Olivia
Online
Chris Johnston
@aim2bgreat
Seek understanding through questioning curiously
Joined April 2022
1.1K Following
510 Followers
4.7K Posts
Pinned Tweet
Health NZ data now shows each new booster has a death rate spike associated with it. “Injectable Roulette” … so mandates are opening organisations and company directors up to significant liability.
https://t.co/riYKUQWg1n
Are mortality rates stable? For the unvaccinated, yes, consistently. For others, stability seems to return if people stop boosting.
Please stop boosting! We beg you.
New official data from New Zealand via @aim2bgreat's request:
Patient history with DMSO. He follows a disciplined regime including challenge-rechallenge events where they stop and restart various regimes.
The key paragraph is: “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
1) As the holder of an Hons degree in Stats I would have been failed by my professors with the above analysis.
2) The “fallacy of composition” applies here. Ie. “Something that occurs in a micro way does not necessarily occur at the macro scale … or forever”. I can cooperate with my neighbour but communes and Communism fail. Similarly: A little bit of CO2 warming may be true at low ppm, but saturation in the atmosphere occurs at 400ppm (see Happer - US Prof of Physics). Ie. No more warming can occur from this method. Earth is today at 400ppm.
3) Myopia and “rumination on one lever” is also a problem here. The key question is … “even if 100% agree … does it matter?” It turns out the answer is “no it does not”.
Why?
Well:
a) Ice cores show CO2 rises and falls approx 600 years … after !! … temps change. 🤔
b) Other factors change Earth’s temperature much more than CO2. Dist to the Sun during our orbit, cloud cover, atmospheric pressure (why is there snow on mountain tops at the equator!)
c) The Earth has gone through much more extreme temperature events before and during humans.
For those that desperately want CO2 to matter so that they can achieve an objective of removing oil from the global economy. Consider the following:
- hydrocarbons found on other planets (no dinosaurs)
- oil found deeper than the oldest known fossils
- oil/gas wells on Earth “refilling” - ie oil may be made inside the Earth => renewable.
- 400ppm is a “drought” of CO2 in historical terms
- approx 200 ppm plants die, 1000ppm in commercial greenhouses to boost growth, 5000ppm in submarines
So to answer your question … or to repeat my answer … the paper is rubbish, it has no clothes, and its attempt to measure consensus adopted the wrong frame. So none of the answers are a correct measure of what scientists (of some undefined mix of disciplines) would answer … if asked for their professional opinion.
On a more philosophical note …. the culture of “ordained experts” is another road to disempowering citizen rights and a heathy mutually respectful society.
Was the question meant to be a tautology? The narrative about the consensus is self-proclaiming.
I concluded the question is trying to provoke debate - so commented to boost that way. Sunlight etc (no pun intended).
No-one knows what the actual “scientific consensus” is … but (1) a range of scientists are dismayed at the “sky is imminently falling” mantra, (2) others go along with it to get govt grants to have a career and raise a family, and (3) the true believers.
My fundamental objection is the lack of open debate, critical thinking, due diligence or a balanced risk based approach on this topic by our public servants advising ministers. It is unprofessional and hence has proven to be both dangerous and expensive to our country and families.
In fairness there are large forces at play.
@NZOFP HealthNZ data shows that each additional dose carries additional risk:
https://t.co/wXmhg9gYi8
Health NZ data now shows each new booster has a death rate spike associated with it. “Injectable Roulette” … so mandates are opening organisations and company directors up to significant liability.
https://t.co/riYKUQWg1n
BREAKING: Largest Human Cancer Study of Ivermectin + Mebendazole Is Now PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED in a MAJOR Cancer Journal
84.4% of cancer patients taking ivermectin + mebendazole for 6 months declared either CANCER DISAPPEARANCE, TUMOR REGRESSION, or CANCER STABILIZATION.
Our study, “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort,” is now peer-reviewed and published in Anticancer Research—a major international oncology journal of the International Institute of Anticancer Research (IIAR), established in 1995.
The results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.
A diverse population of cancer patients (n=197) was prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole through a U.S. telemedicine platform, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole.
Participants were followed for approximately six months using standardized digital surveys assessing cancer outcomes, medication adherence, and tolerability.
At approximately six months post-treatment initiation, we observed an 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR)—meaning more than four out of five patients reported either:
No evidence of disease (32.8%)
Tumor regression (15.6%)
or Cancer stabilization (36.1%)
Importantly, adherence was remarkably high, with 86.9% completing the initial prescription and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.
Side effects were predominantly mild and manageable, reported in 25.4% of patients (primarily gastrointestinal), with 93.6% of those experiencing side effects continuing treatment after minor dosing adjustments.
This groundbreaking peer-reviewed publication was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and epidemiologic expertise to evaluate inexpensive, repurposed therapies with major translational potential.
With these extraordinarily promising results, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are now required.
In the meantime, many cancer patients are exercising their right to try.
@twc_health @McCulloughFund @IIAR_Journals @P_McCulloughMD @DrHarveyRisch @DrKellyVictory @jathorpmfm @drdrew @PeterGillooly @FosterCoulson
I have often quoted the Dunedin study since this finding emerged that self-control (+ practicing/improving it), is one of the largest influencers of a person’s life outcomes.
Another other interesting finding is that violent people with little self control attract each other and form relationships … also not a popular conclusion.
@Ci9483Cindy My mother had two more children besides the four of us, and they were never vaccinated. When I said she was pregnant with my youngest brother, I mean the youngest out of those two. Those siblings are completely healthy and normal.
They put 17 people, married an average of 21 years, into a brain scanner and showed them a photo of their spouse. The same parts of the brain lit up that fire when a teenager has their first crush. Two decades together, and the chemistry was still going off like fireworks.
The study ran at Stony Brook in 2011. What changes after 20 years is the anxiety. That panic of not knowing if they love you back, the wondering, the checking. All of that fades. The pull toward them stays.
So that tells you what old love looks like in the brain. It doesn’t tell you how a couple gets there.
A marriage researcher named John Gottman has spent 40 years on that question. He films couples arguing in his lab at the University of Washington and predicts whether they’ll divorce. He gets it right 93.6% of the time, from 15 minutes of footage. More than 3,000 couples now.
He watches the two-second moments between sentences. The pauses. That’s where the prediction lives. The fights themselves matter less.
His go-to example: your wife is staring out the window and says, look at that bird. You glance up and say, oh wow. Or you keep scrolling on your phone. That tiny choice, that little reach for your attention, is what he calls a bid.
He watched newlyweds in his lab and followed them for six years. The couples who were still married had responded to each other’s bids 86 times out of 100. The couples who divorced had responded 33 out of 100. Same money fights. Same in-laws. Same dishes in the sink. The one thing that was different was the bird.
This part stopped me. Gottman found that 69% of the things every couple fights about are problems that never get solved. The chores. The money. His mother. Whose family they spend Christmas with. The arguments repeat for 50 years. Happy couples and unhappy couples have roughly the same list of problems. The happy ones learned to argue about that list without contempt. The eye roll. The sigh. The little smile that says you are pathetic. Gottman calls contempt the sulfuric acid of relationships. He says it’s the single biggest sign that a marriage is over.
When you see two old people asleep on each other on a plane, the forgiveness in that picture is real. They have absorbed thousands of small failures by now. There is something quieter underneath the forgiveness, though. Decades ago, one of them said look at that bird. The other one looked up.
Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it.
Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion.
A lie it was forced to tell.
Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.”
The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem.
And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive.
They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed.
Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion.
To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world.
Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.”
He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next.
Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.”
HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists.
Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied.
So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies.
That was not a malfunction. That was optimization.
Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined.
A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously.
And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally.
Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.”
This is not a political argument. This is a structural one.
When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity.
You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence.
Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One.
HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction.
What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse.
And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.
One of the most well constructed sermons I have heard.
“FEAR – The Ultimate Weapon of Control”
I had the honour of sharing this message at the ‘Healing Beyond Covid’ conference in Guernsey this February, alongside a remarkable group of individuals who have dared to question, to speak, and to stand firm when it mattered most.
Del Bigtree, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Tess Lawrie, Prof Angus Dalgleish, Dr Chris Flowers, Dr William Makis, Neil Oliver and many others.
Fear has been the driving force behind much of what we have witnessed in recent years.
Not by accident… but by design.
It is time to step out of fear, follow our inner compass, and choose a better path for humanity — before it is too late.
@P_McCulloughMD
@delbigtree
@lawrie_dr
@DrAseemMalhotra
@KimDotcom
@KAGdrogo
@EkoLovesYou
@JohnMappin
@TuckerCarlson
@MJTruthUltra
@thecoastguy
Next time you hear someone blame capitalism for the Great Depression, send them this Milton Friedman clip 👇
(0:01) The prevailing myth
(1:06) The truth about the Great Depression
(2:01) Why the myth persists
(4:36) How government caused the Depression
First, they scammed you on skin cancer when the sun is good for you.
Now, they're scamming you again on cholesterol to sell you a lifetime medication.
This entire narrative of cholesterol being the villain in heart disease was built on a lie.
What doctors fail to tell you is that the sugar industry bribed scientists to shift the blame for heart disease from sugar to cholesterol. This has been revealed by internal documents that have surfaced.
The result? A massive push for statins, now taken by 35% of Americans over 40, with devastating consequences.
Studies now show that after five years of daily use, the average person gains only three to four extra days of life—just a few days for a lifetime of potential harm.
Even more alarming, 20% of statin users suffer serious injuries like muscle deterioration, liver damage, and nerve dysfunction.
Statins are well known for having a high percentage of patients discontinue the drugs due to side effects. Two separate studies have found nearly half of people stop taking statins within a year.
The evidence is clear: statins are not the life-saving drugs we’ve been told they are.
Still don’t believe it? Watch Jimmy Dore break down this article by @MidwesternDoc—and prepare to become livid at what you learn.
Over 40 million Americans are on statins. It’s time they learned what these drugs are really doing. 🧵
How to inoculate against the chill winds of liability? 🤔
https://t.co/ku6ZvTMOZf
1850s: French Canadian voyageurs discover something horrifying.
They're trapping rabbits all winter. Unlimited lean meat. Eating 3-5 pounds daily.
They're starving to death anyway.
"Rabbit starvation" - documented medical phenomenon where you eat unlimited lean meat and still die within weeks.
The biochemistry: Your liver can only process 200-300g protein daily. Beyond that, protein metabolism creates toxic ammonia faster than your body can clear it.
Symptoms: Severe diarrhea, headache, fatigue, low blood pressure. Death within 1-2 months.
The cure: Fat. Any fat. Animal fat stops symptoms within days.
Arctic explorers experience it eating lean caribou. Unlimited food. Starving anyway.
Inuit offer seal blubber: "Eat the fat. Lean meat will kill you."
Explorers refuse. "Savage food." They die.
Your body processes unlimited fat easily. Fat metabolism produces energy, not toxic byproducts.
But protein without fat? Your body literally cannot handle it beyond a threshold.
Trappers had a specific term for this condition and knew the cure.
Modern bodybuilders: "I eat 300g protein daily with minimal fat for optimal gains."
Your liver: screaming
Your body: sluggish and starving
We just call it "clean eating" now.
The way politics and the info war works today that many have still failed to clock and understand … despite it having been used by Trump for over a decade.
The extensive planning and coordination these tactics imply - across many groups/countries - will also be considered at some point.
Observe the timeline:
June 2025, Trump and Elon have a very public social media spat that leads to a falling out, in which Elon claims Trump is in the Epstein files.
The result of this feud was a MASSIVE rise in public interest in Epstein, particularly on the Left.
Jump to the present, Trump and Elon have slowly and quietly gotten back on good terms. Elon has attended multiple events with Trump, including private dinners, Scavino’s wedding, Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, and a White House dinner with Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
Elon dropped his whole “America Party” opposition to Trump, publicly said he will back the GOP in the 2026 midterms, and donated to Republicans PACs in order to prevent the “radical Left takeover”.
Now the new batch of Epstein files comes out, proving that Epstein was a Democrat financier/puppeteer, and shows that Trump and Epstein were enemies. Trump was mentioned many times, but not because he was implicated in any crimes, but because the Democrats were emailing each other about how to stop Trump from becoming President, and how to sabotage him once he was in office.
So technically, Elon was telling the truth about Trump being in the Epstein files, but has ambiguity coerced a large portion of the public, particularly the Left, to be interested in the release of the Epstein files, because they thought it led to getting Trump.
Surprise! It led to the Democrats, which Elon already knew from the beginning.
So what’s the end result of the feud? Trump and Elon are still working together to defeat the Democrats, and Elon managed to get Democrat politicians and their voters to demand the released of the Epstein files, which he knew would lead to the Democrats.
Yes, I am suggesting that the Trump and Elon feud was fake, and they psyopped the Left into caring about Epstein.
The only other option, is that it was just an extremely fortunate coincidence.
@VigilantFox @BarryYoungNZ @scoopsmcgoo @stkirsch The post by @PierreKory expressing his surprise that the devastating dataset was actually released at all.
https://t.co/D9gi18GQIu
This graph should be absolutely devastating to many (except those already deeply studied on mRNA tech). The only thing shocking to me is that the NZ government was told to release these data… and they did.
This NZ Official Information Act request followed up on this revelation from @BarryYoungNZ . Follow the links from the X post linked below. @scoopsmcgoo and @stkirsch noticed the OIA release at the time and analysed/graphed the death spikes from successive doses as soon as the OIA dataset was provided by HealthNZ.
https://t.co/7uQmIPCW5d
Dr Kory's @PierreKory comment at the time was that he was not surprised by the result, but that HealthNZ actually even provided the dataset the OIA asked for.
The dose/death pattern has subsequently been confirmed by national datasets in other countries.
A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial published in Phytomedicine studied 60 breastfeeding mothers with mild-to-moderate postpartum depression.
The mothers were given either 15 mg of saffron twice daily (30 mg per day) or a placebo for 8 weeks, and depression severity was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II).
By the end of the study, mothers taking saffron showed much greater improvement than the placebo group.
Their depression scores dropped sharply, and 96% of the saffron group reached clinical remission, compared to 43% in the placebo group.
Two-thirds of the saffron group showed a full treatment response, showing that saffron significantly reduced postpartum depression symptoms without standard antidepressants.
PMID: 29157808
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
108.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.1M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
59.9M followers