Humanley
Helping people heal themselves. Good health is a journey not a destination. Humanley challenges the status quo of all things health and wellness.
Can You Catch A Cold?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763504409
Podcast, blogs & more
https://www.humanley.com/
Can You Catch A Cold?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763504409
Podcast, blogs & more
https://www.humanley.com/
Рэйтынг TGlist
0
0
ТыпПублічны
Вертыфікацыя
Не вертыфікаваныНадзейнасць
Не надзейныРазмяшчэнне
МоваІншая
Дата стварэння каналаJul 19, 2021
Дадана ў TGlist
Nov 05, 2024Прыкрепленая група
Падпісчыкаў
9 952
24 гадз.
50%Тыдзень
18-0.2%Месяц
620.6%
Індэкс цытавання
0
Згадкі0Рэпостаў на каналах0Згадкі на каналах0
Сярэдняе ахоп 1 паста
337
12 гадз.3370%24 гадз.3370%48 гадз.1 3440%
Узаемадзеянне (ER)
10.39%
Рэпостаў19Каментары0Рэакцыі16
Узаемадзеянне па ахопу (ERR)
0%
24 гадз.0%Тыдзень0%Месяц
10.96%
Ахоп 1 рэкламнага паста
337
1 гадз.236.82%1 – 4 гадз.31493.18%4 - 24 гадз.821243.62%
Усяго пастоў за 24 гадзіны
0
Дынаміка
-
Апошнія публікацыі ў групе "Humanley"
Пераслаў з:
Dr. Sam Bailey Official
08.04.202522:53
A Farewell to Virology by Dr Mark Bailey was first published in 2022. The 28,000-word treatise exposed not only the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2, but also the entire virus model itself. The timeless work was, and remains, one of the most important bulwarks against virology's pseudoscience and the tyranny it fuels.
It is now available in book form. Watch here 👉 https://tinyurl.com/bp69mere
It is now available in book form. Watch here 👉 https://tinyurl.com/bp69mere
Пераслаў з:
CultivateElevate
03.04.202502:53
Vaccines in children? Just say no. 🚫
1986 Ronald Reagan passed the Vaccine protection act Protecting vaccine companies rather than the people.
Diabetes type 1 Induced by Vaccines ➡️ PDF Thankfully heavy metals can be detoxed and all of these induced illnesses can be reversed 🌞
1986 Ronald Reagan passed the Vaccine protection act Protecting vaccine companies rather than the people.
Diabetes type 1 Induced by Vaccines ➡️ PDF Thankfully heavy metals can be detoxed and all of these induced illnesses can be reversed 🌞
25.03.202520:12
If we accept that generational trauma causes disease, then we must also consider that;
1. Our health status is determined by the perceptions of random events that unfolded in the lives of those who came before us.
2. We are the victims of our forefathers very existence.
3. We pay the price for something that happened to someone else.
4. We were destined for disease long before our conception.
5. We are not responsible for our own health or well-being.
6. We have no control over our own health.
7. Diet and lifestyle are unimportant.
8. Beliefs and perceptions about health are inconsequential.
9. We must heal someone else’s trauma to heal ourselves.
10. We are ultimately responsible for the health of future generations.
If trauma really is the cause of our modern health woes, then the societal, political, religious, medical, and meta-physical implications are immense. But, if it's not the problem, we must shift our focus so as to not lose sight of the true causes.
Follow Humanley
1. Our health status is determined by the perceptions of random events that unfolded in the lives of those who came before us.
2. We are the victims of our forefathers very existence.
3. We pay the price for something that happened to someone else.
4. We were destined for disease long before our conception.
5. We are not responsible for our own health or well-being.
6. We have no control over our own health.
7. Diet and lifestyle are unimportant.
8. Beliefs and perceptions about health are inconsequential.
9. We must heal someone else’s trauma to heal ourselves.
10. We are ultimately responsible for the health of future generations.
If trauma really is the cause of our modern health woes, then the societal, political, religious, medical, and meta-physical implications are immense. But, if it's not the problem, we must shift our focus so as to not lose sight of the true causes.
Follow Humanley
23.03.202514:04
The art of letting go.
Follow Humanley
Follow Humanley
21.03.202506:46
The Dysbiosis Delusion
Almost everyone is familiar with the term 'dysbiosis', but what actually is it? Is it even a thing?
A commonly accepted definition of dysbiosis is 'a change in the bacterial composition away from normal'. So, what does medicine consider a normal bacterial composition to be?
Well, according to the Journal of Gastroenterology "the definition of a healthy microbiome remains elusive".
A 2022 article published in Chemical Reviews stated "the exact definition of a healthy microbiome has yet to be defined".
The BMJ attempts to define a healthy microbiome by stating that "a high microbial diversity is generally considered a marker of gut health". Yet in the very next breath they admit "high diversity does not necessarily equate to better health".
If a normal microbiome has never been defined, then there is no baseline or reference standard.
That's a huge problem.
Why?
Because without knowing what a normal or healthy microbiome is, it's impossible to know what an abnormal one is.
This reeks of something eerily close to circular reasoning. In fact, this very issue was highlighted in a scathing review of the use of the term 'dysbiosis' in 2019. The paper aptly pointed out that most researchers use this this term "without even an ad hoc definition or specification", and that "this catch-all phrase is a circular definition with no scientific value".
According to the BMJ "there is a problematic issue with the term ’dysbiosis’, because it links microbial imbalances to various illnesses without precision or definition".
But wait, there's more.
Most people assume that dysbiosis is the cause of their ill health and that this link has been 'proven scientifically'. However, nothing could further from the truth. In 2018, an expert panel concluded that "it is unknown whether dysbiosis is a cause, consequence or both of health and disease". This fact has been reiterated in many papers published since then.
If no one knows what dysbiosis is, then how can anyone test for it?
If no one knows whether it's a cause or consequence of disease, how can anyone claim to treat it?
If no one knows what a healthy microbiome is, how can anyone recommend fancy pills or potions to restore it?
Talk about being bamboozled.
Follow Humanley
Almost everyone is familiar with the term 'dysbiosis', but what actually is it? Is it even a thing?
A commonly accepted definition of dysbiosis is 'a change in the bacterial composition away from normal'. So, what does medicine consider a normal bacterial composition to be?
Well, according to the Journal of Gastroenterology "the definition of a healthy microbiome remains elusive".
A 2022 article published in Chemical Reviews stated "the exact definition of a healthy microbiome has yet to be defined".
The BMJ attempts to define a healthy microbiome by stating that "a high microbial diversity is generally considered a marker of gut health". Yet in the very next breath they admit "high diversity does not necessarily equate to better health".
If a normal microbiome has never been defined, then there is no baseline or reference standard.
That's a huge problem.
Why?
Because without knowing what a normal or healthy microbiome is, it's impossible to know what an abnormal one is.
This reeks of something eerily close to circular reasoning. In fact, this very issue was highlighted in a scathing review of the use of the term 'dysbiosis' in 2019. The paper aptly pointed out that most researchers use this this term "without even an ad hoc definition or specification", and that "this catch-all phrase is a circular definition with no scientific value".
According to the BMJ "there is a problematic issue with the term ’dysbiosis’, because it links microbial imbalances to various illnesses without precision or definition".
But wait, there's more.
Most people assume that dysbiosis is the cause of their ill health and that this link has been 'proven scientifically'. However, nothing could further from the truth. In 2018, an expert panel concluded that "it is unknown whether dysbiosis is a cause, consequence or both of health and disease". This fact has been reiterated in many papers published since then.
If no one knows what dysbiosis is, then how can anyone test for it?
If no one knows whether it's a cause or consequence of disease, how can anyone claim to treat it?
If no one knows what a healthy microbiome is, how can anyone recommend fancy pills or potions to restore it?
Talk about being bamboozled.
Follow Humanley
18.03.202506:26
Important Update
Comments have been turned back on in this channel. Comments were disabled for quite some time as the chat was getting out of hand.
To ensure an enjoyable and enriching learning experience for everyone please follow the below guidelines when engaging with others in the forum.
Community Guidelines
This forum is a place for people to engage in an open, honest, and amicable discussion about health and wellness. Whilst we encourage rigorous intellectual debate, and the sharing of different perspectives and ideas, there are some standards of engagement that must be followed to ensure users of this forum have an enjoyable experience.
1. Treat fellow community members with kindness and respect. We are all here to learn and grow together.
2. Comments must be relevant to health and wellness. Off-topic comments may be removed by a moderator.
3. This forum is a place for general information only. Avoid asking for or providing specific health related advice.
4. We aim to foster a positive and friendly environment where people feel encouraged to share their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. However, please refrain from making comments that promote fear, panic, alarm, negativity, or angst.
5. This is a channel where people can come for knowledge, inspiration, motivation, and empowerment. There's no room for fear, negativity, and low vibrational states in this space.
6. Whilst we encourage healthy debate, and stand for freedom of speech, we ask that you refrain from making logically fallacious, antagonistic, or inflammatory comments that may bring the forum into disrepute.
7. There is zero tolerance for engaging in aggressive, defamatory, violent, abusive, divisive, derogatory, or threatening behaviour.
Breaching these guidelines may result in permanent removal from the forum by a moderator.
Thank you for your co-operation and looking forward to connecting with you in the chat.
Dan
Comments have been turned back on in this channel. Comments were disabled for quite some time as the chat was getting out of hand.
To ensure an enjoyable and enriching learning experience for everyone please follow the below guidelines when engaging with others in the forum.
Community Guidelines
This forum is a place for people to engage in an open, honest, and amicable discussion about health and wellness. Whilst we encourage rigorous intellectual debate, and the sharing of different perspectives and ideas, there are some standards of engagement that must be followed to ensure users of this forum have an enjoyable experience.
1. Treat fellow community members with kindness and respect. We are all here to learn and grow together.
2. Comments must be relevant to health and wellness. Off-topic comments may be removed by a moderator.
3. This forum is a place for general information only. Avoid asking for or providing specific health related advice.
4. We aim to foster a positive and friendly environment where people feel encouraged to share their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. However, please refrain from making comments that promote fear, panic, alarm, negativity, or angst.
5. This is a channel where people can come for knowledge, inspiration, motivation, and empowerment. There's no room for fear, negativity, and low vibrational states in this space.
6. Whilst we encourage healthy debate, and stand for freedom of speech, we ask that you refrain from making logically fallacious, antagonistic, or inflammatory comments that may bring the forum into disrepute.
7. There is zero tolerance for engaging in aggressive, defamatory, violent, abusive, divisive, derogatory, or threatening behaviour.
Breaching these guidelines may result in permanent removal from the forum by a moderator.
Thank you for your co-operation and looking forward to connecting with you in the chat.
Dan
17.03.202516:02
What is gut health?
Terms like a 'healthy microbiome' and 'dysbiosis' are thrown around all the time, yet does anyone ever stop and think about what these things actually are?
In 2018, leading experts from across the world convened in an attempt to define these 'enigmas'. They concluded that a healthy microbiome has not been defined and that there is no 'ideal' bacterial composition. They also stated that no one knows if 'dysbiosis' (i.e. a bacterial imbalance) is a cause or consequence of disease.
If no one knows what a 'healthy microbiome' or 'dysbiosis' is, then what's the point of doing all of these expensive microbiome tests?
If no one knows what a healthy or dysbiotic microbiome is, how do you know if you've got one?
If no one knows whether the microbiome is a cause or consequence of health and disease, then why is everyone so hell bent on trying to increase so-called good and decrease so-called bad bacteria?
Follow Humanley
Terms like a 'healthy microbiome' and 'dysbiosis' are thrown around all the time, yet does anyone ever stop and think about what these things actually are?
In 2018, leading experts from across the world convened in an attempt to define these 'enigmas'. They concluded that a healthy microbiome has not been defined and that there is no 'ideal' bacterial composition. They also stated that no one knows if 'dysbiosis' (i.e. a bacterial imbalance) is a cause or consequence of disease.
If no one knows what a 'healthy microbiome' or 'dysbiosis' is, then what's the point of doing all of these expensive microbiome tests?
If no one knows what a healthy or dysbiotic microbiome is, how do you know if you've got one?
If no one knows whether the microbiome is a cause or consequence of health and disease, then why is everyone so hell bent on trying to increase so-called good and decrease so-called bad bacteria?
Follow Humanley
10.03.202503:43
10.03.202503:43
Has DNA ever been isolated?
In 1869, Swisse physician and chemist, Friedrich Miescher, supposedly isolated DNA from human pus taken from a patients bandage. But what did Miescher actually isolate, if anything at all?
In a scientific experiment, every step along the way must be controlled for. This ensures the methods being employed are not creating spurious results (i.e. producing the effect you are looking for). In the absence of adequate controls it is imperative that presuppositions are not made, because it renders the results null and void. Yet, this is precisely what occurred in Miescher's case.
The table below outlines the steps employed by Miescher in the isolation of DNA. His first mistake was presupposing DNA was present in the pus to begin with, and if it was there, that it was the same as what is found inside a living human being. Without a gold standard or reference point, how did he know what he was looking for? He didn't know what DNA was, or whether it was even present, so how could he have possibly known when he had obtained a pure sample of it?
The second problem is the obvious lack of adequate controls. The first thing Miescher did with the pus was to mix it with a 1.5% sodium sulfate solution. How did he know that this step, or the dozen or so that followed, did not alter the DNA from its original form, or create a reaction which formed a new substance that was never in the pus in the first place?
Meisher could not have known such things because they cannot be controlled for. He simply mixed a bunch of stuff together in a beaker, subjected it to various processes, and obtained a substance which he claimed was a pure sample of DNA. He then inferred that what was in the beaker was the same substance that is present inside of us. Miesher's results are not based in science, rather, they are the consequence of flawed reasoning and faith.
Source
Follow Humanley
In 1869, Swisse physician and chemist, Friedrich Miescher, supposedly isolated DNA from human pus taken from a patients bandage. But what did Miescher actually isolate, if anything at all?
In a scientific experiment, every step along the way must be controlled for. This ensures the methods being employed are not creating spurious results (i.e. producing the effect you are looking for). In the absence of adequate controls it is imperative that presuppositions are not made, because it renders the results null and void. Yet, this is precisely what occurred in Miescher's case.
The table below outlines the steps employed by Miescher in the isolation of DNA. His first mistake was presupposing DNA was present in the pus to begin with, and if it was there, that it was the same as what is found inside a living human being. Without a gold standard or reference point, how did he know what he was looking for? He didn't know what DNA was, or whether it was even present, so how could he have possibly known when he had obtained a pure sample of it?
The second problem is the obvious lack of adequate controls. The first thing Miescher did with the pus was to mix it with a 1.5% sodium sulfate solution. How did he know that this step, or the dozen or so that followed, did not alter the DNA from its original form, or create a reaction which formed a new substance that was never in the pus in the first place?
Meisher could not have known such things because they cannot be controlled for. He simply mixed a bunch of stuff together in a beaker, subjected it to various processes, and obtained a substance which he claimed was a pure sample of DNA. He then inferred that what was in the beaker was the same substance that is present inside of us. Miesher's results are not based in science, rather, they are the consequence of flawed reasoning and faith.
Source
Follow Humanley
02.03.202505:29
Could genes be nothing more than an elaborate fairy tale?
We are told that our genes hold the secret to life. The field of genetics asserts that DNA is the master molecule of the cell because it is made up of genetic material. This genetic material contains genes which are claimed to instruct the cell to make proteins. These proteins then drive various biological functions like our metabolism and the building of tissue.
It is said that there are a specific number of genes that are fixed in their form and function, with each gene coding for the synthesis of one protein. However, in her book “The Century of the Gene”, Evelyn Fox Keller, professor of physics at MIT, highlights that the evidence does not support these assertions at all.
Keller rightly points out that genes cannot possibly make one protein because there are only several thousand genes, and more than a hundred thousand proteins. Therefore, the only way for genes to make all of these different proteins is to constantly re-arrange themselves to code for a specific amino acid sequence. This means two things, both of which are death blows to the theory of genetics. First, our genes are not fixed in their form and function. Second, our DNA is not the master molecule and it must be getting its instructions from somewhere outside of the nucleus. So who, or what, is telling our DNA (if there even is such a thing) what to do?
To put this conundrum into context Keller says, "A musical analogy might be helpful here: the problem is not only that the music inscribed in the score does not exist until it is played (i.e. the genetic sequences in our DNA), but that the players rewrite the score (the mRNA transcript) in their very execution of it".
Keller is not the first to question the story we are told about genes.
In a 1937, Richard Goldschmidt, a professor of genetics at the University of California, published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. After a series of experiments in his quest to better understand the gene, he concluded that "there are no genes, no gene mutations and no wild type allelomorphs".
In 1998, William Gelbart, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, wrote that "the gene is a concept past its time" and that "genes are not physical objects but are merely concepts that have acquired a great deal of historic baggage over the past decades".
These uncomfortable truths might mean that we are no closer towards understanding the secrets of life than we were 120 years ago when William Baetson first coined the word 'genetics'.
Follow Humanley
We are told that our genes hold the secret to life. The field of genetics asserts that DNA is the master molecule of the cell because it is made up of genetic material. This genetic material contains genes which are claimed to instruct the cell to make proteins. These proteins then drive various biological functions like our metabolism and the building of tissue.
It is said that there are a specific number of genes that are fixed in their form and function, with each gene coding for the synthesis of one protein. However, in her book “The Century of the Gene”, Evelyn Fox Keller, professor of physics at MIT, highlights that the evidence does not support these assertions at all.
Keller rightly points out that genes cannot possibly make one protein because there are only several thousand genes, and more than a hundred thousand proteins. Therefore, the only way for genes to make all of these different proteins is to constantly re-arrange themselves to code for a specific amino acid sequence. This means two things, both of which are death blows to the theory of genetics. First, our genes are not fixed in their form and function. Second, our DNA is not the master molecule and it must be getting its instructions from somewhere outside of the nucleus. So who, or what, is telling our DNA (if there even is such a thing) what to do?
To put this conundrum into context Keller says, "A musical analogy might be helpful here: the problem is not only that the music inscribed in the score does not exist until it is played (i.e. the genetic sequences in our DNA), but that the players rewrite the score (the mRNA transcript) in their very execution of it".
Keller is not the first to question the story we are told about genes.
In a 1937, Richard Goldschmidt, a professor of genetics at the University of California, published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. After a series of experiments in his quest to better understand the gene, he concluded that "there are no genes, no gene mutations and no wild type allelomorphs".
In 1998, William Gelbart, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, wrote that "the gene is a concept past its time" and that "genes are not physical objects but are merely concepts that have acquired a great deal of historic baggage over the past decades".
These uncomfortable truths might mean that we are no closer towards understanding the secrets of life than we were 120 years ago when William Baetson first coined the word 'genetics'.
Follow Humanley
03.02.202503:08
A fresh perspective on inflammation - Part 2
The same is true of 'chronic inflammation'. When the tissue is being chronically injured, the body is in a chronic state of healing. If I kept burning my arm day after day, it would become 'chronically inflamed'.
Does this mean my arm has a disease? No.
Does it mean the inflammation caused the burn? No.
Does it make sense to suppress the healing response with anti-inflammatories? No.
The answer is to stop pouring boiling water on the injury. In other words, identify and remove the cause so that the body can repair itself.
So, before you go blaming inflammation, ask yourself, what's causing damage to your tissue? Maybe it's the pesticides and heavy metals in the food? The pollution in the air? The contaminants in the water?
It's time to rethink our relationship with inflammation.
Follow Humanley
The same is true of 'chronic inflammation'. When the tissue is being chronically injured, the body is in a chronic state of healing. If I kept burning my arm day after day, it would become 'chronically inflamed'.
Does this mean my arm has a disease? No.
Does it mean the inflammation caused the burn? No.
Does it make sense to suppress the healing response with anti-inflammatories? No.
The answer is to stop pouring boiling water on the injury. In other words, identify and remove the cause so that the body can repair itself.
So, before you go blaming inflammation, ask yourself, what's causing damage to your tissue? Maybe it's the pesticides and heavy metals in the food? The pollution in the air? The contaminants in the water?
It's time to rethink our relationship with inflammation.
Follow Humanley
03.02.202503:07
A fresh perspective on inflammation - Part 1
Yesterday I burned my arm with hot water. As you can see, it is red, swollen, and blistering. These symptoms are part of the inflammatory response.
The inflammation didn't cause the tissue damage, the hot water did. The injury preceded the inflammation, the inflammation didn't precede the injury. The tissue damage occurred first and the inflammatory response followed.
Inflammation is not the enemy.
Why?
Because inflammation is the healing response. It should be celebrated, not denigrated. If there is no tissue damage, there is nothing to heal. If there is nothing to heal, there is no inflammation.
Follow Humanley
Yesterday I burned my arm with hot water. As you can see, it is red, swollen, and blistering. These symptoms are part of the inflammatory response.
The inflammation didn't cause the tissue damage, the hot water did. The injury preceded the inflammation, the inflammation didn't precede the injury. The tissue damage occurred first and the inflammatory response followed.
Inflammation is not the enemy.
Why?
Because inflammation is the healing response. It should be celebrated, not denigrated. If there is no tissue damage, there is nothing to heal. If there is nothing to heal, there is no inflammation.
Follow Humanley
27.01.202515:19
Time to rethink our understanding of disease?
When the engine warning light comes on in your car, it’s a sign that something is wrong. When your car blows black smoke from the exhaust, it’s a symptom of a deeper issue. Neither the warning light nor the smoke caused the problem, they are the consequence (i.e. effect) of the problem (i.e. cause). Maybe there’s not enough fuel in the tank, or the air filter is clogged, or the oil is running low.
Imagine taking your car to a mechanic who proceeds to blame the warning light and the black smoke (i.e. the signs and symptoms) as the cause of the problem. Instead of identifying and treating the cause, the mechanic unscrews the engine warning light and blocks off the exhaust. In effect, what they have done is suppress the signs and symptoms without fixing the underlying issue(s). Does this sound like a logical and rational approach, or would it make more sense to check the air-filter and the fluid levels?
The above example is analogous to the human body. Elevated cholesterol, hormonal imbalances, insulin resistance, neurotransmitter deficiencies, inflammation, high blood pressure, etc., are signs and symptoms of disease. They are akin to the engine warning light, or the black smoke—a signal that something is wrong. They can also be an adaptive and protective response in an effort by the body to restore or maintain homeostasis. In other words, signs and symptoms are there to help, not hinder.
Signs and symptoms are the downstream consequence (i.e. effect) of an upstream input (i.e. cause). Upstream inputs are things like food and beverages, physical activity, stress levels, sun exposure, chemical exposure, sleep quality, air quality, beliefs, etc. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with disease, wouldn’t it make sense to focus our attention on the inputs, rather than blaming and suppressing the body’s response to them?
Follow Humanley
When the engine warning light comes on in your car, it’s a sign that something is wrong. When your car blows black smoke from the exhaust, it’s a symptom of a deeper issue. Neither the warning light nor the smoke caused the problem, they are the consequence (i.e. effect) of the problem (i.e. cause). Maybe there’s not enough fuel in the tank, or the air filter is clogged, or the oil is running low.
Imagine taking your car to a mechanic who proceeds to blame the warning light and the black smoke (i.e. the signs and symptoms) as the cause of the problem. Instead of identifying and treating the cause, the mechanic unscrews the engine warning light and blocks off the exhaust. In effect, what they have done is suppress the signs and symptoms without fixing the underlying issue(s). Does this sound like a logical and rational approach, or would it make more sense to check the air-filter and the fluid levels?
The above example is analogous to the human body. Elevated cholesterol, hormonal imbalances, insulin resistance, neurotransmitter deficiencies, inflammation, high blood pressure, etc., are signs and symptoms of disease. They are akin to the engine warning light, or the black smoke—a signal that something is wrong. They can also be an adaptive and protective response in an effort by the body to restore or maintain homeostasis. In other words, signs and symptoms are there to help, not hinder.
Signs and symptoms are the downstream consequence (i.e. effect) of an upstream input (i.e. cause). Upstream inputs are things like food and beverages, physical activity, stress levels, sun exposure, chemical exposure, sleep quality, air quality, beliefs, etc. Therefore, when it comes to dealing with disease, wouldn’t it make sense to focus our attention on the inputs, rather than blaming and suppressing the body’s response to them?
Follow Humanley
24.01.202503:11
AI cancer vaccines have been receiving a lot of attention recently. But why is humanity pinning all its hopes on a treatment when we know that prevention is better than cure?
Now, people might argue that vaccines are preventive, so this intervention is dealing with the cause. However, as stated in a 2024 Nature Journal article, cancer vaccines are not preventive. They work on destroying the cancer cells after the tumour has developed.
According to Harvard University "The cancer miracle isn't a cure, it's prevention". The 2019 article explicitly states "We cannot treat our way out of the rising cancer caseload. The only solution is a full-scale defense, so that nobody suffers the disease in the first place".
If we heed Harvard's sound advice, then identifying and treating the cause should be of the utmost importance. This raises the question, what's causing cancer? The answer is, many things. Therefore our attention should be focused on dealing with the most impactful causes first.
Enter PM2.5 (fine air particles less than 2.5 microns). Yesterday as reported in the Economic Times, the air pollution levels in Bangkok exceeded 120 mcg/m3, more than 8 times the limit (15 mcg/m3) stipulated by the WHO. The air quality was so bad that visibility was at an all time low and almost 200 schools across the city were closed. The article correctly points out that PM2.5 particles are small enough to enter the blood stream and cause cancer.
A 2016 study followed almost 70,000 residents in Hong Kong for more than a decade. The researchers found that for every 10 mcg/m3 increase above the tolerable PM2.5 limit, the risk of dying from any cancer rose by 22%. For cancers of the upper digestive tract the mortality risk was 42% higher, and 35% higher for other digestive organs. For breast cancer, the mortality risk increased by over 80%. Obviously, clean air matters.
Surely a coordinated effort towards making our air healthy to breathe would be at the top of the list of priorities for governments the world over? Instead, we get a reactive approach which promises to quell the burgeoning cancer crisis with the prick of a needle.
Go figure.
Follow Humanley
Now, people might argue that vaccines are preventive, so this intervention is dealing with the cause. However, as stated in a 2024 Nature Journal article, cancer vaccines are not preventive. They work on destroying the cancer cells after the tumour has developed.
According to Harvard University "The cancer miracle isn't a cure, it's prevention". The 2019 article explicitly states "We cannot treat our way out of the rising cancer caseload. The only solution is a full-scale defense, so that nobody suffers the disease in the first place".
If we heed Harvard's sound advice, then identifying and treating the cause should be of the utmost importance. This raises the question, what's causing cancer? The answer is, many things. Therefore our attention should be focused on dealing with the most impactful causes first.
Enter PM2.5 (fine air particles less than 2.5 microns). Yesterday as reported in the Economic Times, the air pollution levels in Bangkok exceeded 120 mcg/m3, more than 8 times the limit (15 mcg/m3) stipulated by the WHO. The air quality was so bad that visibility was at an all time low and almost 200 schools across the city were closed. The article correctly points out that PM2.5 particles are small enough to enter the blood stream and cause cancer.
A 2016 study followed almost 70,000 residents in Hong Kong for more than a decade. The researchers found that for every 10 mcg/m3 increase above the tolerable PM2.5 limit, the risk of dying from any cancer rose by 22%. For cancers of the upper digestive tract the mortality risk was 42% higher, and 35% higher for other digestive organs. For breast cancer, the mortality risk increased by over 80%. Obviously, clean air matters.
Surely a coordinated effort towards making our air healthy to breathe would be at the top of the list of priorities for governments the world over? Instead, we get a reactive approach which promises to quell the burgeoning cancer crisis with the prick of a needle.
Go figure.
Follow Humanley
Рэкорды
01.04.202523:59
10KПадпісчыкаў01.02.202523:59
200Індэкс цытавання28.01.202523:59
3.8KАхоп 1 паста17.01.202518:43
1.2KАхоп рэкламнага паста03.04.202521:56
10.39%ER28.01.202523:59
38.92%ERRПераслаў з:CultivateElevate
03.04.202502:53
Vaccines in children? Just say no. 🚫
1986 Ronald Reagan passed the Vaccine protection act Protecting vaccine companies rather than the people.
Diabetes type 1 Induced by Vaccines ➡️ PDF Thankfully heavy metals can be detoxed and all of these induced illnesses can be reversed 🌞
1986 Ronald Reagan passed the Vaccine protection act Protecting vaccine companies rather than the people.
Diabetes type 1 Induced by Vaccines ➡️ PDF Thankfully heavy metals can be detoxed and all of these induced illnesses can be reversed 🌞
Пераслаў з:Dr. Sam Bailey Official
08.04.202522:53
A Farewell to Virology by Dr Mark Bailey was first published in 2022. The 28,000-word treatise exposed not only the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2, but also the entire virus model itself. The timeless work was, and remains, one of the most important bulwarks against virology's pseudoscience and the tyranny it fuels.
It is now available in book form. Watch here 👉 https://tinyurl.com/bp69mere
It is now available in book form. Watch here 👉 https://tinyurl.com/bp69mere
25.03.202520:12
If we accept that generational trauma causes disease, then we must also consider that;
1. Our health status is determined by the perceptions of random events that unfolded in the lives of those who came before us.
2. We are the victims of our forefathers very existence.
3. We pay the price for something that happened to someone else.
4. We were destined for disease long before our conception.
5. We are not responsible for our own health or well-being.
6. We have no control over our own health.
7. Diet and lifestyle are unimportant.
8. Beliefs and perceptions about health are inconsequential.
9. We must heal someone else’s trauma to heal ourselves.
10. We are ultimately responsible for the health of future generations.
If trauma really is the cause of our modern health woes, then the societal, political, religious, medical, and meta-physical implications are immense. But, if it's not the problem, we must shift our focus so as to not lose sight of the true causes.
Follow Humanley
1. Our health status is determined by the perceptions of random events that unfolded in the lives of those who came before us.
2. We are the victims of our forefathers very existence.
3. We pay the price for something that happened to someone else.
4. We were destined for disease long before our conception.
5. We are not responsible for our own health or well-being.
6. We have no control over our own health.
7. Diet and lifestyle are unimportant.
8. Beliefs and perceptions about health are inconsequential.
9. We must heal someone else’s trauma to heal ourselves.
10. We are ultimately responsible for the health of future generations.
If trauma really is the cause of our modern health woes, then the societal, political, religious, medical, and meta-physical implications are immense. But, if it's not the problem, we must shift our focus so as to not lose sight of the true causes.
Follow Humanley
Увайдзіце, каб разблакаваць больш функцый.