Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.
We all understand the joys of our always-wired world—the connections, the validations, the laughs … the info. … But we are only beginning to get our minds around the costs.
With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.
One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.
As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.
NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.
Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…
The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.
The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.
There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.
Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.
Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:
Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.
Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.
Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.
When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.
USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).
Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:
100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.
If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.
Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.
These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.
The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residuesfrom pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)
Labels for Meat
Chicken
To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.
Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,
“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’
Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.
Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®) has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:
Source: ASPC table
Eggs
With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.
Conventional Eggs
Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.
Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.
In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.
Free-Range Eggs
Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.
Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean
Organic Eggs
Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.
Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.
Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.
While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.
Beef
NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.
Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.
Grass-fed
Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.
The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.
A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.
Pasture-raised
A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.
Pork
Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.
There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).
Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….andthey get many.
Sheep
As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even inthe top 10.
Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lamb. Because the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.
The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.
An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to seethe full list.
What about produce labels?
Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.
Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.
Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.
A four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
A five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
A five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
A five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
A five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.
Summary
the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.
“Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.
*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.
•A long history exists of a wave of severe injuries following new vaccinations being introduced to the market. In most cases, those injuries were swept under the rug to protect the business.
•In many cases, the severe “mysterious” injuries we see now are remarkably similar to those that were observed over a century ago. Unfortunately, a widespread embargo exists on ever allowing this data to come to light (as that would instantly destroy the vaccine program).
•A variety of independent studies (summarized below) have shown that vaccines cause a wide range of chronic illnesses.
•A 1990 book made a strong case that widespread vaccination was also causing an epidemic of widespread brain damage which was both lowering America’s IQ and causing a massive rise in violent crime.
•In this article, we will also review exactly what in that 1990 book and the classic signs that can be used to determine if someone has a vaccine injury (along with the subtle more spiritual ones).
Note: due to the recent ACIP changes (the committee which decides which vaccines you take) and past interest in this article, I revised and updated it.
My mind often overlaps the past present and future onto themselves. Because of this, I will frequently recall events that happened in the past which perfectly mirror what is unfolding before us, and in turn, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve witnessed humanity repeat its same mistakes or can see a slow motion train-wreck ahead on the horizon. During COVID, I realized we were again reenacting the same tragedy humanity had ever experienced since the smallpox vaccine was brought to the market and I had a thought. If people became aware of what had happened before and ended our collective amnesia, perhaps this could at last stop.
As fate would have it, my wish came true, and without knowing me, Steve Kirsch gave me the opportunity to begin introducing that forgotten history to the world. This happened after he chose to publish an article I wrote illustrating how the trucker protests were identical to smallpox protests that had happened more than a century before and then for reasons I still do not understand, encouraged his readers to subscribe to me so I would start writing here. Note: At the time I chose the username “A Midwestern Doctor” (for the smallpox article), I did not put much thought into it as I was never expecting to use it again.
Over the years, I’ve noticed again and again that a vaccine disaster happens which injuries many in a very similar way, it gets swept under the rug (often by officials who are quite conflicted in their decision to do so), and then the same thing happens again a few decades later.
Given that we give dozens of vaccines to each member of society, this raises an obvious question—what is that doing to society?
A Brief History of Vaccine Disasters
In 1798, the smallpox vaccine hit the market. Once it hit the market, it was observed to frequently cause smallpox outbreaks (rather than prevent them) and to cause a wide range of debilitating and complex injuries that many of the doctors had never seen before (and many of which I believe were examples of “blood stasis”). Curiously, rather than recognizing this was a mistake, most of the medical profession endorsed the smallpox vaccine, and governments around the world mandated it as cases kept on increasing, leading to a downward spiral that was eventually broken by mass public protest against those mandates. Having looked at it extensively, I am of the opinion the smallpox vaccine reshaped the trajectory of humanity’s health and was an inflection point in the era of chronic illness.
In the 1800s and early 1900s, a variety of early vaccines (e.g., rabies, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis) and horse-generated antiserums (for most of the common infections at the time) entered the market. Since many of these vaccines were produced in small independent labs, there were a variety of quality control issues with these products, which frequently led to hot lots being released that severely injured or killing a group of people. Additionally, many of those vaccines had a high degree of toxicity. Because of this, a variety of new and severe medical conditions emerged, many of which were deemed to be due to brain inflammation (encephalitis) or brain damage (encephalopathy) and observed to occur in conjunction with cranial nerve damage. Most of these conditions (which I discussed in detail here) in turn mirrored the myriad of injuries we now too see from modern vaccinations. In addition to the injuries, two major issues stood out during this period:
•First, in addition to sometimes being directly contaminated with the disease causing organism (e.g., yellow fever or tuberculosis) and causing the illness, vaccines would often cause a temporary immune suppression which lead to disease outbreaks in those vaccinated (discussed here). However, each time this happened, rather than it being seen as a sign we needed to dial back vaccination, it was interpreted as not enough people being vaccinated and harsher and harsher vaccine mandates being instituted to enact that policy or new vaccines being created to address the existing damage of vaccination (e.g., the DPT vaccine frequently caused polio outbreaks).
•Second, public health officials and vaccine designers were well aware of the injuries vaccines were causing, but since no other treatments existed for the disease, regrettably deemed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good and hence covered the injuries up so the public would continue to vaccinate. However, while I understand their perspective, it rested on a faulty premise—effective treatments did exist for the illnesses (e.g., in 1920 it was known IV hydrogen peroxide could treat severe infections and in 1928 it was known that ultraviolet blood irradiation could treat many otherwise incurable infections). Note: as you might have noticed, everything I just described also applies to the COVID-19 vaccines, hence illustrating how these dysfunctional cycles frequently perpetuate indefinitely.
In the 1940s-1950s, the original pertussis vaccine (DPT) entered the market. This vaccine excelled at causing brain inflammation and a variety of concerning differences were seen in the generations born after its mass adoption in America. Note: The rabies vaccine also excelled at causing encephalitis (around 1 in 750 injections, of which 20% were fatal), but it did not have as large an impact on society because far fewer people received it.
Between the 1950s to 1970s, numerous instances happened where a rushed and poorly produced experimental vaccine (e.g., polio or the swine flu) was brought to market to address a non-existent “emergency,” and the government chose to ignore warnings from its scientists that it was not safe to give to America. Since the press was honest at this time, they reported the disaster, it became a national scandal and the government provided compensation to the victims. Note: I compiled those media reports here, the last of which happened in 2002 with Bush’s smallpox vaccine.
In 1986, enough public awareness existed of the dangers of the DPT vaccine that lawsuits were regularly being filed for the brain damage and sudden infant deaths it caused (discussed here). This in turn led to the 1986 vaccine injury act being passed (discussed further here), an act that both shielded vaccine manufacturers from product liability and was intended to help parents of vaccine injured children (even though it didn’t due to selective enforcement of its provisions and the Supreme Court exempting manufacturers from injuries caused by defective vaccines). This act being passed led to an industry gold rush to bring experimental and liability free vaccines to the market, and before long the childhood vaccination schedule ballooned in parallel to chronic illnesses increasing as well.
Note: since this time other vaccines (e.g., RSV and annual COVID vaccinations) were also added to the childhood schedule (but fortunately MAHA managed to recently do the impossible and remove COVID from it).
In 1990, an experimental anthrax vaccine was deployed upon the military to prepare them for invading Iraq. While the war was non-eventful (Saddam did not use anthrax and it was likely the most one-sided conflict in history), the anthrax vaccine severely injured over 100,000 servicemen (leading to what was known as Gulf War Syndrome). Despite these issues, individuals within the Department of Defense who were committed to funding their bioweapons defense program mandated it—leading to severe injuries throughout the military and widespread rebellion against this edict.
After this, new biotechnologies began emerging which made it possible to genetically engineer a plethora of new vaccines that then began to flood the market as ACIP endorses virtually every vaccine given to them regardless of its merits (in fact, throughout their dozens of endorsements I could only identify one case where ACIP did not [boosters for teachers and healthcare workers], and in that instance the CDC simply overrode ACIP). In tandem, direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising was legalized by a 1997 FDA decision, making it possible for the pharmaceutical industry to buy the mass media’s silence, and hence end all future coverage of vaccine injury.
In 2010, Merck convinced America’s women they were at a high risk of dying from cervical cancer (which in reality only kills about 1/38,000 American women each year) so that everyone would buy their highly lucrative vaccine (which was never proven to reduce cervical cancer deaths). This vaccine had an extraordinarily high rate of injuries (e.g., severe autoimmune disorders), but nonetheless, despite a deluge of complaints, the CDC and FDA did everything they could to protect it, and to this day it is still mandated for children.
In 2021, the COVID vaccine hit the market and caused an unprecedented amount of injury (e.g., many noticed healthy adults dying “suddenly” and large polls showed 34% of vaccine recipients reported minor side effects while 7% reported major ones severely impacting their quality of life). Fortunately or unfortunately, the rate of injuries from it was so high that unlike the past disasters, the mass media could no longer sweep it under the rug, which eventually culminated in MAHA ascending as a political force and RFK Jr. being put in charge of the agency which has orchestrated the vaccine disaster for decades.
In my eyes, one of the most important points to take from this history is that at the time each of these happened, the medical profession and public were struck by the explosion of these new diseases (and their immense social cost) but before long, became acclimated to them and forgot they had ever emerged in the first place.
The Harms of Vaccination
There is a large body of evidence suggesting vaccines are either solely responsible for, or one of the primary things responsible for the tsunami of chronic illness which has followed their ever-increasing adoption. …
to read the rest go to: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-much-damage-has-mass-vaccination?publication_id=748806&post_id=166011036&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.
My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason and facts though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.
This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.
But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “that can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.
But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.
I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.
After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.
Another person told me they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during COVID sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.
But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.
This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.
And this is the world we’re handing to our children.
We Built the Surveillance State for Them
I remember twenty years ago, my best friend’s wife (who’s also a dear friend) was about to hire someone when she decided to check the candidate’s Facebook first. The woman had posted: “Meeting the whores at [company name]”—referring to my friend and her coworkers. My friend immediately withdrew the offer. I remember thinking this was absolutely terrible judgment on the candidate’s part, however it was dangerous territory we were entering: the notion of living completely in public, where every casual comment becomes permanent evidence.
Now that danger has metastasized into something unrecognizable. We’ve created a world where every stupid thing a fifteen-year-old says gets archived forever. Not just on their own phones, but screenshot and saved by peers who don’t understand they’re building permanent files on each other—even on platforms like Snapchat that promise everything disappears. We’ve eliminated the possibility of a private adolescence—and adolescence is supposed to be private, messy, experimental. It’s the laboratory where you figure out who you are by trying on terrible ideas and throwing them away.
But laboratories require the freedom to fail safely. What we’ve built instead is a system where every failed experiment becomes evidence in some future trial.
Think about the dumbest thing you believed at sixteen. The most embarrassing thing you said at thirteen. Now imagine that moment preserved in high definition, timestamped, and searchable. Imagine it surfacing when you’re thirty-five and running for school board, or just trying to move past who you used to be.
If there was a record of everything I did when I was sixteen, I would have been unemployable. Come to think of it, I’m way older than that now and I’m unemployable anyway—but the truth still stands. My generation might have been the last to fully enjoy an analog existence as children. We got to be stupid privately, to experiment with ideas without permanent consequences, to grow up without every mistake being archived for future use against us.
I remember teachers threatening us with our “permanent record.” We laughed—some mysterious file that would follow us forever? Turns out they were just early. Now we’ve built those records and handed the recording devices to children. Companies like Palantir have turned this surveillance into a sophisticated business model.
We’re asking children to have adult judgment about consequences they can’t possibly understand. A thirteen-year-old posting something stupid isn’t thinking about college applications or future careers. They’re thinking about right now, today, this moment—which is exactly how thirteen-year-olds are supposed to think. But we’ve built systems that treat childhood immaturity as a prosecutable offense.
The psychological toll is staggering. Imagine being fourteen and knowing that anything you say might be used against you by people you haven’t met yet, for reasons you can’t anticipate, at some unknown point in the future. That’s not adolescence—that’s a police state built out of smartphones and social media.
The result is a generation that’s either paralyzed by self-consciousness or completely reckless because they figure they’re already screwed. Some retreat into careful blandness, crafting personas so sanitized they might as well be corporate spokespeople for their own lives. Others go scorched earth—if everything’s recorded anyway, why hold back? As my friend Mark likes to say, there’s Andrew Tate and then there’s a bunch of incels—meaning the young men either become performatively brash and ridiculous, or they retreat entirely. The young women seem to either drift toward fearful conformity or embrace monetized exposure on platforms like OnlyFans. We’ve managed to channel an entire generation’s rebellion into the very systems designed to exploit them.
The COVID Conformity Test
This is how totalitarian thinking takes root—not through jackbooted thugs, but through a million small acts of self-censorship. ……
TO read the rest go to: https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-cowards-bargain?publication_id=24667&post_id=166277693&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Trump Taps Palantir to Create Master Database on Every American
Hafiz Rashid
The Trump administration is collecting data on all Americans, and they are enlisting the data analysis company Palantir to do it.
The New York Timesreports that President Trump has enlisted the firm, founded by far-right billionaire Peter Thiel, to carry out his March executive order instructing government agencies to share data with each other. The order has increased fears that the government is putting together a database to wield surveillance powers over the American public.
Since then, the administration has been very quiet about these efforts, increasing suspicion. Meanwhile, Palantir has taken more than $113 million in government spending since Trump took office, from both existing contracts and new ones with the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. That number is expected to grow, especially given that the firm just won a new $795 million contract with the DOD last week.
Palantir is speaking with various other agencies across the federal government, including the Social Security Administration and the IRS, about buying its technology, according to the Times. Palantir’s Foundry tool, which analyzes and organizes data, is already being used at the DHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and at least two other agencies, allowing the White House to compile data from different places.
The administration’s efforts to compile data began under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative, which sought Americans’ personal data from multiple agencies including the IRS, the SSA, Selective Service, Medicare, and many others. In some cases, court orders hindered these efforts, but not in all of them.
Thiel has multiple ties to DOGE, both through Musk and through many of his former employees working for the effort or taking other jobs in the Trump administration. And this data collection effort could give Thiel, Musk, and Trump unprecedented power over Americans, with the president being better able to punish his critics and target immigrants.
No sane person sets out to write 50,000 words on mind control. And yet, here we are.
I’ve been studying this theme for the last few years with my ‘study group’ – watching patterns emerge across seemingly unrelated domains. But finding the right framework to discuss it proved challenging. How do you talk about something this vast without sounding paranoid or academic to the point of inaccessibility? The four-part allegory—The Laboratory, The Theater, The Network, The Mirror—finally gave me the structure I needed.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
You Don’t Have to Read All of This
I know most people have little time or interest in wading through this much content on such a challenging topic. That’s completely fine. It can be consumed as a traditional essay series, a sprawling research document, a reference point, or simply sections to explore based on what intrigues you. It might even become a springboard for your own research.
Why is it so lengthy? Pattern recognition requires volume—a few instances might be coincidence, but dozens across different domains reveal an architectural signature. The length isn’t verbosity; it’s necessity. But candidly, this was also just me needing to get this off my chest.
If you prefer audio to text, I was honored that the brilliant and courageous Naomi Wolf had me on her podcast to discuss this series. She first invited me last week:
Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf
“Radical Philosopher Josh Stylman: Is Reality Manufactured?”
“In a magisterial four-part series of essays, technologist Josh Stylman shares his deep research into the history and methods of cultural production over the past 120 years. He highlights the founding of the secretive UK institute Tavistock and reveals how cultural and ideological notions, narratives, and even personalities were intentionally produced a…
Listen now
12 days ago · 75 likes · 12 comments · Dr Naomi Wolf
And we just had a follow-up conversation yesterday that went even deeper…
Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf
“Josh Stylman: Is Reality Constructed?”
“Josh Stylman returns to discuss Part Three of his series on mind manipulation. From celebrity concert rituals to the Nazi occult to your earbuds—are clues to the manipulation of consciousness all around us? Did the world shift in 2012? Is the Internet of Humans underway…
Listen now
6 days ago · 4 likes · Dr Naomi Wolf
These discussions dive into the implications of cognitive sovereignty in our current technological landscape and explore some of the most compelling patterns from the series.
Throughout this process, I walked several tightropes that can be challenging to balance:
First, presenting an academically credible case while making it accessible to general readers—similar to how Marvel movies work for both comic book enthusiasts and casual viewers. Documentation matters, but so does readability.
Second, discussing ideas that sound improbable without coming across as a complete lunatic. When the documented history involves government mind control programs and patents for neural manipulation, the challenge isn’t finding evidence—it’s presenting it in a way that doesn’t immediately trigger dismissal.
Third, creating content that’s both educational and engaging. Information alone isn’t enough if readers can’t connect with it emotionally or conceptually.
Whether I succeeded at any of these is entirely up to you as readers. My goal wasn’t to convince but to document and connect—to map territories that are typically kept separate.
This project started with questions I couldn’t shake – about why reality feels increasingly curated, why we see the same events so differently, why our attention seems less our own each day. I didn’t begin with conclusions seeking evidence; I started with observations seeking patterns.
What emerged wasn’t one smoking gun but thousands of coordinated sparks across history, media, technology, and culture. The patterns became impossible to ignore. Consider just a few of the most compelling:
Dr. Louis Jolyon West’s recurring presence at pivotal historical moments – from examining Jack Ruby after Kennedy’s assassination to visiting Timothy McVeigh in prison after the Oklahoma City bombing. The statistical probability of the same CIA-funded mind control researcher appearing at so many historically significant events defies pure coincidence.
McLean Hospital serving as both an MKULTRA research site and the institution that “treated” numerous creative figures who emerged with dramatically altered personalities and creative directions – from Sylvia Plath to James Taylor to Ray Charles.
The overwhelming documentation of neural influence technology in patents – not speculation but actual technical specifications showing the evolution from classified research to consumer products. Apple’s recent patent for monitoring brain waves through AirPods represents the culmination of a technological lineage that began in government laboratories.
These examples represent just a fraction of the evidence I’ve gathered. Believe it or not, what I published is actually a condensed version—I could easily have made this five times longer, but the challenge wasn’t finding patterns but deciding which ones to include without overwhelming readers (though I realize I may have done that anyway).
These examples aren’t isolated anomalies—they’re glimpses of a deeper architecture.
Why mind control is the root of everything
I realized that mind control isn’t just another topic—it’s the foundation that makes all other manipulation possible. If consciousness itself can be programmed, everything downstream—culture, politics, economics, identity—becomes malleable. The fights we think we’re having about ideology or values are often surface manifestations of deeper programming. Without control of perception and thought, the other systems lack their power. This is why the battle for cognitive sovereignty is so crucial.
Edward Bernays’ propaganda techniques were just the beginning. When Operation Mockingbird revealed the CIA’s systematic infiltration of media organizations, it demonstrated something far more insidious than mere propaganda—a recognition that humans are mimetic creatures whose thoughts can be directed through controlled information channels. Our rulers understand this fundamental aspect of human psychology and have refined their methods accordingly.
For new readers interested in the foundations of these ideas, my earlier works provide context for this larger exploration. The Information Factory, Engineering Reality,The Technocratic Blueprint, Fiat Everything, Divided We Fall, and The Second Matrix each examine different facets of how perception is constructed and deployed. These essays map how synthetic reality manifests across various domains, but mind control represents the source code behind it all—the most fundamental level of manipulation. In software terms, it’s at the bottom of the stack.
Beyond a Single Essay
I’ve spent the last few years going down these rabbit holes, and yes, I’m the guy derailing dinner conversations with CIA mind control operations while everyone else is discussing the latest Netflix series. I’m fully aware I’ve transformed into the Charlie Day meme—wild-eyed, connecting invisible dots with red string, trying to explain that yes, all of this really does connect. The difference is my evidence actually exists in declassified documents.
The deeper I dug, the more I realized this isn’t just another topic to file alongside “interesting things I’ve researched.” This is the operating system everything else runs on. It’s not a subject—it’s the lens through which all subjects must be viewed. If our perception itself is being engineered, then everything downstream—from politics to culture wars to what brand of toothpaste you prefer—becomes secondary.
Friends asked why I didn’t just write a “normal” essay. But I’d already crossed the event horizon of this research—once you start seeing the connections, it becomes impossible to unsee them or to explain them briefly.
So yes, I wrote what amounts to a small book on mind control. I’m not entirely sure what that says about my mental health or social life, but I do know it wasn’t a choice—it was something I had to get out of my system.
I’ve only scratched the surface here. There’s way more to explore, but this is the story I thought I’d tell for now. And it’s not a topic that you write about once and it goes away. If what I’m suggesting is correct, it’s critical to understanding the war we’re fighting for freedom of our minds.
I wrote this because I needed to make sense of my own experience. Because ignoring patterns doesn’t make them disappear. Because sovereignty starts with recognition.
If you see what I’m seeing—welcome to the conversation. If not, that’s okay too. Just keep looking at the world with fresh eyes. Sovereignty starts with recognition, whether or not you agree with my map.
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
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.
