User blogs
The battle line here in Europe is drawn. Take notice! What the
competition has been unable to do with science, it seeks here and now to
accomplish with vocabulary.
A colleague writes:
"It is suggested that ‘subluxation’ be replaced by Joint Dysfunction, or Joint Dysfunction Complex, or even Biomechanical Joint Lesion. ...‘Subluxation’ takes too long to explain and has a lot of baggage. The other proposed terms MEAN THE SAME but are much easier to explain."
I understand the significance of establishing medico-legal terms.
It isn't easy. But the phrases being proposed to replace 'subluxation' actually are brief,
easy to understand, explanations of the meaning of subluxation. The only
baggage the word has, comes from a century of misrepresentation and
disinformation big pharma and AMA have dumped on us.
Whenever
science takes another leap and more proof backing up
VSC becomes obtainable and available, we get a whole new onslaught. Using word games in an attempt to get us to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. The phenomenon we treat deserves a name,
rather than a phrase description. The name 'subluxation' legally stakes
out our territory.
When DCs eventually merge with MDs,
those hybrid practitioners need to be DCs first, and only resort to
petro-pharmaceuticals and surgery when absolutely necessary. The current
trend, as evidenced by this renewed attack on our terminology, is a sign of
the opposition's weakness in the face of new research breakthroughs that
prove we have been right all along, and they have been overpriced, unsafe, and ineffective, ...and worse!
What
we want to fight for is recognition that a lifetime of covered
chiropractic maintenance and prevention care saves the system money. I
sincerely believe it does. And mounting evidence supports that. We do not want to
be reduced to specialists treating pain. Specialists are not primary
care providers. You need an MD script to get to see one. That would be a
HUGE, unwarranted, step backwards for us.
The scientific community is well equipped to adopt new terms with legally recognized definitions.
When
we now do have a rapidly growing body of scientific EVIDENCE backing us up, it
would be foolish to let them castrate the profession with semantics.
Maybe a good place to start is getting microsoft to add subluxation into their spell checker! ;)
You
can make a difference by helping us gather sound research here in the
forum so it is readily available to policy makers! Who are currently, or
most likely will be, suffering needlessly, otherwise. Your thoughts on this matter, also matter!
Scroll down to see newest presentations.
The Loss of Freedom of Speech
Dystopian public health authority in California fostered by legislature after suspicious measles outbreak. Problem, reaction, solution.
-
When I was a kid I had to get virtually every vaccination available in the 70s, several times, in order to live in Laos. Now you don't have to have any vaccinations to go there! Now you have to get every prick available several times, in order to live in my home state of California. WTF???? -ed.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpiTcBymCQM
Scientists say the human brain resembles the cosmos
Both neural and galactic networks have the same structure, pointing to a fractal universe.
Side by side pictures of brain cells and a cosmic web of galaxies make it difficult to tell the two apart. So it can seem that the universe is like one giant brain or vice-versa, there’s a tiny universe in each of our brains. That’s not merely some entertaining thought. In a new study, an astrophysicist and a neurosurgeon have documented the striking similarities between cosmic networks of galaxies and neural networks of brain cells.
The mini-cosmos inside the brainAlberto Feletti, a neurosurgeon at the University of Verona, and Franco Vazza, astrophysicist at the University of Bologna, performed a quantitative analysis of neural and cosmic networks, showing that the natural physical processes lead to similar structures even when differences in scale can be greater than 27 orders of magnitude.
The human brain contains approximately 69 billion neurons, whereas the observable universe consists of a web of at least 100 billion galaxies. In both galactic and neural networks, just 30% of their masses are composed of ‘working’ masses, such as galaxies and neurons. The rest of the 70% of matter plays an apparently passive role: water in the brain and dark energy in the observable cosmos... more
The architecture of consciousness is everywhere, even if we are barely smart enough to see it.
The cosmic web
Plasma Universe’s cosmic electricity grid validated by observations of the ‘cosmic web’Article first published 19/10/15
There is no starker contrast between the Big Bang and the Electric Plasma Universe (see [1] Continuous Creation from Electric Plasma versus Big Bang Universe, SiS 60). Big Bang cosmology developed when the Universe could only be seen dimly through light emitted in the visible electromagnetic spectrum, a narrow band less than one octave between 390 and 700 nm. Since the 1970s, space research has extended our vision enormously in an electromagnetic spectrum spanning some 30 octaves - from radio waves, microwaves, and infrared at one extreme to ultraviolet, x-rays and γ-rays at the other, all emitted by magnetized plasmas, and on timescales of split seconds to minutes, hours, and days. A cosmic extravaganza is enacted with the immediacy of happenings before our wide-open sleepless telescopic eyes. X-ray bursts change by orders of magnitude within milliseconds, some 1010 times faster than emissions in the visual range.
Instead of a static Big Bang Universe stuffed with dead dark matter and dark energy, the Electric Plasma Universe is alive and shimmering, flashing, often bursting with unrivalled brilliance, here, there, and everywhere we look. It is buzzing with [1] “electric-plasma currents accreting and concentrating mass and transferring energy over galactic and intergalactic distances, organizing space into cells surrounded by sheets and filaments of plasma bounded by electric double layers. The circuit paths are closed, sometimes over very large distances. Plasmas in relative motion in one part of the universe can produce prodigious amounts of electrical energy, and the energy transferred over many billions of light years to suddenly burst from a very small and localized region.” This was essentially the vision of Hannes Alfvén, father of astrophysics and the Plasma Universe [2]. It naturally leads to the idea of a cosmic electricity grid (see [3] Many Things New around Our Electric Sun, SiS 68). Unlike ordinary electricity grids, the cosmic grid of electric plasma transmission lines not only actively constructs itself, but also creates galaxies and stars from stardust in the process.
Alfvén’s vision has been lavishly validated by detailed astronomical observations. ... more
video
Enjoy!
When you go to the graphics page they show you this:
When you click on "vanaaf 27 februari," you get the big picture!:
source https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/grafieken
Health & Wellness
COVID-19 much less deadly than previously thought, major study finds
Will Jones
The Daily Sceptic
Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:53 UTC
COVID-19 is much less deadly in the non-elderly population than
previously thought, a major new study of antibody prevalence surveys has
concluded.
The study was led by Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and
Epidemiology at Stanford University, who famously sounded an early
warning on March 17th 2020 with a widely-read article
in Stat News, presciently arguing that "we are making decisions without
reliable data" and "with lockdowns of months, if not years, life
largely stops, short-term and long-term consequences are entirely
unknown, and billions, not just millions, of lives may be eventually at
stake".
In the new study,
which is currently undergoing peer-review, Prof. Ioannidis and
colleagues found that across 31 national seroprevalence studies in the
pre-vaccination era, the average (median) infection fatality rate of
COVID-19 was estimated to be just 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years and
0.095% for those aged 0-69 years. A further breakdown by age group found
that the average IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years,
0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and
0.501% at 60-69 years.
The study states that it shows a "much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested".
A breakdown by country reveals the wide range of IFR values across different populations.
The
significantly higher values for the top seven suggest some of the
difference may be an artefact of, for example, the way Covid deaths are
counted, particularly where excess death levels are similar. Note also
that the antibody studies datefrom various points during the first year of the pandemic, most of them
prior to the large winter wave of 2020-21, when levels of spread and
numbers of deaths were more varied than later in the pandemic as
subsequent waves caused countries to converge.
The reason some countries had much lower values and some much higher is
not completely clear. The authors suggest that "much of the diversity in
IFR across countries is explained by differences in age structure", as
per the plot below.
However,
the age breakdown by country suggests that the IFR differed for each
age group in each country, casting doubt on that suggestion. (In the
chart below, note the logarithmic scale, and ignore the zig-zag lines,
which are due to small countries having low numbers of deaths.)
Why
are countries seeing differing IFRs even for the same age groups? The
authors suggest a number of explanations, including data artefacts (e.g.
if the number of deaths or seroprevalence are not accurately measured),
presence and severity of comorbidities (for example, obesity affects
42% of the U.S. population, but the proportion of obese adults is only
2% in Vietnam, 4% in India and under 10% in most African countries,
though it affects almost 40% of South African women), the presence of
frail individuals in nursing homes and differences in management,
healthcare, overall societal support and levels of drug problems.
Prof. Ioannidis has previously published a number of papers
estimating COVID-19's IFR using seroprevalence surveys. He and his team
conclude that their new estimates provide a baseline from which to
assess further IFR declines following the widespread use of vaccination,
prior infections and evolution of new variants such as Omicron.
Comment: See also:
- John Ioannidis: Another shutdown would do more harm than good
- Modelers were 'astronomically wrong' in COVID-19 predictions, says epidemiologist Dr. John Ioannidis - And the world is paying the price
- Stanford researcher Dr. John Ioannidis says coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu
- Ioannidis releases new medical analysis of 12 global coronavirus studies finding 9 of 12 show COVID-19 fatality rates similar to seasonal flu
- Stanford U. epidemiologist John Ioannidis lambasts the media for panicking the public over Covid-19
- World's leading epidemiologist John Ioannidis on COVID-19 fiasco: 'We are making decisions without reliable data'
Back in college, when we were learning all about all those electric physiotherapy modalities, it used to conjure up the voice of one of my electronics instructors from the past saying, "The best policy is to avoid all electric shocks, because they may have negative effects on nerves that don't show up until years later."
A DC who had ties in the still extant USSR came to CCC-LA to present a microcurrent device from Russia, that produced biological currents. Similar to currents produced by the body. The device was touted for increasing healing time for wounds, as well relieving MS, and whatnot. It hadn't been approved (or disapproved) so anyone could by one and use it as long as no claims were made about what it could do.
Shortly thereafter the use of any biological current machines was disapproved. Which really stuck with my conspiracy sensitive mind. The Wilks case was decided back then, and they had passed the bucket around to us students to chip in for the legal fund. Conspiracy was a proven fact. How many more might there be?
It seems logical that if electric currents occur naturally in the body, and their activity is linked to tissue health, then any treatment to increase health by optimizing these currents would have to have voltages and frequencies in the same range as those found in the body. A million times less than myo-stimulator jolts! Why would they make biocurrents illegal in that climate?
A few years ago I saw a lecture from a researcher who studies the electric properties of cartilage. And finds indeed that connective tissue is conductive and its conductivity changes depending on the amount of tension. The changes in tendon tension send electric signals that alter neuronal action potentials. Ergo an unexplored feedback communication pathway.
Also in recent years I learned about sonoluminescence being caused by electrons being stripped when cavitation occurs in water.
Add to that a fairly new invention that is based on a nozzle whose shape causes cavitation in liquid biomass, like algae. After the electrons get stripped from the carbohydrates, the molecules reorganize into a lower energy state, that happens to be hydrocarbons. Making gasoline, jet, or diesel fuel from the fastest growing lifeforms on earth, and sunshine.
Which bring us to joint electronics.
1. Could a caustic electromagnetic environment lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity and hence, subluxation?
2. Might some sort of biocurrent device be effective at reducing tension in joint cartilages, ligaments, and tendons, rendering subluxations adjustable with less force, even less pain?
3. Might joint cavitation involve sonoluminesence, that neutralizes ambient tissue charge by stripping electrons, thus normalizing tension?
4. Could intra-articular sonoluminescence also convert mucopolysaccharides or other present carbohydrates (in joint fluid), into glycerides or hydrocarbons, thus enhancing joint lubrication? Even reducing inflammation?
I know it's a stretch, but what do you think?
Too big for one blog post.
cont....
Over the following years, Daszak and his Chinese colleague Shi Zhengli, also known as the “bat woman” or “bat lady,” would discover and isolate more than 100 unique coronaviruses all of which, according to Daszak’s own words, can be easily manipulated in the lab.
A copy of a 2015 presentation given by Daszakto the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine showed EcoHealth Alliance’s work in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was funded by various US agencies. The research involved infections in humanised mice and coronavirus gain-of-function research using human ACE2 receptors, the protein on the surface of a cell to which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds.
Image compiled from Presentation given by Peter Daszak to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and MedicineShadow Government Architecture: The Vaccine Perspective, NIA Research, 22 August 2022 (timestamp 19:30)
As additional proof of the funding behind his research, at the end of Daszak’s 2011 article, it stated the organisations that funded Daszak and his co-author’s, Dr. Lipkin, research:
Peter Daszak’s work is supported by NIAIDNon-biodefense emerging infectious disease research opportunities award 1 R01 AI079231, an NIH/NSF‘Ecology of Infectious Diseases’ award from the Fogarty International Centre 2R01-TW005869, the Rockefeller Foundation, Google.org, NSF Human and Social Dynamics ‘Agents of Change’ award (SES-HSD-AOC BCS–0826779), and generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Dr. Lipkin’s work is supported bygrants from the National Institutes of Health(AI057158, AI0793231, AI070411, EY017404), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USAID PREDICT, and Defence Threat Reductions Agency. [emphasis our own]
The search for meaning in virus discovery, ScienceDirect, December 2011
In May 2012, the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020was approved to achieve the Gates Foundation’s “decade of vaccines” vision. The Plan was led by the Gates Foundation, GAVI, WHO, UNICEF, African Leaders Malaria Alliance and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”).
Further resources:
- Peter Daszak’s prophetic statement to NAS workshop, Totality of Evidence
- Dr. Peter Daszak removed from medical journal’s Covid-19 commission, The Post Millennial, 22 June 2021
- Whistle-blower, Former VP of EcoHealth Partners with Attorney Tom Renz
In 2013, the Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”) on Vaccine-preventable Diseasesreleased a paper from a meeting with the slogan “vaccination a shared responsibility.” The meeting’s objective was to issue recommendations to address the current and future challenges faced by national immunisation programs in the Americas. Part of the 2013 TAG team were representatives from the National Centre for Immunisation and Respiratory Diseases (“NCIRD”), Canada’s Ministry of Health, the Rockefeller Foundation and NIH.
Shadow Government Architecture: The Vaccine Perspective, NIA Research, 22 August 2022 (timestamp 41:57)
Looking at the individuals who signed the 2013 TAG paper, we see the revolving door of individuals moving between three organisations – the Rockefeller Foundation, GAVI and WHO – and national public health bodies.
Anne Schuchat, who signed on behalf of NCIRD, is currently a member of WHO’s Health Hazards Advisory Group and a member of Stanford University’s Global Emerging Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee. Formerly she was a member of GAVI’s board and GAVI’s Programme and Policy Committee and the Audit and Finance Committee. So, she came from GAVI to become a CDC official as director of NCIRD and then became an advisor to WHO.
Arlene King, who signed on behalf of the Ministry of Health of Canada, was a GAVI Alliance board member then she became the Chief Medical Officer of the Ontario Ministry of Health. So, she moved from GAVI to the Canadian government.
Jeanette Vega, who signed on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation, was a former director of Rockefellers’ National Chilean Public Health Insurance Agency (FONASA). Previously she was a Director at WHO and then was the Vice Minister of Health in Chile. After leaving the Rockefeller Foundation she became a director ofthe National Chilean Public Health Insurance Agency and later Minister of Social Development. So, she moved from WHO to the Chilean government, then to the Rockefeller Foundation and back to the Chilean government.
Roger Glass, who signed on behalf of NIH’s Fogarty International Centre, received the Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal Award in 2015which is awarded by the Sabin Vaccine Institute founded in 1993to continue the work of developing and promoting vaccines. Sabin was best known for developing the oral polio vaccine. In 1934, Sabin conducted research at the Lister Institute for Preventative Medicine, London, and then joined the Rockefeller Institute University.
In 2017, Rajiv Shahwas elected President of the Rockefeller Foundation. Previously he was a director at the Gates Foundation and then he was USAID Administrator under the Obama Administration.
Global Pandemic PreparednessIn May 2018, WHO and the World Bank formed the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (“GPMB”). In September 2018, the GPMB convened a meeting at WHO in Geneva to discuss key issues on global pandemic preparedness. GPMB had commissioned a study which was spearheaded by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In September 2019, GPMB published a report ‘Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic’.
Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic, September 2019, pg. 6
The conclusions of the 2019 report included:
Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic, September 2019, Summary of Conclusions, pg. 11
Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic, September 2019, Summary of Conclusions, pg. 13
The signatories and contributors to the report included HHS’ Rick Bright and Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar.
Shadow Government Architecture: The Vaccine Perspective, NIA Research, 22 August 2022 (timestamp 50:28)
Before joining the Rockefeller Institute, Rick Brightwas the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and the Director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”). He was the “whistle-blower” who fought against hydroxychloroquineas a treatment for Covid. Afterwards, he left government service and is now Chief Executive Officer of the Pandemic Prevention Institute at The Rockefeller Foundation.
To sum up, wealthy organisations and individuals are getting you and your government to pay for and implement private interests through public policies. Policies that are geared towards a pre-determined conclusion that is to the benefit of those wealthy global interests.
Further reading:
- WHO, Bill Gates and Wellcome Trust’s Global Vaccine Fund Lacks Transparency and Accountability
- How Bill Gates & Partners’ money controlled the World’s Draconian Covid Plan
- The Decade of Vaccination: WHO Estimates “Vaccines” Will Reduce the World’s Population by 15%
- Covid Criminal Network Leads to the Gates of Hell
Wealthy investors have created funds and foundations which then engage in various funding activities, while also being responsible for assisting politicians to be elected, or placed, into office. Once the political candidates are in office, they authorise funds to these international organisations to engage in studies, research and “collaborative” efforts.
At the same time, the foundations donate to the international organisations which gives the foundations access to and seems to help them steer the organisations toward certain conclusions.
The image below, using a hypothetical structure, illustrates how this network operates.
Shadow Government Architecture: The Vaccine Perspective, NIA Research, 22 August 2022 (timestamp 51:57)
This vaccine regime structure, as with other shadow government infrastructures, has been built using our money and our elected officials are enabling it. They have weaponised our governments against us.
How do we stop this? One of the solutions is for national governments to stop funding and ban officials’ participation in these international organisations’ activities. And, those officials who have been involved in such activities should submit to a public civilian inquiry.
