stars2man: September 2023

Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Cancer is ManMade just like C0v!d

Radiation Treatment Can Cause Cancer

Radiation treatment should be avoided as much as possible, since it’s toxic by nature. The side effects vary depending on the area of the body being treated. Along with fatigue, which is a near universal side effect of radiation therapy, you may experience any of the following:14

Hair loss	Memory problems	Nausea and vomiting
Skin changes	Headaches	Blurry vision
Swelling and tenderness	Throat problems, including trouble swallowing	Cough
Shortness of breath	Mouth problems	Taste changes
Less active thyroid gland	Diarrhea	Sexual problems
Fertility problems	Urinary and bladder problems

There’s also a risk that radiation therapy will lead to the development of a second cancer. Radiation exposure is a risk factor for most types of leukemia, along with myelodysplastic syndrome, a type of bone marrow cancer that may turn into leukemia.

Radiation therapy also increases the risk of solid tumors, including lung, thyroid, bone, pancreatic, stomach, liver and colorectal cancers, which often develop 10 years or more after the treatment. In one study of 52,613 patients who received radiation therapy, an increased risk of second cancer was found even after 40 years compared to the general population.15

“Radiotherapy has been considered as a double-edged sword as it has a well-established role in the management of solid cancers but unfortunately it is likely to induce cancers years after the treatment,” researchers explained in Radiation Oncology Journal.16 Chemotherapy is also linked with the development of second cancers.17

Susan Wadia-Ells, Ph.D., was inspired to write "Busting Breast Cancer: Five Simple Steps to Keep Breast Cancer Out of Your Body” after losing several friends to recurrent metastatic breast cancer, meaning cancer that was "successfully treated" at an early stage, only to later return as a terminal stage or metastatic disease.18

If you are going to submit your body to radiation, it’s best to protect your body with molecular hydrogen, probably two tablets twice a day for three days before and after the treatment. It would also be helpful to make sure you are taking 50 mg of niacinamide three times a day and methylene blue 50 mg once a day for a few days before and after the treatment.

Even Low-Dose Radiation Exposure Increases Cancer Deaths

Efforts to eliminate radiation therapy altogether may be necessary to protect cancer patients from subsequent cancers. A study that investigated workers in the nuclear industry in France, the U.K. and the U.S., who are exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation over longer periods of time, found an increased risk of cancer mortality.19

A linear increase in the relative rate of cancer was found with increasing radiation exposure, and risk of solid cancers increased by 52% for every unit of radiation each worker absorbed.20 The cancer risks from low-dose radiation exposure may, in fact, be underestimated. According to the study:21

“For the purposes of radiation protection, people often assume that low dose rate exposures pose less carcinogenic hazard than the high dose rate exposures experienced by the Japanese atomic bomb survivors ... Our study does not find evidence of reduced risk per unit dose for solid cancer among workers typically exposed to radiation at low dose rates.”
Sources and References
1 BitChute, Dr. Nathan Goodyear Discusses Benefits of Vitamin C in Cancer Treatment August 3, 2022
2 NIH National Cancer Institute, Cancer Statistics
3, 4, 5, 6, 9 STAT News August 15, 2023
7 Journal of Clinical Oncology 41, no. 17_suppl (June 10, 2023) LBA7505-LBA7505
8, 11 N Engl J Med 2022; 386:923-932
10, 13 STAT News March 9, 2022
12 N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1663-1673
14 NIH National Cancer Institute, Radiation Therapy Side Effects
15, 16 Radiat Oncol J. 2018 Jun; 36(2): 85–94. 3. Gynecological malignancies
17 American Cancer Society, Second Cancers Related to Treatment
18 BitChute, Dr. Mercola Interviews Susan Wadia-Ells May 6, 2021
19 BMJ 2023;382:e074520
20 Medical Xpress August 16, 2023
21 BMJ 2023;382:e074520, Comparison with other studies

Pf!zer and M0derna are "approved" for !nd!v!duals 12 years of age and 0lder

As you’ve likely heard by now, the U.S. government is rolling out a new COVID shot1 this fall that is recommended for all people, including those who have not taken the initial series.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,2 the reformulated shots by Pfizer and Moderna are "approved" for individuals 12 years of age and older, and "authorized under emergency use" for children between the ages of 6 months and 11 years.

This despite the fact that no emergency declaration exists to warrant it. The federal COVID-19 public health emergency declaration ended May 11, 2023.3 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory panel has not yet announced its official recommendations,4 but per the FDA:

Individuals 5 years of age and older, regardless of previous COVID jab status, will be eligible to receive a single dose of the reformulated shot. Those who have received previous shots should wait at least two months since the last dose.
Children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years who have previously received one or more COVID shots will be eligible to receive one or two doses of the updated jab, depending on the last injection received.
Unjabbed children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years will be eligible to receive three doses of the updated Pfizer shot or two doses of the updated Moderna jab.

FDA Continues the Propaganda Spin

The new shots are formulated to include a single mRNA corresponding to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5., the dominant variant in the U.S. for most of 2023, but which has since been replaced by other variants.

As explained by the FDA, they anticipate the COVID jab will be updated once a year going forward, just like the seasonal flu vaccine, which, by the way, is notoriously ineffective due to mismatched strains. Will the reformulated shot be any safer or more effective than the previous ones? I doubt it. As noted by the FDA:5

"The updated mRNA vaccines are manufactured using a similar process as previous formulations ...

[The] extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5 and BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with prior versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants against which they had been developed to provide protection.

This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants. The benefit-risk profile of previously authorized and approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is well understood as these vaccines have been administered to hundreds of millions of people in the United States."

Those familiar with the evidence will of course realize that, a) previous shots have been woefully ineffective, offering minimal protection at best, and only for a short time, and b) the benefit-to-risk profile is "well-understood" to be markedly skewed toward "high risk" and "minimal benefit" for most people.

Adults 60 and over are also encouraged to get the flu shot and/or a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) concomitant with the COVID jab to prevent a "tripledemic." Pregnant women are also encouraged to get all of these shots, which really ought to be considered a crime at this point.

As for cost, the updated COVID shots will have a price tag between $110 to $130 per dose. The flu shot will cost anywhere from $20 to $70, depending on the vaccine you get, and the RSV vaccine is predicted to run anywhere between $180 and $295.6 All three shots are covered by private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare, but for the uninsured, getting all three could get costly.

Where Have We Heard This Before?

As expected, Pfizer and Moderna are also spinning the same old weave, claiming the reformulated shots are "effective" against several Omicron strains, including XBB.1.5, BA.2.86 (nicknamed Pirola), EG.5 (Eris) and FL.1.5.1 (Fornax).

Interestingly, they’re not bragging about percentages this time. Instead, we’re simply being told the shots are "significantly effective" or just "effective," whatever that means.

Remember when Pfizer and Moderna claimed their shots were 95% effective and had no serious safety concerns?7 Fast-forward to February 2023 and data from the Office of National Statistics in the U.K. revealed the shots have increased all-cause mortality for all age groups while doing nothing to reduce deaths from COVID.8,9,10,11,12,13,14

Pfizer documents released by the FDA in response to a lawsuit have also revealed that in the first three months of the rollout (December 2020 through the end of February 2021), Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths.15,16 The 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.

We’ve also learned that Pfizer documented17,18 no fewer than 158,000 different "side effects of special interest" in its trials, all while claiming there were no safety concerns.

The first side effect on this shockingly exhaustive list is a rare condition known as 1p36 deletion syndrome. This condition, caused by the deletion of DNA in chromosome 1p36, results in developmental delays, severe intellectual disability, seizures, vision problems, hearing loss, breathing problems, brain anomalies, congenital heart defects, cardiomyopathy, renal anomalies, genital malformation, metabolic problems and more.19,20

Life expectancy depends on the amount of DNA that has been deleted. This, at bare minimum, sounds like something a pregnant woman might want to know before she gets the shot.

Pfizer also claimed its shot was 100% effective in children between 12 and 15,21 but according to a June 2022 paper,22 the vaccine effectiveness against infection in children aged 12 to 17 ended up being only 64%.

Not only did breakthrough infections occur in "fully immunized" adolescents,23 we also started seeing a rise in multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS24) and myocarditis, both of which can be life threatening, whereas COVID poses a negligible risk to children, adolescents and young adults.

Sources and References

Sunday, September 17, 2023

research shows our sensitivities are actually pretty spot-on, Nature Know!

In the Energy Balance podcast above, health coach and independent health researcher Jay Feldman and Mike Fave, a registered nurse and independent researcher, discuss how your water and salt intake affect the energy production in your body, and your blood pressure. Feldman and Fave both specialize in bioenergetic medicine, pioneered by the late Ray Peat, a biologist and physiologist who was one of the founders of the pro-metabolic diet based on the bioenergetic theory of health.1

I have only recently been diving into their YouTube channel and am very impressed with their ability to share accurate information about health and bioenergetic medicine. After going through 35 podcasts, I have not heard them make any inaccurate statements.

If you are interested in learning more about optimizing mitochondrial energy production and bioenergetic medicine, I would strongly recommend going to their YouTube channel and start listening to their podcasts — but start from episode 1, which is only about 4 years old as I believe this is the best YouTube channel to learn BioEnergetic medicine that can change your life and the information is free. Hard to get much better than that.

This podcast dispels the myth of drinking eight glasses of water per day. Most in the wellness industry will tell you to drink lots of water and limit your salt intake, but that is the opposite of what you want to do.

Not only do these strategies not improve your hydration, but they may also cause many of the issues they’re supposed to prevent, including headaches, skin problems, detox problems, decreased immune function and lower metabolism.

"We might actually want to be drinking less water and eating more salt," Feldman says. "We’ll also talk about how we can address high blood pressure, and why the general recommendations to drink more water and eat less salt might not be a good idea for high blood pressure."

Unfounded Claims

Surprising as it may seem, the recommendation to drink eight glasses of water (or more) each day "is in many ways a baseless recommendation that isn't supported by research," Feldman says. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that drinking water is not by itself a strategy that will guarantee hydration.

Many different factors can affect your cells’ capacity to use the water available to them, including the mineral balance in your body and your blood volume. Drinking excessive amounts of water, to the point that your urine is clear, also comes at a cost.

The same, but in reverse, can be said for salt. Very low salt intake, which is recommended for cardiac patients and those with high blood pressure in particular, likely does more harm than good. High salt intake is also wrongly accused of causing dehydration.

To learn more about how to optimize your metabolism and cellular energy production — which as Feldman notes may help address your high blood pressure — check out my interviews with biohacker Georgi Dinkov, featured in "Crucial Facts About Your Metabolism," "Important Information About Low Carb, Cortisol and Glucose" and "A Surprising Reason Why You May Need More Carbs in Your Diet."

- Sources and References

Saturday, September 16, 2023

Fwd: Do you feel manipulated?

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies on vaccine hesitancy and how the government can overcome it. In sum, there are over 6000 such studies on Pubmed. A more narrowly focused search on endnote pulled up about 1250 studies. These studies have a wide range of topics, but most focus on which groups of people are vaccine hesitant, statistics on these populations, as well as how to overcome vaccine hesitancy through propaganda, censorship, the law and behavioral control.

The fact is that our government, governments from around the world, the WHO and UNICEF have spent billions of dollars in a misguided attempt to try to figure out how to make people take (coerce, compel, and entice) these experimental medical products (COVID-19 vaccines). This was clearly a coordinated effort.

This monumental world-wide effort to manipulate beliefs has eliminated informed consent. Informed consent is the idea that a person must be given sufficient information before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information includes risks and benefits of treatments, the patient's role in treatment, alternative treatments, and the person's right to refuse treatment. When people cannot get reliable safety information on whether to take an experimental product or any medical product, when they are being coerced and are not informed of important safety considerations, informed consent is gone.

Of particular concern is the vaccine hesitancy clinical trials that are specifically designed to see what types of propaganda, nudging, computational propaganda and behavioral modifications work best to elicit compliance from entire populations. In funding such studies, the government and world-wide leadership have endeavored to eliminate informed consent.

Remember, the USA only has Emergency Use Authorized COVID vaccines available. These products have not had to go through the rigors of the clinical trial process to receive full licensure. Of course, much of what has been labeled as misinformation over the past three years has been proven to be truth. People were not allowed to know the truth through propaganda, censorship and coercion.

These studies have bought and paid for mostly by the US government, UNICEF or NGO/astroturf organizations working on their behalf.

This is basically taxpayer-funded market research to garner compliance for the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Marketing research and methods to coerce large populations by the US government for the likes of Pfizer and Moderna.

So, Dr. Mandy Cohen, the Director of the CDC is right. These experimental vaccines have been studied more than any vaccine in history - to ensure 100% uptake by the global population.

Below is a recent paper, whose authors work for the Health and Human Services - our government.

From the Abstract:

"the US Department of Health and Human Services launched the We Can Do This public education campaign in April 2021 to increase vaccine confidence.
The campaign uses a mix of digital, television, print, radio, and out-of-home channels to reach target audiences...
The size and length of the Department of Health and Human Services We Can Do This public education campaign make it uniquely situated to examine the impact of a digital campaign on COVID-19 vaccination, which may help inform future vaccine communication efforts and broader public education efforts.
These findings suggest that campaign digital dose is positively associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake among US adults; future research assessing campaign impact on reduced COVID-19–attributed morbidity and mortality and other benefits is recommended. This study indicates that digital channels have played an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic response.
Digital outreach may be integral in addressing future pandemics and could even play a role in addressing nonpandemic public health crises."

Re-read that last sentence again. Not only did the US government (HHS) have a huge campaign to program our minds during COVID to increase uptake of the "vaccine", they are now planning how to use this "Digital outreach" for non-pandemic purposes...

This campaign was bombarded the American people with propaganda, paid for by the US Government. From the article:

The We Can Do This campaign aims to influence COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake through the dissemination of advertisements (eg, 30-second videos and static images with text) that address key attitudinal and behavioral constructs relevant to these outcomes across a mix of traditional and new media channels. These channels include television, radio, and print media; site direct (digital advertising directly purchased on websites), programmatic (digital advertising purchased through automated marketplace platforms to reach audiences across a range of websites, apps, and platforms), and paid social media (advertising bought directly on social media platforms) advertisements; earned media; partnerships; and influencer engagement. To reach diverse audiences, the campaign has engaged simultaneously with the general population and with specific racial and ethnic audiences through tailored communications in more than 14 languages, including English and Spanish.
Between April 5 and September 26, 2021, according to Nielsen Digital and Total Ad Ratings (see Multimedia Appendix 1), the campaign is estimated to have reached more than 90% of US adults an average of 20.9 times across measured television and digital channels (Nielsen Digital Ad Ratings, unpublished data, 2021). In addition to the campaign's national reach, it also delivered extra ads to markets, zip codes, and population segments with higher proportions of vaccine-hesitant adults and higher COVID-19 prevalence. As the vaccination uptake rate varied across designated market areas (DMAs), the campaign also took vaccination rates into account when deciding where to deliver these extra ads to help encourage first-dose vaccination.

This campaign not only utilized propaganda, it is also used known neuro- linguistic programming techniques, such as repetitive messaging.

They then did a large clinical trial to see how these techniques affected people's decision to get the mRNA "vaccine". The results showed that this huge propaganda campaign was hugely successful in getting people to take the jab.

The problem with propaganda and censorship is that the use of such by governments and world leaders is that it is a slippery slope.

As documented in the paper above, our government leaders now know that the use of such tools was successful in increasing vaccine uptake. The administrative state is only going to increase their use of such techniques during the next health crisis. Climate change or gun violence seem logical choices for more governmental propaganda and censorship.

Yep- there is good evidence that the government is paying for studies such as these:

Finally, the public is waking up to these tactics. As the experimental vaccines failed, the masks were again documented to not to work, the economic impact of the lock-downs was exposed and school age children now show cognitive declines from school closures, much of the public is skeptical and untrusting. This is a good thing. This is progress for the people, for our country.

The administrative state will not give up easily, they are only going to increase their use of these behavioral modification tools, propaganda and censorship. But next time, they will have a bigger fight on their hands.

what internet