Category Archives: Body, Mind & Spirit

Considering Nitric Oxide

Posted on by

Scientist Says Nitric Oxide Is the Key to Curing Alzheimer’s Disease, High Blood Pressure and More

April 30, 2025 Diary of a CEO 13

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..

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/04/scientist-says-nitric-oxide-is-the-key-to-curing-alzheimers-disease-high-blood-pressure-and-more/

Modifying DNA – What Could Go Wrong?

Posted on by

Gene Therapy is Genetic Modification – of humans

Concerns of Contaminant DNA

DR. SHERRI TENPENNY
MAY 03, 2025

 

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 study demonstrated 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.

from:    https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/gene-therapy-is-genetic-modification?publication_id=931759&post_id=162267811&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Cholesterol – Alternatives to Consider

Posted on by

(Interesting article.  Not medical advice.  Do your research)

The Cholesterol Con: How Statins Became a Billion-Dollar Threat to Human Health

Posted on:

Tuesday, April 22nd 2025 at 2:00 pm

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2025
Visit our Re-post guidelines


Originally published on www.sayerji.substack.com

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.

Compare that to the Number Needed to Harm (NNH):

  • Muscle damage: 10-20
  • Diabetes onset: 100-250
  • 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:

  1. Doctors are rarely trained in medical statistics, and most trust summary statements from pharmaceutical reps or guidelines.
  2. Patients are never informed that “36% fewer heart attacks” may only mean “1 fewer person out of 100.”
  3. 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.
  • Omega-3 Fatty Acids – Lower triglycerides and systemic inflammation13.
  • 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.

3. GreenMedInfo. “Cracking the Cholesterol Myth.”. Accessed April 2025.

4. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. “MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering.” Lancet. 2002;360(9326):7-22.

5. GreenMedInfo. “Statin Drugs – 30 Toxic Effects.”

6. Wright JM, et al. “Statins for primary prevention: an NNT analysis.” BMJ. 2010;340:c1924.

7. Golomb BA, Evans MA. “Statin adverse effects.” Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2008;8(6):373-418.

8. Healy D. Pharmageddon. University of California Press, 2012.

9. Abramson JD, et al. “Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin?” BMJ. 2013;347:f6123.

10. Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM. “CoQ10 and statin cardiotoxicity.” Biofactors. 2005;25(1-4):117-124.

11. Heber D. “Red yeast rice and lipid lowering.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(2):231-236.

12. Gast GC, et al. “Vitamin K intake and coronary calcification.” Atherosclerosis. 2009;203(2):489-493.

13. Mozaffarian D, et al. “Omega-3s in cardiovascular disease.” Circulation. 2005;111(21):278-282.

14. Ornish D, et al. “Lifestyle changes and coronary atherosclerosis.” JAMA. 1998;280(23):2001-2007.

15. GreenMedInfo. “The Underreported Dangers of Low Cholesterol.” www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/underreported-dangers-low-cholesterol. Accessed April 2025.

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

from:    https://greenmedinfo.com/content/cholesterol-con-how-statins-became-billion-dollar-threat-human-health

Vaccines Here, Vaccines There, Vaccines Everywhere

Posted on by
Reply

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.

MERYL NASS
MAY 10, 2025

Here is Sherri’s substack:

Dr. Tenpenny’s Eye on the Evidence

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.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/sherri-tenpenny-created-a-table-showing?publication_id=746368&post_id=163280530&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

What’s Going On In Your Head?

Posted on by

MKULTRA: The Hidden Hand | Part 1 – The Laboratory

Historical Foundations of Mind Control

Joshua Stylman's avatar
JOSHUA STYLMAN

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

Travelers’ Diary. April 16, 2025

Posted on by

April 16, 2025

Ah, that day of reckoning (referring to Tax Day) the so many here dread has passed, and now there is time just to move forward.  We say “just” because for many the idea of moving forward is quite daunting, and for that reason they remain stuck in they own way.  By saying “just” we are emphasizing that the forward movement is not in itself something to be feared, nor is it any kind of huge effort, rather it can be an easing into how things should be and how things can be.  Your race, your human race, that is, is stuck very much in arguing and patterns, and the times of those sort of things is ending.  Right now, the theme of the time is new beginnings and along with that comes freedom.

Yes, there is great question about who is actually pulling the strings your era , and we can only tell you that it is a very old energy.  It is an energy that has become full of what it is and that feels that there is  no power in the Universe that can overcome it.  You can see the effects of that attitude in those who are supposedly in control.  But their control is greatly curtailed by what they are being told to do. Bravery my child, is not something that comes easily to people in the political spotlight.  Why you may ask.  well, much of it has to do with their own sense of ego and their own sense that the power belongs to them, but sadly or gladly, that is not the case.  The power belongs to the Controllers, and they are, at the present time, in a kind of morass.  that is to say there s much confusion, turmoil, and ego among them, and this in itself is leading to a battle among them.  This is actually quite new in their history.  They had decided that it was  their role to set things up for themselves, and now that they FEEL that things are snapping into place, they are at a point where they themselves are jockeying for superior position.

This leads the ropes of freedom open for the people on your planet.  It is time to be vigilant in all you do for there is currently a “war is heaven” as it were, and while this can lead to chaos and confusion on your earth, it also opens certain possibilities of the light to come in and for people of love to find a place to take over.

We go

Traveler’s Diary 3/17/25

Posted on by

Once again things are turning and churning.  It is as though the wheel has been turned and a new combinations coming up. This once includes more weather ‘anomalies’ along with more physical symptoms.  It is well to consider the response of the body to ehe environment — both physical and energetic – before getting panicky about things happening within.  You must remember that the body aligns with the environment, ii is physical, and it is motivated by the spiritual and the mental.  Now know the there is much power in the mental that can overwhelm the spiritual and the physical not because it is necessary stronger, but because of the attention that is being placed in t hat arena.  So, when you feel yourself being drawn into a strong consideration of what is going on in the body, it is well to sit back and see whether that consideration is a distraction or whether it is the body going into survival mode.  As a distraction what is happening is that there is an outside force at work on you and perhaps the whole of the humanity —- we thought to say ‘the physical’ because in most cases it is dealing with all the people in the physical world, and in fact, it can also be affecting the natural world, however in order to make things clearer and to bring focus back to the physicality we chose the other word, ‘physical;’. 

The physical as you know is but once facet of the individual and not necessary always the most…. Effective or…….. we are looking for a word and we cannot at this moment find it n your vocabulary however the physical has its place, but the determiner of the body is a team.  You need all the various elements, but at one time one element takes over and at another (time) a different one.  However the importance in this level, in this dimension is for the body to continue on, and therefore one thinks mainly of the physical, but as you have seen in spiritual….. and energetic healing, what can be done is that a new alignment of the physical can be achieved through dealing with the energy body. This body’s one of the layers of the person, can change the physicality if , and of course, this is is important, if it is so allowed for the physical motivator always is watching what is going on and at times will override what is best for the totality of the body/bodies.

We know this is off the subject a bit, but allow its to make an analogy with the weather.  When the environment, particularly the weather is being manipulated, then the alignment of the various areas of the environment is out of whack, and there can be extreme events that were not actually part o the real motivation of the weather.  These things can be caused by the atmospheric heaters that are in action all over the world.  As we have mentioned earlier, they have reached a point, a tipping point, at which these technological means will be thwarted by the earth, yes, but also by the actions of these terrible individuals.  They will be thwarted because things are so out of balance that they are toppling and can no longer be righted by technological means, so look for unexpected, (???) unexpected, (parts) of the earth to work towards righting the imbalance.  Know that this alway will (affect) humankind.  It is well to look for alternative remedies and keep them close at hand for they posses an energetic component that can help the body respond to the rocking and rolling..

We go.

Big Winners – Health Insurance Companies

Posted on by

Startling Revelation: Health Insurance Companies Make 400% More than Big Pharma

February 24, 2025 InfoWars 2

Medical industry expert Brigham Buhler says that the ‘big five’ insurance companies make over 400% more in revenue than pharmaceutical companies! The average American is on four or more prescription drugs that only treat symptoms. Medicare/ Medicaid spends $500 billion per year on pharmaceutical drugs, and when all government programs are combined, the US government spends $1 trillion on drugs and products.

Determining the root cause of disease and preventative care are ignored. 1.7 million Americans die per year from chronic disease. Most chronic disease is preventable.

Insurance companies tell doctors what, when, where, how and what they are allowed to do for patients.

Buhler explained that the cycle of corruption and profit includes the NIH, FDA, the drug manufacturers and insurance companies. Pharmacy benefit managers were brought in to drive down the price of drugs, but they were captured by the big five insurance companies that turned the savings into a profit center for the companies. The insurance companies buy up large supplies of drugs and then they profit by 30% on the sale of the drugs.

Incentives drive the pricing of drugs and insurance companies make only high profit margins drugs accessible for patients.

Out of 365 ‘blockbuster’ drugs that hit the market form 2010 to 2019, zero were created by Big Pharma; instead, 100% of those drugs originated at the National Institute of Health (NIH) that is funded by American taxpayers. Once the compounds have a certain potential, they are sold off to Big Pharma that sells them to the American public that funded the products.

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/02/startling-revelation-health-insurance-companies-make-400-more-than-big-pharma/

The Travelers’ Diary – February 24, 2025

Posted on by

At this time, much has been completed, yet there remains much to do.  It is like blocks in a wall.  The foundation must be set before the rest of the building can be completed.  What has happened before is that the building was started, yet there was no adherence to the map, to the building plans, and as a result, things were set on sandy soil which could not support or sustain – and that is a big word now – the structure.  This is not a time for getting upset or giving in to what might seem like a hopeless situation because it is just the middle of the thing, and as time goes on, more and more will become clear as the structure reveals itself.

There is much in your government that is in flux, even more than flux, it is in a state of falling apart, yet that cannot be seen because so much bureaucracy and “non-bureaucracy” is being heaped on top to it, so it seems that this is jus a beginning phase when in reality it is a transition phase.

This is to a time to hold fast to certain leaders and people at the front of the camera.  They will be leaving soon. They are mere figureheads and are playing a role for their own ends and that of the overlords.  We hesitate to use that word, and it is not a word that we have used before or often because it was premature, but now it is becoming current.  This is because those overlords will be outed, not due to any planning on their part, but rather because they have been trying so hard in the past to remain invisible, but they are becoming cocky and have chosen individuals to represent them who are not reliable – not necessarily because of loose lips, but ore because they lack the intellectual acumen to take their parts at this time.  The reliance on AI comes about largely because the overlords had seen this breakdown coming, but they did not realize ti would be so soon.  Expect to see more and ore glitches in what people  who are supposed to be leaders do and say.  These kinds of things can no longer be covered over by your corrupt and captured media.  It is funny, but many are like those newscasters in THEY LIVE, people who are dying to present the face of humanity, when, in truth, they are not really human at all!

Virus Shedding and The effects

Posted on by

What We’ve Learned from a Year of Vaccine Shedding Data

Numerous data sources now corroborate that the COVID vaccines shed in a consistent and replicable manner

A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR
JAN 19, 2025

Story at a Glance:

•After the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, stories began emerging of unvaccinated individuals becoming ill after being in proximity to recently vaccinated individuals. This confused many, as the mRNA technology in theory should not be able to “shed.”

•After seeing countless patient cases which can only be explained by COVID vaccine shedding, a year ago, I initiated multiple widely seen calls for individuals to share suspected shedding experiences.

•From those 1,500 reports, clear and replicable patterns have emerged which collectively prove “shedding” is a real and predictable phenomenon that can be explained by known mechanisms unique to the mRNA technology.

•Likewise, after being blocked from publication for over a year, recently, a scientific study corroborating the shedding phenomenon was finally published.

•This article will map out everything that is known about shedding (e.g., what are the common symptoms, how does it happen, who does it affect, does it occur through sexual contact, can it cause severe issues like cancer) along with strategies for preventing it.

When doctors in this movement speak at events about vaccines, by far the most common question they receive is, “Is vaccine shedding real?”

This is understandable as COVID-19 vaccine shedding (becoming ill from vaccinated individuals) represents the one way the unvaccinated are also at risk from the vaccines and hence still need to be directly concerned about them.

Simultaneously, it’s a challenging topic as:

•We believe it is critical to not publicly espouse divisive ideas (e.g., “PureBloods” vs. those who were vaccinated) that prevent the public from coming together and helping everyone. The vaccines were marketed on the basis of division (e.g., by encouraging immense discrimination against the unvaccinated), and many unvaccinated individuals thus understandably hold a lot of resentment for how the vaccinated treated them. We do not want to perpetuate anything similar (e.g., discrimination in the other direction).

•We don’t want to create any more unnecessary fear—which is an inevitable consequence of opening up a conversation about shedding.

•In theory, shedding with the mRNA vaccines should be “impossible,” so claiming otherwise puts one on very shaky ground.

Conversely, if shedding is real, we believe it is critical to expose as:

•Those being affected by it are in a horrible situation, particularly if everyone is gaslighting them about it and insisting it’s all in their head.

•It provides one of the strongest arguments to pull the mRNA vaccines from the market and prohibit the widespread deployment of mRNA technologies in the future.

For those reasons, Pierre Kory and I have spent the last year and a half trying to collect as much evidence as possible to map out this phenomenon with the following data sets:

•Dozens of extremely compelling patient histories1,2,3 from Kory and Marsland’s medical practice, including many responding to spike protein treatment.
•My own experience with patients and friends affected by shedding.
• I read large numbers of reports of shedding in (now deleted) online support groups.
•Roughly 1,500 reports from individuals affected by shedding we were able to collect.
•Extensive menstrual data compiled by MyCycleStory.

From that and the hundreds of hours of work that went into it (particularly reviewing and sorting the 1,500 reports), we can state the following with relative certainty:

1. Shedding is very real (e.g., each of those datasets is congruent with the others), and many of the stories of those affected by it are very sad.
2. People’s sensitivity to it dramatically varies.
3. Most of the people who are sensitive to shedding have already figured it out.
4. Mechanistically, shedding is very difficult to explain. However, now that new evidence has emerged, a much stronger case can be made for the mechanisms I initially proposed a year ago.

Note: if you have a shedding experience you would like to share (or wish to read through them), please do so here, where they are compiled.

Shedding Overview:

By far, the most common symptom of shedding is unusual and disrupted menstrual bleeding (which is also the most common COVID vaccine injury). This in turn, was the first thing that alerted me to the inconceivable possibility the vaccines could shed, as I quickly received many similar reports of highly unusual menstrual bleeding, which appeared to be due to exposure to someone who was vaccinated.

After this, the most common symptoms were headaches, flu-like illnesses, nosebleeds, fatigue, rashes, tinnitus, sinus or nasal issues, and shingles. Other less frequent symptoms are also repeatedly seen (e.g., palpitations, herpes outbreaks, and hair loss).

Additionally, many noticed they could immediately tell when they were in the vicinity of a shedder, typically either due to noticing a unique odor or symptoms immediately onsetting.

Generally speaking, the character of shedding symptoms were quite similar to long COVID and vaccine injuries, but typically were more superficial in nature, suggesting the body was reacting to a harmful external pathogenic factor rather than one already deep inside the body. More severe issues (e.g., cancers or heart attacks) also occurred, but these were much rarer than what you saw in the vaccine injured population, again suggesting shedding was primarily an external reaction. Interestingly, most of the (fairly varied) shedding symptoms overlap with the conditions DMSO treats (e.g., strokes), suggesting that DMSO’s key mechanisms of action (e.g., increasing blood flow, eliminating large and small blood clots, being highly anti-inflammatory, and rescuing cells from the cell danger response) are the exact opposite of what shedding does to the body.

Note: in the following sections, each superscript citation links to individual reports I’ve received about the phenomenon. I provided these citations to show how frequent many of these effects were, so that those who’d experienced them could see many others had too, and so that anyone who wants to research this has access to the primary data. The only shedding symptom I avoided comprehensively citing was abnormal menstruation, as so many reports were received, it was not feasible to compile all of them.

Shedding Patterns

In the same manner that there is a fairly high replicability in the symptoms individuals who are affected by shedding experience, there is also a fairly high congruency in the patterns of how they are affected. Specifically:

1. Some individuals are hypersensitive to shedders and can immediately detect when they are in the presence of a shedder or are on their way to developing harmful symptoms.

2. Others are less sensitive, but quickly notice specific characteristic symptoms consistently occur following shedding exposures (e.g., always feeling ill when a vaccinated husband returns from a long trip away, when going to church each week, when singing with their choir, or when taking a crowded route to work).

In some cases, they are able to identify a “super shedder” (amongst a group) who consistently made them ill, and in many cases they can identify the exact shedding incident that made them ill. Likewise, through tracking serial spike protein antibody levels (e.g., for patients undergoing treatment for long Covid or a vaccine injury) we’ve objectively corroborated that shedding exposures repeatedly worsen these patients (providing an explanation for why their symptoms “inexplicably” ebb and flow), that this can be seen objectively in their lab work and that spike protein treatments after shedding exposures clinically improve these patients.

Note: Pierre Kory’s practice has been able to determine that those they suspect are a shedder (e.g., a husband) test positive (through an antibody test) for a high spike protein levels and that eliminating the shedder from the patient’s life or treating the (asymptomatic) shedder with a vaccine injury protocol frequently significantly improves their patient’s recovery. Likewise, readers here have reported significant improvements from avoiding shedders—which sadly in some cases has required the more sensitive individuals to isolate themselves from society.

3. In the majority of cases, the effects of shedding are temporary and go away, but in a subset of people, they can last for months if not years.

4. Recognition of the shedding phenomenon has forced many to significantly change their lives. This included regretfully terminating a long-term romantic relationship, leaving their line of work (e.g., some massage therapists can no longer handle working on vaccinated clients), or only seeing unvaccinated healthcare providers (e.g., numerous people reported getting ill from vaccinated chiropractors or massage therapists, and we now periodically will have patients state they can only see us if we are unvaccinated).

5. The “stronger” the shedding exposure, the more likely shedding is to cause issues, but conversely, for more sensitive patients, “weaker” exposures also will. More substantial exposures include being around someone who was recently vaccinated or boosted (as shedding is strongest initially), being around more shedders, being in a confined space (e.g., a car) with a shedder for a prolonged period, or having close physical contact with a shedder.
Note: given all of this, I thought flying on airlines would be a significant issue, but I have only received two reports from readers where this was the case.

6. There appear to be some unexplained symptoms otherwise healthy patients now experience that are tied to shedding. However, it’s still often very challenging to tease out when shedding is the culprit due to how many variables are involved and the ambiguity of the subject (which is part of why so much detail has gone into this post so each of you can figure out if you are being affected by shedding).

Susceptibility to Shedding

In general, there are three categories of people who are susceptible to shedding (and in many cases these categories overlap).

The first are the sensitive patients (e.g., those who frequently react to chemicals or get injured by pharmaceuticals). For example, near the start of the vaccine rollout (before I was aware that shedding was an issue), I saw this video and genuinely wondered if it was real as many of its claims were quite extraordinary but at the same time, were somewhat in line with what a highly sensitive patient (of whom I know many) would describe.

To read the rest of the article, go to:

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-weve-learned-from-a-year-of?publication_id=748806&post_id=154372114&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email