The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.
The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.
The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.
The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.
The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.
The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.
The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.
Now it is today.
Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus.
He is confident.
He has always been confident.
The confidence has never been the problem.
The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.
In 2019, Edward Snowden warned us that the infrastructure for a Chinese-style social credit system was being built in plain sight.
"If any of your activities online, if your purchases, if your associations... are in any way different from what the government... would like them to be, you're no longer able to purchase train tickets. You're no longer able to board an airplane.... You may not be eligible for a job."
"All of these things are increasingly being created and programmed and decided by algorithms. And those algorithms are fuelled by precisely the innocent data that our devices are creating all of the time—constantly, invisibly, quietly—right now."
"And these activity records are being created and shared and collected... constantly by companies and governments. And ultimately, it means as they sell these... what they are selling is not information. What they are selling is us."
"They're selling our future. They're selling our past. They are selling our history, our identity. And ultimately, they are stealing our power."
In most recent spending bill, your elected federal officials are giving pharma these handouts of your hard-earned money:
+ “$270,000,000 … to develop universal flu vaccines”
+ “$307,991,000 … for … influenza pandemic, of which $280,000,000 for activities including development and purchase of vaccines…”
Let pharma develop its own products and persuade others to purchase them. These funds should, at the very least, go to the vaccine injured! Not pharma’s coffers!
https://t.co/DX4MXQL8u6
I wish my doctors had been honest with me about all of the effects of transition. I wish I had known I’d be dealing with health problems 10 years down the line.
So, your doctor ordered a test or treatment and your insurance company denied it. That is a typical cost saving method.
OK, here is what you do:
1. Call the insurance company and tell them you want to speak with the "HIPAA Compliance/Privacy Officer"
(By federal law, they have to have one)
2. Then ask them for the NAMES as well as
CREDENTIALS of every person accessing your record to make that decision of denial.
By law you have a right to that information.
3. They will almost always reverse the decision very shortly rather than admit that the committee is made of low paid HS graduates, looking at "criteria words." making the medical decision to deny your care.
Even in the rare case it is made by medical personnel, it is unlikely that it is made by a board certified doctor in that specialty and they DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS!!
4. Any refusal should be reported to the US Office of Civil
Rights (https://t.co/QJjJAm5BxT) as a HIPAA violation.
Be safe out there 🫵🏻✨
Know your rights 👊🏼
#ThrowbackThursday
A Chinese doctor went viral after showing how to reset your face using just your hands 💆
‣ Reduce puffiness
‣ Lift loose muscles
‣ Shape your face naturally no tools no needles
⚠️Pfizer mRNA Shot Batch Number Starting with "E" = "Extreme Death Risk"
96 of the top 100 deadliest batches start with “E”
According to the FDA's Gene Therapy Guidance, it will take up to 15 years to fully understand the long-term consequences of mRNA gene-transfer shots.
"The Big Problem With 'Trusting The science' Is Who's Behind The science."
Dr Eric Berg
"When You Test A Drug, It's Against A Placebo."
"Vaccines Are Not Tested Against Placebos...They Are Tested Against Another Active Vaccine."
"That's Like Testing Whiskey Against Bourbon."
'Placebos' Used In Vaccine Clinical Trials As Listed From The Package Inserts For Common Vaccines:
Hepatitis B Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Aluminum Adjuvant & only safety tested for 5 days.
Vaxelis 6 in 1 Vaccine Trial...Placebo Was DTaP, Polio, HIB & Hep-B Vaccines.
HPV Gardasil Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Aluminum Adjuvant & Hep-A Vaccine. Only safety tested for 14 days.
Hepatitis A Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Hepatitis-B Vaccine & participants were monitored for 14 days.
Influenza A Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Influenza B Vaccine & clinical trial volunteers were followed for 28 days.
Meningitis Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was the DTaP Vaccine & adverse reactions were monitored for 7 days.
Pertussis Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was the Diphtheria & Tetanus Vaccine. Participants were followed for 14 days.
Prevnar-13 Pneumonia Clinical Trial...Placebo used was the Prevnar-7 Vaccine & volunteers were monitored for 7 days.
Polio Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo Was Diluted Polio Vaccine & patients were monitored for 2 days.
Chicken Pox Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was diluted Chicken Pox Vaccine & trial volunteers were monitored for 42 days.
Shingles Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was diluted Shingles Vaccine & participants were followed for 7 days.
mNEXSPIKE Covid Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was SPIKEVAX Covid Vaccine & only safety tested 7 days.
Without informed consent & without the use of a saline placebo skews all results & makes all vaccines appear "safe & effective" because the adverse events & side effects in both groups are the same.
The US CDC Government's belief on placebos as stated on the CDC website...
1⃣ "Testing a new vaccine against a saline injection is considered unethical."
2⃣ "Depriving half of the trial participants of an older vaccine(which is approved to use as placebo) & giving them a true saline placebo instead would not be fair: it would actually be unethical."
3⃣ "Saline injections don’t cause a sore arm, which might unwittingly reveal to the 'double blind volunteers' that they are in the placebo group. Those who get the experimental vaccine & those who get placebo must be kept secret."
👇Pediatric Vaccine Clinical Trial Placebos👇
https://t.co/oX6Flu2UE4
👇Vaccine Trial Placebo Development👇
https://t.co/hfIVjT0K5X
👇Vaccine Excipients Used In Vaccines👇
https://t.co/TBuG7o3Olt
Speaker: @dr_ericberg
Video: @toxins_in_children
Real journalist Sharyl Attkisson, 2006: "Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%."
"Flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip... Instead, [they] continue to climb."
If flu shots actually work, how could that possibly be? 🤔
Credit: @SharylAttkisson
You’re absolutely right that vaccines have saved millions of lives and represent one of the greatest achievements in modern medicine. That fact should never be dismissed or minimized. At the same time, I wonder why it’s so hard to hold both ideas in our heads at once—that vaccines have done immense good and that it’s not unreasonable to scrutinize aspects of how they’re administered today.
For example, why can’t we have a real conversation about the necessity of a Hepatitis B shot at birth for a healthy newborn? Or about whether the CDC schedule, which has grown more aggressive over the years, might deserve re-evaluation? Or about the safety of adjuvants like aluminum when injected into infants with developing immune systems?
It also seems fair to point out that most pre-licensing trials don’t use truly inert placebo controls, and very few track long-term safety outcomes. That’s not conspiracy—it’s just acknowledging a limitation in the data.
So the question I keep coming back to is: if we can recognize the undeniable success of vaccines historically, why is it treated as dangerous or taboo to raise legitimate questions about how we use them today? Why does skepticism around specific policies or practices get conflated with being “anti-vaccine,” when in reality it’s about making sure the science is as strong and transparent as possible?
You don't need a gym, you only need dumbbells.
Over 392 dumbbell exercises, and you only need these basic 12.
Lifted for 16 years and have tried all the exercises.
Here are the only 12 exercises you will ever need.
~Bookmark this to build an elite body with dumbbells.~