Health & Fitness

Cardiovascular diseases remain a leading cause of death around the world. A primary contributor to these afflictions is high blood pressure, or hypertension. While treatments exist for the condition, which affects tens of millions of Americans, these remedies are not without side effects, and some variants of the disorder are treatment-resistant. The need for more effective therapies to address hypertension-related disease is therefore acute. To accomplish this however, biologists need more detailed maps of the mechanisms underlying cardiovascular regulation. One such regulator is a protein receptor that sits atop cardiovascular cells, acting as a conduit for messages that are transmitted when specific hormone molecules bind with them.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/H0k92mE

The Benefits of Vitamin C in Cancer Treatment

In this interview, Dr. Nathan Goodyear discusses the benefits of vitamin C in cancer treatment. We are both scheduled speakers at the Vitamin C International Consortium Institute’s annual conference in Tampa, Florida, September 9 and 10, 2022.

Goodyear started out as a gynecologist and pelvic floor surgeon. Once out of residency, however, he noticed that a lot of what he’d been taught in medical school didn’t work. Then, in 2006, he developed pheochromocytoma, a rare type of tumor that develops in the adrenal gland, causing it to excrete high amounts of norepinephrine, which in turn causes extremely high blood pressure and heart rate.

Holistic Oncology

That experience pushed him to make the transition into the field of cancer. The last five and a half years, he’s been working with Brio-Medical, a holistic cancer clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, of which the last six months he has served as medical director. He works with four other physicians — two medical doctors and two naturopathic physicians.

“The conventional approach seems to follow the logic ‘destroy to heal,’ and I just don't know where that really occurs in nature outside conventional cancer treatment. Healing has to be your focus and goal to achieve healing. You have to heal to heal. Our healing strategy focus in cancer is to tap into the body’s designed capacity to heal itself through the targeting of the root causes,” Goodyear says.

“When you look at holistic natural therapies, there's this assumption by many, including conventional medicine, that we are just throwing darts up on the wall and hope they stick.

But in actuality, we're following the science of genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics and immunomodulomics. This is the future of medicine that's here now, and we're being incredibly specific and targeted for the dysfunction within the cancer, but with natural holistic or integrated therapy.”

Examples of Holistic Therapies for Cancer

Examples of holistic therapies used for cancer include vitamin C in combination with artemisinin or artesunate (a primary malaria medication). This combo is very good for prostate and breast cancer in particular. Curcumin and melatonin both also have significant anticancer effects. Goodyear likes to combine hyperthermia with high-dose vitamin C and curcumin.

“Studies have shown that when you give vitamin C with whole body hyperthermia, you actually achieve a higher plasma ascorbic acid concentration. So that's going to impact the fight against cancer more,” he explains.

Mistletoe is another excellent cancer treatment. I’ve previously interviewed Dr. Nasha Winters about the use of mistletoe in oncology, so for more in-depth information, see that interview.

One key point to be made about holistic oncology is that the earlier you start this kind of treatment, the better. Unfortunately, most patient who seek alternative strategies have already done tremendous damage to their bodies, particularly the immune system, with one, two or even three rounds of chemo, which really impairs your body’s ability to heal naturally.

“If we can get them earlier in the process ... before they get conventional chemo and/or radiation, the impact is huge,” Goodyear says.

“Before you destroy the immune system, one can actually heal with the immune system. I can't tell you how many ladies with breast cancer have been able to preserve their breasts with this cancer healing strategy. You can actually heal the body, not destroy it. That is a novel concept because when you destroy the immune system through conventional therapy, you're going to see cancer recur and spread.”

How Cancer Kills

Typically, it’s not the initial cancer that kills you. What kills is when the cancer spreads (metastasizes) to other areas of your body. Also, most cancer patients don’t actually die from the cancer, but from the treatment that conventional oncologists use to treat the cancer.

“The literature is very clear — especially in the last five to 10 years — that 90% of morbidity and mortality associated with cancer is when it spreads,” Goodyear says. “Thankfully, research has provide a good understanding of how this chemotherapy and radiation-induced metastasis process occurs.

So, let's look at maximum tolerated chemotherapy. The literature is very clear on this and ... shows the mechanisms in how it [contributes to death]. Maximum tolerated chemotherapy actually induces the mechanisms to spread the cancer. In breast cancer, maximum to tolerated chemotherapy will reduce the primary tumor, yet at the same time, cause it to spread to distant locations in the body.

Thus, that leads to 90% of morbidity and mortality associated with cancer. So, the very treatment being used in conventional oncology to treat the tumor is actually resulting in 90% of morbidity and mortality associated with cancer ... That is in unforced error.

A lot of people that come to us, they're so surprised. They ask, ‘Why didn't I know about this? Why didn't I know that surgery can cause metastasis? Why didn't I know chemotherapy and radiation can cause metastasis?’”

Vitamin C Basics

The story of vitamin C demonstrates that the devil’s in the details. Roughly 50 years ago, Linus Pauling demonstrated that intravenous vitamin C (10 grams a day for 10 days) improved cancer survival. Later, researchers at the Mayo Clinic tried to reproduce the results, but didn’t use IV vitamin C. They instead gave 10 grams orally, and found no benefit.

In the academic battle that followed, Mayo won and for the next several decades, the conventional thought was that vitamin C doesn’t work. That began to change around 2000, when Dr. Ping Chen, a conventional oncologist started looking into vitamin C and publishing papers on its pharmacokinetics.

Since then, there’s been a combination of pushback against the idea that vitamin C works on the one hand, and on the other, growing research that points to vitamin C’s effects as powerful as any drug.

Vitamin C Is Natural but Has Drug-Like Effects

Vitamin C does have drug-like effects, and I like to refer to it as a pharmaco-mimetic, but it’s still a natural biological molecule that cannot be patented, and hence cannot be a drug. Also, to be clear, there are distinct differences between whole food vitamin C and ascorbic acid.

They really have two very different purposes. Whole food vitamin C is not suitable for the treatment of cancer, but does wonders for general health support, as it interacts favorably with copper and iron in your cells and mitochondria. I only recommend and use high-dose IV vitamin C in cases of acute infection or illness, as it does have very potent “drug-like” effects. Goodyear adds:

“It's actually inducing metabolic changes and epigenetics. That's the great thing about natural therapies. Conventional medicine will take an approach to kind of throw a monkey wrench in to the body’s physiology to shut everything down ... without a holistic perspective of how that affects the whole body. It's a very compartmentalized approach.

A holistic approach is like a pebble thrown into a calm pool in the morning. Its effects ripple throughout the physiology of the body. That is the beauty of natural therapies.

Now in cancer and sepsis ... when we're dealing with the major dysfunction found in cancer, where things have metabolically, genetically, immunologically gone off the rails, we have to come in and really work to turn the tide. That's where the intravenous vitamin C delivery is required. That's where the sodium ascorbate comes in, because that's the only way we're going to be able to change that tide.”

Oral Versus IV Vitamin C

When treating cancer, IV needs to be used because you simply cannot take the high dosages required orally. Doses over 10 to 20 grams of ascorbic acid will cause loose stools when taken orally, but IV administration bypasses the limitation of the gut. It also allows the vitamin C to get directly into the blood to the extracellular fluid, into the tumor microenvironment, to penetrate the tumor and saturate the entirety of the tumor.

Now, if you feel like you’re coming down with an infection, such as a flu or cold, oral vitamin C is plenty adequate. Oral dosing of vitamin C, using a nonliposomal product, can double your blood level of vitamin C, and using liposomal vitamin C — which is what I’ve been recommending for years — can increase it three- to fivefold — up to about 300 micromolar. So, liposomal vitamin C can make a big difference.

However, when you’re dealing with cancer, you need a minimum 1,000 micromolar, or 1 millimolar, in the extracellular fluid to kill cancer cells, which is why you really need to use IV. In the case of large tumors, or significant cancer spread, much higher plasma concentrations are required.

While the dosage is highly individual to each patient, as a general benchmark, Goodyear typically starts at 1.5 grams per kilogram, which for the average person would be somewhere between 100 and 200 grams per dose, three times a week.

So, to be clear, I do not advise taking ascorbic acid for daily vitamin C requirements. I strongly suggest you use whole food vitamin C which is far superior as a daily supplement.

Actions of Vitamin C

Vitamin C has a wide variety of effects, which can be generally classified into the following: genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic and immunomodulatomic.

“The point here is that vitamin C is not just directly killing cancer cells, what we would call cytotoxic effects. Vitamin C is actually working to change the metabolism of the cancer.

What that means is, it creates an energy crisis. It actually depletes the body of certain intermediates that make it so this cancer, which is addicted to sugar, cannot use [the sugar] efficiently to make energy (ATP), so it ... dies. It also depletes [the cancer] of its ability to detoxify.

So, to be specific, research shows that vitamin C depletes the cancer of reduced glutathione. And getting rid of that glutathione in that cancer eliminates its ability to handle the high oxidative stress that this pro-oxidative vitamin C therapy induces, which kills the cancer cell.

It also disrupts how cancer makes energy. And it's fascinating because everybody looks at this and they ask, ‘Well, how will this affect my healthy cells?’ This is the paradigm changer with vitamin C.

The environment — as much as the dose, as much as the delivery, as much as the tumor saturation — the environment encountered by that vitamin C dictates the result as much as the dose itself. So, you can induce a pro-oxidative effect, a detoxification crisis, an energy crisis, in cancer cells, and healthy cells do just fine.”

Using Pro-Oxidation to Kill Cancer Cells

When you think of vitamin C, you’re probably thinking it’s an antioxidant, which is true, but in high doses only available through IV, it actually becomes a pro-oxidant, and that’s what allows it to kill cancer cells and gives it its antiviral and antibacterial properties. Goodyear explains:

“Everybody's familiar with the buffer system related to acid and base. When you look at redox — reduction oxidation — that's really just the flow of electrons. It's a buffer system, very similar to that acid base balance. So, in oral doses, even in a lower dose, in an environment that allows it, vitamin C is antioxidative.

And there's plenty benefits of that. That's why it's so helpful in viral and bacterial infections. It's countering that cytotoxic burst found in infection. It's donating an electron and becomes oxidized [which neutralizes oxygen] ... That's why vitamin C ... can help people with sepsis, including COVID sepsis, and the associated COVID cytokine storm that causes most of the lung damage and the associated increase in mortality.

But in the higher doses — again, its different effects are dictated by the different environments — it can become pro-oxidative. It's very different in that it's delivering the oxidative stress to the tumor and creating it through hydroxyl free radicals, hydrogen peroxide, superoxide anions.”

Melatonin for Cancer

Goodyear also uses melatonin for cancer, and monitors patients’ melatonin levels to ensure proper dosage. Typically, patients will start off with IV melatonin at a dose of 10 to 20 milligrams daily for two weeks, to get the level up as quickly as possible, while simultaneously taking oral melatonin at a dose of about 60 mg per day. The oral dose is then titrated upward, based on bodyweight and other parameters.

“Ideally, your blood level is supposed to peak at around midnight. So, with that in mind, if you're going to do the oral dose, you want to take the highest dose right before bed, maybe 45 minutes before, and then right before bed.

The other doses, if you're going to do it three times a day, would be maybe 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. You really want to keep it away from solar noon. Otherwise you're going to [impair your] chronobiology.

When patients go home, we do work more toward a more appropriate circadian rhythm of the delivery of melatonin. But when patients come to us, so many of them are in an advanced stage, so, in that acute setting, we have to use these therapies in combination and sequence, together, to really turn the tide against the cancer.”

What Kind of Results Can You Expect From Holistic Oncology?

Goodyear and I cover a lot more ground in this interview than I’ve summarized here, so I encourage you to listen to the full interview. In closing, what kind of results might you get using a holistic approach to cancer treatment? Goodyear says:

“I'd say probably 90% of our patients are metastatic and [have had] prior treatment. In those patients, in a six-week or maybe eight-week cycle, we can see a significant reduction in tumor burden. What I tell them is, ‘When you come into our clinic, my goal is [for you to have] no evidence of disease when you leave.’

They ask, ‘Is that possible?’ Well, as that one case study I mentioned, it was achieved. Now, she ended up being with us for nine weeks, but the point is she came in a wheelchair, she walked out, her PET-CT scan [showed no sign of disease], and her tumor markers [were] normal upon discharge.

Our goal is no evidence of disease, but we're going to typically see — in most of our patients, well over 50% — a significant reduction in that tumor burden while they're here with us. The after-care, is very important to continue that process. What we're talking about here is at least a 50% reduction in the tumor that you can see clinically, through labs and through imaging.

And so, many of our patients will come in where the breast is a whole tumor, [or] their spine lights up like a Christmas tree. So, it's not like we have a patient coming in and they have a small little nodule, OK? These are patients that have failed chemotherapy twice or more, [have had] surgery, radiation [and the cancer] recurred, not just once, but often two or even more times.

It's a tough spot to be in, but if we can set a goal of ‘no evidence of disease’ and see a 50% reduction in these patients, hey, that's something that we can work with, because we're not destroying the body; actually we're working to heal the body.”

As mentioned earlier, most of the patients have destroyed much of their bodies’ innate healing ability through repeated toxic treatments, which makes holistic treatment far less effective. Once chemotherapy damages your immune system it becomes extraordinarily difficult to treat it.

I know how panic-stricken one can get when given a cancer diagnosis, but if you’re in the early to mid-stages, you have virtually nothing to lose by going holistic FIRST. Your chances of total remission will be far greater than waiting until all other treatments fail, and you may be able to save your breasts and other parts of your body that would otherwise be cut out.

A Case History

To make his point, Goodyear offers the case history of a woman with bilateral breast cancer who’d been told she needed a bilateral mastectomy, bilateral radiation with chemo, and lymph node dissection — six to 12 months of brutal and toxic treatments that would have left her disfigured.

“When I was talking to her before she came, I said, ‘Let me tell you my approach. Since you've not had any treatment, if we take this in a healing perspective and through a holistic integrative approach, you may just save your breasts, and you may negate the need for any of those other harmful therapies.’

And in fact, now she's over two years out — cancer-free, no breasts removed, no lymph nodes removed. So, here is a person who was headed down that road that would be life changing in a negative way. We hit the pause button.

She took a chance to think, she took a chance to read. And then she said, ‘You know what? I want a different approach.’ We addressed it with a holistic evidence-based, integrative approach ... and now she has both breasts and she's living cancer-free.

She even had COVID and did great ... When the immune system is not destroyed, things work so much better, and full-dose chemo destroys the immune system.”

More Information

If you’d like to book an appointment, schedule a free phone consultation, or simply get more information, you can do that through his website, Brio-Medical.com.

from Articles https://ift.tt/16GCnVa
via IFTTT

The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy

This article was previously published August 9, 2020, and has been updated with new information.

Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we're currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

He's written two books on this topic: "Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation" and "Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order." I was intrigued by his work as my own approach is to seek to understand the foundational cause of any given problem.

"I think that's a really important takeaway for listeners," Wood says. "Don't just confine your view to the microcosm, like what's in front of you. Always try and look for the big picture … Once you have the big picture, it's hard to unsee it. Once you see it, it's hard to not see it. It guides everything else you do within your life at that point, and that's really important.

It's certainly important in medicine, because if a doctor or researcher doesn't really understand the whole picture, how can he understand a little part of the picture when you get right down into some nitty-gritty detail? It's very difficult."

Wood's foray into the ideology of technocracy began with a chance meeting with Anthony Sutton at a gold conference in the early 1970s. Sutton has written several books about political science, primarily about the Trilateral Commission, which Wood had studied from a financial angle.

They developed a relationship and eventually wound up collaborating on a newsletter and two books, "Trilaterals Over Washington: Volumes 1 and 2," which have since been re-released.

"Having been mentored by somebody like Anthony Sutton, who was a world-class researcher, left indelible marks on my life. I couldn't do what I do today without his coaching, instruction, watching him do things, watching his mind work," Wood says.

"He would sit down every morning and spend his two or three hours just flipping through the newspapers. Looking for stories in the front page, back page, middle page, classifieds, whatever. He was really intent on keeping his mind focused on his subject, and digging in the right places and stuff. So that's helped me today, to do what I do."

Definition of Technocracy

So, what is "technocracy"? As explained by Wood, technocracy is a movement that started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation's economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise were going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.

They called this system "technocracy." It was to be a resource-based economic system. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, this system is instead based on energy resources and social engineering. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they're allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.

"They actually proposed to use an energy script instead of money, and let energy be the determining factor on what was produced, bought and sold, and consumed, and so on. But being engineers and scientists, in 1938 when this definition came out, which I'm going to read, they had capsulized what they viewed as the scientific method and the scientific approach.

It's important to see that today, because we see the same subtleties, the same mindsets, the same thinking processes that they had back then. I will contend that's a very dangerous thing. It's a dangerous thinking process. But here's what they concluded in 1938:

'Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.'

First off, you'll see that it's the science of social engineering. That ought to be enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your head, because who wants to be scientifically engineered by somebody that you don't know, somebody that doesn't know you, but rather has this idea that they can reform you, remake you?

But most importantly, you see the economic aspect that they had in mind, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism — that's all the people in society — to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.

This was an economic system from the get go, not a political system. And what's really important to see in that — the big takeaway here — is that technocracy viewed politics and politicians as an unnecessary, irrelevant, and even just a stumbling block to getting on down the road with society.

They proposed to get rid of all the politicians. Just dismiss them. Dismiss the Senate, the Congress, all the elected officials. They basically wanted to set up an organization chart, like a corporation would have today, where you have the president and you have vice-presidents doing different things. Then you have directors over certain departments and so on.

And they would just disappear the political system per se, leaving no citizen representation of government. Of course, that means the Constitution [is] immaterial, too, because that defines the political structure.

In fact, they openly called on FDR to declare himself dictator, so that he could just implement technocracy. He didn't take them up on it. We can thank God for that. We only got the New Deal instead. By comparison, it's much better … So, this was the genesis of technocracy and technocrats."

Scientists Stand Above All Other Individuals

As explained by Wood, the technocrats "had this crazy idea that they were better than everybody else." This philosophy and mindset can be traced back to Henri de Saint-Simon, a French philosopher from around 1800. Saint-Simon is considered the father of scientism, social sciences, transhumanism and technocracy.

He said in one of his essays, "A scientist … is a man who foresees. It is because science provides the means to predict, that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men." This was the mindset of technocrats in the 1930s, and it's the same today. In essence, science is used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running.

Top Technocrats Rescued Through Operation Paperclip

While technocracy began in the U.S., the first country to implement it was Nazi Germany under Hitler. However, it's important to realize that technocracy is not Republican or Democrat. It's not Marxist or Capitalist. It's not a Nazi philosophy. It's an independent ideology.

When technocracy first began in the U.S., it was a membership organization. At its peak, there were more than 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members in the United States and Canada. Incidentally, the head of technocracy in Canada was the grandfather of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Around the same time, a technocratic organization also got started in Germany.

"As Hitler rose to power, he realized that the technocrats, as an organization, would be competitive with him becoming a dictator. So, he outlawed the Technocratic party in Germany. At about the same time, technocracy was outlawed in Canada [for two years]. For a number of reasons, they thought that somehow the two were connected and that technocracy in Canada would be supporting Hitler …

It was discovered later by historians that these technocrats, who were banned from meeting, were actually very active during the course of World War II, during Hitler's reign. They were the statisticians, the mathematicians, the physicists, the engineers for business and so on, that really enabled Hitler's expansion and dictatorship.

That's not to say that they were all in lockstep with his goals, but they had a good time supporting all those things, because they were highly prized by Hitler and his leadership.

During the war, they found out also that these technocrats were communicating between the columns of power in Nazi, Germany. Hitler was rather paranoid about keeping all of those different areas separate so they would not communicate, but they did communicate during the war.

After the war … a top-secret operation [took place] in the United States … called Operation Paperclip, which brought some 1,200 of these top scientists and engineers from Germany to the United States. They sanitized their resumes and installed them into positions of scientific prowess in the United States, like at the national technology agencies.

So, the very same people that were helping Hitler do what he did, completely bypassed the Nuremberg trial. Some of them should have been there, I'm sure. But they were brought to the United States and given high positions of prestige, to continue to practice their science and engineering."

Beauty and the Beast

The Trilateral Commission's co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller.

"Brzezinski wrote this book called 'Between Two Ages — America's Role in the Technetronic Era.' It caught Rockefeller's eye. And so, Rockefeller and Brzezinski became like the beauty and the beast. They went on to form the Trilateral Commission, which declared, from Day 1, that they wanted to foster a new international economic order.

They said that repeatedly in their literature, and this is what got Sutton excited, and me too. What is this new international economic order you're talking about? What do you mean? We have an economic order. It seems to be working. Why do you want to change everything? What is your idea here?"

The Trilateral Commission more or less took over the Jimmy Carter administration, and has dominated the political structure ever since. Regardless of their party affiliations, U.S. presidents have been members of the Trilateral Commission.

Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all members. Within two weeks of his inauguration, Barack Obama appointed 11 Trilateral Commission members to top-level positions in his administration, equivalent to 12% of the Commission's entire U.S. membership.¹ The ramifications of this are described in Wood's article,² "Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame."

"What happened here is that they were after the mechanism, because America was the greatest economic engine in the world at that time," Wood explains. "They wanted to get control of the economic engine of the world so that they could manipulate it for their own benefit and convert it, transform it if you will, into technocracy …"

Personal Freedom Is the Enemy of Technocracy

It's important to realize we're fighting an enemy that has literally spent the last several generations compiling their power base. They've done it progressively, slowly and very consistently over time with the endgame in mind at all times. They engineered circumstances that allow them to amass more and more power.

Their last great power grab in the U.S. was the 9/11 tragedy. It allowed them to push through the Patriot Act, which sacrificed many of our freedoms in one fell swoop. They're in the process of doing it again with the current pandemic. It's quite clear the pandemic is being used to move us toward an authoritarian tyranny.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a platform that will dwarf their 9/11 power-grab and radically increase their ability to continue to erode our civil liberties and control our society. If you find this line of reasoning interesting, I think you will enjoy the video below from Really Graceful, which reviews whether or not you'd even notice if you were living under tyranny.

Technocratic Infrastructure

It's also crucial to understand that the only reason they've not yet been able to overtake the U.S. is because of our Constitution. We're the biggest barrier worldwide to implementing technocracy, which is why there's been so much focus on dismantling the freedoms of Americans.

"The strategy has been to build infrastructure for their system. Infrastructure is the schematic diagram that makes things work. For instance, we have roads in our country. We have railroads. We have physical roads. We have freeways. We have telecommunications systems. We have telephone lines. We have airports and things that connect everything together.

The concept of infrastructure is basic to any economic system. You have to have some type of infrastructure, so that the whole system will work. And so, today when the government passes a $2 trillion infrastructure bill, you and I will think, 'Oh, finally, we're going to get those potholes fixed on our street or something.'

In the technocrat mind, in the larger scheme, setting up the infrastructure involves so many more things today than it ever did.

For instance, the infrastructure of technocracy now has to do with anything called smart: smart growth, smart cities, smart phones, smart devices, the internet of things that ties everything together, all of the sensors and the cameras. This is the new infrastructure of the digital era. It's all technology based, I might add.

So, infrastructure started way back when the Trilateral Commission was first started. A case in point: One of the early founding members of the commission was [the late] Caspar Weinberger, who happened to be the president of Bechtel Engineering. That's the largest private engineering company in the world. They're huge. They're are private. Nobody knows much about them. But they were part of the Trilateral Commission group …

They've always realized that without building this infrastructure, they have nothing. They can get nowhere. They must have it in order to move on down the road. We've seen this emphasis on infrastructure ever since 1973 in ways that people hardly can understand anymore, because it's so technological.

But the infrastructure being laid today includes such things as the internet of things, where sensors and everything connect together to feed data back to, who knows, some mainframe somewhere.

All of the financial transactions, all of the data transactions [get sent] back to some computer somewhere where artificial intelligence is sitting on top of it all to make sense of all the data coming in.

The same artificial intelligence programs now are taking that data, working it, getting some sense of meaning out of it, then turning around and issuing things that we should do in response. In other words, how it should change us.

This is the science of social engineering. It's engineering by algorithm. They saw this even back in the 1930s, even though there was no such thing as artificial intelligence back then.

They realized that science eventually would be to the point where their algorithms could be automated to the point where they would be able to replace the political structure, to keep everything in line, to keep everything working.

Rule by algorithm. Operation by algorithm. This is the big predominant thing we see today. When something doesn't fit into the algorithm, you'll hear the term 'Science says.' We should do that thing."

To give you just one rather hilarious real-world example of the technocratic "science says" strategy, here's a sentence from an article in The Sun:³ "People who refuse to wear a face mask to reduce the risk of coronavirus have lower cognitive ability, new research has found."

Not only is it laughable because it's illogical, it's also completely irrelevant, since there's not a single well-designed study showing that mask wearing lowers the spread of viral infections.

Rule by Algorithm

Initially, science is used to issue suggestions, but those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates. We've repeatedly seen that with vaccines, for example. But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there's a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time.

"People who buck the system won't be able to participate in all the things in society that other people do who got the vaccines and just took the program without questioning. The algorithm will control everybody, will manipulate everybody.

So, it goes from, 'Science says' to the algorithm, and then it becomes automated. Then they don't have to say 'Science says' anymore. They just push the button. The algorithm takes care of it and you get the shot and that's the end of it.

This business of infrastructure is very sophisticated. Today it's called supply chain, by the way. That's a big term you'll hear, too. The supply chain, moving goods and services to get just in the right place, just in time.

No warehouse is necessary. Just kind of ship it and it's there exactly the day you need it. This has all been automated as well. It's part of the infrastructure they need to implement technocracy one day."

Data Is the New Oil

In her book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism," professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It's crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend.

"Data is the new oil of the 21st century," Wood says. "We said that for years now, and it's really true. Whoever owns the data, controls the system. Data is more valuable to technocracy than any other commodity that you could conceivably imagine. And Google has been collecting this data for a long time.

They've been analyzing it for a long time, and they have a number of techniques now where they can use that data, weaponize it in a sense, turn it back on us and cause it to modify our behavior. And this is right in line with the scientific social engineering concept.

Several years ago, Eric Schmidt [former long-time Google CEO and, later, chairman of Alphabet,] was invited to be a member of the Trilateral commission. He's also hobnobbing with our government to create systems for surveillance and data collection. Google now has been in a position to weaponize that data … Google does this in several ways.

Not only do they condition the feed that you see when you search for a certain term, but also … when you start to type in a search, it will give you the answers [and] you pick one. It won't give you the ones that you might really be looking for, but it'll give you what they think you should pick. This has a huge, psychological impact on people. Just huge."

What's the Ultimate Goal?

For instance, years ago, if you searched for a holistic medicine topic, many of my articles would appear at the top of your search. In June 2019, Google quietly started to eliminate Mercola.com from search results. I discussed this in detail in two different articles when that happened. Recently, however, it appears that Google is again allowing searches, but only if you include Mercola in the search terms.

"You haven't done anything different. You're still doing exactly what you did, but Google is treating you as a non-person now," Wood says. "It reminds you a little bit of '1984,' where Winston worked in the ministry of information and his business half the time was scratching out people from history. They just ceased to exist.

Every record, even their birth record was erased and nobody would ever hear that person's name again. If they went to look, they couldn't find him. And then people started thinking 'Maybe it was just my imagination. I never really knew somebody like that.'

Google has this power to present information that it wants you to hear or see, and they can manipulate minds and mindsets. It's just amazing. They even said, internally, that they believe they have the power to take the 2020 election away from Trump because of this very feature. Well, wait a minute.

If any person or organization sets themselves up intentionally to overthrow the government of the United States, I think there's a term for that. It's called sedition. It might give way to insurrection as well, but that doesn't bother these people. There's no ethical guide whatsoever that tells them this is wrong and don't do it. They feel this is perfectly normal. They've got the data, they make the rules.

So, they're influencing people, they're nudging people in one direction or another direction. And it's extremely dangerous because those who are susceptible to that kind of manipulation, once they are in that manipulation channel, they can get them to do anything.

Once it gets a hold of a person and really starts messing with their mind, then they can feed all kinds of stuff into it and get them to do all kinds of things they would not have otherwise done.

And that's true for Facebook and Twitter and other entities like that as well. But you can't look at Google, Facebook and Twitter and say these are communists. You can't do that. They're technocrats. They march to a different tune completely and they could care less about the political ideology behind it.

I don't care who you are, what your political persuasion is, but if you start writing against vaccines, for instance … you'll find yourself censored just right along with everybody else and your stories will disappear. There'll be shadow banned. There'll be pushed down the stack where they don't appear in the searches anymore.

It doesn't really have to do with a class of people that they're censoring, it has to do with the topics that are being censored. That's the key thing here to understand. One of the key topics today that they are so in love with is this idea of global manipulation of the human [gene] pool, to get the medical hooks into your body.

This is social engineering at its extreme, where they're not only engineering the society around you, the environment around you, they also want to engineer you personally. This is their mindset right now. We've seen evidence of this all over the place. I don't want to go into it and confuse this conversation, but this is where it's going."

Sustainable Development Isn't What You Think

Wood also explains why "sustainable development" goals, which sound like a good thing, really aren't. The United Nations has declared that sustainable development is going to be the new economic system of the future. It's a resource-based economic system based on energy.

"A couple of years ago, the head of climate change at the U.N., Christiana Figueres, gave a press conference in Europe and she said, 'This is the first time in the history of mankind that we're setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.'

That's a direct quote from her lips. I dedicated a chapter in my book to demonstrate that sustainable development is technocracy from the 1930s. It has all the same markers. It has all the same elements in it. It was brought to the United Nation by members of The Trilateral Commission, by the way …

Their vision for the future of society is this sustainable future where they will control all the resources and all the consumption. In other words, they will tell businesses what they're allowed to build and they will tell consumers what they're allowed to consume. Period, end of subject. You don't need to be involved in this. They figure this all out for you in advance.

This is the science of social engineering here. They have the science, you just have to follow and do what they tell you to do. It's very insidious. Of course, they have nice platitudes like we're going to eliminate poverty, we're going to have education for all, we're going to have jobs with dignity.

That's all wonderful stuff, but when you get down to the bottom of their so-called sustainable development [and green deal] goals, you see [that] all you have to do to get those things is let us have all the control over the resources and the management of those resources on a global basis."

Taking Back Local Government Is Key

Importantly, what the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they've simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. Wood also reviews what we can do to save our republic and thwart the steady march of technocracy:

"I believe very strongly that local activism is the only way to rebuild our country, if there is going to be any rebuilding at all. Local activism — because this is how they got us. They built [the technocratic system] from the bottom up. We cannot tear their house down from the top down. It's simply is just not going to happen. They're too powerful," Wood says.

"There is no national government or any element of national government that's going to save us from these technocrats and technocracy. There's no state government, either, or local government, the way it stands now, unless that local government gets influenced and populated by people who know better and who are willing to tell these others:

'Go away, you don't belong here. This is not the way we're going to run our community, our town, our city,' whatever it is, and we have access to those people."

One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. They are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agenda.

"There was a city in California, I can't remember the name right now, but somebody got to the city council and educated every one of them. The city council held a referendum and passed a binding resolution that says there will be no agency of the city or any other activity of the city that will support Agenda 21. They banned Agenda 21 from their city, lock, stock and barrel. It was just a small city, but I thought, 'Yeah!'"

What is Agenda 21? It is the keystone document for Sustainable Development. It was developed in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro conference of the United Nations' first Earth summit. This became the agenda for the 21st century. The doctrine that came to be known as Agenda 21 came from a book written by Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland, called "Our Common Future."

Citizens for Free Speech

We cover a lot of information in this interview, so be sure to listen to it in its entirety, or read through the transcript for more. Also consider picking up one or both of his books, "Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation" and "Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order."

Wood's nonprofit organization, Citizens for Free Speech, is another excellent resource where you can learn more about your constitutional rights and how to communicate your ideas to others. For a small donation, Citizens for Free Speech also offers a laminated No Mask Card that you can wear on a lanyard, explaining your First Amendment Right to disobey local mask mandates.

"I started Citizens for Free Speech with the idea that technocracy is attacking the First Amendment," Wood says. "It's censoring our ability to communicate. It's keeping us from communicating with each other and with our government and with our adversaries, those who may not agree with us fully.

Our ability to communicate has been completely decimated in America. We're so dysfunctional. Everybody's at everybody else's throat all the time. There's no patience, there's no civil discourse anymore. And I believe that what people really have to learn, if they're going to be local activists, they need to learn how to communicate their ideas.

Once they get ideas, they need to learn how to communicate those ideas to other people. Maybe those people agree with them, maybe they don't, but nevertheless, they need to be able to express their ideas in a way that everybody in the room doesn't get triggered and start hammering on you.

This concept of appropriate communication is what restoring the First Amendment at this point is all about … The First Amendment is under an intense attack by these people. That's part of their strategy. Get rid of the First Amendment effectively, and what else do you have? Well, you have the Second Amendment. That's the first thing you see.

I don't even want to talk about the Second Amendment. I support it totally, don't get me wrong, but if we lose the First Amendment, the Second Amendment was put there to take care of the loss of the first. And that's the strategy that the enemy has, to break America down.

[Once you] get rid of the First Amendment, they figure America will fall into chaos, probably armed conflict, and that will make it just right for them to sweep in and take over when people then beg for anybody to put government back together, put the country back together.

So, the idea of supporting and defending the First Amendment is critical right now. People can get the issues, but if they cannot communicate those issues effectively, what's the point? Why just sit on your couch and know everything there is to know if you have no ability to communicate that to somebody else? …

People … understand the value now, or maybe the necessity, of civil disobedience. This is a very touchy subject. I don't want to go down the road too much. But we have reached a point where technocracy has pushed us into a corner …

If we do not resist and say, 'We're not going along with your program,' then they will continue to push us into the corner until we simply cannot get out of that corner. The time has come for people to do what they know is right, and to protect themselves first — not to think about 'the greater good' all the time …

Once people see through the pseudoscience of face mask and social distancing, contact tracing, and all these mechanisms that are being thrown down at us, once they start to see through the statistical models being totally erroneous, they're beginning to understand we just need to stop this behavior and not obey them …

We must restore our Constitution, which is the framework for everything else in our nation. We must restore the effective application of the constitution to our society …

There's public shaming, the cancel culture, it all comes to bear on this right now. This is part of the communication process that we need to overcome. We need to push this line of thinking back and restore personal individual liberty to America."

from Articles https://ift.tt/8a9j7yO
via IFTTT

New recommendations aim to ease patient access to lung cancer clinical trials

A clinical trial is only as powerful as its participants. For years, researchers have struggled to fill clinical trials and enroll sufficiently diverse groups of patients for results to reflect the broader population, in part because of stringent guidelines on who can participate.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/zhgnLP8

The many ways nature nurtures human well-being

A systematic review of 301 academic articles on 'cultural ecosystem services' has enabled researchers to identify how these nonmaterial contributions from nature are linked to and significantly affect human well-being. They identified 227 unique pathways through which human interaction with nature positively or negatively affects well-being. These were then used to isolate 16 distinct underlying mechanisms, or types of connection, through which people experience these effects. This comprehensive review brings together observations from a fragmented field of research, which could be of great use to policymakers looking to benefit society through the careful use and protection of the intangible benefits of nature.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/csnCXwa