Posts

Posted on

Biopsies Spread Cancer

Biopsies Spread Cancer

Doctors are finally admitting that biopsies Spread Cancer…

“Biopsies are the kiss of death. The needle punches a hole in the tumor, dragging cancer cells & spreading them.”
-– **Dr. Ben Johnson**

“Biopsies introduce cancer cells into the bloodstream.”
-– **Dr. Leonard Gomella**

The body brilliantly self-contains tumors in a protective fibrin sheath, like a hornet’s nest sealed shut.

But a needle biopsy? It shatters that barrier, unleashing cells, toxins & even parasites into the bloodstream & lymph.

What was contained becomes chaos: inflammation surges, immune response distracts & metastasis explodes.

Think of it: Poke the nest, and the hornets scatter everywhere. Cells hitch a ride along the needle tract, seeding new tumors. Local trauma kickstarts growth. The immune system, overwhelmed, lets invaders run wild.

**The Science Proves It – Biopsies Trigger Spread, Inflammation & Seeding:**

– “Biopsy of primary tumors resulted in significantly increased incidence & number of lung metastasis.” (PMID: 25061543)

– “Biopsies promote intraperitoneal tumor dissemination & progression.” (PMID: 23258276)

– “Core needle biopsy of breast tumors increases distant metastases.” (PMID: 25425969)

– “Biopsies lead to tumor cell dissemination & seeding of malignant tumors.” (PMID: 22686607)

– “Human breast cancer biopsies enhance adjacent cancer cell proliferation.” (PMID: 27249999)

**Top Doctors & Experts Sound the Alarm – “Standard Care” Is Harming Patients:**

– “Manipulation of an intact tumor… is associated with an increase in the incidence of sentinel node metastasis.”
– **John Wayne Cancer Institute (2022)**

– “Cutting out a section… endangered the person’s life by aggravating the malignant growth.”
– **Dr. Perry Nichols**

– “Biopsies spread early cancers.”
– **Dr. Jonathan Wright**

– “Biopsies introduce cancer cells into the bloodstream.”
– **Dr. Leonard Gomella**

– “Biopsies cause cancer cells to spread & the risk is higher in certain types of cancers like prostate & kidney cancers.”
– **Dr. Hal Schofield**

– “Biopsies cause cancer to disseminate further into the body & this has serious implications to patient outcomes.”
– **Dr. Robert Nagourney**

These aren’t fringe opinions – they’re from leading voices in oncology. Yet patients walk in blind, without full informed consent on these risks.

**Safer Alternatives: Diagnose WITHOUT Disturbing the Tumor’s Encapsulation**

Skip the needle. Opt for non-invasive tools that map, detect & monitor without the danger:

1. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): High-res imaging of structure & function. Zero radiation, fully non-invasive.

2. Color Doppler Ultrasound: Real-time blood flow mapping in tumors. No radiation, no tissue damage.

3. Liquid Biopsy (ctDNA/CTC Testing): Simple blood draw detects cancer DNA/cells circulating. No poking required.

4. Thermography: Infrared heat detection spots abnormal patterns early. Painless, radiation-free.

Information crushes fear. It empowers choices. If diagnosed, PAUSE. Research deeply. Question everything. Your intuition knows – rushing is the real risk.

The “cancer industrial complex” thrives on fear & procedures, but it’s overdue for a reckoning. Some “tumors” are actually parasitic egg sacs misdiagnosed as cancer. You CAN shrink & eliminate them holistically.

“Targeting the Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection in Cancer Treatment: A Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol”
Pioneered by Dr. William Makis, Dr. Paul Marik & many other experts: Combine Ivermectin, Fenbendazole with fasting, keto diet & targeted therapies to hit cancer & parasites head-on. Thousands report success.

Link to protocol in replies.

Cited research is also in replies…

Don’t let profit-driven “care” endanger you. Choose wisely. Share to protect a life.

https://x.com/ValerieAnne1970/status/2008843877990519175?s=20

Posted on

Failure? A Destination or a Progress Marker?

The dictionary has multiple definitions of failure:

  • 1. lack of success.
  • 2. an unsuccessful person or thing.
  • 3. the neglect or omission of expected or required action.
  • 4. a lack or deficiency of a desirable quality.
  • 5. the action or state of not functioning.
  • 6. a sudden cessation of power.
  • 7. the collapse of a business.

The definitions all deliver the impression of a finite conclusion rather than a step in a process. Failure equals being wrong. Being wrong equals death. As a result, failure has an obvious and deeply negative stigma associated with it. Hence most people fear failing.

In fact many people do not even attempt worthwhile projects for fear of failure. This has been commented upon by various motivational speakers as sad and lamentable but is a natural outcome of the way we are taught to think about failure – it is bad and to be avoided.

And it is a lot easier and very simple to say don’t fear failure than it is to spend the time necessary to change our thinking about it. So what is a better way to think of failure and how do we change our thinking about it?

I don’t know how true it is but I have heard that Edison failed 10,000 times to invent the light bulb before his success. Imagine if he took his first failure as an end point rather than a new starting point. In fact each failure could otherwise be described as a successful experiment to find out that a particular hypothesis did not work.

I was struck by this when I was doing some pullups in the park with 13 kg of weights on my back. I was doing my third set of 5 repetitions and on the last repetition I could not pull myself up more than 85% of my top range of motion. That was my point of failure. Despite my best effort, I could not pull my body up to get my nose over the bar. I “failed“.

Now, when you are exercising, this is something to aim for. Exercising with good form till you are close to failure (with some capacity left in reserve) builds strength and muscle mass.

At this point I realised every person doing resistance training “fails”. We all hit a point where we are at or close to where we can do no more. We are all “failures”, at different points. Some of us fail after 4 repetitions at 13 kg, as did I. Some of fail after 44 repetitions or with 50 kg. None of us stop training “because we failed”. We recognise it as a benchmark or a measure of progress rather than a destination. A “That’s where I am up to.” viewpoint rather than a “That is my end result.” viewpoint.

In many situations, such as in exercise, it is not about failure versus success, it is about WHEN you fail.

Some fail before they start, thinking it is too much effort.

Some fail at the first day that is either too hot or too cold for comfort.

Some fail when their results do not match their expectation.

A rare few fail after they win their marathon, receive their trophy, party on and go to bed at 2:00 am.

It’s all about WHEN you fail! This is why persistence is vital for success. The ultra persistent refuse to fail ’till after the victory party.

Which reminded me of a quote I heard about people who are successful marketers, “They fail fast and they fail often.” They try a lot of things, knowing that many ideas they try will fail and need to be abandoned quickly before wasting too much money on them. By doing that many times and quickly, they sooner or later and without too much wasted money, find that which works and can then do lots of that to huge success.

These top marketers know full well that a fear of failure will not lead to success.

They know that in marketing, as in exercising, it is very easy and natural to view failure as a marker, a peg in the board. A “This is where I am up to”. It is not the end of the road, it is the current position of my progress marker.

What if we started doing that in other spheres of activity? What if every time we thought of something and got the negative thought come in about failing, we just looked at it and thought, “That’s only to be expected. Nothing unusual here. Any time I fail it is merely the current position of my progress marker, just another step toward the ultimate success.”

This I wish for you!

Posted on

Elizabeth Peratrovich

Elizabeth Peratrovich

She sat quietly knitting while they called her people savages. Then she stood up and used their own words to destroy them.
Juneau, Alaska. February 8, 1945.
The Alaska Territorial Legislature chamber was crowded and tense. In the gallery sat dozens of Native Alaskans—Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian—who had traveled to the capital for this moment. They came for a single law. The Anti-Discrimination Act. A bill that would make it illegal to post signs reading “No Natives Allowed.” That would let them enter any restaurant, any hotel, any theater without being turned away.
A law that would recognize them as equal citizens in their own ancestral homeland.
But first, they had to endure a hearing where white senators explained why Native people didn’t deserve equal rights.
This was 1945. Ten years before Rosa Parks. Nineteen years before the federal Civil Rights Act. Most Americans don’t know that the first anti-discrimination law in United States history was won in Alaska by a Tlingit woman facing down a room of hostile legislators.
Her name was Elizabeth Peratrovich.
And she was about to deliver one of the most devastating responses in American political history.
One senator after another rose to oppose the bill. They argued that the races should remain separate. That integration would cause problems. That Native people weren’t ready for full equality.
Then the insults became personal.
One senator complained openly that he didn’t want to sit next to Native people in theaters because of how they smelled. Another suggested that Native peoples lacked the sophistication to deserve equal treatment.
The Native people in the gallery sat in dignified silence. They’d heard these attitudes their entire lives—but never so brazenly, never in an official government chamber, never while forced to listen without recourse.
Then Senator Allen Shattuck stood. He was among the most vocal opponents of the bill. He looked directly at the Native people in the gallery, his voice dripping with contempt.
“Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind us?”
The room went silent.
He had just called them savages. Primitives. People barely evolved enough to desire equality with civilized whites.
In the back of the chamber, Elizabeth Peratrovich was knitting. She was thirty-three years old, mother of three, and president of the Alaska Native Sisterhood. She was known for her composure, her quiet dignity even in the face of injustice.
She set her knitting needles down.
She stood.
Elizabeth hadn’t come prepared to testify. She was simply a Native woman who had spent her life seeing signs in windows telling her she wasn’t welcome. Who had been turned away from hotels. Who watched her children learn they were considered less than human in their own homeland.
She walked to the front of the chamber. Every eye followed her. The legislators who had been sneering moments before now watched in heavy silence.
She looked directly at Senator Shattuck. She didn’t raise her voice. She didn’t show anger. Her tone was measured, controlled, devastatingly clear.
“I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights.”
The impact was immediate.
She had taken Shattuck’s insult—”barely out of savagery”—and turned it into a weapon. She used his claim of superior civilization to expose his complete lack of it.
A defensive murmur went through the opposition. They knew they’d been caught. Exposed. Shamed.
But Elizabeth wasn’t finished.
She described what it meant to see signs comparing her people to dogs. To have her children ask why they weren’t allowed in certain stores. To be treated as unwelcome in lands their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years before any white settler arrived.
Then came what opponents thought would trap her. A senator asked skeptically whether a law could truly change people’s hearts and stop discrimination.
Elizabeth’s response became legendary.
“Do your laws against larceny and murder prevent those crimes?” she asked calmly. “No law will eliminate crimes, but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.”
Silence.
She had dismantled every argument. She had proven she understood law, morality, and civilization better than the senators who claimed millennia of it.
The Native people didn’t need education from white legislators. The white legislators needed education from Elizabeth Peratrovich.
When the vote was called, the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 passed eleven to five.
The first anti-discrimination law in United States history.
Not in New York. Not in California. In Alaska. Because a Tlingit woman refused to remain silent when called a savage.
The law prohibited discrimination in public accommodations. It made “No Natives” signs illegal. It declared that Alaska would not tolerate racial discrimination.
Nineteen years before the federal Civil Rights Act. Ten years before Rosa Parks became a household name.
Yet most Americans have never heard of Elizabeth Peratrovich.
We learn about Rosa Parks, as we should. We study Martin Luther King Jr., the March on Washington, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. These stories deserve to be taught and remembered.
But the woman who won the first anti-discrimination law in American history? The woman who faced down racist senators and won? She remains virtually unknown outside Alaska.
Why? Because Alaska wasn’t the South where national media focused. Because Native American civil rights struggles didn’t capture headlines the way other movements did. Because Elizabeth didn’t have a national platform or massive organization—just her dignity and her refusal to accept injustice.
But Alaska remembers.
February 16th is Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, an official state holiday. Schools and government offices close. In 2020, plans were announced to feature her on the dollar coin. In Juneau stands a bronze statue of Elizabeth, captured in quiet dignity—just as she stood in that chamber in 1945.
Yet beyond Alaska, her story remains obscure. That’s tragic, because what Elizabeth proved was fundamental.
Civilization isn’t measured by how many years your history spans. It’s not measured by monuments or recorded achievements or military conquests.
It’s measured by how you treat the vulnerable. By whether you uphold dignity or destroy it. By whether you use law to protect people or to oppress them.
Senator Shattuck claimed five thousand years of civilization. Elizabeth Peratrovich proved he had none.
Because what’s civilized about “No Dogs, No Natives” signs? What’s civilized about denying people access to public spaces in their own ancestral homeland? What’s civilized about a government official calling people savages?
Nothing.
Elizabeth didn’t need five thousand years of history. She needed moral clarity and courage.
She weaponized their own claims against them. She demonstrated that the supposed “savage” in the room understood America’s founding principles better than the “civilized” senators did.
And she won.
Elizabeth Peratrovich died in 1958 at age forty-seven. She didn’t live to see the federal Civil Rights Act. She didn’t see her image on coins or statues erected in her honor.
But she lived long enough to see “No Natives” signs removed throughout Alaska. She lived to know her children could enter any business in Juneau without being turned away. She lived to see the law of an entire territory changed because she refused to be silent.
That’s not just one woman’s victory. That’s proof that dignity is powerful. That moral clarity can defeat bigotry. That sometimes changing history requires one person willing to stand, set down their work, and speak truth to power.
The senators thought they had civilization on their side. They thought their recorded history gave them authority.
Elizabeth Peratrovich taught them that civilization isn’t inherited. It’s earned every single day by how you treat people.
She was knitting quietly while senators called her people savages.
Then she reminded them what civilization actually means.
And she won the first anti-discrimination law in United States history.
Elizabeth Peratrovich deserves to be as famous as any civil rights leader in American history.
Now you know her name.
Posted on

Time might not exist – and we’re starting to understand why

The closer we look at time, the stranger it gets

The nature of time is one of the most profound and longstanding problems in physics – one that no one can agree on. From our perspective, time seems to steadily progress forward with each tick of the clock.

But the closer we look, the more bizarre time becomes – from equations that state time should flow as freely backwards as it does forwards, to the strange quantum realm where cause and effect can flip on their heads.

Could it even be that time itself is an illusion?

What makes time so confounding is that we have three very different ways of defining it, which don’t easily fit together.

Finish reading: https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/science-futures/time-might-not-exist-and-we-re-starting-to-understand-why/

Posted on

Peer-Reviewed Bombshell Papers Reveal mRNA Vaccine Cancer Crisis – Journal Under Relentless Attack as Pharma Scrambles to Silence!

300+ peer-reviewed cases across 27 countries linking mRNA vaccination to rapid-onset cancers

Former Japanese politician Mr Kazuhiro Haraguchi is an 10 times elected House of Representative from Saga’s 1st district, served as Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications under Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in 2009 overseeing telecommunications, local governance, and regional sovereignty promotion. A member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, Haraguchi has been vocal on issues like nuclear disarmament and disability rights, authoring books like “Peace.”

In a stunning tweet directed to to Drs. Wafik El-Deiry and Charlotte Kuperwasser, he detailed his harrowing ordeal: compelled to take the mRNA COVID vaccine to attend a global nuclear disarmament conference, he was diagnosed three years ago with aggressive Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), spreading to his tonsils at Stage 2. Never infected with COVID, he achieved remission with help from renowned doctors like Dr. Tess Lawrie. This story is explosive—a high-ranking official, once at the heart of Japan’s government, now exposing vaccine risks amid rising global reports of post-shot cancers. Japanese research institutes tested his extracted tonsil tissues, detecting diffuse spike proteins (vaccine-induced) but no nucleocapsid proteins (virus markers), confirming the shot, not the virus, as the trigger.

Haraguchi reached out because El-Deiry and Kuperwasser’s paper echoed his nightmare, providing scientific backing he sees as heaven-sent validation in his fight against vaccine harms.

Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, born in 1961, is a powerhouse American physician-scientist, Associate Dean for Oncologic Sciences at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School, and director of the Legorreta Cancer Center. An American Cancer Society Research Professor—one of just 40 active nationwide—he discovered the p21 gene, a key brake on cancer cell growth, earning him recognition as one of “America’s Top Oncologists.” With over 30 years in oncology, he’s led breakthroughs in therapy resistance, drug discovery for colorectal and other cancers, and chaired global networks like the WIN Consortium for personalized medicine. Formerly Rose Dunlap Professor and Hematology-Oncology Chief at Penn State, then Deputy Director for Translational Research at Fox Chase Cancer Center, El-Deiry’s work has saved lives through innovative treatments.

His voice terrifies pharma—untouchable credentials now dismantling vaccine safety myths.

Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser, Professor of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology at Tufts University School of Medicine, heads a cutting-edge lab renowned for cracking breast cancer origins, tumor-microenvironment interactions, and hormone-driven risks. With NIH grants fueling organoid models that mimic human breast tissue, her team’s papers in top journals like Nature and Cell advance prevention and therapy. As Chief of Clinical Operations at Naveris (viral cancer detection) and Brownstone Institute contributor, Kuperwasser’s lab is a credibility fortress, blending advanced tech to expose cancer vulnerabilities with real-world impact.

Two recent explosive peer reviewed Oncotarget papers anchor this alarm:

LINK

  • Kuperwasser & El-Deiry (published January 3, 2026): “COVID vaccination/post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms”. This systematic review analyzes 300+ peer-reviewed cases across 27 countries linking mRNA vaccination (and infection) to rapid-onset cancers (lymphomas 38%, breast/lung 16%, sarcomas, etc.), with tumors emerging days to weeks post-shot. It details biological mechanisms and patterns, plus an El-Deiry solo hypothesis paper on HPV E6 + COVID spike cooperating to suppress p53 tumor protection. These works build on nearly 50 prior publications noting temporal cancer associations post-mRNA vaccination.

LlinkThese Oncotarget papers—especially the January 3, 2026, review by Charlotte Kuperwasser and Wafik El-Deiry documenting over 300 peer-reviewed cases of cancers linked to COVID vaccination or infection across 27 countries—have sparked intense debate.

Just days after these publications highlighted rapid-onset patterns (like lymphomas in 38% of cases) and potential biological mechanisms, the journal’s website faced a serious problem: nonstop cybercriminal DDoS attacks from late December 2025 into January 2026.

What is a DDoS attack, in simple terms?
Picture a busy online store with a few doors. Normally, real customers walk in one by one to browse and buy. Now imagine thousands of fake “customers”—actually thousands (or more) of hacked computers, phones, and devices secretly controlled by hackers—rushing the doors all at once. They clog everything up, block the real customers from entering, and make the store appear “closed” even though nothing inside is broken. The owner loses business, and users get frustrated. That’s a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack: “distributed” because the flood comes from many sources worldwide (often a botnet of compromised devices), and “denial-of-service” because it denies legitimate access to the site. These attacks are relatively cheap to launch but can cause major headaches, lost time, and sometimes big costs to fix.

In Oncotarget’s case, the attacks flooded the servers with junk traffic, making the site extremely slow, unreliable, or completely inaccessible for many users over days or weeks. The journal reported this malicious activity to the FBI as cybercriminal behavior, and as of early January 2026, disruptions continued despite efforts to counter them. This meant people couldn’t easily view or download the controversial papers directly from the official site—they had to email the authors for PDFs instead.

The timing feels too coincidental to many observers: the attacks ramped up right after papers that challenge the established “safe and effective” narrative around mRNA vaccines by pointing to temporal links with aggressive cancers and possible ways the spike protein might interfere with tumor suppression. With trillions of dollars tied to global vaccine programs and public trust, critics argue this looks like deliberate sabotage—temporary censorship through disruption—to limit easy public access to uncomfortable evidence at a critical moment.

Whether it’s targeted interference, a random coincidence, or something else, the effect is real: it hinders open discussion of scientific findings that could affect health decisions for millions.

This incident ties into the larger controversy surrounding PubPeer, an online platform launched in 2012 as a public forum for commenting on already-published scientific papers. Think of it like a global, ongoing “journal club” or discussion board: anyone can enter a paper’s identifier (DOI or PubMed number) and post notes about potential issues—such as duplicated images in lab results, odd data patterns, or possible errors in figures or methods. The goal was to boost transparency in science by allowing continuous, open feedback beyond the traditional private peer review that happens before publication. Anonymity lets people raise concerns without fear of backlash from powerful institutions or researchers, and it has genuinely helped expose real problems, leading to corrections, retractions, or misconduct investigations in some cases.

However, anonymity has a dark side. Critics argue it can enable harassment or “mob attacks,” where groups pile on with endless minor nitpicks—like tiny formatting errors, old transposition mistakes (e.g., swapped numbers), or insignificant image tweaks—that don’t prove fraud or change the core science. These can overwhelm the target, damage reputations, and create the illusion of serious issues without evidence. The platform has moderation (commenters are supposed to stick to verifiable facts), but it’s far from perfect—some claim it’s been “weaponized” against certain scientists while seemingly protecting others.

For Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, this has become deeply personal. After his vaccine-related papers (including the 2024 one on spike DNA suppressing p53-related cancer defenses), he’s endured waves of anonymous PubPeer comments—over 80+ across his 360+ publications, often focusing on decades-old trivial details like gel band duplications or formatting slips. No fraud has been proven after 20+ months of scrutiny, and no retractions have resulted, yet the attacks persist relentlessly: 2-3 per hour on some Sundays, 15+ in a single day during holidays or even his heart surgery recovery. El-Deiry calls it “gish-galloping”—flooding someone with so many points it’s impossible to respond to everything, making silence look suspicious. He attributes this to a coordinated “mob,” including an image analyst with no oncology background, Elisabeth Bik, and has publicly called for FBI involvement while tagging groups like Science Guardians.

In order to fully appreciate what is happening behind the scenes, you must watch this 10 minutes clip courtesy of Science Guardians.

Science Guardians’ video exposé intensifies the scrutiny: they commissioned independent experts to review 17 of Elizabeth Bik’s older papers from her time at uBiome, the gut-testing startup she co-founded that imploded in 2019 after an FBI raid over alleged massive billing fraud. The review uncovered issues like biased or contaminated samples, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unreliable data, mixing human and animal results without proper checks, and overhyped claims without solid evidence (some papers read like promotional content).

When these critiques were submitted to PubPeer, they were censored or deleted within days (some vanished after just 10 days). This apparent double standard—attacks allowed on outsiders like El-Deiry but blocked on insiders like Bik—fuels accusations that the system protects its own while targeting those who challenge dominant narratives, such as vaccine safety.

A reported network of about 30 pseudonymous commenters (some tied to Bik) allegedly compiles nitpick “dossiers,” then amplifies them through blogs, media (with links to journalists at outlets like Science and Nature), and broader funding ecosystems (e.g., Arnold Ventures who supports research integrity initiatives). To many, this isn’t neutral oversight—it’s a double-edged tool: one blade exposes genuine fraud, the other inflicts targeted damage, especially when trillion-dollar pharma interests feel threatened by credible experts like El-Deiry.

In the end, PubPeer was designed to strengthen science through open critique, but events like the Oncotarget DDoS attacks and El-Deiry’s ongoing barrage highlight how it can be twisted into something that looks more like suppression or harassment. When powerful stakes are involved, even temporary barriers to information raise serious questions about transparency, free inquiry, and trust in the systems meant to protect public health.

Anyway, as the veil lifts on mRNA vaccine harms, I want to pause to honour my dear friend, the late Professor Gabriel Oon Chong Jin—a Cambridge-trained MD, founding president of Singapore’s Society of Oncology, pioneer in liver cancer research, —warned me two years ago about Pfizer’s manufacturing lapses. As a WHO consultant and the founder of Singapore General Hospital’s Onco-Immunology department (ranked among the world’s top), his expertise was unmatched.

Yet, he endured defamation from Singapore’s Straits Times, especially health editor Salma Khalik, for raising concerns about mRNA vaccine harms.In private messages, he shared reports of post-jab cancer acceleration, his voice steady amid the storm.

Prof Gabriel Oon

Passing away at the age of 86 in July 2025, he left behind a powerful legacy of truth-seeking—one that now resonates strongly in the bombshell papers by El-Deiry and Kuperwasser.

Professor Oon, thank you for your unwavering courage. Your warnings, once dismissed, now demand justice. We exchanged messages frequently right up until the very end, and I deeply miss our conversations. Someday, when this storm passes, I will share more about this remarkable and beautiful person.

To the defamers and suppressors: judgement awaits, above if not below.This isn’t over.

Signing off for now
A17

(Tom: I was requested to create a blend of ingredients to help a body better defend against cancer. This is the result: https://www.healthelicious.com.au/NutriBlast_Anti-Cancer_Support_Blend.html )

Posted on

The Longevity Seeker’s Most Potent Tool: The Cessation Effect

Why the Most Powerful Anti-Aging Protocol Is Removing What Harms You—Not Adding What Helps

Woman Contemplating

(Tom: Unless you are perfect, you really need to read this!)

“The delivery of good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible.”

— Samuel Shem, The House of God (1978)

The “miracle” is not that you can reverse biological age.

It’s that we’ve been systematically trained to overlook the most powerful regenerative lever of all: stop doing the thing that forces the body to spend its entire metabolic budget on damage control.

We live inside a cultural narrative of biological inevitability—decline, deterioration, the slow unwinding of cellular coherence toward entropy and death. This story is so deeply embedded in our medical institutions, our pharmaceutical interventions, and our personal expectations that we rarely question its premises. We assume the body is fundamentally fragile, prone to malfunction, requiring constant external rescue.

But lived biology often tells a radically different story.

The body is not primarily a machine that breaks down. It is a self-organizing, self-repairing, continuously regenerating system—a living expression of what physicist Erwin Schrödinger called “negative entropy.” Every second, without conscious effort, your bone marrow produces 2.5 million red blood cells. Your immune system identifies and eliminates nascent cancer cells before they can establish themselves. Your liver performs over 500 biochemical functions. Your gut synthesizes neurotransmitters. Your cells repair DNA damage from radiation and oxidative stress. Your microbiome educates your immune system and manufactures vitamins.

This isn’t random biological noise. It’s orchestrated intelligence operating on principles we are only beginning to understand—from the quantum coherence within proteins to the electromagnetic and scalar fields generated by your heart and brain. The body not only wants to heal. It is designed for renewal, and doing exactly that, each and every moment of your life. The question is: what’s stopping it from fully expressing this self-regenerative ‘super power’?

So here’s the riddle that opens a door most of modern medicine has ignored: What intervention can make someone look biologically younger—fast—without adding a supplement, a cream, a pharmaceutical, or a complicated protocol?

The Reveal: Anti-Aging as Subtraction

In 2010, a pilot study was published in the journal Skinmed that should have rewritten our understanding of regeneration. Researchers in Milan tracked 64 Italian women who smoked, following them over nine months with a clinical scoring system that assessed lines, pigmentation, elasticity, brightness, vascularity, and texture. These measurements were then used to calculate a biological skin age—an objective metric of how old the skin functions, independent of chronological years.

At baseline, the average biological skin age of participants was nine years older than their chronological age. The daily insult of smoking had accelerated their visible aging by nearly a decade.

After nine months of smoking cessation—with no special creams, no injections, no pharmaceuticals—the average reduction in biological skin age was thirteen years…

Finish reading:  https://sayerji.substack.com/p/the-longevity-seekers-most-potent?r=yh8aw