Category: General Interest

Tommy Wells posts:

Did you see the new 2026 Paper? About the survival benefit of colonoscopies? Nobody else did either. Because mainstream science likes to bury data that doesn’t fit their narrative. That’s how they herd the sheep in preferred directions.

So here’s what happened in the study. Here:
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736/26/00508-8/abstract

About 13 years ago, researchers set up a large randomized controlled trial where they split participants into two groups:
* One group was invited to colonoscopy screening
* The other group was not.

Then they followed both groups for 13 years. Here are the numbers:
In the group invited to colonoscopy screening, about 15 people per 1,000 developed colorectal cancer. In the group that was not invited, about 18 people per 1,000 developed colorectal cancer.

A difference of roughly 3 cases per 1,000 people over more than a decade.
And what about survival differences?

Over the same 13-year follow-up, colorectal cancer deaths were low in both groups.

For those who had colonoscopies, about 4 to 5 people per 1,000 died from colorectal cancer. For those with no colonoscopy, about 5 to 6 people per 1,000 died.

So in regards to survivability it was not statistically significant. Which means colonoscopies do not save lives, despite what the experts have been telling us for decades. Which is why the elitists are so quiet.
Now as to their assertion that colonoscopies may have prevented a small number of cancers. Let’s look at their trickery.

In their minds, if they take out a polyp, that necessarily counts as a cancer prevented. Despite the fact that the vast majority of polyps are harmless and would have never turned into cancer. (see the paper below)

The reality is that the small, mushroom-type polyps, which typically occur in the left side of the colon (and are usually quite visible during scans) are overwhelmingly harmless. Almost all of them are benign and would never cause harm.

At the same time, the larger, flat-type polyps that occur on the right side or in the transverse section of the colon are much harder to see during a colonoscopy (and thus, easy to miss) and are also more dangerous. But even still, chances of metastasis are still very low, as stated by the paper below, which blows the lid off the whole colonoscopy scam:

The paper found that small polyps had a 0.4 percent chance of abnormal growth along with 0% rate of metastasis. Even larger polyps had a less than 1% chance of being malignant. Here’s how they put it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20304097/

Conclusions:
“Small (6–9 mm) polyps rarely contained high-grade dysplasia (0.4%); none was malignant. The malignancy rate for large (1–2 cm) colorectal polyps was less than 1%. These findings indicate the potential for less aggressive management of lesions detected by CTC.”

~~~~~~~~~~

So basically any small or medium sized polyp poses virtually no risk.

But the point is, when their models and analysis of the 13-year study ASSUMES or infers that burning or digging out polyps prevents cancer it’s nothing but a deception based on their underlying flawed assumptions.

Something else important: Polyps are designed to keep heavy metals and other poisons sequestered. That’s their job. Like a warehouse. So as soon as a doctor shaves them off, suddenly their integrity is obliterated and all the contents go spewing out into the colon, into the gut lining, and into the blood stream.

I’m not saying that colonoscopies should never be done. But in my opinion, they should never be done in people who aren’t experiencing concerning digestive symptoms.

Dr. Andrew Huberman just confirmed a “wild conspiracy theory” about incandescent lights and LED bulbs.

The long wavelengths found in incandescents increase your metabolism and “charge your mitochondria.”

Conversely, the LED bulbs that most of you have in your house are “causing disruptions in mitochondrial function.”

DR. ANDREW HUBERMAN: “Your mitochondria function better, you increase ATP production, your metabolism increases in the presence of red light, long wavelength light to the skin.”

“Shine long wavelength light on somebody, watch blood glucose levels in a blood glucose test, and it’s blunted.”

“Now, the LED lights that are commonly used now… that short wavelength light, in the absence of long wavelength light, has been shown to damage the mitochondria.”

“This used to be considered crazy. This was like chemtrail crazy, right?”

“But now we’re starting to see from animal studies and human studies, from Glenn Jeffreys and others, that people’s vision gets better when they get in front of an incandescent bulb once a day.”

“If they get sunlight, which also has long-wavelength light, your vision improves because of improvements in mitochondria.”

The Biden administration quietly pushed incandescents out of the market through aggressive energy regulations.

But you can still find them online today if you look hard enough.

If at times you consider my posts on the current state of allopathic medicine to be a bit jaundiced or extreme, these comments from two of the people most knowledgeable about the current state of affairs should share light on some of the reason for that.

(Tom: Which two ingredients are in my top bars and powders?)

A study has attracted attention after reporting that a combination of vitamin C and grape seed extract produced significant tumor reduction in animal models.

According to the reported findings, animals receiving the vitamin C and grape seed extract combination experienced a 76.61% reduction in tumor size, while the chemotherapy drug doxorubicin showed a 68.82% reduction under the specific conditions of the study.

While these results may appear promising, it is important to understand that findings from animal studies do not automatically translate to humans. Many treatments that perform well in laboratory or animal experiments later fail to demonstrate the same effectiveness or safety in human clinical trials.

Researchers frequently investigate natural compounds such as vitamin C and grape seed extract because they may possess antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, or anticancer properties. However, determining whether these substances can serve as effective cancer treatments requires extensive human testing, including randomized clinical trials.

Fact: Animal studies are often an important first step in medical research, but human clinical trials are required before a treatment can be considered proven, safe, or effective for cancer patients.

Source: Preclinical cancer research involving vitamin C, grape seed extract, and doxorubicin comparisons in animal models.

Disclaimer: Results from animal studies should not be interpreted as proof that a treatment is superior to chemotherapy in humans. Cancer treatment decisions should be based on guidance from qualified oncology professionals and evidence from human clinical trials.