proposition. Of course, this is not really what’s going on, but the narrative leaves many of us dependent on the so-called white-coated priests of the allopathic system to come rescue us and bring us back to life, with no ability to control our own health.

CIRCULAR REASONING

Understanding logical fallacies dates back to Aristotle. The main logical fallacy behind the virus lie is circular reasoning. We’ve all encountered circular reasoning in cocktail party discussions and family debates, but in this in­stance, it’s being used for manipulation of the world population.

In his 2006 essay titled “What Is Circular Reasoning?” Dr. Robert Coleman wrote, “The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as one of the premises in the argument.”1 In other words, your starting assumptions are the same as your conclusions, and there’s no rigor in the process of bringing about novel conclusions.

A related form of circular reasoning is the logical fallacy “begging the question,” the Latin term for which is petitio principii. For this, we can look back to James Welton, who in 1905 wrote in A Manual of Logic, Volume Two, “to beg the question is to attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim.”2 So, you start off with a claim and then restate it at the end: there’s your circular argument.

Pseudoscience occurs when you give the appearance that you’re using science but you’re not. Circular reasoning, which applies to many aspects of science and medicine, describes the entire field of virology. Let’s look at virus isolation. The starting premise is that a sick individual has a virus in their body. This is a presupposition without any proof or evidence to support it, but it is the starting point. The second premise is that viruses cause so-called cytopathic effects (CPEs) in a cell culture. Once again, there is no clear evidence that this is the case, but that is the starting point.

Let’s say you take a sample from a patient and run it through the cell culture process, a process that includes putting additives in the culture. You do not perform any control ex­periments. When you then observe CPEs and interpret those results based on your original premise—which is that the CPEs are caused by a virus—that brings you back to your starting point. You haven’t made any progress here; all you’ve done is restate your initial claim.

Now let’s look at metagenomics—the use of computer sequencing to study genetic material. With metagenomic sequencing, also sometimes referred to as “in silico genome sequencing,” you are starting with the same premise, namely, that viruses are present in the patient. A second premise (and this is very arbitrary) is that vi­ruses have a genome of a certain length. When it comes to alleged “coronaviruses,” they say it is thirty thousand base pairs. So, they are going to find something of that length, even though it is completely made up.

Once again, they take a sample from a pa­tient where they assume there is a virus present. They further assume that it’s an RNA virus. They don’t look for DNA viruses at all; it’s as if that is not even a possibility from their point of view. Then they take the RNA out, but there is no strand of RNA that represents the com­plete genome of an organism in their sample; all they have are little fragments of RNA, and the provenance or the origin of those fragments is unknown. But that doesn’t stop them. They amplify those fragments using PCR,3 which also compounds the problem; because of the way they’re using PCR with overamplification, it creates new sequences that didn’t exist in the original sample. Next, they sequence all those little, tiny strands and fragments of RNA that are one hundred fifty bases long or fewer. We’re talking about pieces of one hundred fifty in length, when they say the whole genome is thirty thousand—so you can see it’s a very tiny percentage.

When they did the sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 experiment, they found that they had over fifty-six million unique fragments. They do not know where any single one of those fifty-six million comes from. They use a computer and put those sequences into the computer as data. The computer puts these things together like a puzzle and makes over a million solutions. Although there is no way to know whether any of those solutions represents anything in reality—and I would say that they absolutely do not—they arbitrarily pick one of the million sequences that happens to match their premise that the genome is thirty thousand base pairs long. They take the longest one that the com­puter spits out and say, “This is the genome.” Once again, they’ve simply restated their start­ing premise that there is a virus in the sample and that there is a genome of thirty thousand base pairs. It doesn’t matter that it was created out of thin air in a computer.

CULTIVATING DISCERNMENT

Discernment is a very important skill that you must develop, particularly when it comes to assessing science. You have to understand how a given experiment is done and what it can—and can’t—determine in order to see whether the conclusions drawn represent circular reason­ing or true knowledge. One key aspect of the scientific method is that you have to have an independent variable—the thing you think is causing the phenomenon of interest (the depen­dent variable). If you hypothesize that rain is caused by kids playing on a swing set, you have to do a control experiment where you exclude that variable to make sure there’s not something else in the experiment that is causing the rain.

Not every type of knowledge is amenable to the scientific method because it’s not always about a cause-and-effect relationship. There are many things that are purely descriptive, such as the phenomenon of pleomorphism, where you can see microbial cells changing form. You can observe that carefully and describe it, and that is valuable knowledge. However, you have to be very careful that you’re not influencing the behavior of the organisms you are observing; you want to be a passive observer, which can be challenging.

Any analytical methods that researchers use have to be validated, meaning the method does what researchers say it does. You have to do your due diligence. Someone was telling me about an external device that could tell the pH inside the cells and interstitium (the space between cells and tissues)—a type of electronic scan. I asked, “Has it been validated?” meaning “Has it been compared to a gold standard?” (In this case, the gold standard for measurement of pH involves putting a micropipette or microelectrode right into a cell.) If they didn’t compare the technique against the gold standard to see whether the results match, you can just take that analytical method and throw it right out the window and ignore it, because it’s not valid. Note that none of the tests for infectious disease have been validated.

When you read a study, here are some questions you should ask: What was the experimental design? Did they have an independent variable? Did they have a control group? Did they have a large enough sample to determine the outcome? What was the outcome? Was the outcome a lab marker or an outcome like mortality? The details of the experiment are the only thing you can look at to determine whether the conclusions are valid. Be suspicious of studies based on animal models—and especially when the animals are genetically modified because that is not what’s in nature.

You also have to be very careful with statistical analysis. For ex­ample, statistical analysis is how antidepressants came to be. We’ve all seen Bill Gates’ favorite book, How to Lie with Statistics.4 Realize that statistics give you probabilities, not certainties. If scientists stick with simple tests such as tests of proportion, t-tests and regressions, statistics can be very useful. However, you need to keep in mind that correlation does not prove causation.

Exercise discernment when you encounter logical fallacies. We need to learn to recognize these types of errors in logic. Once we can see through the false arguments, we don’t have to get caught up in the details. In addition to circular reasoning, some of the other logical fallacies that come into play in false science include:

• The ad hominem fallacy, where someone avoids discussion of a topic by attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument instead. Examples: “He just wants to make money off you”; “He’s associated with the Freemasons”; “He’s controlled opposition.”
• Appeals to authority, where claims are considered true merely because experts say so. Examples: “He’s not even a virologist”; “The CDC director said it was true so it must be”; “One hundred years of medical experts can’t be wrong.”
• The burden-of-proof fallacy. If someone says, “Tell me the proof for your theory that viruses don’t exist,” I say “No, it’s the other way around. You’re the one who made a theory claiming that viruses do exist. I am disproving you, and you have to prove your claim.”
• The straw man fallacy, where someone focuses on a different question instead of the argument in question. Examples: “If viruses aren’t real, then how do you explain herpes?” “How do you explain chickenpox moving from one kid to another?”

The straw-man argument comes up a lot in discussions about viruses, but straw-man questions about specific diseases have nothing to do with whether viruses are real or not. You have to understand that asking about viruses is a separate argument from asking what makes us sick. If someone tells you a virus made them sick, ask, “How do you know that a virus caused it? Do you know how you would go about determining that? How do you think you would find the virus?” If you look at the last hundred years of medical research, almost all of the experiments about the causes of disease were related to germs; the establishment accepted germs as the cause a priori, so they didn’t feel the need to look for any other possible causes.

With viruses, you have to establish that viruses exist before you can even explore whether they cause anything. How do you test whether something (the independent variable) is the cause of something (the dependent variable), if you don’t actually have the independent variable in hand? One of the reasons the virus narrative persists is because many people are not willing to rest in the place of not knowing all the answers.

MANIPULATION VIA COMPUTER MODELS

Of course, there are many methods used to trick people into believ­ing false ideas and premises, and one of those is computer models. As the discussion of sequencing indicated, computer models are a way to simulate any reality that you can imagine. I have experience doing this in the biotech industry with so-called “molecular modeling”—which uses computer simulation to represent and visualize a target protein’s structure and behavior.5 In my case, I was working on inhibitors of thrombin (a clotting factor in the blood); the goal was to develop new blood thinners.

Molecular modeling is very fancy; with stereoscopic glasses, you can see the molecule you are modeling in 3D, and you can do energy calculations and simulations. However, every time you do one of these procedures, you have to make a lot of assumptions. You have to put energy parameters, bond angle parameters and so on. How do you know that any of this represents reality? In drug design, there is some accountability because they have to design a molecule that in fact thins the blood. They can test it and ask, “Does it actually do that?” If it’s just based on the model, they may find that it doesn’t.

Over the last few years, we saw computer models deployed to gener­ate fear. We all remember how Western leaders used UK epidemiologist Neil Ferguson’s computer model predictions of tens or hundreds of mil­lions of deaths to drum up fear and manipulate people. Computer models are also the basis of other fear narratives, such as the global warming narrative, where there are very limited data and no real evidence from nature. Scientists can put anything they want into these computer models and essentially create any outcome they desire by tweaking the models.

WEAPONIZED COLLECTIVISM

Collectivism (the philosophy behind communism) should be a household word. Collectivism states that the safety and welfare of the collective—whether defined as your neighborhood block, your city or some abstract concept—supersedes the rights and interests of individuals. Essentially, the philosophy of collectivism stands in contrast to individu­alism, which is the foundation of the spirit of our nation.

Ordinarily, people tend to be oriented toward individualism. Under individualism, if I feel it’s too risky to go out and I’m worried about get­ting sick, I will stay home. I won’t take that risk unless I feel comfortable taking that risk. If I want to wear personal protective equipment to protect myself, I’ll do that, but I’m not going to worry about anyone else. However, collectivism and the myth of contagion have become the basis for many of the tyrannical policies we are seeing, giving rise to the idea that you need to wear a mask to protect me or to protect grandma. You can see that once we adopt the collectivist approach, our individual liberties quickly erode into nothing, forcing us to comply with whatever the leaders determine is best for the collective. This is how countries fall into totalitarianism.

Consider how this played out with “social distancing.” Strategically, this policy tells people they have to remain at a minimum of six feet apart, which is almost precisely the length that our human biofields6—our electromagnetic and acoustic fields—extend out from our bod­ies.7 That means that we can’t get close enough to other people to have those fields interact and exchange information, which is what we need as humans. We are social creatures. We need to be in proximity with one another; we need physical touch, and we need to have bonds and communities. These policies are taking that away, rendering us something other than human.

Masks have been a horrible intervention, and it makes me slightly nauseated whenever I see someone wearing one. Obviously, it has the problem of blocking your ability to breathe, which is problematic in and of itself. In addition, it represents the initiation into this new slavery surveillance system, which is something into which I do not want to be initiated.

The so-called “vaccines” also fit into the collectivist paradigm, promoting the idea that you have to get this injection to protect others, not yourself. If it was just about protecting yourself, there would be no requirement—it would be your personal choice. Now, we have Pfizer executives admitting that the injections couldn’t stop any “spread” or “transmission.”8 Of course, “transmission” doesn’t exist anyway.

Note that becoming aware of the dangers of collectivism does not mean we should not be part of communities. As I said, it’s our human nature to be social creatures and to cooperate and collaborate with each other—but we don’t have to be ruled by a collectivist philosophy to do that.

FALSE SCIENCE AND FALSE PREMISES

Now, I’d like to set aside philosophies and policies and delve further into false science. I’m going to go through some hypotheses, ideas or proposals—they’re often incorrectly called “theories”—and let you know which of these are false premises. Then I’m going to address what we actually know to be true.

First, the very idea that science is consensus-based—where everyone agrees—is anti-scientific. It’s the complete opposite of what science is supposed to be. In science, you’re always supposed to challenge the mainstream. If you can’t prove something wrong, then it stands, but if you can prove it wrong, then you will not be held subject to false information and a false understanding. Scientific truth does not come from government agencies, and it doesn’t come from academic scientists who are put on a pedestal. It comes from nature.

False premise number two is that disease comes from a foreign invader and spreads from person to person. No experiment done to provide evidence for this claim has ever come up with any positive results whatsoever.

A third false premise is that health comes from a pill. There is no health condition that one could characterize as a deficiency of a man-made pharmaceutical. The medical establish­ment’s own data published a couple of decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) show that at least one hundred fifty thousand people die every year from taking prescription drugs as prescribed.9 That number does not even include vaccines or chemotherapy, or people who accidentally take too much or intentionally overdose; if you included those, you would probably triple the numbers. This is an accepted fact in mainstream medicine, but the knowledge has not permeated throughout society.

What is the fourth false premise? “It’s your bad genes or bad luck that made you sick.” That’s not true. Instead, it’s probably your own actions, though you may not be aware of it. I’m not saying you’re bad because you made yourself sick; what I’m saying is that if you made yourself sick, you also can make yourself well. But if you go with the “bad genes” or “bad luck” premise, that amounts to “We have no idea what causes this or that.” That leaves you helpless—there’s nothing you can do about it, other than go to the system and beg them for help.

The fifth false premise is that the body makes bad mistakes. We’re told that the body makes too little hormone or makes too much hormone, or that an organ like your appendix no longer works. “As scientists or doctors, we know better why your body doesn’t make enough, so we’re going to make a synthetic version and give it to you to fix your body because your body is broken.” But that’s simply not the way nature works. When your body makes less of a hormone, there’s a good reason for that. If you interfere with it, you’re going to perpetuate rather than ameliorate the problem.

False premise number six is that the body fails with age. We’re told that dementia is inevi­table; that arthritis is just “wear and tear” from living; that wrinkles, cellulite, skin atrophy and loss of vitality are inevitable; and that you are destined to deteriorate over your lifespan. However, it’s not aging that causes those things. It is the accumulation of toxicity over a lifetime—and you can take steps to prevent the body’s “failure.” Ideally, if you’re young and already in this condition, you can achieve major reversals. I think you’ve all seen images of seventy-five-year-old body builders and athletes and others who have taken on that task. We’re all capable of doing that.

A seventh false premise is, “If it’s not working properly, simply cut it out of the body.” This premise pushes people into unnecessary or harmful surgical procedures; after all, “insurance will cover it”! One of the most common operations is the removal of the gallbladder, called a cholecys­tectomy.10 Does the notion that the gallbladder just stopped working and is “dead weight” and you need to get rid of it make any sense? Do you think nature works that way? I have worked with many individuals who had gallbladder surgery, and it didn’t stop the problem. In fact, it made things worse because now they’re missing part of the system that’s the solution to the problem that they were having.

Note that there is no regulatory agency that approves surgical pro­cedures. We may criticize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a captured agency, but at least in theory, they are supposed to determine that pharmaceuticals are safe and effective. For surgical procedures, there is no regulatory oversight at all. As a result, many surgical procedures either have no proof that they are beneficial, or there is actually proof that they’re not beneficial. Consider knee arthroscopies, one of the most common procedures done by orthopedists. They are very lucrative be­cause the surgery is quick and easy to do right in the office; the patient doesn’t have to go to the hospital or lose a lot of time, and orthopedists can churn them out. Although placebo-controlled trials have shown that there is zero benefit, the procedure is still done. I guarantee that if any of you went to the local orthopedist right now and said that your knee was really hurting, they would offer you an arthroscopy.

The establishment’s false premise number eight is that natural rem­edies don’t work and are either silly or dangerous. This is fascinating because even in their own literature, there is a wealth of evidence that natural remedies are effective. I’ll give you an incredible example that I include in my detox course,11 which is cilantro. Cilantro has amazing properties and has been studied extensively in animals and in humans. For example, researchers poison lab animals with lead and other heavy metals to cause damage and then give cilantro; not only does it remove the metals, it reverses the damage. This is amazing. Why isn’t every doctor using cilantro? It has also been shown to reduce seizures in epileptics, improve memory in dementia patients and improve cardiovascular out­comes—all from a little plant that anyone could grow on their windowsill.

False premise number nine is that detoxification is a joke. Admittedly, even in the natural health space there are many people who will exploit detoxification as a business model, giving you tons of supplements for detox. However, in my studies of natural healing outcomes over the last five years, whenever I see amazing results from some kind of protocol, it is almost always the result of some form of detoxification. This is an ex­tremely powerful method to regain your health and allow the body to heal.

The last false premise, which originally entered into the collective consciousness during the AIDS era, is really a doozy. It is the notion of the “asymptomatic carrier.” The idea is that you can feel well and be per­fectly healthy, yet if some invalid arbitrary test says you have something in your body that’s bad, you are suddenly dangerous to society—even though you’re perfectly healthy.

WHAT WE KNOW

What are the truths that we actually know? How does this relate to science? And how do you navigate all of this information? It helps to keep in mind what Isaac Asimov said: “Science does not promise absolute truth, nor does it consider that such a thing necessarily exists. Science does not even promise that everything in the Universe is amenable to the scientific process.” In fact, it can be extremely difficult or even impos­sible to design scientific experiments to learn more about many things that we observe in nature.

We have to understand the limitations of our collective ability to understand the natural world. As Nicolaus Copernicus put it, “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” A chemistry professor I had in college stated the point like this: “You don’t know what you know until you know what you don’t know.” This is very important, because when you don’t know things, but you assume them to be true, you can be led down many wrong paths—as many of us have experienced in our lives.

The first thing we know is that science is based on nature. “Belief,” “opinion,” “agreement” and “consensus” have nothing to do with science. The proof is in nature. If we hypothesize that rain is caused by children playing on their swing set, we can do an experiment to determine whether that is true or false using the scientific method.

The second and third things we know are that the body is a self-healing machine, and that everything needed for optimal health is avail­able in nature. This is something that we all have observed in our life­time, but we may not have generalized it to a property of our amazing bodies. If we have a laceration on our skin, we can watch how the body just repairs it, all on its own; we don’t have to do one thing to make that happen. We haven’t created any devices that can do that. What we think of as “disease” (because we’re uncomfortable) is really healing. That’s really what our body is doing. This is a miracle of nature. We have to harness that miracle to achieve our optimal health and vitality. That’s how our bodies were designed. We don’t need man-made technolo­gies or chemicals to achieve health. Sometimes those things may be beneficial, but they’re not necessary because they are not part of nature. Nature has provided everything for us to achieve our optimal functioning and embodiment in this realm.

Fourth, we know that the law of cause and effect is very important. It’s one of the seven hermetic principles (the foundation of the spiritual philosophy of Hermeticism) and is helpful for discernment in the areas of science and medicine. Simply stated, “Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause.” Impor­tantly, a cause must precede the effect; it can’t occur after the effect. Just knowing this law of temporality can help you debunk a lot of things.

A fifth thing we know—and this may surprise some of you—is that humans actu­ally are capable of living one hundred twenty years or longer. I don’t know whether that is the normal human lifespan, but there have been small clusters of populations all over the earth—you can even find information about this in old New York Times articles—where people lived to those ages. At present, we don’t know what distinguishes those communities; what is the “fountain of youth,” if such a thing exists? But certainly, this is a goal that we can have as we learn to take better care of ourselves and realize that our true potential is not limited to eighty years.

Sixth, we know that man-made toxins and poisons cause many, if not all, chronic health conditions. For example, we know that asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma, exposure to benzene can cause leukemia and sugar can cause dementia.

For number seven, we know that as indi­vidual men and women, we are capable of learn­ing about and managing our own health. We do not need to be dependent on experts or others.

The eighth thing we know is that DNA is not the blueprint for all life functions. We don’t really know what DNA is, but I believe we can do scientific experiments to get closer and closer to understanding it. This is an area that could be fascinating to learn about. On one level, however, we can rely on simple mathematics. As Dr. Tom Cowan has pointed out, there aren’t nearly enough genes to provide all the information to code the proteins in our body, so that information has to come from somewhere else.

A ninth thing we know, even intuitively, is that humans have extra­sensory abilities. We know that when someone is sneaking up on us from behind—even if the breeze is going the wrong way and we can’t smell them and noise is interfering with our ability to hear them—we can still perceive their presence. This has been validated in experiments, including some done by Rupert Sheldrake, who is definitely worth looking into.12

Remote viewing gives us additional hints. Remote viewing is when you can be here and you can, in your mind, visualize what is going on somewhere else on Earth, no matter how far away it is.13,14 The govern­ment actually had a secret remote viewing research program at Stanford University. After the program terminated and enough years had passed, some information about the program became publicly available through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. There are even courses where you can learn how to do remote viewing. As an example, the gov­ernment used remote viewing to locate a fallen plane in Africa that was carrying top-secret information. They had an approximate hundred-mile radius of where the plane went down. In California, where the remote viewers were working, they put up maps. After the remote viewers sat around and used this technique, they pointed to a spot on the map. When soldiers went to that spot, there was the fallen plane.

We probably have other abilities not yet characterized—at least to my knowledge or to your knowledge—but we have much more potential than we realize. I think that the forces that have been leading the world stage have purposely blinded us to these abilities so that we are easier to control and manipulate.

TAKING ACTION

One of my most important spiritual mentors, Neil Kramer,15 says, “The pursuit of truth is your spiritual journey.” This is how we can start to look at health, biology and other broader issues in order to avoid be­ing controlled and manipulated, and instead exert our own authority, autonomy and sovereignty in our lives and the lives of our families. My overarching goals and ideals are truth, justice and, most importantly, action. Sitting around and talking about these ideas is good, but it’s not good enough. We have to embody these principles and act; that’s the way change will move in the right direction.

The most important action is to stop par­ticipating in the system. Stop consuming media from television and mainstream public health agencies. We also need to stop financing them. One way is to cancel your health insurance. That might be scary for some people because you can always envision a situation where you might need the hospital. For me, that situation would be if my finger detached from my body and I needed someone to reattach it, or if I break a bone and it’s sticking out of my skin; those are the situations when I would consider going to the hospital.

Remember that if you end up in the hospital, you are still in control. Don’t sign anything— especially anything financial—because when you guarantee to pay whatever they ask, that’s how you end up in medical bankruptcy with ruined credit. If you say, “I’d be happy to sign as financial guarantor, but how much is it going to cost?” they’ll say, “We have no idea.” It could be two hundred, five thousand or one hundred thousand dollars. How can you sign a document when you don’t know what you’re agreeing to? If you don’t sign, they’re still going to take care of you because if you have a bone sticking out of your body or your finger is in a jar, they are going to realize that it’s not good public rela­tions to turn you away. Stick with it; be brave and don’t let them intimidate you.

This also goes for what they do while you’re there. You might go in there and say, “I want a hand surgeon to reattach my finger, please.” And they’ll say, “How about a Covid test? How about a flu shot?” You say no and they say, “How about antibiotics?” You can say no to that, too. “How about food?” Are you going to eat their poison hospital food? You can say no. You do have to be vigilant. You might need an advocate there with you, because nurses might pop something in your IV without your knowledge. You have the right and you can put them on notice that if they do anything against your consent, they will be sued and reported to the relevant licensing authori­ties and government agencies. Don’t let them intimidate you.

We need to stop taking pharmaceuticals and vaccines. You might think that’s difficult, but it can be done. Once you get rid of those poisons, you can allow your body to heal properly and reverse the condition that you were suppressing with those drugs. While you’re at it, stop going for checkups, screenings and lab tests. These have never been proven to be of benefit; it’s the medical system’s way of getting you in to do more and spend more.

If we are going to exit the system, we have the responsibility to learn for ourselves what to do. This is really where I am gearing most of my current efforts. To take this on, you have to believe in yourself and your ability to understand your body and become healthy. This might seem like a monumental task to someone who is not a trained health professional—I know I have a little bit of an advantage here—but that is part of the treatment. If you can envision yourself returning to health and increasing your vitality, that will actually come to fruition, whereas if you envision yourself as destined to be miserable and sickly all your life, that will also come true.

Bolstered by belief and confidence in yourself, you need to learn about nutrition, detoxification, psychospiritual issues (such as trauma, addictions and toxic relationships) as well as existential issues such as being comfortable with death. Death is part of life—we cannot escape. On a practical level, you need to learn which medical supplies to keep in your home to handle issues that arise. You want to be able to say, “I can take of this here, and I have the supplies ready to go,” rather than “I need to go to the hospital or urgent care.”

Of course, you also need to start eating real food. For those already eating a Wise Traditions diet, I’m preaching to the choir. For others, it’s time to make that change and eat real food.

Another step is to engage in contemplation. This is time that you spend with yourself in silence and stillness. It could be time spent in prayer, in meditation or just in being. This gives you space for insights to develop and for connection with nature. It is a paramount step to be able to move forward and gain perspective and confidence.

Gratitude is also important. We need to think about what we are grateful for and express gratitude extensively. This can flip us out of pessimism and hopelessness.

Root cause analysis is key because understanding the root cause of your health problem tells you how to address it. Without understanding root causes, you will get it wrong every time. You also have to understand how the body heals itself and how to support those healing mechanisms.

If you’re overwhelmed with these steps, there are professionals who can help you get started. Don’t be afraid to reach out to them, but make sure that you’re reaching out to someone who is committed to these ideals.

SOME RESOURCES

I am engaged in several efforts to bring about a paradigm shift. First, I am trying to reach the public and provide some inspiration for looking into these issues. I do a lot of interviews and put out general information to the public. That is also why I collaborated with Marcy Cravat to make the documentary film Terrain,16 which is very accessible, even to a mainstream audience. It’s not hardcore rabbit hole diving.

For people who are curious and want to learn more, I go deeper. I am curating informa­tion in a library form that people can access. This includes anything that I think is important for the historical record or for your understand­ing of health and disease. We’re adding things all the time.

I also have a platform where I bring in scientists and health professionals with valu­able knowledge—people doing new science to uncover truths about nature and health—for educational webinars that will be archived in perpetuity. Figures who have given webinars in­clude Gerald Pollack (an amazing pioneer when it comes to the role of water in biology),17 John Stuart Reid (inventor of the Cymascope and innovator in transformational sound therapy),18 holistic health practitioner and herbalist Aman­dha Vollmer,19 and biofield tuning expert Eileen Day McKusick.20

I love to teach, so my biggest venture is a comprehensive curriculum I developed. I spent over a year working on the curriculum, which encompasses most of the natural healing top­ics that are important to learn about, including detoxification. This is a way that people can acquire knowledge and take charge of their own health issues. I am also breaking this down into a series of workshops on topics like water and heavy metal detoxification.

In addition, I’m mentoring the next genera­tion of physicians who are leaving allopathic medicine and going into true medicine. For example, Dr. Grayson Dart came to me fresh out of his family medicine residency and enthu­siastically mastered this material.21 In addition, I am taking on and supervising health coaches, who do an apprenticeship with me for a year, participating in all of our protocols and meet­ings, and then go out on their own.

Finally, I am trying to conduct some original research. For example, I’m working on a clinical trial of structured water versus unstructured water and water fasting. Looking at those outcomes, I am planning to do chemi­cal analysis of bodily secretions during illness to see if we find certain toxins associated with certain diseases. I am trying to collaborate with Dr. Pollack on testing various substances to look at their effect on exclusion zone (EZ) water. Poisonous substances and pharmaceu­ticals have been found to shrink the exclusion zone—in other words, they denature our water. For example, the local anesthetic lidocaine does this, which is probably why the nerves can’t function to detect pain.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW

I believe that the hermetic law of correspon­dence—“as above, so below”—is the principle that is going to lead to this grand paradigm shift from a tyrannical surveillance health system that poisons people to one based on nature, autonomy, true health and vitality. What this principle means is that when we each take in­dividual action in our own domains, affecting ourselves and our family, it doesn’t stop there. The summation of all those individual efforts is reflected through the holographic mirror into the larger society. Once this change is ignited, it will sweep the rest of the way forward.

Some of us wish we could convince loved ones that they can get better by stepping away from the mainstream medical system, but it’s not our decision—it’s their decision. I mentioned Neil Kramer earlier; as he puts it, “Gotta let them live; gotta let them die.” You can let them know that you’re a resource and share your own out-of-the-box successes; if they want to know more, they will come to you.

What we need to understand is that we don’t need to go out and convince everybody. We need to take action in our own life. When others observe what is happening, it will spread and have the amazing effect that we all desire. Taking all this information into account, I give you one task above all others, and that is to become your own health authority.

REFERENCES 

1. 1. Coleman RD. What is circular reasoning? Numeraire.com, 2006. http://www. numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
2. Welton J. A Manual of Logic, Volume Two. W.B. Clive; 1905.
3. Carr VR, Chaguza C. Metagenomics for surveillance of respiratory pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19(5):285.
4. Huff D. How to Lie with Statistics. Norton; 1954.
5. Steinmark IE. The rise of mulecular modelling. Royal Society of Chemistry, Jun. 28, 2017. https://edu.rsc.org/feature/the-rise-of-molecular-modelling/3007610. article
6. Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(6):703-717.
7. https://www.biofieldtuning.com/what-is-the-biofield
8. https://twitter.com/rob_roos/status/1579759795225198593?s=46&t=oKvkGcX haZc-OlW-8K1omA
9. Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA. 2000;284(4):483- 485.
10. Zurich L. The health and healing of your humble but mighty gallbladder. Wise Traditions. Fall 2022;23(3):21-26.
11. Kaufman A. “Alchemical Detox Course.” True Medicine University. https:// www.truemedicineuniversity.com/the-alchemical-detox
12. https://www.sheldrake.org/
13. https://ingoswann.com/remote-viewing
14. “The history of remote viewing.” International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA), n.d. https://www.irva.org/remote-viewing/history
15. https://neilkramer.com/
16. https://terrainthefilm.com/
17. https://www.pollacklab.org/
18. https://transformationalsoundtherapy.com/speaker/john-stuart-reid/
19. https://yummy.doctor/
20. https://electrichealth.com/about-eileen-day-mckusick/
21. https://www.doctordart.com/
22. Fitts CA, Betts C. I want to stop CBDCs—what can I do? Solari Report, Feb. 1, 2023. https://home.solari.com/i-want-to-stop-cbdcs-what-can-i-do/
23. Lynn C. Inside Codex with Scott Tips: new global food diet—insects, rats and dogs. Corey’s Digs, Oct. 13, 2022. https://www.coreysdigs.com/food-supply-chain/inside-codex-with-scott-tips-new-global-food-diet-insects-rats-and-dogs/

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2023 - Written by Andrew Kaufman

The cause is never a "germ"

 

Aspartame - An approved poison

 Ailments Resulting From Aspartame

The components of aspartame can lead to a wide variety of ailments. Some of these problems occur gradually while others are immediate, acute reactions.

A few of the many disorders associated with aspartame include the following:

Birth Defects

A study funded by Monsanto to study possible birth defects caused by consuming aspartame was cut off after preliminary data showed damaging information about aspartame. Additionally, in the book, While Waiting: A Prenatal Guidebook, it is stated that aspartame is suspected of causing brain damage in sensitive individuals. A fetus may be at risk for these effects. Some researchers have suggested that high doses of aspartame may be associated with problems ranging from dizziness and subtle brain changes to mental retardation.

Cancer (Brain Cancer)

In 1981, an FDA statistician stated that the brain tumor data on aspartame was so “worrisome” that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.(14)

In a two-year study conducted by the manufacturer of aspartame, twelve of 320 rats fed a normal diet and aspartame developed brain tumors while none of the control rats developed tumors, and five of the twelve tumors were in rats given a low dose of aspartame.(15)

The approval of aspartame was a violation of the Delaney Amendment, which was supposed to prevent cancer-causing substances such as methanol (formaldehye) and DKP from entering our food supply. A late FDA toxicologist testified before the U.S. Congress that aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. This made it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony that Searle’s studies were “to a large extent unreliable” and that “at least one of those studies has established beyond any reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals … ” He concluded his testimony by asking, “What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? … And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?”(16)

In the mid-1970s it was discovered that the manufacturer of aspartame falsified studies in several ways. One of the techniques used was to cut tumors out of test animals and put them back in the study. Another technique used to falsify the studies was to list animals that had actually died as surviving the study. Thus, the data on brain tumors was likely worse than discussed above. In addition, a former employee of the manufacturer of aspartame told the FDA on July 13, 1977 that the particles of DKP were so large that the rats could discriminate between the DKP and their normal diet.

Diabetes

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is actually recommending this chemical poison to persons with diabetes, but according to research conducted by a diabetes specialist, aspartame: 1) Leads to the precipitation of clinical diabetes. 2) Causes poorer diabetic control in diabetics on insulin or oral drugs. 3) Leads to the aggravation of diabetic complications such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis. 4) Causes convulsions.

In a statement concerning the use of products containing aspartame by persons with diabetes and hypoglycemia, the researchers says:

“Unfortunately, many patients in my practice, and others seen in consultation, developed serious metabolic, neurologic and other complications that could be specifically attributed to using aspartame products. This was evidenced by the loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed ‘insulin reactions’ (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products … Dramatic improvement of such features after avoiding aspartame, and the prompt predictable recurrence of these problems when the patient resumed aspartame products, knowingly or inadvertently.”

Another researcher stated that excitotoxins such as those found in aspartame can precipitate diabetes in persons who are genetically susceptible to the disease.(5)

Emotional Disorders

In a double blind study of the effects of aspartame on persons with mood disorders, findings showed a large increase in serious symptoms for persons taking aspartame. Since some of the symptoms were so serious, the Institutional Review Board had to stop the study. Three of the participants had said that they had been “poisoned” by aspartame. Researchers concluded that “individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener; its use in this population should be discouraged.”(18) One researcher stated about aspartame, “I know it causes seizures. I’m convinced also that it definitely causes behavioral changes. I’m very angry that this substance is on the market. I personally question the reliability and validity of any studies funded by the NutraSweet Company.”(19)

Additionally, there are numerous reported cases of low brain serotonin levels, depression and other emotional disorders that have been linked to aspartame and often are relieved by stopping the intake of aspartame.

Epilepsy/Seizures

With the large and growing number of seizures caused by aspartame, it is sad to see that the Epilepsy Foundation is promoting the “safety” of aspartame. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 80 people who had suffered seizures after ingesting aspartame were surveyed. Community Nutrition Institute concluded the following about the survey:

“These 80 cases meet the FDA’s own definition of an imminent hazard to the public health, which requires the FDA to expeditiously remove a product from the market.”

Both the Air Force’s magazine, Flying Safety, and the Navy’s magazine, Navy Physiology, published articles warning about the many dangers of aspartame including the cumulative delirious effects of methanol and the greater likelihood of birth defects. The articles note that the ingestion of aspartame can make pilots more susceptible to seizures and vertigo. Twenty articles sounding warnings about ingesting aspartame while flying have also appeared in the National Business Aircraft Association Digest (NBAA Digest 1993), Aviation Medical Bulletin (1988), The Aviation Consumer (1988), Canadian General Aviation News (1990), Pacific Flyer (1988), General Aviation News (1989), Aviation Safety Digest (1989), and Plane & Pilot (1990) and a paper warning about aspartame was presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association (Gaffney 1986).

A hotline was even set up for pilots suffering from acute reactions to aspartame ingestion. Over 600 pilots have reported symptoms including some who have reported suffering grand mal seizures in the cockpit due to aspartame.(21)

Why don’t we hear about these things?

The reason many people do not hear about serious reactions to aspartame is twofold: 1) Lack of awareness by the general population. Aspartame-caused diseases are not reported in the newspapers like plane crashes. This is because these incidents occur one at a time in thousands of different locations across the United States. 2) Most people do not associate their symptoms with the long-term use of aspartame. For the people who have killed a significant percentage of their brain cells and thereby caused a chronic illness, there is no way that they would normally associate such an illness with aspartame consumption.

How aspartame was approved is a lesson in how chemical and pharmaceutical companies can manipulate government agencies such as the FDA, “bribe” organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, and flood the scientific community with flawed and fraudulent industry-sponsored studies funded by the makers of aspartame.

Erik Millstone, a researcher at the Science Policy Research Unit of Sussex University has compiled thousands of pages of evidence, some of which have been obtained using the freedom of information act 23, showing: 1. Laboratory tests were faked and dangers were concealed. 2. Tumors were removed from animals and animals that had died were “restored to life” in laboratory records. 3. False and misleading statements were made to the FDA. 4. The two US Attorneys given the task of bringing fraud charges against the aspartame manufacturer took positions with the manufacturer’s law firm, letting the statute of limitations run out. 5. The Commissioner of the FDA overruled the objections of the FDA’s own scientific board of inquiry. Shortly after that decision, he took a position with Burson-Marsteller, the firm in charge of public relations for G.D. Searle.

A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) was conducted in 1980. There were three scientists who reviewed the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame. They voted unanimously against aspartame’s approval. The FDA Commissioner, Dr Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. then created a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the PBOI findings. After it became clear that the Commission would uphold the PBOI’s decision by a vote of 3 to 2, another person was added to the Commission, creating a deadlocked vote. This allowed the FDA Commissioner to break the deadlock and approve aspartame for dry goods in 1981. Dr Jacqueline Verrett, the Senior Scientist in an FDA Bureau of Foods review team created in August 1977 to review the Bressler Report (a report that detailed G.D. Searle’s abuses during the pre-approval testing) said: “It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.”

In 1987, Verrett testified before the US Senate stating that the experiments conducted by Searle were a “disaster.” She stated that her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She stated that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She continued her testimony by discussing the fact that DKP has been shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol and that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP.(13)

Revolving Doors

The FDA and the manufacturers of aspartame have had a revolving door of employment for many years. In addition to the FDA Commissioner and two US Attorneys leaving to take positions with companies connected with G.D. Searle, four other FDA officials connected with the approval of aspartame took positions connected with the NutraSweet industry between 1979 and 1982 including the Deputy FDA Commissioner, the Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, the Associate Director of the Bureau of Foods and Toxicology and the Attorney involved with the Public Board of Inquiry.(24)

It is important to realize that this type of revolving-door activity has been going on for decades. The Townsend Letter for Doctors (11/92) reported on a study revealing that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the FDA took positions with companies they had regulated. They also reported that over 150 FDA officials owned stock in drug companies they were assigned to manage. Many organizations and universities receive large sums of money from companies connected to the NutraSweet Association, a group of companies promoting the use of aspartame. In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association received a US$75,000 grant from the NutraSweet Company. The American Dietetic Association has stated that the NutraSweet Company writes their “Facts” sheets.

What is the FDA doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?

Less than nothing.

In 1992, the FDA approved aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings. In 1993 the FDA approved aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic favored beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked goods.

In 1991, the FDA banned the importation of stevia. The powder of this leaf has been used for hundreds of years as an alternative sweetener. It is used widely in Japan with no adverse effects. Scientists involved in reviewing stevia have declared it to be safe for human consumption–something that has been well known in many parts of the world where it is not banned. Many people believe that stevia was banned to keep the product from taking hold in the United States and cutting into sales of aspartame.

www.mercola.com

Coffee – Why do people drink this poison?

Roughly 20 years ago  I drank a cup of coffee. My excuse was I had a long drive ahead and wanted to be alert. Unfortunately I ended up feeling sick for the whole drive, and couldn’t sleep that night. Or the next night…

Despite being surrounded by coffee shops I’ve avoided it ever since. I actually quite like the smell but it’s clearly a toxic drug, and feeling like I wanted to hurl for two days really sucked. This article helps explain what it’s actually doing to you.

Caffeine is a pesticide

1. Caffeine is an alkaloid that the coffee plant uses to kill bugs, which eat its seeds.

The coffee plant also uses caffeine in the coffee pods to kill surrounding plants, so the coffee plant can attain more sunlight and grow larger. Caffeine is a pesticide, which causes genetic termination in living cells that come into contact with it.

2. MRI images taken before and after 1 cup of coffee showed a decrease in blood flow to the brain by 45%. When the blood flow reduction was measured exactly, it was actually 52% less blood flow to the brain, after just one small cup of coffee. http://abcn.ws/2ipmLj7

3. Brain imaging studies of chronic coffee drinkers showed they presented the same degradation of their brains as chronic alcoholics, cigarette smokers, Parkinson’s patients and marijuana users. http://dailym.ai/1qjSqi0

4. Coffee can cause an urge to move one’s bowels because this is one way the body tries to eliminate poison from the system. The sudden urge to take a big dump after drinking coffee is one of the body’s defense mechanisms to poison.

5. Coffee increases energy via the human fight or flight metabolic response, because the body is afraid of the caffeine based poison. Coffee doesn’t give energy, it removes it from the body.

The energy a person feels when they drink coffee is the body going into overdrive because caffeine is a poison and all poisons activate an energy release in the body. (fight or flight)

Coffee removes energy from the system, leaving the person progressively more and more exhausted each day that passes, therefore setting up the world’s most dangerous energy stimulation addiction… coffee dependence for energy.

6. When the fight or flight response is triggered in the body, the lower IQ centers of the brain are activated as well as hormonal systems in control of aggression, violence, irrational and illogical decision making, jealousy, rage, anger, fear and paranoia.

Coffee generates lower end mental functioning with a side of every negative emotional response the body can generate.

7. When measured, one coffee activated the fight and flight response for three consecutive weeks, even though no other caffeine was consumed after that one cup of coffee. One cup of coffee poisons the body for three consecutive weeks, on a decreasing scale.

8. When coffee (caffeine) is consumed, the limbic part of the brain is hyper activated and the higher learning centers of the mind inhibited. The limbic part of the brain is only concerned with sex, reproduction, protection of territory, food acquisition and personal safety.

The limbic portion of the brain is the most primitive and least developed portion of the mind complex. When you want to out smart or dominate another person, it’s best that their limbic system is activated, because it brings them to a mental state equal to that of a child.

9. The birth control pill inhibits clearing of ingested caffeine. This effect is increased dramatically by alcohol or pain killer use, therefore causing many cases of caffeine poisoning, which get treated as other things once the person reaches the hospital.

10. Coffee is proven to cause an enlarged prostate, high anxiety, insomnia, depression, birth defects, pain syndromes, unnatural breathing patterns, brain damage, hyperactivity, learning disorders (from the brain damage) behavior disorders, fatigue, certain types of cancer, Crohns, IBS, colitis, carpel tunnel, ulcers, low iron, heart disease, headaches, PMS, increased incidence of muscle and tendon injury, joint pain, heart attack, stroke,TIA’s (mini strokes)… and that’s a short list.

11. Coffee causes fat gain and cellulite because by triggering the body’s flight or fight system (which any poison or threat does). This eventually changes the body’s primary fuel source requirement to one of fat.

When the body is threatened, it prefers fat as its primary fuel source, over sugar or protein.

Constant activation of the body’s fight or flight system (via the daily ingestion of caffeine poison) aids in a metabolic shift to fat storage and fat conservation, because again the body prefers fat as a fuel source when fighting any toxic intruder… because fat contains 9 calories per gram for the fight, as opposed to 4 calories per gram housed by sugar and protein.

Welcome to the land of caffeine)induced fat gain, weight gain and cellulite. Coffee also destroys muscle, as the body purposely flushes muscle, when it’s poisoned, to facilitate additional fat storage.

12. Caffeine blocks iron absorption, causing the vast majority of anemia today.

The entire threat of caffeine in general includes caffeine teas, chocolates, caffeine based energy drinks, caffeine based pre work out drinks and over 2000 over the counter and prescription medications that PURPOSELY include caffeine.

13. An investigation conducted by the author of the most extensive book on coffee ever written, reviewed almost every scientific research piece regarding coffee and his conclusion was that there’s absolutely no scientific evidence what so ever that coffee provides any health benefits to the human body, on any level, in anyway.

He openly declares that any positive promotion of coffee consumption is a blatant lie, doing grave harm to our entire society. The publication of any positive effects of coffee are false and all can be traced back to a very powerful, covert and secret “coffee lobby”, which has both commercial and ruling family origins.

The author reviews the research in the book at this link. How many coffee shops have opened near you in the last 20 years?

So why the lying about coffee? Think of government and how governing a brain damaged population is easier than governing a healthy population. Start there and keep connecting the dots. Coffee is only one brain damaging weapon used against an uninformed slave class.

The 10 most popular brain damaging weapons used against the slave class are listed below.

Although personally I would add in social media misinformation and mind control at #2, shift coffee down a few rows, and remove cigarettes which at over $50 a packet are no longer very popular in New Zealand these days.

1) vaccines
2) coffee and caffeine products
3) alcohol
4) medical drugs
5) sugar
6) fluoride
7) cigarettes
8) processed junk foods and genetically modified foods
9) EMF radiation from wireless devices and
10) chemtrails.

If you’ve ever posed the question, “why are people so stunned, as to not figure any of this out?”… you’re missing the point that the brain damage of the slave class is the primary agenda of the ruling 1%.

Coffee and vaccines are the elite’s 1-2 punch within “operation brain damage” down here on the human farm. The best slave is a brain damaged slave, unable to think or care for themselves without the help from slave master.

A helpless population guarantees a need for government. This is why the ruling families do everything in their power to create a helpless population, day in and day out. Governments exist because they perpetually create the conditions for their own existence.

Ancient ruling families, who masquerade as modern altruistic governments, are not there to help the people progress, evolve or become more. You live on a chemically controlled slave based control grid.

Coffee is just another massive lie inside the human control operation. Want to shut the human farm down? Want to really become more than the stereotypical diseased, overweight, dis-empowered, depressed, and dysfunctional human mess? Reject the poisons!

http://humansarefree.com/2017/08/13-little-known-facts-about-coffee.html

Why humans should not attempt to exist on raw vegan diets

 

On the 31 July 2023, raw food vegan "influencer" Zhanna Samsonova died of starvation. Although her diet was extreme even by raw vegan standards she demonstrated in a very striking way, why humans need to eat protein. Some mainstream (ie. controlled) media outlets tried to downplay the role of starvation in her death, claiming she died of an "infection", but her physical state was very obvious from photos.

 

"My food is simple, no oil, no salt, no dehydrated food and no protein," Ms Samsonova said of her restrictive diet

 

For the last seven years Ms Samsonova had been living off of jackfruit and sweet durian, a pungent tropical fruit with a custard like texture. 

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/vegan-influencer-zhanna-dart-dies-of-starvationet/news-story/ea27fbe093b548fcc04f0026bbfc0bd9

 

Feminising Of Men

 

Eight Ways Society is Feminising Men Through Food And Products

 

A reoccurring theme in many of the food health concerns revolves around high estrogen levels. This can be harmful to men and women. It’s almost as if there is a conspiracy to reduce the population of humans on planet earth.

Perhaps Ori Hofmekler said it best:

“We’re on the fast track to extinction. In the past 50 years, sperm counts in men have dropped 50 percent, while the average man’s testosterone and sperm count has plummeted 20 percent in just the last 20 years.”

See: Chemicals Found Everywhere Confuse Sperm, Destroy Male Health

The conspiracy behind it seems rather obvious but debating the point is futile. What matters most is that we recognize that it is a problem and find ways to fix it.

According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, noted neurosurgeon and author of The Blaylock Report:

“Studies show that xenoestrogens from plastics appear to cause premature menses in young girls. Soy isoflavones appear to increase aggressiveness and heighten antisocial behavior in monkeys and appear to feminize male animals.”

Below is a list of high-estrogenic foods that should be avoided to live a life of abundant health that can be passed down to offspring.

1. Pesticides Through Conventionally Raised Fruits and Vegetables

Pesticides that are sprayed on conventionally grown vegetables (often GMOs) act as estrogens once ingested.

The pesticides sprayed on conventionally grown (non-organic) vegetables act as estrogens once inside the body. (Source: PESTICIDES MAY BLOCK MALE HORMONES)

2. Soy Is Not Healthy

There are many reasons to avoid soy, one of the most heavily subsidized crops by the United States government. One of the best is the high estrogen-like effects on the human body. Too much soy leads to enlargement of breast tissue, water retention, female pattern fat deposition and mood swings. It can also decrease testosterone. (Source: 170 Scientific Reasons to Lose Soy in your Diet)

See: 12 Reasons To Avoid Any Kind Of Soy

3. Hormones In Beef

To increase meat and milk products hormones are given to cows by some farmers. This meat, when ate by humans, is transferred to us. Once inside the body these compounds have strong estrogenic effects. (SOURCE)

In addition cows are fed soy that has been soaked in pesticides. This is a triple whammy. This is why it is critical to eat grass-fed beef.

4. Beer

In his book The Natural Testosterone Plan, Stephen Harrod Buhner writes:

“Hops is best known for its use in beer. The majority of physicians and men overlook its potent chemicals and do not realize that beer itself can significantly alter the male androgen levels. German beer makers noticed long ago that the young women who picked hops in the fields commonly experienced early menstrual periods. Eventually, researchers discovered the reason – hops is perhaps one of the most powerfully estrogenic plants on Earth. Just 100 grams of hops (about 3.5 ounces) contains anywhere from thirty thousand to three hundred thousand IUs of estrogen, depending on the type of hops. Most of it is the very potent estrogen estradiol. Estradiol, as it is taken into the male body, causes a direct lowering of testosterone levels in the testes and an increase in SHBG levels, which then binds up even more free testosterone in the bloodstream. The estradiol in hops has also been found to directly interfere with the ability of the testes Leydig cells to produce testosterone. The presence of this highly estrogenic substance in beer is not an accident.”

Commercials will have one that that drinking beer makes a man macho. Nothing can be further from the truth!

See: 100 Percent Of Beer Tested Had At Least 5 Times The Amount Glyphosate Allowed By Law

5. Television and the Feminization of Men

Male feminization on television has slowly be conditioned into the psyche of men. This has dramatically altered behavior patterns. To discuss this among some, it can be seen as homophobic. In reality, it’s recognizing that through diet and entertainment, a new male has risen and ‘he’ is more ‘she’ than ever.

6. Unsaturated Fats

Unsaturated fats from vegetable oils are mostly soy, which is an estrogenic plant byproduct, among the highest on the planet. These are covered in pesticides, which come with their own estrogenic properties.

Saturated fats from lard, butter coconut oil and so on help produce testosterone and are preferred alternatives.

7. BPA in Plastics

Xenoestrogen is a class of chemical that mimics estrogen in humans. Chemicals from plastics leak into cans, bottles, packaging of food, rivers, streams, lakes, oceans and everything else. Plastic is everywhere.

According to the national Institute of Health:

 “Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins.”

Over 93% of American’s have BPA in their bodies. This reduces sperm counts in males.

Environmentalist Bruce Lowry describes the side effects we’re seeing from exposure to BPA:

“Things like Attention Deficit Disorder, Childhood Obesity, Asthma, Autism, and then a whole range of Cancer’s that we’re seeing too – Brain Cancer, Liver Cancer, Prostate Cancer. ”

See: The Longterm Health Impact Of Toxic Food Packaging

8. Pthalates in Scents

Studies in male animals exposed to pthalates have found reduced sperm production, undescended testes, hypospadias, and decreased testosterone production.

Sources of Pthalates to avoid:

Shampoos, Colognes/Perfume, Deodorant, Hair Spray, Body Lotion, Makeup, Glade Plug-ins and other Air Fresheners.

By Jesse Herman