Don’t let Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s whacky professor look fool you. Image: YouTube Screengrab
Alex Karp doesn’t look like a warmonger. The Palantir CEO is often photographed in quirky glasses and wild hair, quoting St Augustine or Nietzsche as if he were auditioning for a TED Talk on techno-humanism.
But behind the poetic digressions and philosophical posturing is a simple truth: Karp is building the operating system for perpetual war. And he’s winning.
For years, Karp was treated like a curiosity in Silicon Valley—too weird, blunt and tied to the military-industrial complex. “We were the freak show,” he once said, half-proud, half-wounded.
But today, he’s not just inside the tent. He’s drawing the blueprint for a new kind of techno-authoritarianism where AI doesn’t just observe the battlefield—it becomes the battlefield.
Palantir’s flagship product, AIP, is already embedded in US military operations. It helps with target acquisition, battlefield logistics, drone coordination, predictive policing and data fusion on a scale that would make the National Security Agency (NSA) blush.
Karp boasts that it gives “an unfair advantage to the noble warriors of the West.” Strip away the romantic rhetoric, and what he’s offering is algorithmic supremacy—war by machine, guided by code, sold with patriotic branding.
And corporate America is buying. Citi, BP, AIG and even Hertz now use Palantir’s product. The line between military and civilian application is evaporating.
Surveillance tech once designed for combat zones is now monitoring customers, employees and citizens. Karp doesn’t just want to power the Pentagon. He wants Palantir in schools, hospitals, courts and banks.
What makes him so dangerous isn’t just the tech—it’s the belief system. Karp talks about “transforming systems” and “rebuilding institutions” like he’s Moses on a mountaintop.
But beneath the messianic tone is something more chilling: a conviction that democratic drag—messy deliberation, public resistance, moral caution—is something to be bypassed. He’s not selling tools; he’s selling inevitability.
Karp doesn’t hide his politics. He’s pro-military, anti-transparency and openly contemptuous of Silicon Valley’s squeamishness. While other CEOs flirt with ethics boards and open letters, Karp says the quiet part loud: Palantir is here to wage war—on inefficiency, on bureaucracy, on enemies foreign and domestic.
He ridicules the idea that tech should be restrained by liberal hand-wringing or ethical hesitation. To Karp, the moral compass is obsolete. What matters is effectiveness—disruption, domination, and deployment. He speaks like someone who doesn’t just want to assist power, but to optimize it, weaponize it, and automate it.
This isn’t a CEO seeking balance; it’s a man forging the software layer of the surveillance state and calling it liberation. The software doesn’t just solve problems; it decides which problems are worth solving.
Palantir’s rise mirrors a “massive cultural shift,” Karp says. He’s right. America is leaning harder into surveillance, speed and simulated control. His systems offer all three.
And unlike Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg or SpaceX’s Elon Musk—who still pretend to sell social goods—Karp makes no apologies. He’s proud that his software underwrites missile strikes, ICE raids and predictive dragnet surveillance. He calls it progress.
And it is working. Palantir is now one of the most highly valued defense contractors in US history, trading at 200x projected earnings. Wall Street loves him, and Washington loves him more.
He’s already delivered TITAN vehicles to the US Army and spearheaded the AI-powered Maven program that turns satellite data into instant strike intelligence. That’s not just infrastructure; that’s imperial logistics.
The philosopher-warrior routine may impress investors and national security hawks, but the rest of us should be alarmed. Karp is selling a future where wars don’t need public support—just a backend.
He’s selling a future where morality is outsourced to code and every human interaction becomes a data point to be processed, scored and acted upon.
If Orwell warned us about Big Brother, Karp is quietly building his control room. Not with fanfare, not with propaganda—but with procurement contracts and PowerPoint decks. Not in backrooms with shadowy spymasters, but in full daylight with press releases and Q1 earnings calls.
While others sell platforms, Karp sells architecture—digital, total and permanent. His danger lies in the fact that he seems civilized. He quotes scripture, wears Patagonia and looks like a cool professor.
But behind the affectation is a man laying track for a future where dissent is a glitch, ambiguity is a flaw and the human is just another inefficiency to be engineered out.
His vision—total awareness, preemptive decision-making, seamless militarization of every institution—is, in many ways, truly terrifying. So, while the media obsesses over Trump’s theatrics, keep your eyes on Alex Karp.
The most dangerous man in America doesn’t shout, he codes.
Dr. Nathan Bryan is a nitric oxide biochemist who has researched nitric oxide, a hormone, for the past 18 years. Nitric oxide is a gas produced in the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. There is a steep decline in nitric oxide from age 30 onward. When endothelial cells can no longer make nitric oxide gas, they no longer dilate and the blood vessels become constricted, causing inflammation, stiff arteries and plaque deposition that starts cardiovascular disease. Nitric oxide deficiency can also cause diabetes and Alzheimer’s Disease. He told a story about his father who was a paraplegic and a diabetic and had wounds that would not heal for 4 years. But when Dr. Bryan gave him topical nitric oxide treatments, the wounds healed in 6 months. he says nitric oxide can kill infections.
He explained that to boost nitric oxide production, we must stop eating sugars and other foods that are high on the glycemic index because it binds to almost everything and acts as a toxin. It destroys the microbiome. He said that is why diabetics have a 10 times higher incidence of heart attack, stroke, all cause mortality, and more.
Most Americans are deficient in vitamin D that is necessary for the production of nitric oxide. Mouthwash, which is used by 2/3 of Americans, is very destructive and kills the oral microbiome that helps produce nitric oxide.
He recommends eating zero sugar, good high quality protein, good quality fats, and few carbs.
Note: Need To Know News reports the news and does not make any health claims. Please consult your own health care professional before taking any supplements or changing your diet..
Since day one of COVID in March 2020, I’ve had an issue with referring to the COVID-19 jabs as “gene therapy,” which suggests they provide a benefit. Webster’s defines THERAPY as:
A medical treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder, injury, or disease.
Consider the following:
Physical therapy, speech therapy, respiratory therapy, art therapy, family therapy, and occupational therapy. These are all ways to improve a health concern.
To the contrary, it has become more obvious every day that these shots were not designed to relieve or heal anything. They certainly didn’t make people healthier. In fact, they have only caused harm and led to increased disease and death.
Gene therapy is a medical treatment designed to intentionally alter a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. It involves delivering modified or corrected DNA (or sometimes RNA) into a patient’s cells to change how the cells work.
The goal is to either:
Replace a faulty or missing gene with a healthy one,
Inactivate (silence) a gene that is causing problems,
Introduce a new or modified gene to help the body fight a disease.
How did the catchy phrase “gene therapy” become so widely accepted? Like most things within the current Medical-Industrial-Complex, it has a long and twisted history.
Where did this erroneous designation come from?
Long before the discovery of the gene as part of the building blocks of living things, our species practiced various forms of genetic manipulation. The First International Congress of Genetics was held in 1899 in London. It was actually called the “International Conference on Hybridization and the Cross-Breeding of Varieties.” William Bateson, an English biologist, was the first person to describe the study of heredity as “genetics” at the Third International Congress of Genetics in 1906. [REF: Human Gene Therapy. 5:469-480 (1994)]
Genetic engineering was first used at the Sixth International Congress of Genetics held in 1932 in Ithaca, New York, and was taken to mean “the application of genetic principles to animal and plant breeding.” The term “gene therapy” was later coined to make the manipulation sound more acceptable than “human genetic engineering.”
Fast-forward to the 1960s, when the concept of gene therapy became the subject of an increasing number of articles and meetings. By the 1970s, an article in the prestigious journal Science discussed human gene therapy, the feasibility, and the ethics of cloning humans. Various researchers started to cautiously suggest the use of genetics for the predetermination of sex and selective reproduction (Davis B.D. Prospects for genetic intervention in man. Science, 170, 1279-1283. 1970.)
The development of retroviral vectors to insert genetic material into human cells was discovered in the early 1980s, which accelerated the acceptance of genetic manipulation as “gene therapy.” Once inside, the genetic material becomes part of the cell’s machinery, leading to long-term or even permanent changes in how the cell functions.
A paper published in 2019 conducted a worldwide electronic survey to identify the scope of cell and gene therapy products available on the market. The survey found 52 different cell tissue engineering techniques and gene therapy products with 69 market authorizations worldwide. Most products had been approved since 2010 and were conditionally authorized for use in rare cancers, genetic diseases, and other debilitating conditions. A single gene therapy treatment prices range from $5,501 in South Korea for tonogenchoncel-L, a type of treatment that stimulates knee cartilage regrowth, to more than $1,3M in Germany for alipogene tiparvovec, which treats a rare disease called lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD).
A second survey, done in 2023, found that as of January 1, 2022, the FDA and EMA (European Medicines Agency) had authorized 8 and 10 gene therapies, respectively, for rare conditions. Most of the research used a surrogate endpoint, a target that does not measure the intended outcome, but is used to predict the result or real outcome of a therapy. Primary outcomes for these gene therapies have shown very little direct benefit to the patient. Nonetheless, the cost of the therapies ranged from $200k to more than $ 2.1 M.
The Mode of Action Defines Gene Therapy Products (GTP)
No specific regulations existed before 2020 for mRNA injections as this lack of oversight is found in my articles:
“The current guidelines either do not apply, do not mention RNA therapeutics, or do not have a widely accepted definition.”
The lack of rules raised several problems with the technology. Different RNA drugs have very different legal statuses, and there is a lack of international agreement on their risks and how they should be designated. This article shows the extensive level of genetic tinkering that is under development. The many tables, charts, and diagrams, while easy to understand, will make your head spin.
According to their mode of action, mRNA jabs really should be classified as pro-vaccines, a takeoff on the concept of a pro-drug, which is an inactive drug that is converted into its active form by the liver or the kidneys. The injected mRNA must be translated into protein by the recipient’s cells – the injected substance is not the substance designed to give active “protection.” However, the FDA and the EMA have ignored this property regarding the mRNA COVID-19 jabs. In fact, since 2000, the EMA has maintained that, “Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases.” (Section 2.1 under “definitions”)
According to this paper,mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues, the legal definition of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is still not well understood, even by the manufacturers themselves.
2014: BioNTech founder, Ugur Sahin, stated, “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy, or somatic cell therapy.”
2020: Moderna, Inc. acknowledged in its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing that “currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.”
2021: Stefan Oelrich, head of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made remarks about mRNA injectables during the opening ceremony of the World Health Summit. Oelrich went on to say:
“Ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example of cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, ‘Would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in a way that was maybe not possible before.”
This comment was intended to highlight how the acceptance of mRNA jabs during the COVID-19 pandemic might positively influence the public’s willingness to accept future biotechnological innovations. However, the disasters that continue to be exposed almost weekly may be just the opposite of what the Pharmaceutical masters were hoping for.
The Irreversibility of the synthetic mRNA jab
While natural mRNA in the human body degrades rapidly, the synthetic mRNA used in COVID-19 vaccines has been chemically modified with pseudouridine to resist degradation, persist almost indefinitely inside cells, and can be reverse-transcribed into the recipient’s DNA by cellular mechanisms like LINE-1 retrotransposons.
LINE-1, which stands for Long Interspersed Nuclear Element-1, acts like a built-in copying machine that can turn RNA into DNA inside your own cells. There is experimentally supported evidence that LINE-1can insert the jab’s mRNA into human DNA, especially under conditions of inflammation or cell stress.
A 2022 in vitro studydemonstrated that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine could be converted into DNA inside human liver cells. Therefore, claims that mRNA vaccines cannot alter DNA were based on assumptions that have been essentially scientifically disproven.
The Catastrophe of the COVID-19 jab: DNA contamination
Over the last year, the evidence for synthetic DNA contamination and other undisclosed constituents in COVID-19 injectable products has continued to mount. Research from the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia has combined to demonstrate that the findings are not flukes and point to yet more undisclosed health risks from the COVID jabs. DNA contamination is a serious concern for several reasons.
Concern #1: Contaminant DNA can enter human cells.
When vaccines are injected into muscle tissue — especially those using lipid nanoparticles like Pfizer and Moderna — both the intended mRNA and any contaminating DNA can be absorbed into cells. Lipid nanoparticles act like Trojan horses, efficiently delivering whatever is packaged inside, not just the designed mRNA but also any stray DNA fragments.
Concern #2: DNA is far more durable (stable, persistent) than mRNA.
While mRNA is designed to degrade quickly, DNA is inherently more stable and can persist much longer inside the body. Unlike mRNA, which cells are programmed to destroy, foreign DNA may linger and interact with the cell’s internal machinery over extended periods of time, increasing the potential for unintended consequences.
Concern #3: DNA can integrate into the host genome.
Human cells have natural mechanisms, such as LINE-1 retrotransposons (see above) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ).
NHEJ is one of the body’s main ways to repair broken DNA. It’s called non-homologous because the repair does not require matching DNA ends to put the pieces back together accurately. Instead, the broken ends are simply glued back together, often in a very quick but sloppy way. NHEJ is error-prone and can grab some of the free-floating, contaminant DNA and stitch it into the sequence.
If this integration occurs in the wrong place, it could disrupt normal genes, leading to mutations or cancer. It could also insert oncogenes—genes that promote cancer growth—or trigger autoimmune reactions by causing the body to recognize newly made proteins as foreign.
Concern #4: Regulatory guidelines regarding DNA contamination were violated.
Gene-based products like mRNA jabs are supposed to contain extremely low levels of residual DNA, traditionally limited to about 10 nanograms per dose, a threshold that was already considered risky by CBER and the FDA. Nevertheless, the residual cells were allowed. However, independent lab testing, such as the work done by Kevin McKernan, discovered DNA levels in mRNA vaccine vials that far exceeded those limits, sometimes by hundreds of times.
Concern #5: The DNA fragments were not found in random debris but were engineered plasmid DNA with functional components.
These plasmids contained strong genetic elements like HIV promoters, designed to drive high gene expression, and antibiotic resistance genes such as those conferring kanamycin resistance. If these functional DNA pieces integrate into human cells, they could activate unwanted genes or create persistent and uncontrolled changes in cellular function.
The significance of the contamination story lies not just in the elevated risks for cancer and the possible fallout from modified genetic material and interaction with the human genome. Perhaps more importantly, it provides hard evidence for demonstrating both the horribly shoddy quality of the shots themselves and the equally horrendous ‘regulatory’ processes which enabled their use.
CONCLUSION
The abstract of this 2024 article by Helene Banoun says it best:
“Regulatory agencies adapted mRNA injections as a matter of urgency. Now that the emergency has passed, it is time to consider the safety issues associated with this rapid approval…
Post-marketing studies have shown that mRNA passes into breast milk and could have adverse effects on breast-fed babies. Long-term expression, integration into the genome, transmission to the germline, [in adults and infants] passage into sperm, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, genotoxicity, and tumorigenicity should be studied in light of the adverse events reported in pharmacovigilance databases. The potential horizontal transmission (i.e., shedding) should also be assessed. In-depth vaccine vigilance should be carried out.”
An even better idea? This genetic manipulation of mRNA shots and the looming saRNA shot must stop. The best way to get them to stop is to continually just SAY NO.
How Misleading Statistics, Suppressed Data, and 30 Documented Toxicities Reveal the Dark Truth About the World’s Most Prescribed Drug
Cholesterol on Trial: A Molecule Maligned, But Not Guilty
Statins, first approved by the FDA in 1987, quickly became one of the most widely prescribed drug classes in the world1. Their claim to fame? Reducing cholesterol and, by extension, heart disease. But after more than three decades, the scientific and ethical integrity of this narrative is unraveling.
Not only is cholesterol vital to human health–playing a central role in hormone synthesis, brain function, and immune resilience2–but the actual effectiveness of statins has been drastically overstated through a statistical sleight-of-hand: the manipulation of relative risk reduction (RRR) vs. absolute risk reduction (ARR)3.
How Statin Benefits Are Overstated: Understanding RRR vs. ARR
To understand how statin benefits have been grossly inflated, we need to examine how pharmaceutical outcomes are framed.
Let’s say a study reports that statins reduce the risk of heart attack by 36%. That sounds powerful, doesn’t it? But this figure represents relative risk reduction–a proportional comparison between two groups. It tells you nothing about how many people were actually helped.
Now let’s look at absolute risk reduction, which tells you the actual difference in outcomes between the statin and placebo group. For example:
In the Heart Protection Study, 2% of people in the statin group had a non-fatal heart attack versus 3% in the placebo group4.
The relative risk reduction was 33%–but the absolute risk reduction was only 1%.
This means that 99 out of 100 people who took statins got no measurable benefit in terms of heart attack prevention. Yet the drug was marketed as reducing heart attacks by “a third.”
This framing is not just misleading–it borders on fraudulent health communication, especially when used to justify mass prescribing, medical coercion, and long-term exposure to a drug class with over 30 documented toxic effects5.
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT): The Inconvenient Metric
Another way to cut through the hype is to look at the Number Needed to Treat (NNT)–how many people must take a drug for one person to benefit:
For statins used in primary prevention (people with no prior history of heart disease), the NNT ranges from 104 to 250 over five years6.
For every 100+ people on statins, one may benefit while many if not everyone receiving them may suffer adverse effects.
Cognitive impairment: poorly quantified, but increasing with age7
This paints a grim picture: you’re often more likely to be harmed than helped by statins–especially if you’re taking them without a previous cardiovascular event.
The Reality Behind Statin Risk Reduction
Pharmaceutical-funded studies consistently focus on relative risk to inflate perceived benefit, while burying or ignoring side effect data, often excluding early dropout participants through “run-in” periods8. This methodological maneuver masks harms and creates the illusion of safety and efficacy.
Furthermore, statin trials often fail to assess or report mortality benefits–the most meaningful health outcome. In many landmark studies, no significant reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in those taking statins versus placebo, especially in primary prevention populations9.
Why These Deceptions Persist
The RRR vs. ARR distortion persists because:
Doctors are rarely trained in medical statistics, and most trust summary statements from pharmaceutical reps or guidelines.
Patients are never informed that “36% fewer heart attacks” may only mean “1 fewer person out of 100.”
Medical journals and media often repeat press releases without examining the actual numbers.
This manipulation enables statins to remain a blockbuster drug despite mounting evidence of harms outweighing benefits for the vast majority of users.
A Better Model: Transparency, Informed Consent, and Natural Alternatives
It’s time to reject manipulative statistics and restore biological literacy to medicine. Heart disease is a multi-causal, inflammatory condition, not a cholesterol problem. Suppressing cholesterol while disrupting over 30 cellular systems is not health–it’s symptom suppression through biochemical violence.
Effctive Natural Interventions Backed by Real Outcomes:
Coenzyme Q10 – Vital for mitochondrial health, depleted by statins10.
Red Yeast Rice – Natural statin alternative, but requires careful formulation11.
Vitamin K2 – Prevents vascular calcification, especially in statin users12.
Lifestyle-based prevention – Diet, movement, breathwork, sleep, and emotional healing have proven impacts on heart risk reduction14.
These interventions don’t require distortion of statistics or suppression of symptoms–they work by supporting the body’s intelligence rather than overriding it.
The Protective Power of Cholesterol: Nature’s Unsung Hero
As the narrative around statins begins to unravel, so too must the myth that low cholesterol equals better health. Cholesterol is not only essential–it’s protective. It has antimicrobial properties, supports neuroplasticity, and is vital for repairing damaged tissues. Numerous studies have linked low cholesterol to increased risks of cancer, depression, aggression, and hemorrhagic stroke.15 One longitudinal study found that men with total cholesterol below 160 mg/dL had double the risk of suicide and accidental death compared to those with moderate levels.16 Cholesterol is also a first responder to vascular injury, acting as a biological patch to endothelial damage–not the cause of it. By suppressing this multi-functional molecule, statins may weaken the body’s natural defense systems, trading a reduction in biomarkers for a decline in true physiological resilience.
Conclusion: Question the Numbers, Reclaim Your Health
The story of statins is not just about flawed pharmacology–it’s about statistical manipulation, industry capture, and the danger of treating biomarkers as disease.
Next time you hear that a drug “reduces risk by 36%,” ask: Relative to what? And at what cost?
References
1. Endo A. “A historical perspective on the discovery of statins.” Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2010;86(5):484-93.
2. Ravnskov U, et al. “Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality.” BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010401.
16. Iribarren C, Jacobs WS, Sidney S, Hulley SB. “Serum total cholesterol and risk of hospitalization, and death from suicide and violence.” Psychiatry Res. 1995;58(1):77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(95)02638-0
Catherine Austin Fitts said that $21 trillion in taxpayer funds have been funneled into the US space program and underground bunkers. The underground cities were constructed from 1998 to 2015 for elites in anticipation of a doomsday extinction event. She said there were about 170 underground bases across the US and some are located beneath the ocean. She added that a secret military energy systems is likely powering these sites.
Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted on the Theo Von show that he has an underground tunnel on his property in Hawaii, but refused to give details.
Congressman Tim Moore showed the tunnel underneath the Lincoln Library in the Capitol in a recent video (read more here).
.
From The Economic Times:
A former Bush administration official has made startling claims, alleging that the United States government has built an extensive underground network of bunkers worth $21 trillion. The bunkers, as the official said, were constructed from 1998 till 2015 and with ‘unauthorised spending’, according to a report.
Catherine Austin Fitts, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1989 until 1990, under the former President George HW Bush, made these claims during an interview on Tucker Carlson’s podcast. Fitts stated that the hidden funds were funnelled into construction of around 170 underground bases across the US. She added that some of these bunkers are located beneath the oceans, The Independent reported.
Fitts told Carlson that it was built in anticipation of a doomsday. Moreover, she suggested these bases were designed to shelter the elite and powerful, while also serving as sites for secret government projects, including space programs.
Mystery of Missing Trillions
According to The Independent report, Fitts cited a 2017 report by Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore which probed into massive unauthorised financial adjustments within the Departments of Defence and Housing & Urban Development.
Skidmore’s report mentioned that $21 trillion in unsupported adjustments was recorded between 1998 and 2015. This raised questions on the whereabouts of these funds.
The 2015 report indicated that the US Army had $6.5 trillion in unsupported adjustments, despite an annual budget of just $122 billion. These adjustments are normally minor, which made the scale of these figures highly unusual.
Underground Cities and Secret Bases
Fitts inferred that at least 170 underground facilities exist on the US soil and near its coastlines, after conducting a two-year probe and reviewing available documents. She suspects there are more facilities worldwide.
The former federal officer described a sophisticated underground transportation network and hinted that a secret military energy system is likely powering these sites. Fitts further suggested that some of the fast-flying unidentified aerial phenomena spotted in recent years could be connected to it.
Sherri Tenpenny created a table showing all the shots recommended for US babies during their first year of life. Nass reveals the DPT dosing secret
Beyfortus is a monoclonal antibody never before tried on newborns (ideally given in the hospital at birth) and Vitamin K is not a vaccine and used to enhance blood clotting.
A Doctor’s Voice of Reason About Vaccines and Current Medical Events
By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
And here is the table she has invited everyone to share:
And below is a Nass-produced table showing how the infant Diphtheria-Pertussis(whooping cough)-Tetanus shots given to 2 month old babies have much higher amounts of antigens than those given to adults. Is this because the adults complain but babies can’t talk?
There were 4 licensed DPT vaccines in the US—2 for little kids and 2 for everyone else. Boostrix and Infanrix (the brand names for the adult and baby versions) were made by GSK (the rix at the end stands for Rixensart, Belgium where there is a manufacturing facility owned by GSK).
Adacel and Daptacel were made by Sanofi.
Now, compare the amounts of toxoids given to babies versus adults. Babies get twice the tetanus toxoid as an adult that might weight 10-20 times more from the GSK vaccines for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus. Babies get 10 times the diphtheria toxoid dose as adults in the GSK shots. Babies get 3 times the pertussis toxoid, the FHA (filamentous hemaglutinin) and the pertactin as adults from the GSK shots.
Sanofi’s shots gives babies 2 times the tetanus toxoid, 7.5 times the diphtheria toxoid, and 4 times the pertussis toxoid as adults.
Would adults tolerate the large doses we give to babies? Would someone please explain these dosing choices?
And how could I forget? The DTP vaccines recommended by CDC during every single pregnancy were never approved by FDA for pregnancy.
•DMSO is a safe and naturally occurring substance that is remarkably effective for a wide range of diseases including pain, injuries, and strokes.
•DMSO effectively dissolves a variety of medications and can transport them throughout the body. This increases their potency, makes it possible to administer them through the skin, and allows them to target things deep within the body (e.g., resistant infections) that other therapies have difficulty reaching.
•Through various mechanisms, DMSO selectively targets cancer cells and simultaneously mitigates the consequences of cancer therapies. It also brings conventional and natural cancer therapies to tumors, thereby significantly increasing the potency of these therapies (while simultaneously allowing a much lower and less toxic dose to be used).
•When DMSO is combined with hematoxylin (a dye widely used in pathology), it becomes a highly potent cancer treatment, both harnessing DMSO’s intrinsic anticancer properties and directly destroying cancer cells. It is also highly specific to targeting cancers while not affecting normal cells, thereby allowing it to dissolve cancers at doses that have virtually no toxicity to the patient.
•Despite its ingredients being relatively easy to procure and producing remarkable results, this therapy (like many other alternative cancer treatments) was almost completely forgotten. Fortunately, a narrow thread of knowledge has kept this sixty-year-old discovery alive, most recently through a doctor who spent the last fifteen years refining this lost therapy and successfully treating cancer patients with it.
•This article will discuss everything known about DMSO-hematoxylin, such as its mechanisms, which cancers it responds to (e.g., it’s very effective for leukemias along with their associated anemias and can often treat advanced cancers no other treatment works for), and with how to use it both at home and within a medical setting.
Over the last six months, I’ve worked to bring the public’s attention to dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) a forgotten natural therapy which rapidly treats a wide range of conditions and that many studies have shown is very safe (provided it’s used correctly), and, most importantly (thanks to the 1994 DSHEA act which legalized all natural therapies) is now readily available. Since I believe DMSO has an immense amount to offer to the medical community and individual patients, I’ve thus diligently worked to compile the evidence that would best make the case for its rediscovery. As such, throughout this series, I’ve presented over a thousand studies that DMSO effectively treats:
Strokes, paralysis, a wide range of neurological disorders (e.g., Down Syndrome and dementia), and many circulatory disorders (e.g., Raynaud’s, varicose veins, hemorrhoids), which I discussed here.
A wide range of tissue injuries, such as sprains, concussions, burns, surgical incisions, and spinal cord injuries (discussed here).
Chronic pain (e.g., from a bad disc, bursitis, arthritis, or complex regional pain syndrome), which I discussed here.
A wide range of autoimmune, protein, and contractile disorders such as scleroderma, amyloidosis, and interstitial cystitis (discussed here).
A variety of head conditions, such as tinnitus, vision loss, dental problems, and sinusitis (discussed here).
A wide range of internal organ diseases such as pancreatitis, infertility, liver cirrhosis, and endometriosis (discussed here).
A wide range of skin conditions such as burns, varicose veins, acne, hair loss, ulcers, skin cancer, and many autoimmune dermatologic diseases (discussed here).
Many challenging infectious conditions, including chronic bacterial infections, herpes, and shingles (discussed here).
While unbelievable, consider for a moment this 1980 report by 60 Minutes that corroborates much of that:
Fortunately, much in the same way DMSO’s caught on in the 1960s, providing that evidence again has allowed it to make a rapid resurgence (e.g., I’ve now received over 2000 stories from readers who’ve often had remarkable improvements from using it).
Of the myriad of uses for DMSO, the least appreciated one is its applications in cancer due to the politics around “unproven” cancer therapies:
Dr. Stanley Jacob [the pioneer of DMSO] also is acquainted with Tucker’s work. In fact, he telephoned Tucker a few days before the Mike Wallace 60 Minutes show on CBS-TV to check out progress on the cancer treatment. Jacob plays down the DMSO-cancer connection, because he has enough trouble getting the substance recognized for all of its other special uses. He doesn’t want to have to fight off the label of “cancer quackery” as well.
•DMSO causes a wide range of cancer cells to transform back into normal cells.
•DMSO slows the growth of many cancers.
•DMSO allows the immune system to target and eliminate cancers it previously was unable to remove.
•DMSO treats many challenging complications of cancer such as cancer pain and amyloidosis from multiple myeloma.
•DMSO protects tissue from radiation and chemotherapy injuries.
•DMSO makes many cancer therapies (e.g., radiation or chemotherapy) more potent, thereby ensuring both a higher treatment success rate and far less complications (as less toxic doses are being used).
Remarkably, despite DMSO’s anticancer properties routinely being used in lab experiments (including those seeking to find anticancer agents with those same anticancer properties), the cancer field has a striking blind spot to DMSO’s use, so in the existing literature, it is almost never discussed as a potential therapeutic.
Of these many uses, I believe the two most noteworthy are DMSO’s ability to mitigate the challenging complications of cancer (e.g., cancer pain or protecting healthy tissue from radiation therapy) and its ability to potentiate other anti-cancer agents.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To see how others have benefitted from this newsletter, click here!
Combination DMSO Therapies
One of the major advantages and risks of DMSO is that it can bring substances through the skin and significantly increase their potency in the body. On one hand, this is quite advantageous as it makes it possible to administer things which would otherwise require injections through the skin and for much lower doses of them to be needed to get results (e.g., as I showed here, antimicrobials mixed with DMSO are often able to treat a wide range of chronic infections which otherwise resist antimicrobial therapy). However, on the flip side, it greatly increases the risk of toxicity, either by accidentally bringing toxic compounds (e.g., pesticides) into the body that were on the skin prior to applying DMSO (or that were touched afterwards), or increasing the potency of a drug taken in combination with it.
Since natural therapies are typically much less toxic than conventional pharmaceuticals and easily available (rather than requiring a prescription) over the years, people have tried combining DMSO with many of them and frequently found significant advantages from mixing them together DMSO.
This also holds true in the field of cancer care, and from reviewing all of the ways in which DMSO has been used to treat cancer, I believe the most promising applications (and which had the strongest data supporting their human use) came from DMSO being used in combination with another natural therapy. Unfortunately, the number of substances DMSO can be combined with is almost endless, and as such, the DMSO field has only scratched the surface of what it can be combined with to treat cancer. Many highly potent cancer treatments are likely waiting to be discovered once the right things are combined with DMSO.
Note: somewhat analogously, in the hundreds of studies I identified that examined if DMSO could differentiate a specific tumor type or improve a particular cancer-related gene (or protein), most of them found DMSO did create an improvement. As such, many other aspects of cancer would likely also be seen to improve following DMSO if they were to be tested.
Hematoxylin
Hematoxylin is a powder obtained from the logwood tree (e.g., grinding the heartwood up, boiling it in water to dissolve the hematoxylin present, and evaporating that mixture so only the powder remains). That tree is native to Central America and was originally used by the Mayans to stain cotton and as a medicinal (e.g., to treat diarrhea and dysentery). After its discovery by the Spanish in 1502, a massive market for it quickly developed due to the textile industry’s need to establish a dependable dye. Before long it began to be mixed with a variety of metal salts so it would remain in fabric (and not wash out).
Since many cellular processes are transparent and hence difficult to see without dyes that can stain them, much later (around 1830) hematoxylin began to be used in pathology where it was discovered (once oxidized into hematein and attached to a metal salt) it was remarkably effective for staining many components of cells including DNA. In turn, because of how well it works, almost two hundred years later, it remains one of the primary stains used in pathology to evaluate tissue (it’s the “H” in H & E stains).
Note: like hematoxylin, DMSO is also obtained from trees. Because each of these compounds is so widely used, they are also very affordable.
Tucker’s Discovery
Currently, most of the drugs we use are developed by a mechanistic system where biologically relevant targets in the body (e.g., receptors or enzymes) are identified through research, then compounds are mass screened through for their ability to affect those targets, with the ones that can elicit some type of pertinent change then run through a funnel (which can involve animal and then sometimes human testing) to identify which from that large pool of candidates elicits a benefit. Note: compounds are sometimes custom-designed to affect receptors or identified through AI systems rather than physically testing a broad swathe of them.
In contrast, previously, drug design was much more of a hit or miss process, and frequently incredible discoveries would happen either by luck or under a completely mistaken assumption.
For example, the first antibiotic was developed by mixing a substance known to be toxic to bacteria (arsenic) with a dye that stained bacterial cell walls under the theory that the dye would allow arsenic to selectively target bacteria rather than the body (with almost all the attempts failing). After decades of attempts were made to replicate this approach, another dye that functioned as an effective antibiotic was found, but before long it was discovered that the antimicrobial agent was not the dye itself but rather a colorless metabolic product of it, sulfanilamide.
Similarly, one of the most remarkable therapies I know of (Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation) was originally developed under the belief that exposing the entire circulation to UV light would sterilize the bloodstream and hence treat a lethal infection. This did not work (it killed the test dogs) but before long, the inventor accidentally only irradiated a small fraction of the dog’s blood and got a remarkable results as inputting a small amount of UV light into the circulation transforms human physiology and allows the self-healing capacity of the body to treat a wide range of illnesses (e.g. UVBI is a highly effective treatment for bacterial and viral infections, circulatory disorders and autoimmune diseases).
Hematoxylin likewise follows a similar journey. Eli Jordon Tucker, Jr., M.D. was a highly respected orthopedic surgeon in Texas (with many awards and honorary status in a numerous medical societies) who had a wealth of surgical experience and had discovered a variety of pioneering orthopedic techniques from bone research he conducted as a hobby (e.g., he gained renown for discovering how to graft bones from one species to another). Tucker’s bone research required him to purchase cattle from a meat packing company, and in the process, he noticed many of the cows butchers (and meat inspectors) were accepting for slaughter had large cancers covering their faces.
Observing those cancers made Tucker wonder if there was some type of cancer-resisting antibody in those cows, so he began administering extracts of their blood into lab rats and mice with cancers and observed anticancer activity for certain cancers. Since it was unclear how much of a change was occurring, Tucker looked for a dye that could stain the tumors, and eventually realized hematoxylin was the perfect dye because it stained the cancers one color and normal cells another color. Unfortunately, hematoxylin had poor solubility and could not dissolve in normal laboratory solvents or enter solutions, so his ability to use it in his experiments was limited.
So, once DMSO (a potent solvent), came into use around 1963, Tucker tried using it and quickly discovered DMSO not only dissolved hematoxylin but could dissolve a very high concentration of it (e.g., 25g of hematoxylin could be dissolved in 62mL of DMSO). Furthermore, this mixture was excellent for staining cancers and making them visible (e.g., they stood out under the microscope and in gross dissection) as it concentrated in the cancers, but DMSO simultaneously did not stain any other tissues in rats. Most importantly there was a “marked increase in central necrosis of the neoplasm” indicating this mixture could potentially eliminate cancers while sparing normal cells.
Note: hematoxylin (dissolved in carboxymethylcellulose), like many other compounds, had previously been screened for its anticancer activity and in the absence of DMSO, had none, which I suspect was in part due to hematoxylin rather than hematein (which hematoxylin rapidly turns into within the body) being used.
Tucker then decided to conduct toxicity studies (initially in dogs) where he found high concentrations of IV DMSO mixed with hematoxylin had no toxicity to any of the tissues or organs he examined (and did not accumulate in any non-cancerous tissue). Curiously the mixture he made was far less toxic than IV DMSO alone (which is extremely safe and only had toxicity issues at fairly high concentrations), with roughly four times as much IV DMSO being possible for animals to tolerate once it was mixed with hematoxylin. Note: the only physiologic change he observed from D-hematoxylin was that blood urea nitrogen would typically drop by around 50%, indicating this mixture improved kidney function.
He then began treating spontaneous cancers in animals (e.g., in horses, dogs and cows), which included terminal cases with massive tumors (e.g., a large-cell lymphosarcoma, a small-cell lymphosarcoma, generalized malignant melanoma, a squamous cell carcinoma) along with an osteogenic sarcoma. In all of these cases, there was a prompt response, and the animal subsequently recovered.
Note: Tucker found that hematoxylin alone had no effect on cancer cells (as did previous researchers who tested iton a carcinoma, sarcoma and leukemia cell lines) while subsequent investigators found DMSO alone had a minimal anticancer effects compared to the mixture, whereas they could not administer hematoxylin alone (as without DMSO it is essentially not soluble in an IV solution). Going forward (for brevity) I will refer to the DMSO hematoxylin mixture as “D-hematoxylin” (which is a term I made up while writing this).
William Daniel, former Governor of Guam, one of Tucker’s friends, phoned and told the doctor: “E.J., I have a cancerous dog on my ranch who is suffering terribly. Could you do anything to help him, or should I have him put to death?”
“I’d love to try,” answered Tucker. “I’ll send my technician to pick up the dog right away.”
The technician brought the animal to Tucker’s veterinarian, Dr. Collins, for examination. The vet diagnosed that large-cell lymphosarcoma was permeating the dog’s body. “The poor animal is choking to death from the tumors in his throat, and he has large tumors all over his body,” said Dr. Collins over the telephone. “I don’t think he’ll live long enough to be transported to your laboratory.”
Tucker said, “Transfuse him, give him some blood fast, and let me have him for treatment.”
The physician took the dog, which was barely alive, into the laboratory and injected DMSO-hematoxylon solution intravenously. His technician took over the work and gave the injections daily. Within two weeks, all the tumors had disappeared. It seemed like a miracle to the technician.
Upon Tucker’s examination of the dog, he found that all the large-cell lymphosarcoma tumors had completely regressed. The huge masses in the neck and over the whole body of the animal had gone away, and the dog came out of the treatment completely cured.
The dog was thriving at the laboratory when an unlucky accident caused his death. He ate a large quantity of some meat contaminated with Malathion, an insecticide poison. Tucker performed an autopsy, which revealed no active cancer cells in the vestigial remains of the previously large lymphomatous nodules. Many ghost cells—cells that were formerly cancer but weren’t any kind of cells anymore —appeared in the microscopic sections. Not a single distinguishable cancer cell remained in the dog.
Additionally, in 2019, long after Tucker conducted his toxicity experiments, to help the Ecuador team, Roger Tapia, a veterinary student conducted his own LD50 study as a graduation thesis by giving intraperitoneal injections of D-hematoxylin to 70 mice and determined that:
•The D-hematoxylin LD50 was 1257.16 mg/kg of hematoxylin (± 159.10 mg/kg), which is very safe (and between 10 to 100 times less toxic than many commonly used cancer drugs). Note: the LD50 of hematoxylin alone is also fairly low (e.g., the oral LD50 is over 2000mg/kg), but relatively little data exits on its actual LD50 as it is not intended for human consumption (e.g., data only exists for the oral LD50 and the actual LD50 is unknown as a high enough dose to be lethal to half of those exposed was never tested).
•At lower doses (e.g., 5.5mg/kg to 550mg/kg) low activity, tremors and accelerated breathing were observed that regressed after an hour, while at higher doses, spasms, suffocation and eventually death occurred (likely due to respiratory collapse). Note: the authors of the study suspected these symptoms were likely due to the shock of an intraperitoneal injection and it being injected too quickly (all of which can be avoided with a careful IV administration).
•In rats that died, the presence of fluid accumulation was observed in the abdominal cavity and surrounding the lungs which was attributed to vasodilation and increased vascular fragility.
•At all doses (including lethal ones), the mixture did not produce any changes in the shape, weight, or size of the internal organs (which I assumed was due to the fact D-hematoxylin does not accumulate in normal tissues).
From these experiments, Tucker gradually determined a workable dosing for D-hematoxylin and hence was prepared to administer it to humans. He began telling his hospital associates of his findings, and before long was approached by a colleague who had a comatose female patient on the verge of dying from inoperable fibrosarcoma. As she was his first human patient, Tucker gave her a very slow infusion, and over weeks of treatment, the tumor gradually receded until it was small enough to remove (at which point she had a full recovery).
Note: in our modern medical bureaucracy a treatment like this most likely could have never gotten approval.
Following this, he treated numerous patients, and due to the FDA banning DMSO research in 1965, conducted a small trial in Panama with a colleague. After much difficulty, in 1968, he got his cases published. There he reported on 37 patients he’d treated with recurrent cancers (excluding those who were terminal or those with markedly elevated BUN). Of them, 70.5% of those who were also on another treatment (radiation, surgery or chemotherapy such as 5-fluorouracil (5FU), methotrexate, and thiotepa) improved, 38.1% who received hematoxylin improved (typically only their symptoms but there was one case of a leiomyosarcoma regressing and being surgically removed) while only 5.4% of those receiving conventional therapy improved.
Younger patients with aggressive cancers generally responded better than older ones, as did those with minimal or no prior chemotherapy and those receiving higher total doses (e.g., 50 infusions) or combined topical and IV D-hematoxylin.
Note: over the decades Tucker was reported to have given his mixture intravenously, orally, intralesionally, intra-arterially, rectally, and topically (with topical applications of D-hematoxylin being particularly helpful for cervical cancer). Conversely, subsequent doctors I’ve spoken to (who found those routes of administration worked) made the obvious conclusion to try injecting D-hematoxylin into tumors, but oddly (in their limited attempts) never found that route worked.
In contrast, patients with more terminal conditions had worse outcomes (something which has held true with virtually every alternative cancer therapy—which is unfortunate since they only get approved for use in terminal cases after everything else failed). Additionally, patients with large-cell lymphosarcoma, giant-cell bone tumors, leiomyosarcoma, and adenocarcinomas of the breast or ovary showed positive responses to D-hematoxylin, while those with squamous-cell carcinomas (cervix, lung, or mouth) and adenocarcinomas (prostate, stomach) exhibited minor positive responses but ultimately succumbed to their cancer. Note: another author reported D-hematoxylin was effective against squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, lymphosarcoma, lymphoma, and such associated malignancies such as Hodgkin’s disease.
Many of these cases were quite noteworthy. Both large-cell lymphosarcoma cases showed complete regression with no recurrence well beyond Tucker’s June 1968 report (one patient died from a heart attack ten years later, while the other remained alive decades later). Additionally, one case of malignant giant-cell tumor, affecting about one-third of the femur, experienced complete regression alongside new bone regeneration.
•Finally, in those 37 cases, complications were minimal (including in one patient who was continually assessed over the course of 72 [2mL] of D-hematoxylin treatments). The most common side-effect in Tucker’s patients were fevers in patients with large tumors (which typically lasted around 35 minutes and were less severe if smaller doses were used or the tumor had begun to shrink). Additionally, if D-hematoxylin was infused too quickly, a few patients developed shortness of breath (which immediately resolved if the infusion was stopped and Demerol was administered). Rashes could also sometimes occur (which were suspected to be due to the absorption of necrotic tumor material). The most severe complications occurred from absorbing large amounts of necrotic tissue matter (e.g., terminal patients with high uric acid levels would stop urinating once too much tumor necrosis occurred) so Tucker was much more cautious with these cases and used smaller doses so he did not eliminate the tumor too quickly. Finally, no changes were observed in the eyes (which was a longstanding unfounded concern about DMSO) or blood cell counts (which is a common issue with chemotherapy).
Note: since this paper (which includes many detailed patient cases) is quite hard to find online, I am including a copy of it.
Sadly, after Tucker published that article, the American Cancer Society (in 1971) published a bulletin it sent to all 58 of its divisions stating D-hematoxylin was an “unproven” remedy which provided very little of substance to refute its efficacy and simultaneously made no mention of any potential toxicity (suggesting D-hematoxylin is quite safe as any signs toxicity would have been used to discredit the therapy). Tucker sadly received so much pushback from his colleagues for using an “unapproved drug” (e.g., despite having earned great respect in the medical community, he was expelled from the staffs of two hospitals for administering the treatment and had a real fear of losing his medical license) so he never published anything further. Similarly, he became much more selective in who he would treat (e.g., only pre-terminal patients and those in a destitute state), and typically did so either for free or a very minimal fee (but nonetheless successfully treated many cancer patients in the years that followed).
Note: Andrew Ivy (who was arguably the most influential doctor in America at the end of World War 2), like Tucker theorized there must be a factor in the blood which resisted cancer, and eventually came across a isolate (from cows injected with a cancer causing fungus who’d then recovered) which did just that. After refusing to sell out to the AMA (who frequently tried to buy out competing therapies), he was blacklisted by both the FDA and AMA, and despite having thousands of compelling and well documented cases showing it worked, effectively had his entire reputation destroyed because he’d promoted an “unproven cancer cure.”
Some of Tucker’s other patients included:
•A 3-year-old boy with diabetes insipidus (which requires routine vasopressin injections) who in 1972 had a terminal case of metastatic endothelioma and Letterer-Siwe disease, where solid palpable cancerous lesions had spread throughout the boy’s head and body, which his doctors had given up on and expected him to die within a few years. Even worse, the father abandoned them to escape confronting the cancer, leaving the mother destitute and struggling to survive. Tucker then gave the boy’s desperate mother a dropper bottle of D-hematoxylin to take 5 drops in distilled water every morning on an empty stomach and instructed her to let her doctors know what she was doing.
Mrs. Lindsey returned the next day totally distraught. Between heavy sobs and tears, she explained how the Texas Children’s Hospital staff became enraged and told her never to come back if she used Tucker’s medicine for her son’s cancer. This meant that her supply of Pitressin for treating the little boy’s water diabetes was completely cut off, since she had no money with which to buy more.
This scene took place within earshot of other patients sitting in Tucker’s reception room. They passed the hat and in a couple of minutes raised $75 for the mother to buy her child’s diabetic medicine.
Fortunately, Tucker’s treatment worked, the boy fully recovered (much to the shock of his ENT doctor who’d diagnosed him as terminal) and when last checked on in 1992 was a large, strong, and healthy 29 year-old boy.
•A woman who’d a seen a three hour 1972 news program by anchorman Ron Stone of KHOU-TV Houston about Tucker’s treatments who sought him out as she had a disseminated large-cell lymphosarcoma (e.g., sizable tumors in her lungs, the common iliac arteries, and the lymph nodes around her aorta) with an expected six month survival (which she had been on high doses of radiation and chemotherapy to no avail for and eventually had to stop the chemotherapy due to a very low white blood cell count). Tucker started her on five D-hematoxylin infusions a week, she stopped experiencing negative side effects from radiation, and a year later was completely cured (and remained so after 28 years of follow-up).
Note: if anyone in Houston can get a copy of that news program from the station (which I know happened as it was mentioned by multiple DMSO authors who provided different details about it), it would be greatly appreciated.
•A 41-year old man with a disseminated lymphosarcoma which had failed treatment with maximum radiation and chemotherapy who was expected to only survive for three more months. He received IV D-hematoxylin every other day for three months, after which the tumor completely disappeared, the man stopped further treatment, and had no recurrence up to his death eight years later (from a heart attack).
•A 44-year old man with advanced lymphosarcoma (including a massive lump on his neck) who had been treated for five years with maximum doses of radiation and chemotherapy (which amongst other things left him with an almost complete absence of white blood cells). Daily IV D-hematoxylin shrank his neck tumor from 22.5 inches to 18.75 inches (which was enough for his neck to return to a normal appearance), but he subsequently succumbed to the cancer as he had metastasis throughout his internal organs.
•A 36-year-old man with terminal grade 4 Hodgkin’s disease (e.g., large cancerous nodules on his neck and face, severe swelling in his abdomen and legs, and congestive heart failure) was admitted to the hospital with a prognosis of only days to live. He received D-hematoxylin intravenously and topically over his lungs and after four days, he was well enough to return home. Without continued treatment, his breathing difficulties returned, so he returned to the hospital and had a rapid response to D-hematoxylin (e.g., initial X-rays showed on May 22 showed near-total lung obstruction, but by May 25 a slight clearing appeared, and by July 18 the cancer had disappeared entirely). Following treatment, he remained cancer free until he later died from heart failure.
•A 75-year-old man who, in 1984, had a recurrent squamous cell carcinoma on the nose (where one had previously been removed 3 year prior) applied topical D-hematoxylin and within a few weeks, the cancer disappeared and the nose was saved from a disfiguring surgery.
Later, in March 1978, Tucker was invited by a group of New York City doctors to share his treatment. En route, K.C. Pani, M.D. of the FDA, requested that Tucker share his data with Dr. Pani (Tucker had numerous records of cures, X-ray films, and slides to show).
On this trip, Tucker brought Joe Floyd, an Exxon Oil Corporate Executive, who four years earlier had had an advanced metastatic colon cancer (e.g., in the lymph nodes and liver) with a poor prognosis (particularly since it was a rare lymphosarcoma). Following surgery, he was implored to start chemotherapy (by a surgeon whose wife had the same condition) but instead sought out Tucker (as he’d seen the 1972 news program two years earlier). Tucker eventually agreed to treat him on an experimental basis (with both IV D-hematoxylin and daily oral D-hematoxylin). While Floyd’s surgeon’s wife died six weeks later, Floyd “ had no nausea or any of the symptoms usually accompanying chemotherapy” and after 18 months, his CEA levels (a marker for colon cancer) were far below normal, and in the years that followed never rebounded (and likewise over 15 years of followup did not either).
Doctor and patient flew to Rockville, where Tucker presented his case histories to the FDA.
When they came to Floyd’s record, Dr. Pani asked, “How long did this one last, three months?”
Tucker replied, “He is sitting down in the lobby.”
Pani said, “I want to see this dead man.”
They sought out Mr. Floyd, and he told his story. Then the FDA official, visibly impressed, said he would be in touch with Tucker soon. He also mentioned that he was in contact with Dr. Stanley Jacob of Oregon and that he was monitoring the use of DMSO. About one week later the drug was approved for the treatment of interstitial cystitis. Nothing further was done to follow up its use in cancer, except that Tucker received a request from the FDA for “more research.”
Floyd also attempted to reach many other outlets. A letter he wrote to a newspaper, for example, was published in a record of a 1980 hearing Congress held to pressure the FDA to legalize DMSO, part of which said:
While I had been taking treatments from Dr. Tucker I met many of his patients who came by for check ups that he had cured. You can imagine how excited I became over this treatment. I wanted to do something so everybody with cancer could get this drug. I preached it to my friends and acquaintances but alas when one would mention it to their personal physicians, they wouldn’t touch it, especially if it wasn’t approved for general use, the hospitals would not let them use it even if they wanted to. I started writing to Congressmen, would get a Thank You letter with a Rubber Stamp signature. Even when Hubert Humphrey was dying I wrote him a letter, but back came another Thank You with Hubert’s rubber stamp signature.
Next I wrote Jimmy Carter, thinking someone in the White House might see the political possibilities and pass it on to him. But no, it was side tracked over to the FDA. Excitement, the answer did have a real signature, “Harold Davis” Bureau of Drugs (HFD—35). It was the nice “Thank You for concern but we have to protect the people from quackery etc.” He even sent me a brochure by Dr’s Tucker and A. Carrizo [the other author of Tucker’s 1968 paper], the same as I am enclosing for you that Dr. Tucker gave me.
Note: in this letter, Floyd also shared that he saw many “people that started the treatment too late but died without pain, thanks to the DMSO,” an observation also made by modern doctors using D-hematoxylin, and which was demonstrated in three recent studies where IV DMSO was combined with sodium bicarbonate.
Lastly, a few other American doctors besides Tucker also used his treatment (including a few that I know did so recently). However, the only documented case I know of where someone besides Tucker used D-hematoxylin was of a 55-year-old Texas Baptist minister who in 1982 had a tennis ball-sized mass under his ribs which was diagnosed as malignant lymphoma and began receiving large numbers of daily blood draws alongside initiating chemotherapy (chlorambucil). He quickly developed multiple significant symptoms (including the previously painless mass becoming painful), at which point a health food store referred him to a natural cancer clinic (Jasper County Medical Center) where he worked with clinical nutritionist Dr. John Meyer who placed him a mix of natural therapies alongside the clinic giving him both oral and IV D-hematoxylin and proceeded to make a full recovery (during which he quickly noticed chlorambucil made him violently ill and permanently stopped taking it).
Hematoxylin Persists
When DMSO was first discovered, due to its significant positive results, it was the most requested drug in America, and many pharmaceutical companies made substantial investments in researching to bring it to market and recruited roughly 1,500 clinicians to conduct their research. In early 1965, Merck contacted the American Podiatry Association to request their top podiatrists (foot doctors) for their trials. Morton Walker DPM was selected as he’d recently won numerous awards for his scholarship and previous clinical investigations.
He began his research in the spring of 1965 and rapidly saw great benefit in the patients he treated, but unfortunately, that fall, the FDA decided to force the pharmaceutical companies to end all research into DMSO (which, as best as I can gather, was initially due to the fact that the agency did not want to deal with a large number of applications for the myriad of conditions DMSO treated).
This podiatric study of DMSO came to an abrupt halt November 10, 1965, when a “Dear Doctor” letter arrived advising that all research on the project must cease. The FDA demanded that the used and unused supplies of DMSO and all records of patients for whom it was administered must immediately be returned to the sponsoring pharmaceutical company.
I didn’t have to mail these items because a company representative promptly arrived to take everything away—all patient reports, supplies of DMSO, even duplicates of the records. Instructions were given to report any deleterious effects from the product’s use, but there were none. No published report ever appeared in the medical literature on this four-month podiatric study of DMSO’s adaptation for a variety of foot problems. All the records of clinical trial were confiscated, and what follows are strictly the impressions of this researcher twenty-seven years later. They are based on the patients’ personal foot health histories with relation to their individual toe, foot, ankle, or leg problems.
Following this, Dr. Morton Walker became a holistic journalist, and arguably was one of the most prolific people in the genre, compiling dozens of books on the natural therapies being used around the country (many of which I read decades ago). Amongst other things, Walker felt it was critical for Tucker’s work to be preserved, and as such, much of this article was sourced from his 1983 book on DMSO (which was written jointly with William Campbell Douglass MD—a pioneer in the alternative medical field), its 1993 revision, and his 1985 booklet on Holistic Cancer care which was written with John L. Sessions, D.O. (along with a book by journalist Pat McGrady).
On an ironic note, Dr. Tucker himself came down with a form of cancer that would have responded to his DMSO-hematoxylon treatment, but before he could administer it to himself, he fell into a coma. No one had access to his formula except the author of this book, and I did not know Dr. Tucker’s attendants needed it to save his life. Dr. Tucker died [on February 7 1983] only a few months before this book was first published. Its updating and republication may save lives—I hope so!
As such, Walker was able to preserve Tucker’s formula and make a thread of it available to the next generation who chose to search for it.
Jim McCann
There were a few eclectic individuals (some of whom I studied under) who were inventors with science backgrounds who dedicated themselves to collecting many alternative technologies, some of which were medical in nature. One of these men was Jim McCann, a cantankerous Canadian engineer and Jehovah’s Witness born in 1932 who’d created a variety of inventions throughout his life (e.g., a more efficient automobile engine).
On the medical end, at 23, McCann also started researching cancer cures, and about a decade later, adopted DMSO as it hit America. After he learned about D-hematoxylin through Tucker’s 1968 paper, he tried to get ahold of hematoxylin but initially was unable to as access was restricted at that time (and instead focused on EDTA chelation therapy). Eventually, around 1985 he did, at which point he used it on a prostate cancer patient who was on the verge of death, where unsure of what to do, he used a high dose that resulted in a full recovery.
Following this, he treated a few other people in Canada (approximately five), received significant pushback from the alternative medical community for practicing medicine without a license, and in 1995, moved to Riobamba, a town high in the mountains of Ecuador.
Initially, he used DMSO (and chelation therapies like EDTA) to treat stroke and heart conditions, but eventually began also using D-hematoxylin. Since he got results, doctors began seeking him out, and ultimately directly trained approximately 20 doctors (some of whom were not from Ecuador such as a Polish doctor and a doctor from the Philippines who attracted significant attention for successfully treating many COVID patients with ivermectin) along with many patients from around the world (and many Jehovah’s Witnesses from McCann’s community). As a result, Ecuador became a hotbed for alternative therapies, and in McCann’s estimate, roughly 100 doctors there (many of whom he’d never directly trained) began using D-Hematoxylin.
Near the end of his life (at the age of 90) McCann agreed to conduct a lucid interview with one doctor who took ten hour bus rides to see him (which a few parts of can be listened to below).
1×
0:00
-4:39
1×
0:00
-7:53
In it McCann shared:
•Many of the D-hematoxylin doses he used (especially the initial ones) were on the high end because he felt the patient would die soon regardless, so it was worth gambling on a potentially toxic dose to cure them.
•McCann believed a key part of the treatment was D-hematoxylin inducing a 103 degree fever in the body, and that it was critical not to use a fever-suppressing medicine to treat that fever or be in air conditioned rooms. However, in cases where patients did experience a significant reaction, he would administer Benadryl. Note: This mirrors a viewpoint within the integrative cancer field that fevers are often critical for eliminating fevers (to the point that some groups cure cancer by inducing high fevers) and the anthroposophic perspective that suppressing febrile childhood illnesses with vaccination increases the risk of cancer later in life (which has been shown in quite a few studies regarding measles, mumps, and chickenpox).
•McCann felt strongly that an IV infusion of DMSO should never be combined with prednisone or a blood thinner like warfarin and heparin as this could make them far too potent (e.g., he saw this cause numerous severe adverse reactions after doctors administered mixed infusions against his advice). Note: the reactions McCann described I have never heard of occurring in patients who were taking DMSO and one of those medications concurrently (e.g., a few DMSO studies I reviewed used topical DMSO combined with heparin found it was a helpful and side-effect free intervention) and I suspect the results McCann saw were from those drugs directly being mixed together with hematoxylin in an IV.
•He felt very strongly about the necessity of chelation therapy in cancer (e.g., to prevent subsequent heart attacks following successful D-hematoxylin treatments—which occurred years later in some of Tucker’s cases) and to that you should not give leukemia patients with anemia iron as the cancer needed that to grow (to the point he would sometimes also chelate iron in leukemic patients).
•McCann was also very focused on cultivating bacteria on a target media that would dissolve specific biological targets (e.g., he cultured bacteria from a dead cow’s cataract and then found it could eliminate other cataracts; likewise, he found this approach worked for cancer).
Note: my experience with individuals like McCann is that some of their insights are spot on while others they have a deep conviction in are ultimately not correct.
The Next Phase
Like many alternative therapies, D-hematoxylin grew up in “the Wild West” of alternative medicine. This was made possible by its very low toxicity profile, which allowed it to be used in humans at widely varying doses without significant side effects.
Fortunately, the threads keeping D-hematoxylin from being lost eventually converged in Ecuador with a doctor who’d successfully treated 44 out of 45 cases of microbiologically confirmed chronic bacterial prostatitis using DMSO combined with antibiotics that were applied directly into the bladder (much in the same DMSO is FDA approved to treat interstitial cystitis) who then tested negative for any infection 15-20 days following treatment (with no subsequent recurrences), demonstrating DMSO’s ability to counteract bacterial resistance.
Note: interestingly, Stanley Jacob, was still alive when these treatments were initiated (he died in 2019 at age 91). At the start of the prostatitis treatments, the doctor in Ecuador contacted him for advice, and Jacob encouraged the experiment, agreeing it was a good idea, even though he hadn’t heard of anyone attempting it before.
As he’d heard of McCann through Ecuador’s medical community, these prostatitis successes inspired that doctor to try intravesical DMSO mixed with hematoxylin for a prostate cancer patient (which was administered in the same manner and frequency as his prostatitis treatments). This worked, and he gradually began using it for other prostate cancer patients and then other cancers as well, which gradually grew into a fifteen-year research project on the therapy (which he’s shared with me over the course of a few months).
Note: I also know of one individual who used D-hematoxylin intrarectally over a prolonged period to locally treat a cancer there, but the data on this approach is still limited.
Recent D-Hematoxylin Patients
That project involved treating approximately 85 patients, with the cure rate in patients who had not previously received chemotherapy averaging between 80-90%. As such D-hematoxylin is an excellent cancer treatment but it is not perfect and will not work for everyone.
To read the rest, go to: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-forgotten-cancer-cure-hiding
Note on Publication: This essay is published in four sequential parts. Each builds on the last while holding its own thematic focus. The complete work will examine the evolution of mind control from:
Part 1: The Laboratory – Historical Foundations of Mind Control Where we explore a documented history most people have no idea about. It sounds absolutely insane, I know—but it’s all in the government’s own files. This foundation is crucial—if you don’t understand what actually happened in classified settings, the rest of this analysis simply won’t make sense.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Part 2: The Theater – Institutional Continuity and Cultural Integration Where we connect these techniques to celebrity culture and entertainment. It’s cliché to say we live in a celebrity-obsessed world, but have you ever wondered if that’s natural? After all, this level of cultural fixation is a relatively new phenomenon. Is it entirely organic, or might we be witnessing the architecture of influence expressing itself through our most cherished icons?
Part 3: The Network – Technological Evolution The real payoff—discovering how these systems scaled beyond labs and public figures to reach all of us. What once required force now operates through devices we voluntarily carry. We’ve all become willing participants in the greatest mind influence experiment in history.
Part 4: The Mirror – Philosophical Implications Where we’re forced to reflect on what this means for human freedom and consciousness itself. If your perceptions can be engineered, what does autonomy even mean?
Different readers may approach this material with varying perspectives:
For researchers and academics: The essay provides documented evidence, historical connections, and technical specifications that illuminate hidden systems of influence.
For those concerned about technological influence: The patent documentation and technological development sections offer insights into how influence systems operate in modern life.
For the philosophically inclined: Part 4 explores fundamental questions about autonomy, consciousness, and human rights in an age of advanced influence technologies.
For skeptics: I completely get it—I’d be skeptical too if someone handed me this work. That’s why I’ve included extensive citations to declassified government files, patent records, and technological developments. I’m showing my work precisely because I understand the extraordinary nature of what I’m suggesting.
Throughout the essay, I distinguish between verified facts and more speculative connections. My aim is not to convince but to document and connect historically disparate pieces of information into a coherent narrative that sheds a light on the evolution of these technologies.
To analyze these complex, multi-domain systems, I’ll be applying the method my friend, philosopher Mark Schiffer describes in The Pattern Recognition Era: A Manifesto. This framework transcends both conventional academic analysis (which requires institutional validation) and what others might dismiss as conspiracy theories (which would require direct causal links I can’t always provide). Instead, it identifies architectural signatures—recurring structural features across seemingly unrelated domains. Think of it as detecting a fingerprint across time and space—not direct evidence, but a consistent signature that becomes unmistakable when viewed comprehensively. When identical control mechanisms appear in intelligence operations, entertainment industries, psychiatric institutions, and technological patents, I believe we’re witnessing convergence that transcends coincidence.
This approach doesn’t require proving every connection; rather, it reveals systems through their consistent patterns. As Schiffer observes, “Any single fact can be debated. Any isolated claim can be attacked. But a pattern that converges across multiple domains is undeniable.”
Note on reading: Each part contains substantial material exploring different facets of this complex topic. Readers may find it helpful to approach each part—and even sections within parts—at their own pace, whether you’re fact-checking claims, returning to earlier material to follow connections, or simply processing the implications. This analysis rewards careful, thoughtful engagement rather than rushed consumption. There’s no right way to engage with this material—take your time and follow what resonates. (And yes, I realize some people might stop reading right here. I won’t take it personally!)
I’ve created this analysis from a place of genuine curiosity and concern—to bring attention to something in my little nook of the world that I think deserves our attention. If even a fraction of the patterns I’ve identified are accurate, we face something profound: the possibility that our most fundamental freedom—our own minds—have been systematically compromised. When the battleground becomes consciousness, freedom of thought isn’t just another liberty—it’s the foundation that makes all other freedoms possible. Without freedom of consciousness, every other right becomes illusory.
PART 1: THE LABORATORY – HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF MIND CONTROL
In 2023, something strange happened during Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. Fans began reporting what media dubbed “post-concert amnesia“—an inability to remember significant portions of shows they’d just attended. “It’s almost like my brain couldn’t process what was happening,” one fan told ABC News. Another admitted, “I don’t remember a single thing.” Thousands shared similar experiences online. Medical experts attributed this to “normal dissociation” from sensory overload.
This phenomenon, dismissed as a sensory overload, echoes techniques refined decades ago in secret labs. Is it possible that this concert experience isn’t an isolated cultural anomaly resulting from Swiftie enthusiasm? Could it instead represent the culmination of a system perfecting its methods across generations—the evolution of mind control from classified laboratories to consumer devices, from coerced subjects to willing participants, from isolated experiments to global implementation?
Sophisticated, methodical methods of mind control have their origins in classified government programs conducted in laboratory settings. Researchers tested theories on small groups, refined their methods, and systematically explored the limits of psychological manipulation. This scientific approach successfully broke down and reshaped human minds. What once seemed impossible became standard procedure. These early experiments laid the groundwork for larger systems of control, which began to take shape as researchers expanded their implementation.
Understanding those early lab experiments and the evolution to the modern application at scale is crucial for navigating our present reality. Even after congressional hearings were held to expose and stop these programs, they evolved, adapted and scaled through our most trusted institutions and technologies.
Today, the same influence techniques once tested on unwitting lab subjects reach into your pocket through your smartphone, shape your perceptions through algorithmic feeds, and modify your behavior through carefully engineered environments. Without recognizing these patterns, we risk outsourcing our very consciousness to systems designed to fragment, redirect, and ultimately control it. This technology is well documented in patents, deployed in products, and affects billions daily. The final frontier of freedom isn’t land, law, or code—it’s the mind itself. Without cognitive sovereignty, every other right becomes negotiable.
In Part 1, we’ll examine the laboratory origins upon which a much larger system would be developed and built. But the story doesn’t end here. In subsequent sections, we’ll trace how these techniques evolved beyond classified experiments into established institutions, mainstream technologies, and ultimately, the very fabric of modern society.
•••
The Ancient Roots
The quest to control human minds and behavior stretches back centuries. In 1493, alchemist and physician Paracelsus was born. He distinguished between what he termed ‘white magic’—therapeutic hypnotic techniques—and ‘black magic’—using similar methods for control and manipulation. By 1679, Guillaume Maxwell’s De Medicina Magnetica documented methods of mesmerism that demonstrated how external forces could influence behavior and perception.
By 1784, the Marquis de Puysegur had documented what he called “artificial somnambulism,” now recognized as hypnotic trance. His work revealed that subjects could follow complex commands while in altered states and, critically, could experience amnesia upon awakening—with no recollection of what transpired during their trance.
This discovery of posthypnotic amnesia bears a striking resemblance to the experiences reported by Swift’s fans. Pierre Janet, in 1882, defined dissociation as when “things happen as if an idea, a partial system of thoughts, emancipated itself from conscious personal control to function independently.” These early investigations established the foundational concepts—dissociation, amnesia, suggestibility—that would later be weaponized by intelligence agencies.
The Franklin Commission, tasked by Louis XVI in 1784 to investigate ‘animal magnetism,’ privately acknowledged these phenomena while publicly dismissing them—establishing another recurring pattern: official denial of mind control capabilities that were actively being studied behind closed doors.
For a more complete chronology of these early mind control techniques and their evolution across centuries, see Appendix A. This timeline draws from Carla Emery’s groundbreaking work Secret, Don’t Tell: The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism alongside my own extensive research into these historical methods.
•••
The Ethics Void
By the 20th century, these psychological concepts intersected with increasingly troubling experimentation being conducted on human subjects in other areas of study. An early example is The Pellagra Experiments (1915-1920s) which demonstrated researchers’ willingness to withhold treatment debilitating and potentially fatal Pellagra from rural Black Americans despite knowing both cause and cure. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972) took this further—399 men with Syphilis were observed for four decades while treatment was deliberately withheld, their suffering documented in respected medical journals.
During the Manhattan Project (1940s), civilians were injected with plutonium without consent to measure radiation effects. Dr. Lauretta Bender’s 1944 study at Bellevue Hospital subjected 100 children (some as young as three) to electroshock therapy, claiming it was a treatment for childhood schizophrenia despite many of the children showing no symptoms that would warrant such diagnosis.
The normalization of unethical research practices created a foundation for developing systematic mind control techniques. This concerning methodology later expanded to create environments where even public or famous individuals could be manipulated, as allegedly seen in cases like Marilyn Monroe’s relationship with her psychiatrist Dr. Ralph Greenson, who reportedly maintained significant influence over many aspects of her personal life.
•••
Sargant’s Breaking Points
British psychiatrist William Sargant provided the theoretical framework that would soon be operationalized in one of the most notorious covert programs in American history: MKULTRA. His 1957 work Battle for the Mind synthesized observations from psychiatric cases and wartime trauma to develop a comprehensive model for breaking down and reprogramming human minds.
“Various types of belief can be implanted in people after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger or excitement”
—William Sargant
Drawing on Pavlov’s research, Sargant identified how pushing the brain beyond its normal stress threshold could create a state of heightened suggestibility. “Various types of belief can be implanted in people after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger or excitement.”
At the Royal Waterloo Hospital in the 1960s and early 1970s, Sargant put his theories about stress-induced suggestibility and brain function disturbance into practice. Under the pretense of treating depression and other psychiatric conditions, he subjected young women to months-long drug-induced comas combined with electroconvulsive therapy. Survivors including actress Celia Imrie and model Linda Keith emerged in what they described as “zombie-like” states. Keith later recalled: “I couldn’t make any decisions on my own… Most shockingly of all, I could no longer read.”
Sargant’s methods—sleep disruption, sensory manipulation, induced anxiety, and drug-assisted interrogation—provided a scientific blueprint for systematic mind control that would be directly adopted by intelligence agencies.
•••
TO find out about other items covered in this discussion, the Nazi’s, assassination, etc, read the rest of this essay ( and it is quite long and detailed, but well worth it!!!!) as well as the remianing installments, please go to: https://stylman.substack.com/p/mkultra-the-hidden-hand-part-1-the
NASA Is Growing Concerned As A Massive Anomaly Spreads Across Earth, Scientists Believe It’s Linked To Deep Earth Forces.
At the heart of the US space agency’s concerns is a geomagnetic phenomenon that is as fascinating as it is worrying: the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). This immense region is characterised by a significantly reduced magnetic intensity compared with the surrounding areas. Far from being a mere scientific curiosity, this weakness acts like a breach in our natural protective shield, allowing high-energy solar particles to come dangerously close to the Earth’s surface.
To understand AAS, we need to delve deep into the heart of our planet. Its origin is closely linked to geodynamics, the complex process that takes place in the Earth’s outer core. There, the movement of molten iron and nickel generates the magnetic field that envelops us. However, this generation is not uniform.
Two main factors contribute to the formation of the AAS. Firstly, the inclination of the Earth’s magnetic axis in relation to its axis of rotation plays a role. Secondly, the influence of a gigantic, dense structure known as the African province with low shear velocity, located almost 2,900 kilometres beneath the African continent, disturbs the generation of the magnetic field in this region. NASA geophysicists explain that the anomaly is also associated with a local polarity inversion within the Earth’s magnetic field, which further weakens the overall strength of the dipole field in this specific area. As Weijia Kuang from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center explains, a field of reversed polarity has developed in the region, creating a sort of “pothole” in the Earth’s magnetic armour.
A danger for space technology
This magnetic vulnerability is not without consequences. Satellites passing through the AAS are exposed to high levels of high-energy protons. These particles can cause what engineers call Single Event Anomalies (SEUs). These incidents can lead to temporary malfunctions, data corruption or even permanent damage if a critical system is affected.
Faced with this risk, many satellite operators are taking preventive measures, in particular by shutting down non-essential systems as they pass through the anomaly. The International Space Station (ISS) itself passes through the AAS during each orbit. While its shielding effectively protects the astronauts, the external instruments are more exposed. Bryan Blair, deputy principal investigator for the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) instrument installed on the ISS, reports occasional “misfires” and resets, resulting in a few hours of data loss each month, an impact deemed manageable. Other missions, such as the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON), are also closely monitoring the AAS and adapting their operations.
Far from being static, the South Atlantic Anomaly is a dynamic phenomenon. Recent data, notably from ESA’s Swarm constellation and historical measurements from NASA’s SAMPEX mission, confirm a number of worrying trends. The anomaly is slowly drifting north-westwards, expanding at the surface and, most notably since 2020, it is splitting into two distinct lobes, creating two centres of magnetic minimum. This bifurcation, corroborated by various studies, increases the number of dangerous zones for spacecraft and complicates the task of scientists developing predictive models of geomagnetic conditions. Understanding the changing morphology of the AAS is crucial for the safety of current and future satellites,” stresses NASA’s Terry Sabaka.
To refine their understanding and forecasts, NASA combines satellite data with simulations of the dynamics of the Earth’s core. This information is fed into global models such as the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF), which tracks changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. These models are essential not only for planning space missions, but also for gaining a better understanding of our planet’s internal structure. The approach is similar to weather forecasting, but on much longer time scales, making it possible to estimate Secular Variation, i.e. slow but persistent changes in the magnetic field over years and decades.
While the current evolution of the AAS is unprecedented on the scale of the space age, the geological record suggests that such anomalies are not exceptional over long periods of time. A 2020 study even suggests that similar anomalies may have existed 11 million years ago. It is important to stress that, according to the scientists, the current AAS is not a precursor of a magnetic pole reversal, a natural but rare phenomenon that takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. The study of the AAS therefore remains an active area of research, essential to protect our technologies in orbit and to deepen our understanding of the deep forces that drive our planet.
We recently looked into the economic crisis that’s bearing down on us fast and discussed the factors at play to cause problems for consumers. Now, let’s discuss what we can do about it the looming retail scarcity.
It would be easy to say “just stock up on everything” but many of us are already staggering under the increased expenses. For us, that isn’t really practical. When money is limited it must be spent thoughtfully.
Below are some areas where you may soon see shortages, along with ideas for addressing them. To get hundreds more ways to save money, check out our Money Mojo Bundle for as low as $2.
Electronics
When I say “electronics” I’m not specifically speaking of high-ticket items like computers and televisions. Things like replacement accessories could be in short supply as well, and that is something we can get ahead on far more affordably.
If you have multiple different computers in the house, you can consider a few of these universal chargers with various extra plugs to work on different machines.
Whatever charger your phone needs, you may wish to go ahead and purchase new charging cords now. This is especially true for people who are notoriously rough on their cables. I just picked up a couple of packs so that I’d have half a dozen spares for my phone and a couple of 2-packs for my Kindle. These replacement accessories for electronics are pretty important for lots of people. Make sure you have chargers that are compatible with all the devices in your house.
If you use earbuds or headphones, you might want to consider an inexpensive backup for your main set. I use noise-cancelling headphones every day because I share a small space, and it helps me prevent being distracted.
When you go about your day today, really think about the things you are plugging into the charger and consider what may need replacement sooner rather than later.
Plastics
A shortfall of plastics could cause difficulty in several different sectors. Toys (many of which are also imported) and parts for manufacturing are two places we could see the effects of failing trade with China.
For many things such as toys, I suggest buying used in the future. People will be anxious to sell things that their children are no longer using and replace them. You may also want to buy a couple of Christmas presents early if it’s within the budget.
If you use those plastic food storage containers for leftovers, now would be the time to make a purchase of them if you need more. I use Mason jars and jars from groceries I’ve purchased for leftovers.
How is your stash of disposable razors? Here’s an inexpensive bulk pack with decent reviews that you can get for a reasonable price now.
Footwear
Are your shoes in shape to last? If you wear specialty shoes for work, such as steel-toed boots or shoes with non-slip soles, you’ll want to get at least one pair ahead. Winter boots are essential if you live in a cold, snowy climate.
For children, getting the next size up in sneakers might be a good idea. I picked up several pairs of cheap flip flops from the dollar store for my daughters for this summer, too.
Clothing
Apparel could be hard to come by, at least for reasonable prices. Think about essential clothing needs and shop ahead of time. Winter coats, jackets, umbrellas, and outerwear are important for all ages.
We’ve taken a few trips to the thrift store recently to grab some outerwear. Right now, there’s a great selection. If the racks at the stores are empty, this may change.
Consider getting a size or two up in clothing for any children in your family.
Fast fashion items like tee shirts, leggings, and socks may be the first to disappear. Think about back to school basics now.
Home goods
Items such as furniture and less expensive home goods like decor may also slow to a trickle, which will drive up the cost. If there’s a purchase you need to make, such as a mattress or a sofa, or bedding and towels, you’d be wise to do it sooner rather than later if you can at all.
Automotive parts
Have you been putting off a repair on your vehicle? You’ll want to get going on that because the slowing of imports could make replacement parts difficult or even impossible to find for a while. If your tires are shot, you’ll want to replace them now while the prices are a bit more reasonable.
Food
If you purchase processed food for your stockpile, consider hitting up the stores now to add some supplies. This isn’t just for things packaged in China – much of the packaging used domestically is imported. (Plastic, remember?)
Toilet paper and Covid flashbacks
Remember the Great Toilet Paper Crisis of 2020? So does everyone else. Think back to 2020 – the items that were in shortage then will most likely be the first to go now. Be sure to check your supplies of toilet paper, bottled water, bleach, and cleaning items and stock up if needed.
A flurry of activity now can help you push back the day that you are forced to move on to other strategies, but personally, I have used many of the following strategies for my entire adult life.
DIY: You can make your own cleaning supplies and laundry supplies for a fraction of the cost. Be sure to grab the raw materials you need for this now.
Learn to make repairs: The book, How to Fix D*mn Near Everything, is a classic for a reason. It’s an older book and may not provide guidance on recent “smart” purchases, but I’ve used my copy regularly for almost 30 years. Whenever possible, repair instead of replace.
Second-hand is grand: Thrift stores, yard sales, Facebook Marketplace, and your local neighborhood app could be great sources for second-hand goods. Clothing, shoes, toys, books, and household items can often be acquired for a fraction of their value when purchased from someone who no longer needs them.
Make do: Learn to manage with what’s available. We may not have the option of buying new due to either budget constraints or merchandise scarcity. We’ve all grown accustomed to such abundance that making do has become a lost art for many.
Keep a positive attitude. Financial problems are stressful, and so are shortages. However, remember that many of the things that feel so vital now are relatively recent additions to our lifestyles. Look to the past to make a more comfortable future by researching how our grandparents lived without all the thingamajigs and whatchamacallits.
While the concept of scarcity is alarming, going back to basics may not be all bad. You may find that the time you spend making things from scratch and repairing items you already have is pleasant, and you’ll be passing down these important skills to your children, too.
